Member Info for Gudin

Was accused by Keithoz of producing disinformation for having the temerity to suggest that the schematic in the annual report showing 1000bpd storage would lead to production limitations of 250bpd at SC3 due to trucking. Imagine my surprise today when the company confirmed 1200bpd storage and mentioned 200bpd initial production to evaluate the trucking logistics versus storage capacity.

Any response Keithoz?

It’s questionable if SC3 will be drilled in June as claimed also, considering the drill rig contract is not agreed, well inventory is not in country and the pad is not even finished yet. Net production of 76 bpd in T&T for April is poor and lower than February.

No interest in Morocco it seems despite months of active marketing.

He needs removing spent years and millions of pounds in Morocco and delivered three wells badly damaged, one half completed well and a duster. Overseen three testing phases that failed and now cannot attract a partner at an acceptable level to fund a well costing under £2m.

If Morocco is as stellar as some are claiming then it will be a competitive auction and T&T will have little bearing. The company has been actively marketing Morocco since October, so it safe to assume multiple parties have had access to the data and there appears to be limited interest. There has been two Mou that have not lead to a formal proposal and the last two ITR for Morocco remain unpublished. It looks to me as though the lack of flow and formation damage is a bigger issue than PG originally claimed.

SC3 first oil in an success case is forecast by the company to be around the year end, so the revenue from this will arrive to late to fund Mou 6.

These fields have demonstrated that numerous companies have been able to find share holders that believe they can be valuable despite the clear evidence to the contrary. The Nabi deal adds another layer of difficulty as they will be owed significant sums and there is still the deal with WIEGL for the liabilities of $4m to resolve, but if they can offload these mature fields for anything near what they paid they should be leaping at the chance. They have proven over time to be a money pit, said at the time it was a vanity project for PG after getting kicked out of the EOR venture.

All this was pointed out at the time, there has been a list of companies that thought they could turn these fields around only to be smacked in the face with the harsh reality. PRD have also built up a $1.5m tax bill in T&T to boot. They need a decent result in CM just to keep their heads above water, txp had revenue of $5.7m at $68 a barrel average for 926bpd of crude in the first quarter. Taxes, production costs, trucking etc even with higher oil prices T&T is looking like a poor return on the near $10m spent by the time Snowcap 3 is drilled. Restoring 200+ wells in an environmentally friendly way is going to be costly. CEG board have played a blinder off loading these.

They were generating a higher revenue at a lower oil price, there has obviously been a steep decline. PG does not like to share information like that, we all saw how long it took for Mou 5 results to be released.

The reality of these assets is probably being felt by the latest CEO who thought they could buck the trend.

Dear Keith / ramper how is that going to pay to go it alone for Mou6 as you said? The placing rns seems to indicate differently but as usual you know best. $95k from April please explain how Feb, March and May are going to add another $1.3m? They are still raising money for admin costs and you are ludicrously claiming that they can fund a well in Morocco. Clueless. Years and years of ramping and you still continue unabashed, you must have skin thicker than one of those bridge trolls.

Another highly accretive placing. Do people actually believe this drivel after it is repeated after every placing. See Keith has neglected to mention the $95k revenue for April days after claiming that the second quarter would deliver $1.8m in free cash flow and be able to self fund Mou6. Just saying!

Jasper strikes again. Death, taxes and Jasper ramping before a placing are the only guarantees in life.

Seven months marketing Morocco and still no takers. The last two itrs for Morocco unpublished since flow testing started. It is starting to look like there is something amiss.

The ten year tax window starts on regular production, not on declaration of commerciality.

The itr is going to contain some negatives. The mixed results from Mou5 ( will refrain from using the d word as some are very sensitive to this) and the three failed flowtests are going to impact on resource estimates. The five zones in the Mou fan have been according to the annual report given a range of 40% to 68% chance of flowing gas.

It is ironic you titled your post deliberate misinformation and then started with this "so PRD expect maximum flow will only be 250 bopd". No one said that it was a PRD estimate.

Page 59 of the annual report has the schematic for the Snowcap 3 well and it has four 250 barrel storage tanks and access for truck loading behind them. No oil storage tanks or other truck access is on the schematic. A pragmatic approach and considering they mention reduced production to prevent stoppages and wax issues then they are not going to risk running at storage capacity.

No one mentioned missed payments, an inability to read or deliberate misinformation?

