Member Info for GKahn

Hi Mannan

I agree that we need Ojay and also Mister Positive. In the meantime we can do without repetitive posts from the likes of Hamm

I haven’t seen evidence of significate short selling, and I believe that more than 1 billion shares are held by traders. This might account for the continued significant selling.

As a result of the massive dilution which began with the Bergen death spiral financing and subsequent placings with the Bucket Shops, most recently over 300 million shares at 2p, a truly whopping discount of more than 40%.

Petrovis and Mike Buck participated in the controversial mid-year fundraising, following which Petrovis and board members hold just over a combined 19% of the 1,483,883,601 shares currently in issue.

Accordingly, the number of shares held by traders and the few remaining LTHs amounts to just over 1.2 billion shares.

Mike Buck and the board have a lot to answer for in my opinion, particularly as shareholders were misled by a statement of adequate funding made prior to the mid-year highly dilutive funding and the pitiful amount offered to retail shareholders for whom the board have little regard.

I don't have a take on the situation, I just had his email address.

Mike.buck@petromatadgroup.com

Excellent post Thornogson at 10.13

Iit is increasing likely that the Mongolian Government will have to import significant quantities of Russian crude oil for its refinery to be operationally viable when it comes on stream in just 2-3 years.

If Petrovis sell more than 1% they would be obligated to disclose triggering an RNS

As a holder of 25% or more of PM, Petrovis can consolidate PM in its accounts as a subsidiary.

Progressive’s assumption of the recoverable back costs is a very significant number. PM should clarify whether the quantum for recoverable back costs has been agreed with the Mongolian Government. As there has been no RNS on the issue as far as I am aware, I suspect that the matter remains on the Agenda. In such circumstances PM may be reluctant to provide clarification.

What is the source for the figure of. $57.7 million recoverable back costs, please?

Maestro: you are correct, I was a shareholder when PM proceeded with multi wells in Block XX without proper testing and the oil traces drove the SP to over £2.00. Considerable exploration was expended, but the oil in that part of Block XX had migrated. Whether these costs can be treated as allowable needs to be clarified by PM. The area in Block XX of the early exploration is outside the exploitation licence area.

Maestro: The farmout was with BG Group for blocks IV & V, not Block XX. After Shell acquired BG Group, Shell terminated the Farmin.

The existing Mongolian PSCs are considered to be favourable by international standards, so any rewriting of the key terms would likely not be favourable.

TenBagTag: only a relatively small proportion of the total back costs will be allowable. The figure of US$120 million includes office and administrative costs over more than 15 years – a very substantial sum and NOT Exploration Expenses. Also, as Blocks IV & V would have separate PSCs I doubt attributable exploration expenses would be allowable under the terms of Bock XX PSC. All in all, I expect the allowable historic exploration expenses will be modest.

Jojoba: You raise a very interesting point on which we will need clarification from Petro Matad: essentially what historic exploration expenses are deductible? I doubt that exploration expenses incurred in Blocks IV & V are an allowable deduction. As regards Block XX I assume that exploration expenses for Heron, Gazelle and Gobi will be allowable. However, going back to 2010 considerable exploration expenses were incurred in Block XX and, whether or not, this considerable sum will be allowable, I am assuming NOT. The practise in the industry is to have the historic exploration expenses independently audited. However, as far as I am aware we haven’t heard from PM as to what is planned and agreed the Government (MRPAM).

Part IV of the AIM Admission Document page 97: Summary of PSC and Certain Other Mongolian Laws

Extract: (n) After deductions for royalties and for that amount of oil needed to cover the costs and expenses incurred in respect of Petroleum Operations under the PSC (Petroleum Costs) for each Calendar Month, the remaining quantity of Contract Crude Oli (herein referred to as Production Sharing Oil) shall be allocated between the Mongolian Government and the Contractor in proportion to the percentages set forth below , based on the average daily quantity of Contract Crude Oil for a given calendar month:

A If the average daily quantity of Contract Crude Oil for any calendar month is equal to 25,000 barrels or less: Mongolian Government 40%, Contractor 60%

B, C,D increasing in stages tp GVT 55%, Contractor 45%

TenBagTag: you need yo deduct the Mongolian Government's Production Share under the terms of the PSC which is 40% at initial production rate. You can find a summary of the PSC in the May 2008 Admission Document.

Richar and ScarletVixen filtered

30-Sep-24 10:33:46 2.75 7,250,000 Unknown* 199.38k O

30-Sep-24 10:33:01 2.75 11,750,000 Unknown* 323.13k O

It is time we heard from Mick Davis

Thanks Researchandhold, two tankers would be barely sufficient for a continuous operation at 300 b/d