Member Info for Gudin

Always an excuse.

What about the months before and after BCE used it?

Are you saying Morocco is an unattractive Country for service providers? Place of last resort?

Mossma you have clearly failed to understand the post.

A poster claimed that demand for equipment was high, I have highlighted a period of inactivity.

Logistics have been presented as a reason, highlighted two examples of this not being an issue including one in the country and one with sand jet.

Local issues are the latest, highlighted examples of this not being an issue.

There was no comment on the business merits of the companies or drill success rates.

If the plan was to test MOU 5 why was the testing program announced before this was even planned to be drilled?

PRD announced May 23 the serious intent to test, from 1st June 23 to the 3rd April 24 spud of the current campaign other operators have drilled one well in September 23 and tested one well in October 23. Plenty of opportunity to carry out plans with virtually zero competition.

Logistics excuse. SDX tested a well in Morocco in October 23 overcoming the insumountable logistic issues.

BCE used sandjet in Jan 24 overcoming the logistic issues.

Local issues (new excuse claxon) SDX have drilled two wells and tested one, CHAR are currently drilling their second both have overcome this without major issues.

One year to complete an onshore testing program in a supportive jurisdiction is poor management.

They have attempted testing it failed.

Keithoz provides one reason covering around 2 months why testing did not take place due to management's failure to check the terms of the contract. Better due diligence would have highlighted the possibility of the other operator retaining the wireline logging equipment and measures could have been taken to address this.

The main reason testing has not occurred in the 12 months since they stated they would do it, is the continued use of extensions to the initial period and the necessity for reissuing of exploration permits. This results in the tight windows of one or two months of permitted activity followed by two to three months of waiting on the next window. With the benefit of hindsight it would have been better to enter the first extension period after the completion of MOU 4 last year, use the placing to pay the fee/ bond for the first extension period and use the 27 months of available permitted time to test. This would have provided more flexibility to find a suitable window for all the equipment.

PRD are back in the position with 19 days remaining on the latest permit and another tight window to start testing and drilling of MOU 5 before another two to three months of bureaucratic downtime hits.

IJWT

Why do you think SOU would step aside from their contract and let PRD have it next? If PRD did something likewise for a competitor I would not be happy.

SDX in their recent investor presentation stated they have three wells in the second half of the year before they bring a new rig from Canada in 2025. So sv101 potential already has three months of the second half of 2024 booked by just SDX plus whatever CHAR and SOU may have planned so availability in the second half of 2024 may be limited anyway.

MJ

It's all about discussion. Keithoz has offered a scenario that is clearly in PRD benefit, a quick sale with less bureaucratic hurdles. Interested as the potential buyer would not be operator or on the licence in this scenario as to why Keithoz (or anyone) thinks they would agree to this?

How would this work in a ring fencing of the MOU fan scenario that has also been presented?

Agree it would make sense to combine the 3d whether this happens the clock starts ticking on the 17 months in June.

Paul has said many things about the sale possibilities. The local subsidiary is the 100% owner of the licence, how would a sale of this ring fence the MOU fan without affecting the rest of the licence? Would a potential purchaser be happy with this as PRD would still be the operator and they would have no formal representation on the licence ie it would still be PRD 75% ONHYM 25%.

Those bonus are 100% payable by PRD. It would be listed as a receivable if it was from ONHYM to PRD.

Couple of points of light

The drilling of the well to 2750m is a part of the second extension period not the first page 14 ITR

"

The first extension period can be extended into a second extension period of 30 months with an

anticipated commitment to acquire 400 km² 3D covering Jurassic Prospects to include AVO analysis and

the drilling of at least one well to 2750m to test the Jurassic potential. There are also commitments to

undertake Geological studies to integrate and understand PRD findings in a regional context and

determine whether CO2 and Waterflood EOR experience can be applied to boost long term productivity

of discoveries in the Guercif basin"

The discovery bonus is a payable not a receivable page 12 ITR

"There are no signature bonuses but production bonuses in the form of cash payments exist with a

maximum one-off payment of US$5,000,000 on production greater than 30,000 BOE/day. A discovery

bonus of US$1,000,000 is also payable."

