Member Info for Dsam55

Thank you, joined

What’s the link please?

Will do

I observe you only post negatively about PRD - green box

I post less often, as the clowns make me weary. - however this line is the stands out: “The Company is committed to partnering with entities capable of supporting a future development decision and who have already identified the opportunity as one warranting the execution of a Collaboration Agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding.” why...?

• Third-party validation

• Commercial partner interest

• Beyond early discussions

• Formal collaboration stage

• Development pathway emerging

• Monetisation focus

• Infrastructure-backed opportunity

• Potential exploitation concession

• Scalable gas development

• Near-term commercialisation

• Strategic asset positioning

• Reduced development risk

• Higher confidence signal

• Transitioning to developer

• Potentially transformational wording

Most welcome

Key lines:

“the Group has been able to commence negotiations with a potential joint venture partner willing to finance the MOU-6 drilling and the CNG pilot development.”

⸻

“under the terms of the agreement being negotiated”

⸻

“up to USD24.6m in past costs will be refunded, subject to contract.”

Understood. Below is the same legal analysis, rewritten generically, with no individual named and no implication about any specific person.

⸻

Generic legal position (UK) — no individual named

Scenario

• Someone posts repeated negative commentary about a UK-listed share on an online forum

• The commentary is price-focused and persistent

• The share is actively traded (e.g. AIM-listed)

⸻

What is lawful

It is legal under UK law if someone is:

• An unpaid private individual

• Expressing genuinely held negative opinions

• Clearly framing comments as opinion

• Not misstating or selectively distorting facts

• Not coordinating with others

• Not receiving payment or benefit

Even if the posting is:

• Repetitive

• Aggressive

• One-sided

• Designed to persuade

➡️ That alone is not illegal.

⸻

When it becomes unlawful

The conduct may breach UK law if any of the following apply.

⸻

1. Paid or incentivised posting (UK MAR Article 12(1)(d))

If someone:

• Is paid, rewarded, or otherwise incentivised

• Or benefits from a short or coordinated strategy

• And does not disclose that interest

Then dissemination of negative commentary may constitute market manipulation, even if the statements are factually correct.

⸻

2. Intent to influence a share price (Financial Services Act 2012, ss.89–90)

If the posting shows:

• An intention to influence the price of a financial instrument

• Messaging designed to shake or panic investors

• Timing around RNSs, placings, or liquidity events

• Repetitive fear-based language rather than genuine analysis

Then UK law focuses on intent, not tone or platform.

⸻

3. False or misleading factual statements

If someone:

• Presents rumours as facts

• Repeats claims known to be false

• Omits material facts so as to mislead

• Misrepresents funding, regulation, or operations

That may engage:

• UK Market Abuse Regulation Article 12(1)(c)

• Financial Services Act 2012 section 89

⸻

What does not matter legally

• That it is “just a forum”

• That the account is anonymous

• That statements are labelled “opinion”

• That others argue back

• That moderation allows it

None of these are legal defences.

⸻

Regulatory assessment

The Financial Conduct Authority would typically consider:

• Posting frequency and patterns

• Language repetition and escalation

• Timing vs market-sensitive events

• Cross-platform activity

• Coordination with others

• Any financial benefit or undisclosed interest

Proof of payment is not required to open an inquiry — only reasonable suspicion.

⸻

Bottom line

Expressing genuinely held negative opinions about a share is lawful in the UK.

Being paid, coordinated, misleading, or intentionally attempting to manipulate a share price is not.

Clive - my view is we are seeing short term trading most days, but the long term investors are awaiting serious news by way of an RNS to hand their hat on. You can see the typical traders here day to day trying to see the price move 50p. So very much two categories of investor, short and long.

I’ve been sitting back quietly for quite a while now, just watching the discussions on here — and I think most of us can see what’s been going on.

Over a long period, one individual has consistently posted abusive, misleading and disruptive comments aimed at PRD shareholders and the company itself. It’s become a constant pattern — far beyond normal debate or differing opinions.

All of this behaviour has been recorded and documented with timestamps and screenshots. If it continues, the evidence will be sent to LSE moderators, and if necessary, to the police (under online harassment and malicious communications laws) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should there be any sign of deliberate attempts to manipulate sentiment or the share price.

I fully support open, honest discussion — everyone’s entitled to their view. But what we’ve been seeing is not constructive debate; it’s targeted disruption and harassment.

Hopefully this reminder encourages a return to respectful, fact-based conversation about PRD and its progress — something that benefits all genuine shareholders.

Do a single post summary! don't have it go missing

Thanks Keith - also for others I made a small top up of 25000, shows as unknown, def a buy.

Be specific Jimmy - what are you implying

It’s actually fascinating watching the same handful of “experts” spend every waking hour on this board telling everyone how terrible PRD is. They claim they have no shares, no short, no interest… yet they’re here all day, every day, replying within minutes to every post like it’s a full-time job. Let’s be honest – nobody invests that much time into something they “don’t care about.” What we’re really looking at isn’t analysis, it’s emotional baggage. These are bitter ex-holders who bought high, sold low, and never recovered. Instead of moving on, they sit here endlessly trying to convince others not to believe – because if someone else succeeds where they failed, it hurts their ego.

They’re not protecting investors. They’re protecting their pride.

Real investors research, evaluate, and make decisions. They don’t live on a forum posting the same negativity 50 times a day. If PRD was truly “dead” like they claim, they’d be gone. But they’re still here, desperate to be heard, desperate to be right, desperate to drag others down to their level so they don’t feel alone.

The truth? PRD clearly still matters to them – it owns their thoughts, their time, and their emotions. They aren’t analysing a company… they’re processing trauma. And until they accept that, they’ll keep posting forever, hoping someone applauds their misery.

