Member Info for Gudin

Page 11 of the presentation fails to reiterate the 5.9tcf resource estimate which if it was still valid after the results then it would.Page 32 and 33 are focussed on Mou5 and whilst there is an internal resource estimate for the Triassic given there is neither confirmation of the 5.9 tcf pre drill estimate or any internal resource estimate for the Jurassic. The Jurassic carbonate play which was the focus of the itr receives no mention in the presentation. Do you not think that maybe the drill results with poor to non quality reservoirs and the stated intent to move 12km up dip has rendered the itr obsolete. If the company presentations are no longer using the figure from the itr then any report using the figure is outdated.

CM has a 12.5% recovery element to the T&T government for $3m which the report misses.

Tuppiesdad

As your posts mainly consist of you complaining about trolls it is your sanity you should worry about. The fact you feel the need to interject on a civilised discussion with an insult says more about you than me. I am sure tuppie is proud to see her dad resorting to this.

Never said block energy had better assets, just highlighted the farm out deal they got. Obviously the low value was not to some people's liking but it was an actual deal based on gas resources so relevant. I have other investments probably should have but the bullet and sold but we would all be millionaires with the benefit of hindsight.

A divestment in Morocco when it finally happens should be higher than my average, 6p to 10p was my thoughts before the latest dilution. Is my view negative or realistic. What positive events have share holders had here in the past two years? A lot of posts seem to be based on hope or some perceived view that PG can deliver. There never seems to be any questions on what PG has delivered while at the helm of PRD to back up this faith.

There is no investment case other than being stuck and to stubborn to crystalise a loss. I would not invest in PRD now if I researched this, the CEO performance and attitude of blaming everything or everyone else is massively off-putting having come across similar types before. The lack of industry interest in Morocco is also stark.

I have answered this on numerous occasions, invested in the potential of Morocco. Unfortunately it's fallen flat thus far. PG has proposed a lot, first gas in 2024, farm out process beginning in July 2025 for the Jurassic prospect and CM work overs in 2024 and delivered nothing but dilution. The list is long on things that have not been achieved in self stated timelines. He has delivered plenty of dilution over the last couple of years though.

My investment is underwater and as the saying goes in the bottom drawer, call it as I see it and as stated what positives have share holders had here in the last two years? Calling out blatant ramping is not a bad thing, noticed no one has provided any evidence as to why a 5.9tcf gas resource with helium has received no mention from the company since May 2025. PG looked confident in an interview though so it must be true.

Euro

I have already said I am not interested in your petty squabbles. I have titan on ignore. You have been unable to stop yourself posting snidey remarks in this short discussion. If you like to read what posters say then leaping in two footed with wild claims seems an odd approach.

"whatever your goal"

"I’m sure you all have an agenda"

You have done a decent job of deflecting away from the reports inaccuracies with the usual retorts of some "group". I am sure one of your enemies will be along soon and you can police the board to your hearts content. It has after all been so effective to date in stopping them.

Euro

PG did not write the note as far as I am aware and he has never claimed that the 5.9 tcf resource is still applicable after Mou 5 so why would I direct my concerns to him? I asked three questions on the investors meets platform and the one regarding the impact of Mou 5 on the resource estimate was the only one not answered.

Perhaps rather than suggesting someone has an agenda on a subject you do not specialise in, you could have demonstrated some of this reasonability you keep on referencing towards others and framed your question in a more measured manner. Discussions are possible of all aspects of the company without having to revert snidey remarks which you seem unable to achieve as demonstrated in your final sentence.

Euro

So you do not think that the six month report stating that Mou 5 had poor to non reservoir quality will have no effect on resource size? A reduction in size of the prospect by moving 12kms up dip will have no effect? Have you seen any confirmation in the rns or from PG since the completion of drilling re confirming this resource estimate? When the testing at Mou 3 was unsuccessful PG was quick to reconfirm the resource size was unaffected, there was no such confirmation forthcoming regarding Mou5.

Why would you need to see the full contract the terms are explained in the rns for the purchase of CM. Do you think the rns have been misleading and there are undisclosed contract terms?

A reasonable position would be to share both positives and negatives, you are currently massively favouring the positives which cannot be described as fair or sensible as per the reasonable definition. Biased is more accurate and that's ok as long as you are not pretending otherwise. Being critical is not so black and white as slating. Mou 5 was a high risk well I have never slated the company for drilling this, they were open about the high risks. But pretending that the resource estimate is unaffected is heads in the sand.

I want to see progress across the projects of course as that's the only way I will get back to my average, just do not see the point in pretending everything is rosy when the last two years have seen a disappointment at Mou 5 and three failed attempts to flow in Morocco. If something positive happens I will give credit, not seen anything over the past two years to merit this.

Euro

It is unreasonable if you are unable to take a balanced approach and only call out negative posts, I note you have avoided both questions repeated below

Do you think the 5.9tcf resource estimate is still applicable and if so why?

Do you agree that CM does have a cost recovery element as opposed to the claim in the "research note"?