"As part of the acquisition agreement, a further $1m was due to be paid to Challenger between 31 August 2026

and 31 December 2027. Management have considered that the relevant requirements for this deferred

consideration will not be met, and therefore it has not been considered as part of the overall consideration

price. "

The relevant requirements have not been me. What requirements have not been met to merit none payment and it also states that this will be re-assessed so it suggests that production levels in the initial announcement still apply.

This deferred contingent was announced

The Snowcap 3 location is going to have 4 250 barrel storage tanks and the produced oil is going to be trucked. The annual report highlights the need to maintain flow to prevent wax issues, even if this means reducing production.

1500bod is not happening. 1000bpd leaves little margin for trucking. The fact they are mentioning reduced levels suggests that they are building in a margin for trucking. 250 bod seems a sensible target if the well is successful.

The company is forecasting the terms of additional payments at the Ceg assets will not be meet, which is 750bod by 2027 so again 1000 bod is not happening.

First oil from Snowcap 3 is expected by the year end, as per the annual report available to read on PRD website. They are also trying to get Nabi to do the work overs on Snowcap 1 and 2.

1000 barrel storage at CM for Snowcap 3 and oil to be trucked to sales point. Company stress the importance of continuous production to stop waxing. A safety margin for storage for trucking downtime is required ie 1000 barrels per day is not happening. Production is expected to be "tied in" by the end of 2026. The workovers for snowcap 1 and 2 are being presented to Nabi to consider if they want to progress them on the services agreement. There is no agreement in place for the cost of the wax treatment, currently it is estimated that doing workovers is more cost effective.

T&T posted losses for the year of £600k which included operating costs of £445k which is not explained and seems high considering the Nabi agreement. The agreement terms to pay CEG $1m in deferred payments will not be meet. This was based on the fields producing 750bpd by end of 2027. £2m after tax refunds offset owed to T&T BIR.

I agree with Flombo10 T&T is a bet on Snowcap 3, the rest of the assets are performing in a similar manner to how they have for years, only currently boosted by the oil price at the current time to profitability.

Matt

It has only not been P&A because they are planning on deepening the well. Companies do not re-enter and side track discovery wells, it's to risky. Even if companies P&A wells they still try to spin it as learning valuable information etc. They do not label them as dusters. The Jurassic in Mou 5 was a duster, it is made abundantly clear in the annual report. Stating this as some have claimed was not fud it was accurate.

Companies do not declare wells as dusters, if you think this is the case you should not be investing in high risk stocks. Mou 5 was in crude terms a duster. It was obvious for months and has effectively been declared in the annual report. A successful well decreases the risk in a prospect. Would you like to guess what a well that increases the risk is called?

The fact that you are unable to admit that it was not fud as you claim says more about your character. Crack on with legal action, a well described by the company as disappointing is going to be a slam dunk. "There are none so blind as those who will not see"

@SandyBugler, you accused me of spreading fud as you very well know, for stating Mou 5 was a duster. Do you still stand by that claim?

"Whereas MOU-5 down-graded the Jurassic target". "A well post-mortem has increased the risks for finding Jurassic hydrocarbons within the structure updip from MOU-5".

@SandyBugler still spreading fud calling Mou 5 a duster?

@jasper the note with 5.9tcf still applicable?

After PG extolled the sand jet testing, it failed to even penetrate the casing. That will be someone else's fault though for that expensive $1m plus mistake.

72.4bcf for the TGB 6 fan. Can see why the new ITR is still yet to be published

Helium stated as a "medium term" target.

The annual report is a sobering read. Onto the loss making T&T section with some nervous trepidation after noting the new liabilities disclosed in the rns

Two of the first three responses also mention T&T and contain conjecture yet you did not question them. Perhaps some of the agenda that you like to throw about at play as the conjecture was positive?

CM requires drilling and any funds from Morocco which the company will use to advance both of their assets will not be available in the time frame required to fulfill the licence terms. Hence the placing to fund it. It is actually a positive response as it indicates that any deal in Morocco is not impacted by the placing as it was time sensitive.

You have obviously not read the opening question and jumped in with both feet. The question was why would the company issue shares at 3p when posters are touting multi billion dollars deals in Morocco as imminent. The answer is that CM requires a well drilling and Snowcap workover in the next six months or the agreed licence terms are in default. Any money from Morocco will not be available to meet this deadline.

Snowcap 3 has to be drilled before November or the CM licence is at risk. Any deal will require approval whether that be from Morocco or by legal departments and will take months. Add in the long lead items ordering requirements and PG could not wait for a deal and the funds to clear. Now how the supposed elite deal maker has allowed the situation to develop to the point where he is raising funds at 3p to fund a drill he has had three years to prepare for is another question.