Member Info for Gudin

No it does not keith. The CEG fields came with production at 289bpd, the revenue increase from these barrels outstrips the five or six well workover costs to gain the 10 extra barrels from the last update. The capex from these 10 extra barrels is still to be recovered. Nabi is banking a sizeable increase from the operating the production already in place plus 85% of any any new barrels until their costs are recovered. Jumping in with both feet before thinking through.

I notice you did not answer the new costs you have alluded to.

It must be hard to spend four plus years writing good news about a company only for the share price to stagnant at best whilst hundreds of millions of new share are issued diluting the upside in that time. Never in single figures again keith.

The current revenue increase received outstrips the capex to date Matt. The current deal ensures the fields are very profitable to Nabi, profits PRD are missing out on. Hence the lack of share price performance despite the strong oil price.

Surely it takes a rare kind of "investor" to be ok with a contractor receiving the bulk of the benefit of the oil price increase with any hint of criticism. Could a cap of $80 a barrel for example not have been included, a clause to take the licence operator back in house? The fact you are highlighting that Nabi views this deal high on their list for the best returns shows what a poor deal it is for PRD.

PRD are also potentially facing storage and transport fees as well? What do you estimate these fees to be Keith?

That fact has nothing to do with the post though it's just deflection. Nabi at 70% of revenue is receiving the bulk of the upside of this oil price increase (some would even venture 70% of it). That 70% of revenue would be material to the licence holders, instead the contractors are receiving it. It's a poor deal in the current climate. Nabi have potentially received more in extra revenue this month from the CEG fields than they have spent in the entire 5 months on capex, plus they still get to claim this back on top. Surely someone as savvy and with 40 + years of experience in oil price volatility has clauses in the contract to address this.

What facts Euro?

At these oil prices the Nabi deal is not looking so good. PRD is effectively paying a contractor 50% more this month for doing the same job. 70% of revenue going to pay someone else to operate your fields, with oil at over $100 barrel is poor value for shareholders. Nabi is pocketing an extra $250k plus a month for doing the same job and with sc3 not coming on production until Aug / Sept it’s clear why this oil price increase has had little effect on the share price. The bulk of the increase is benefiting Nabi more than PRD the owner of the fields, as PG is so savvy there surely is a cancellation clause or an upper limit on the amount of revenue Nabi can claim right?

$2m is only a bargain if other deals for $20k a barrel exist, have you come across any as I had a look this morning after the interview and found none. As OlivettiChamp points out the say so of a CEO is worth nothing until backed with action or proof of similar deals. I never heard PG cite any deals for $20k a barrel on the interview and even his latest deal for a producing asset was know where near $20k a barrel.

The fee was $2m the loan was never going to be recovered and the claim for Co2 was worthless.

The CEG deal cost $2m.

The share price goes down when the market cap increases because of dilution. Share holders are not bothered about market cap increases if the share price performance is not reflecting that. Acquisitions need to produce returns for share holders in the form of share price increases or dividends, Pgs successful acquisitions are providing neither.

Is Bonasse worth $1m, the producing CEG licences did not sell for $20k a barrel as claimed, have you seen any transactions to back this up? PRD own 51% of the Bonasse licence so even then it’s $500k not a million.

An accretive placing to add value at a lower share price than when the recent acquisition successes were added. Sound logic. If the recent acquisitions were successful then why is the share price not higher? Perhaps they were not successful?

For the placings to be accretive Matt that would imply they are done at a higher price. If a company adds hundreds of millions of shares at ever decreasing placing prices then that’s dilutive not accretive.

When was the last time one of these “accretive” placings actually increased the share price for share holders. Three years ago £7m was raised at 11p and there was 517m shares in issue, any placing now will be at a quarter of that price and leave the shares in issue nearing billion. Its reaching the stage where this company is become one of the infamous “ confetti” shares and shares holders are seeing no value for the tens of millions of placing funds that have been spent.

Snowcap 3 end of June

Mou 6 end of July and a knowing smirk when talking about the transaction so taking that as a positive.

Three new targets under review

New addition in T&T

Producing asset in Africa

Offshore asset between Eu and Middle East with a 3tcf target and a gas condensate discovery.

The video could have better edited as the initial five minutes was pointless and he seemed to forget they PRD operated in Ireland which is arguably the worst country for what his rant was aimed at.