A reasonable position would be to question all incorrect posts regardless of perceived slant, something that is lacking in not just yours but other posters on this board. Do you regard the petty name calling and hounding of certain posters reasonable just because they have a different view to you? I don't.

Eurochamp6 why not keep the discussion on the subject in hand I have little to no interest in your petty squabbles with other posters.

Do you think the 5.9tcf resource estimate is still applicable and if so why?

Do you agree that CM does have a cost recovery element as opposed to the claim in the "research note"?

You never seem to question any positive post despite the accuracy I wonder why. Do you have an agenda?

Tincan1995

Even keithoz stated that the helium show was not commercial and the section you quote talks about further exploration in the area and not appraisal.

The six month report stated the carbonate reservoirs were of poor to non-reservoir quality and the 30m reservoir was water wet. Now if the carbonate had non-reservoir quality and the lower reservoir was water wet, the company may not use the crude term duster, but that’s what it is. Combine with the fact they are targeting 12kms up dip from the well and have to date barely mentioned the Jurassic since it does not take a genius to work out that it was a duster.

Think you need to check the no cost recovery for CM. 12.5% of every barrel goes to T&T until the $3m agreed in the original purchase is recovered. Why people are still including the 5.9tcf is baffling, Mou 5 was a duster that alone is going to impact the resources estimates negatively. PG himself stated the Tagi was estimated at 1tcf and the licence held other smaller prospects, clearly indicating that the Jurassic is now rated at less than the 1tcf for the Tagi estimate.

"it's almost impossible to divvy the licence up into parcels because that creates all types of issues with Onhym"

This also clears up some erroneous posts claiming that three or four deals are being processed at the same time.

Ijwt

Assuming (and share holders have to assume as he has not bothered to update the new terms) that the Mou 6 well has replaced the 3d seismic requirements on the licence terms, then this has to be completed before the latest expiry which assuming is November as again no update. Then the funding for the new well will have to be in place by May either way, third party or placing.

Probably not, what discount do you think applies for Georgia?

Block energy has today farmed out a 51% stake in 2c contingent resources of 2.77TCF for a carry of $75m. These gas fields have flowed gas to the surface, are onshore, covered by 3d seismic and are located 15 miles from a pipeline to Europe.

PRD has 2c contingent resources of 441BCF.

A simple question for the rampers why do you always assume that every thing has a connection to PRD?

The gas from Mou 6 is going to be trucked, the company has consistently stated this for a number of years, it is also pointless hiring people for a project that is not going to be online until 2028 if Mou 6 is even successful which is still to be decided.

Keithoz latest missive is littered with errors.

T&T crude has a discount as does most barrels delivered, how does the delivery point make any profit if they are buying at market prices, an industry expert should know this.

Transport and storage is usual listed on the financial reports as cost of sales, which have not been reported yet. Paying Nabi a fee to store oil in tanks PRD bought is a masterclass in negotiating, Nabi should be paying PRD for their 70% storage in our tanks.

Double counting Bonasse figures is a basic error.

Snowcap needs production cost, transport by truck which with these fuel prices will be costly. There is also the payment of 12.5% of gross revenue on production of over 250bpd until the $3m debt to MEEI is repaid.

Rusty, hindsight is just an excuse for the lack of foresight from someone who with 40+ years experience has been through many of the peaks in oil and gas cycles. Let’s look at this from a different perspective if oil falls below the production cost and Nabi have not included a clause to stop production then they will be losing thousands whilst PRD can sell their share. If they have a clause in that scenario then they can have little qualms about PRD having an upper limit.

There is no issue with Nabi taking the majority of the share of oil from wells they restore and new drills, taking the majority from the production already established before they came on board and which PRD paid $2m to secure is what rankles. They have done very little to justify these extra revenues.

PRD paid $170k for Bonasse not $1 that’s in the rns for the purchase including storage tanks. Keithoz let it slip today that he thinks Nabi are charging a fee to store oil produced from PRD oil licences in PRD owned facilities. He avoided the question when clarification was requested on this claim.

PRD have a deal where the operating costs increase with the price of oil, will hazard a guess that that is a pretty rare deal in the oil and gas sector. Whilst most producers are benefiting from the oil price increase due to the operating costs being fixed, PRD are effectively paying 25% to 35% extra to the operator in March.

Could they have not included some clauses such as limiting the oil price to Nabi at $80? This would still be a good return for Nabi, higher than the forecast expected but would provide some upside protection to the company. PG is lauded as a deal shrewd deal maker, he has dropped the ball here and a veteran with 40 years experience of oil price volatility should really be factoring in some upside protection for the company.

Rather than admit that at $100 a barrel giving 70% of the revenue to another company is a bad deal, the usual posters have to attempt to slur others and deflect. You can admit PG gets it wrong, it's not going to make any difference.

Rob has a 10p average and has everyone on ignore that has been bearish on this stock and listens intently to those that have been uber positive. There's a lesson there that only a madman would ignore.