It’s not insight. It’s therapy in public.

Some of us invest. Some of us research.

Others just cling to a message board because it’s the only place they still matter.

The deliberate omission of any meaningful update on the MOU wells (MOU-3, MOU-4, MOU-5) is the single most important signal in the presentation.

Just to clarify, there was no RNS on 7 August 2025. The company’s last formal regulatory statement before the interim results was the July 2025 drilling update. The references to gas indications and reservoir quality came from Predator’s public comments to Moroccan media in June–July, not an RNS. The 25 September Interim Results remain the latest official word and confirm the helium anomaly at the base of the salt, which geologically still indicates an active gas system even though no direct hydrocarbon readings were logged in that specific interval

James33 - You’re absolutely right — the Interim Results released on 25 September 2025 did state that “gas chromatograph data and wireline logs do not show evidence of the presence of hydrocarbons.” That’s an accurate quote, but it’s important to understand what that line actually refers to.

The statement covers the specific logging and chromatograph readings taken in the immediate MOU-5 wellbore, not the broader geological interpretation. In other words, no measurable free gas was detected in the well’s immediate formations during open-hole logging — but that doesn’t mean the area lacks hydrocarbons. Predator made clear in the same release that a helium show was registered at the base of the mobilised salt, at a potential fault plane identified through post-well seismic interpretation.

That’s a key distinction. Helium isn’t generated locally; it migrates upward alongside natural gas from deeper, mature formations and becomes trapped in long-sealed reservoirs. A helium anomaly of around 1,500 ppm at a structural boundary is significant evidence of a working gas system below the tested zone. In petroleum geology, that’s viewed as a migration indicator — proof that gas has moved through and potentially charged nearby traps, even if this specific borehole didn’t intersect the main accumulation.

The interim’s cautious tone reflects standard reporting practice while post-well re-mapping and petrophysical interpretation are underway. Predator have already said the well encountered mobilised salt and faulting — features that can easily displace a borehole from the most charged part of a trap. The ongoing seismic reinterpretation aims to define that geometry and confirm whether MOU-5 sits on the flank of a larger structure rather than its core.

It’s also important to remember that the wider Guercif structure has produced gas shows in all previous MOU wells. Taken together with the helium signature and strong sealing lithology, the evidence still points to an active hydrocarbon system. MOU-5’s results narrow the target rather than negate it.

So yes — the interim confirmed no direct gas log response in the immediate section. But the helium, structural evidence, and previous gas encounters all suggest that the basin remains gas-charged and that MOU-5 may simply have drilled the edge of a larger accumulation, not the absence of one.

Re-filtering now, no more replies to the green boxes :)

You are of course 100% wrong

Good question, and you’re right to check the official releases — clarity on MOU-5 data matters.

The preliminary and interim results didn’t use the specific phrase “high resistivity” in the text, but that doesn’t mean resistive intervals weren’t observed. Predator’s reports referenced “good reservoir quality sandstones,” “gas shows,” and “helium anomalies,” all of which indicate the same underlying log responses (i.e. resistivity and porosity contrasts that suggest gas-bearing sands).

If you look at the RNS dated 7 August 2025 and the Interim Results (H1 2025), the company stated that:

MOU-5 encountered multiple sandstone intervals with visible gas shows.

The well identified helium concentrations of 1,500 ppm, which normally co-occur with resistive gas zones.

Predator noted “potential gas-charged sands” and “reservoir quality improvement with depth.”

Those phrases come from the sections summarising the petrophysical interpretation — which, in logging terms, reflect zones that would naturally record higher resistivity compared to surrounding water-bearing beds.

It’s also worth noting that Atalayar (June 2025) and Barlaman Today (July 2025) both reported on Predator’s findings, quoting company comments about “promising results in reservoir quality and gas indications.” While those are secondary sources, they were based on Predator’s disclosed technical summary at the time.

The key point:

“High resistivity” wasn’t explicitly printed in the RNS wording, but the results and helium data clearly describe gas-bearing intervals consistent with that interpretation.

Officially, the only public data are those RNS and interim results — no petrophysical log curves have been released yet.

Until the full well log interpretation (with resistivity plots) is published, we can only base conclusions on the company’s qualitative statements. Everything disclosed so far aligns with gas-bearing intervals being logged, even if the precise resistivity values weren’t detailed.

Masterfly - That’s a fair question. MOU-5 hasn’t been flow-tested yet, but there were definite gas indicators reported in Predator’s own RNS on the preliminary drilling results (March 2025). The well hit its main target, the Domerian carbonate, and wireline logs showed strong resistivity over about 50 metres. High resistivity generally means the rock contains hydrocarbons, not water.

About 16 metres above the carbonate, a helium show of around 1,557 ppm was detected. Helium usually migrates with natural gas, so its presence is a good sign of hydrocarbon movement and trapping. Below the carbonate, the drill found roughly 30 metres of clean sandstone – a new reservoir type for this basin. The company described it as “good quality,” meaning it could hold and flow gas.

None of this proves commercial flow, but these findings are what geologists call gas shows – clear signs that hydrocarbons are present. Predator hasn’t yet published detailed gas or pressure data, so the exact composition and saturation are unknown.

The key point is that the well was suspended, not plugged and abandoned. That’s only done when results justify further work. If the well were dry, it would have been sealed permanently.

So while no discovery has been declared, Predator has publicly confirmed:

• A measurable helium show.

• High resistivity across the carbonate.

• A new, good-quality sandstone reservoir.

Those facts, taken directly from the RNS, are why it’s accurate to say MOU-5 had gas shows. The next stage is testing to prove if the gas can flow commercially, but hydrocarbons have definitely been detected.