The first extension period has 17 months to run from June 2024. In your scenario after the completion of MOU5 negotiations with a buyer, tendering and awarding a contract for the 3d seismics and then getting the equipment in country and completing the seismic in 17 months is well to be blunt fanciful. Approval of a new entrant on a licence as demonstrated worldwide can take up to 12 months to approve. PRD should be aiming to complete the 3d by June 2025 giving themselves a 7 month buffer. Permits, tendering ,awarding the contract and getting equipment booked and in the country the process should ideally be starting in the near term.

Page 14 from the ITR.

"The extension of the Initial exploration period and fulfilment of commitments means the first extension

period will now last 17 months (36 months minus the 19 months already used in the extension of the

Initial Exploration period to June 2024)."

The first extension period is 17 months (from June 2024) not 36 months, it has been reduced to reflect the extension of the initial period. Presumably any further extensions will reduce this further. The work required for the next stage is below:-

"The main focus of the first extension period is to undertake

acquisition and processing of 200 km² 3D seismic over the main Tertiary targets including AVO and Rock

Physics evaluations. Gravity and Magnetic modelling will be undertaken using existing data and

development options will be assessed for gas discovered in the initial period (MOU-2 and MOU-3)"

GRH and PG have mentioned someone else doing the 3d, cannot see how a deal can be completed and seismic acquired in 17 months considering the logistical problems encountered with sand jet.

The licence will move on to the first extension period as per the terms, it could be argued that this was the best option as it is for 36 months and comes with a permit for those 36 months. It's why others are not experiencing the permit issues and it is a legacy of Covid for the extensions which are not infinite. The delays would have been removed waiting for the permit but the next stage also triggers a payment. If testing is completed in this window it will be difficult to argue for a new permit for a proposed well that is covered in the next stage of the licence terms.

The rig will not be on site before the indicated permit expiry date of the 5th June.

The latest permit took nearly three months to issue from the expiry of the last.

Fully funded did not include the proposed depth increase( on here nothing has come from the company). Do they have the required long lead items to adjust the planned depth? Enough casing? New permits to drill deeper? Does the well plan need to be redesigned for the extra depth?

They clearly stated they would update timings when the permit was issued. This has not been done yet.

It is not and never has been a contracted drill date, the use of the word expected should have made this blinding obvious.

A rig with multiple users as in this case is given a slot in the running order. SDX, CHAR, SOU then PRD is the seeming order. When SDX finished it went to CHAR who expected it before the end of Q1 but it was delayed. Sound will get the rig when CHAR is finished they expect this to be June, but the actual date will be when it has completed the work at CHAR not before.

It is the same with the sandjet and coiling tube unit. Both these were expected to be available in April, hopefully these have also been delayed. If they became available when expected then PRD faced the decision of contracting them and paying the daily rate when the permit had not been issued or passing them up until the permit was issued and booking a new slot.

Paul Griffiths

The plan as per the rns on 20th Feb is :-

"Mobilisation of the Sandjet crew and equipment will occur shortly after Petroleum Agreement Amendment #4 has been ratified and all necessary regulatory approvals for Sandjet rigless testing have been received. The time framework for the Phase 2 rigless testing programme will at that time be updated."

Char has signed a contract to drill two wells, this contract does not include a "window". PRD have signed a one well contract that does not include a "window". Both CHAR and PRD gave expected times for drilling, but in simple terms they have a slot in the running order for the rig with no fixed dates, only estimates. SDX has overrun pushing all drills back.

It's becoming tedious the constant digs at shareholders for perceived impatience. All people are wanting is the company to do what they said they were going to do. May 23 similar was said and here we are coming towards the end of April 24 and still no testing. A year on is not impatience. 9 months since Mou 4 was completed and still nothing flowed.

It's not difficult to understand. Some people may be happy to sit and wait, others want to see the company deliver on their timelines. Dismissing one because you are happy to see nine months wasted is poor.

So uncomfortable that he stayed on as a consultant? Country manager for two years hard to argue he is blame free.

Brv

In January you were critical of the management team of ceg ability to develop the CM field, you now seem to think that one of that team is now an asset. Why the change of mind?