Member Info for Gudin

Usually find the biggest moaners about "trolls" on these boards are those with high averages who rather than accept they have got the timing wrong look for others to blame.

I am currently underwater but that is because I believed PG and the no need to test rubbish. My fault alone and some on here need to accept the share price is where it is because of poor management execution and has nothing to do with a few hurty words from the likes of av etc. Oldslow posting history looks like he was taken in with a certain twitter posters over excitement, yet for some reason blames "trolls". Odd.

Oldie your posting history is available. You bought in at 9p, topped up at various higher prices including 12.5p and claimed to have never sold a share. So whilst those buys may be up 90% in a year, your position is underwater. Strange cherry picking of numbers and a bit misleading.

Deny, defend then deflect all in three posts. Textbook.

No need to get angry or abusive, that is usually the fallback of the someone unable to conduct discussions which you are again proving. You stated the licence had been extended until November, no if, buts or maybes. Now you are backtracking to what you were claiming at the time. You have accused me of spreading fud and being disingenuous when in was you that was incorrect and spreading wrong information.

Your nonsense from November has touched a nerve it seems, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Doubling down even though the last rns proved you wrong, say it all about your character imo. The quoted document stated two dates as pointed out at the time, you seized on one and claimed anyone with a different view was spreading fud.

An honest poster would have admitted their mistake, something which you are still to do. A decent person would have apologised for wrongly labelling others. Guess you are neither.

Who wrote this in November :-

“Wholly disingenuous Gudin

I've quoted the relevant sections.

You're entitled to your erroneous belief, but it is quite clear: the licence extension is until November 2026.”

“Claptrap. You are mistake or deliberately sowing FUD.”

Pot, kettle etc.

Three quick counters keith.

The Cng plant plus trailers was forecast to cost $11m for 5mm cfgpd in 2022, with inflation since then it will be $15m +

The two points about resources and reserves for Mou 6 are both after a successful drill. The current farmout negotiations are pre drill, what is the cos for Mou6? The less than 10p stands as the risk is there until Mou 6 concept is proven. what PG is able to negotiate for the upside and the rest of the licence is unknown, but the 2c for Mou6 currently stands at less than 10p share.

The Jurassic farmout relied on a successful flow test and declaration of commerciality for the Mou fan which unfortunately did not occur to separate fields. Mou 6 and the Jurassic cannot be farmed out separately under the current licence terms.

Hope everyone has a good Christmas and hopefully 2026 will be better for PRD share holders than 2025.

I asked the question in the investor meets presentation of what was the plan to drill below 950m to access the bulk of the resources in the lower fans. PG answered the question that he didn't think the bulk of the resources were in the lower sands but did not offer anything on how the deeper drilling was going to be achieved going forward.

The company is currently in a farm out / sale process if they do not have a viable plan to drill, test and flow the lower fans then any deal is going to reflect this. 30bcf 2c is going to attract a substantially lower return than the total of 440bcf for all the fans. 30bcf at $2m per bcf as keithoz has frequently estimated is worth 6p a share.

It is not bs that the licence could be lost, it is though highly unlikely. The licence terms state that 3d seismic is required to be completed by March 2026. It has not been done. A licence with a requirement that has not been fulfilled is legally able to be cancelled. It’s amusing how that a few years ago dirty games by Morocco were used to state why information was not being released because it was so important to the country etc. Now when Morocco is in a position to legally take back the licence these theories are no longer voiced.

PRD is taking legal action ( or threatening to) in Ireland because the government has not upheld their part of the agreement, PRD is on the other side of this in Morocco in that they have not upheld their part of the agreement.

It is highly unlikely the licence will be lost but it is technically possible.

The helium is not commercial in that reservoir hence that is also not mentioned in the last presentation. The helium at Mou 3 is mentioned around 1.5bcf which is decent bonus if they can get the gas to flow.

Inthego

PRD has resources of 440bcf check the latest presentation for the most recent figure.. The 5.9tcf was linked to Mou 5 Jurassic which was a duster.

Pxen have today issued half a million convertible loan notes, but a post claiming they have completed a deal in the hundreds of millions has had zero rebuttal from the defenders of factual information. Either they are all Christmas shopping or positive misleading posts are not subject to the same scrutiny as the perceived negative ones. I am sure tuppiesdad and the rest are currently reporting the misleading post to lse.

