Member Info for Gudin

Mou 5 funding has come from the cancelling of the testing for MOU 1 and MOU 4 with sandjet being demobilised and a requirement for T & T workovers to hit the top end of the expectation. The 12 month fully funded claims are no longer correct.

An admission that the wells should have been drilled differently, which if tested after MOU 1 would have been highlighted before drilling three more wells incorrectly. A potentially very costly error. This is poor and Lonny is not the only one who should be taking the blame.

The entire MOU fan drilling and testing has been a text book case on how not to run an exploration program and criticism of Paul is justified whether the poster has 40 years experience or not. It is simply not good enough. The time and money wasted would see most CEO's sacked.

There is going to be no sale of assets in Morocco or forward gas sales until all the MOU wells are successfully flowed which will be well into 2025 and might require replacement wells to be drilled.. The company is basically in the position of hoping for a successful MOU 5 result to get a placing away.

It would have been less frustrating if they had entered the first extension period as per the contract instead of going down the amendments route. The amendments were a poor choice and despite this impacting operations they continued down that route and failed to heed the lesson.

The extra cash is not debatable, it's a bank guarantee and a requirement for holding the licence.

The time for testing has increased from the initial estimate, plus they now have Zenith it will be more than $1m , same with T & T 16% extra and wax treatments. Cash burn for the six months at the start of this year was £872k which needs factoring into the second half of the year.

The "fully funded" for 12 months is often cited but that was for firm commitments, MOU 5 is planned and was included in the interim results as such, not a firm commitment. £1.6m yearly cash burn leaves £2.7m for testing and T & T for the 12 month fully funded which should be accurate.

There is a cash shortfall for MOU 5, how this is funded is yet to be disclosed. A placing at this level would be disappointing to say the least.

The testing was estimated at $1m for a five to six week program, several months expected now.

MOU 5 was estimated at $3.5m.

T & T estimated at $500k before the addition of wax treatment and the increase in working interest.

The restricted cash is a bond for the licence and is not available.

What progress has there been in 1H 2024 in T & T?

Still no licence for the basket case that is Ireland.

£2.5m spent and no tangible results in any of the three assets in 1H 2024.

The thick end of £2.5m spent in the first six months of this year with zero tangible results in any of the three assets is difficult to defend.

The mentioning of swabbing, nitrogen lift and acidising suggest the testing results are not as straight forward as expected, plus the requirements potentially for further wells. The reluctance to release actual figures can be construed to playing cards close to chest or the fact they are below expectations depending on views of liquid volume in a glass.

T & T has oil mem, the rns mentioned a planned chemical treatment which is what he is likely referring to.

It's been clear for a while MOU 5 is no longer funded, when companies that have previously stated something is funded stop saying this it is a hefty clue. Paul's comments actually make the distinction between firm commitments and near term prospect.

SDX plan to start drilling in Q4 so competition for the rig may become an issue again.

Agree if testing results are good then a raise will not be an issue. The sands in MOU 2 like MOU3 etc will require sandjet if it has worked to test, Mou 5 carbonates can be tested using perforating guns. Why not take advantage of the rig being idle, the perforating equipment in the country to test and the money available to complete the well.

The company does not have the money to drill MOU 5, $3.5m estimate cost, the delay in getting the workovers completed in T & T and the purchase of the 16.8% remaining stake have confirmed this. They should have the funds to complete MOU2 at around $1m. The rig is idle, they have the permits in place, sandjet is in the country for the required perforating. It obviously requires that the current operation at Mou 3 is succesful, but it should be an option to consider.

SDX plan was for three wells in the second half of the year, which if still the case will take around three months going off their past wells. A good chunk of the remaining time this year. Whether the current convertible bond issue has impacted these plans is another matter.

By going last in the sequence PRD ran out of permit and were unable to drill the well. They may be back battling for a space in the sequence with others again. Whisper it quietly but Rob may have gotten something wrong and those posting "drivel" got it right.

Hi Blueglow

I agree that the rules do not allow such as keithoz proposed but the fact that someone thinks a $1m production bonus is in any way impacting decisions is implying that the cash position is perilous and that simply not true.

It was overall a poor ill informed post, it is a pity that the poster has moved away from his usually excellent technical and geological informative posts to wild speculation.

Clutching at straws?

Keithoz is suggesting that an announcement of testing results may be partly affected by the requirement to secure forward funding for $1m, if someone like anti venom had suggested this it would not have received as many recommendations.

1. PRD has the funds available to pay this and it will not be required on the date of the commercial declaration either.

2. The commercial declaration will increase the share price and market cap and provide a stronger hand in negotiations with any party in regards to off take agreements. A company with a £100m+ marketcap is in a stronger position than one with a £50m marketcap basic common sense.

Keithoz

Are you saying PRD does not have the current funds to pay a $1m bonus? Where has the $6.5m gone? The increased costs of the sandjet testing ($1m for four weeks initial forecast) should still mean there are more than sufficient funds to cover this easily.

The positive impact on the share price from announcing a commercial find would make the $1m seem like chicken feed. Strange to even cite this bonus as a consideration.

Some remember this event :

"Rigless testing MOU-3 using conventional perforating guns is currently forecast to begin on or before 16 October 2023, assuming that the wireline logging unit is released from its present contract on or before 10 October 2023. The Company will provide an update if there is any change to this date."

Change of date was hidden away in the comments of the rns on the 7th November as the equipment did not arrive. Posters around that time were confident and vocal that testing had started then. A company with previous for not informing investors in a timely manner should really be clear in future communications. That uncertainty is currently being reflected in the share price.

Keithoz you can assume what you want I do not care. It is just a bit rich to slate others for something you posted similar thoughts about.

1. What is the de risking element of this exercising proportion that you referred to in June? Testing is the only current operation or where you referring to something else?

2. There have also been claims that Novum know the results and are getting in before results, but as that is positive you do not seem to have the same issues with those posts. All about the balance Keith.

As for being on the sidelines have the PI agency of Keith and rob who tracked down some poor soul in Basra found out my holding as well?

Keithoz 26th June

"They have also been exercising a proportion of these each year, which is a standard de-risking procedure, and is a necessary way for the broker to generate income - they are a services organisation, not an investment fund."

Including yourself in that Keith because you are clearly stating they sell to generate income and for de-risking

Last reply as you have all the answers, the spike in volume was others selling tremendous straw clutching. Times have changed as I learnt today with the bed and ISA, smaller trades are easier and used to hide activity. It's almost like the sp is being suppressed by someone with 5 million shares to offload.

Needing others confirmation is laughable, only poster on here that correctly predicted mou 5 would not be drilled in June despite the expected abuse is the opposite of this.

Zebra

I do not need to ask them, they have converted to sell their only profitable warrants before a binary event. Still waiting for a sensible reason why they would risk £300k when there is zero need. Selling the only profitable warrants before an event that may negatively affect the share price is the only logical reason. There was higher than normal volume on the day it was announced and the next day, probably a coincidence though.

You are the only one trying to spin this as a positive which considering the upbeat nature on here should tell you something.

Well they have a better broker than me because I have lost on the spread when I have done it in the past.