" Negotiated with a third party operator in March 2025 to manage all operational aspects under a revenue sharing agreement with operator share 70% and CEG Bonasse (PRD) to retain 30% of revenue."

Now if CEG Bonasse retains 30% of the revenue and as we have already established distributable reserves are used to pay dividends from this revenue and as Steeldrum is the 100% shareholder in CEG Bonasse then these dividends are only payable to Steeldrum and not direct to Trex. So if Steeldrum then uses the received dividends as distributable reserves to pay a dividend then Trex as a 51% shareholder is entitled to 51% of the payable dividend and WIEGL as a 49% shareholder is entitled to 49% of the dividend. Effectively reducing the revenues to PRD to 15%.

Any comments on this view?

This was already covered in the 7:25 post regarding dividends, did you miss that? Have tried to keep it simply as some on this board struggle with gross and net.

So as a shareholder WIEGL is entitled to distributable reserves in Steeldrum, and as a shareholder Steeldrum is entitled to distributable reserves from CEG Bonasse? The same distributable reserves PRD are entitled to.

Where is the mention of if they are making a profit or not. A company is not going to distribute revenue in a loss making venture and this should not need to be clarified. Is Keith suggesting that PRD is receiving 30% of revenue even if T&T is not making a profit. The discussion is obviously based on revenue from a profit making entity, did not think this basic common sense would have to be stated. I have obviously over estimated your understanding.

Link to where I have ever stated anything resembling this please. See you have joined the group who are attempting to slur other posters with inventing “ facts”.

If a company is distributing revenue it does it in the form of dividends. CEG Bonasse is the only company that is legally entitled to receive revenue for the Bonasse field. CEG Bonasse has an agreement with Nabi to pay 70% of revenue in exchange for operating the field. Once CEG Bonasse has paid Nabi the directors of CEG Bonasse are able to distribute any excess capital in the company in the form of a dividend to shareholders. The only shareholders in CEG Bonasse are Steeldrum ventures which owns 100% of CEG Bonasse. The directors of Steeldrum ventures are able to distribute any excess capital in Steeldrum in the form of a dividend to the shareholders of Steeldrum. The shareholders of Steeldrum are 51% PRD and 49% WIEGL. The directors of CEG Bonasse are unable to distribute any excess capital directly to Trex in the form of a dividend as Trex has no direct exposure to CEG Bonasse.

Trex as you claimed are unable to agree a direct royalty deal with Nabi as they have no legal claim to CEG Bonasse unless they go through the route of the subsidiary. The company structure for the three fields acquired from CEG is the same as above.

That’s because PRD is a loss making company. If they started distributing revenue in the form of dividends you would receive the amount applicable to your shareholding.

Not the zinger you thought it was when you posted beefy?

Rob

As the usual suspects are more focused on porters than helping further your knowledge and helping a fellow investor may I suggest you read the 17th December rns which broke down the revenue into gross and net. The latest rns only listed the gross revenue which will require Nabi's 70% deducted. Net revenue to PRD is around 50k, or if you buy into Keith's theory add in WIEGL generously giving up their $49k.

"Gross revenue is the total amount of money a business makes from selling its products or services before subtracting any costs, taxes, or other expenses. This calculation does not include any costs related to production, operation, or other expenses. It's money that comes from sales alone"

The 70% Nabi receive for operating the fields needs to be deducted as this covers the production costs etc. There is an abundance of material available regarding the differences between gross and net if you are genuinely interested in furthering your research.

The PAFSMA is not between Nabi and Trex. This is false information from Keithoz either deliberately or through lack of research. The PAFSMA for Bonasse is between Nabi and CEG Bonasse and the company has clearly stated that the PAFSMA for the CEG fields replicates this first agreement.

Page 20 first paragraph

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2024.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2025/10/New-corporate-presentation-14-10-2025.

WIEGL hold a legal right to 49% of the revenue why would they waive this and allow PRD 100%. WIEGL have taken on $4m in liabilities, no sane person would think they have done this and agreed to not receive their share of revenue. The $4m liabilities are mainly tax liabilities, WIEGL or any other rationale company is not going to accept tax liabilities of those sums for any potential sales.

PRD are also not in charge of the decisions in spending the capex. Nabi is going to want to recoup the costs of swabbing from their share of production. Does increased swabbing frequency and costs impact new wells and heavy work overs? If more of the budget is getting spent on swabbing, then other areas are likely to be impacted.