Oldslow post is simply not true.

All three fields had gas flows. Two of the “deals” were internal upgrades of resources with no money changing hands. The pxen deal was for £4.2m so not the hundreds of millions claimed. The Horizon petroleum deal was a concession granted by the Polish government. Simple research on the links provided by Keithoz would show this.

Very misleading post.

Agree both a sideshow, the ramping of T&T is daft. Numerous companies have gone in with big plans and failed. The one thing that does annoy me though is the £2m spent on CM in T&T two years ago, plus the $170k in lease fees and still not a single penny of revenue produced. As matt points out if the figures are correct then under $11 a barrel in T&T is not making anyone rich.

The company does not respond to emails, feel free to have a go though philhat1.

Matt you are trying to reverse engineer the total revenue to match the $100k a month figure by discounting a revenue stream that in March you were arguing was substantial.

Either oil sales commenced in March and the total revenue is $200k for ten months.

Or September and October revenue averaged $100k a month, meaning zero revenue for bonasse even though it is in the half year report. Maybe the $100k a month is a mistake?

Both of those clear statements in the rns cannot be correct.

Scrawl oil revenue and oil sales figures are both up to 31/10/25. If you cannot reverse engineer the figures to get the data PRD are claiming then how can you know it’s accurate? There appears to be a 30% difference between actual figures and what PRD are claiming as monthly average, that’s a big discrepancy for me.

A realised price for oil sales and revenue for the first ten months of $8 a barrel seems a bit lower than some were expecting, maybe there is a delay in actual oil sales and receiving the revenue which might explain that. Still 25000 barrels sold for $200k is hardly anything to get excited about.

All the fields are profitable according to the rns so there must have been something from bonasse for it to make a profit plus there is revenue stated in the six monthly accounts. Not focusing on “comm issues to distract”, there are clear contradictions in the rns and you seem overly keen to focus on one number.

25000 barrels of oil sold for $200k revenue to PRD that’s $8 a barrel. 308 bpd for 30 days gives 9240 barrels a month. 9240 at $8 gives $74000 a month revenue.

So if you take off the bonasse seven months production you get a monthly revenue of $70k estimate.

If you calculate the revenue by barrels sold and revenue generated per barrel you get $74k a month

Both these seem to contradict the $100k a month claim. Any figures from the rns to confirm this or just accepting at face value?

They are either averaging $100k per month over two months or have produced revenues of $200k in ten months both cannot be correct. That is a fact. Up to you if you want to believe that matt, basing financial analysis on flawed information is a poor investment strategy.

Got there in the end Matt. The average revenue figure is incorrect, that is misleading from the company. What else is incorrect, the 30% revenue figure seems to be incorrect. The company has attempted to draw a straight line by only including the last two months "is not relevant and would actually be misleading" to quote yourself.

If bonasse has contributed $60k in that time it brings the monthly average down to $70k since the start of the CEG fields highly misleading lumping in seven months from another field to boost the average imo. If they had said the average revenue for September and October was $70k that would be accurate.

Five to ten fold increase on $70k is a material difference over the year compared to $100k and has already led to keithoz producing incorrect projections.

Matt

Oil sales from bonasse commenced in March, that is seven months ago. Are you claiming zero revenue has been received from this production since March?

You seem to have forgotten your $8.5k a month calculation for bonasse from March 24th, its' included below, that's $60k for seven months. Calculations still stack up?

"Dear oh dear.

Bold - WTI @$68, minus 12.5% royalty = $59.5.

Then apply 30% = $17.85 per barrel.

Times 16 barrels = $285.6 per day.

Now, that is pure profit. No opex. No tax as we have acquired losses. x30 days = $8.5k a month = $102k a year."

"Cumulative Predator net revenues up at US$200,810 at 31/10/25 (US$0 at 01/01/25)."

"· Net Predator revenues averaging US$100,405 per month"

Is it clear? Those two statements are claiming revenue only for September and October. Oil sales commenced in March, seven months ago and £66k of revenue was booked in the first half of 2025. It is impossible to have $200k of revenue over a seven month period and average $100k a month.