Member Info for Gudin

Companies are not run for the benefit of traders expecting them to be run so is one of the daftest comments I have seen on this board. That bar is pretty high aswell.

It is difficult to take someone serious when they have been told the plan for reporting but fail to grasp this. They are not going to report individual shows to appease traders, no exploration company does this.

What drill?

Going by the satellite images equipment arrived after the 15th, with a few days to set up they are probably just starting testing.

"The Company will provide an update if there is any change to this date"

If an update of a change of plan comes today the above statement is still correct. They have not committed to a date for updating on a change of plan. People are again assuming that it would have been communicated by the 16th when it does not state that. They did not update September's plan until October.

Satellite images do not suggest it has started yet.

They said testing was forecast to be completed in September, they informed us of the change of plan in October. Assuming that because a rns has not been released today means the current plan is on track is not something I am going to do in light of the previous month slippage.

Posters on this board were posting that testing had started last month, nda in place etc and it turned out that a piece of equipment was delayed and they informed us weeks after the event. Posters are again assuming that testing has started appear to have short memories.

I am hopeful testing has started or will soon, but not assuming anything until confirmed. It's hardly an unreasonable view to take.

No this caused them to miss the slot for the sandjet

The Company has been waiting for over three weeks for an in-country wireline logging unit. A perforating depth control (PDC) log is required to depth correlate the perforating points with a similar log run before the casing was set during well completion. Critically this ensures that perforations are aligned with the reservoir sand intervals to be tested.

If it's alright with you I am going to assume that testing has not started.

Does it say when investors will be informed if the 16th is not met?

It took until the 5th October to inform that September's plans had changed and that they were waiting for an additional piece of equipment that was previously not mentioned.

It refers to the outlook for the remainder of 2023 as it is a report that covers the first six months of the year. The testing was announced on the 30th August after the period covered in the report.

· MOU-4 drilling at the end of the period under review. Mou 4 was completed on the 13th July but according to this its still ongoing.

Johnhenry yes I did read the interim report that covered the period upto the 30th June, unlike some I know how to read these reports and it contained nothing on testing. The testing was announced on the 30th august, you will note this is after the 30th June and therefore not covered in the report. Events such as the long stop date for Trinidad deal extension from the same rns were covered in the after events section. Testing was not covered in this section so guidance was unchanged.

Will say again, unless the start of testing has been confirmed assume it has not started. The testing programme changed last month and they did not inform us until after the event. They have not said how quickly they will inform us of any change. They could say in a few weeks that it has changed the same as the last time.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

They also expected testing to be completed in September previously and only told us on the 5th October that this did not happen. Posters speculated that as nothing had been said then all was going to plan were proven to be incorrect. Do not assume testing has started without confirmation.

The first target is the lake beds and the rns said

"We had just commenced drilling the 8.5" hole section at the top of the Lake Bed Formation, after successfully running and cementing the 13 3/8" casing."

Yes it has not been shipped yet as they clearly stated they would inform us. Also unless it's cloaked then there is nothing on the satellite images to say it there.

I think they have lost out on the unit and are sourcing another one or trying.

Do you have any evidence that it has started?

It has not started.

Why would a "potential" sale stop the testing?

What if it falls through?

Surely more sensible to continue along the stated path than to stop. It is actually bad management to pause for something that may not happen.

Those three examples given all warrant an update.

When something is expected or scheduled to be completed within a set time frame and this time frame expires, it is reasonable to expect this to be updated. The most likely explanation based on the real world is that Paul has again given an unrealistic time frame.

We would know if the dynamics had changed if we were informed. Seems people are making excuses based on something that may have happened. He has stated twice, once in a rns and once in the prospectus that testing would be complete in September. Now in October and nothing that is poor.

Never have blind faith in someone you barely know.

PG has been mentioning testing since March, it was stated in the prospectus that testing would be completed in September. This rumoured approach is not a good enough reason to fail to update on this. If you say you are going to complete something within a stated time frame you have a duty to explain why this has not been done.

It is poor and is showing a lack of respect to shareholders.

Can see where the confusion is arising from.

Those statements cover the period upto 30th June. Any changes after this period such as the long stop date extension covered in the same rns as the September testing programme are covered in the subsequent events section. There is no mention of any change to the September testing in this section so it is therefore unchanged as of that date.

Could you please provide the section which you think applies, because that report even the subsequent events which include the change to Trinidad long stop date make no mention of any testing changes that I can see.

Thanks

What parameters have Noble used in their "management" resource figures and why have they avoided independent scrutiny?

The prospectus has a cpr and assuming Nobles "management" estimates are derived from this as a starting point the mean helium concentration used is 5.3%. The Karoo at Tai has a helium concentration of 1.1% as the mean figure. Either Nobles figures are extremely bullish or HE1 are conservative.

Can you see why Noble have avoided the route of using a current cpr and the asx forced them to issue a correction to their figures clearly stating they are management estimates.

Metis

Discussion is about appraisal wells which will be needed to define the size of the resource. The Tai prospect is given in the cpr at 7.3km2. More than one well is going to be required to prove up the prospect fully. Tai will hopefully be a discovery and flow tested but several more wells are going to be required to prove up the extent of the prospect. Noble are drilling two wells this quarter with one being a mixed exploration well of deeper targets plus an appraisal of the first well.