Member Info for Gudin

Matt

Since the 1st July the revenue has been $112k that includes two months of the CEG fields, If the current run rate is $100k a month then how is the total $200k up to 31/10/2025? September and October should have produced $200k but the total plus bonasse is $78k lower than that.

It is impossible to have net revenue of $200k up to 31/10/25 when oil sales commenced in March and average $100k a month. It is impossible that two months of CEG revenue at 282bpd contributed to a total of $112k for four months yet claim that 305bpd is now producing $100k a month.

The revenue figures do not add up. The percentage revenue claims of 30% do not add up. It has to be asked who is checking these rns before they are released.

Oil sales commenced on 24th March 2025, net revenue of $200k at 31/10/2025

$200000 / 7 months = $28500 a month.

There was £66000 revenue for T&T in the six month report up to end of June 2024.

$112000 / 4 =$28,000.00 a month in the second half so far.

Where has the $100k a month come from?

Steeldrum get 30% of the revenue in T&T and PRD own 51% of Steeldrum, yet this rns is claiming PRD receives 30% of the revenue. Have PRD bought the remaining 49% of Steeldrum or is this incorrect.

Posters were accused of spreading fud for claiming the licence expired in March with some claiming it was November. Those posters will be admitting they were wrong and apologising to those they abused I assume (that’s you teardrop).

All three of those projects had flowing gas, a significant risk factor removed. Two of the "deals" are resource upgrades for existing licences are they not?

Marceen this is the PRD discussion board, so you joining the numpty group and posting about one poster repeatedly has nothing to do with PRD, hence the removal. It's not rocket science.

Either ignore them or report the posts if they breach the rules. We already have two brain surgeons who clog the board up with replies when it clearly makes no difference.

10p was according to you:-

" a not too subtle attempt at anchoring a possible low expectation level for a possible divestment divi."

But a deal with a read across of 13p is ok.

I'll leave it there.

Pv72

Limited to one example now?

You stressed keiths list yesterday, but a poor deal from one on that list does not fit your narrative/ agenda. It's also more recent than Chars deal, times move on, but ignore the list now one of them is crap.

Keep ramping away fella, you will reel some more poor sods in.

Suggested 10p yesterday fred and got grief, it's unbelievable this board.

Just as an aside today Eco which is on keithoz list, have agreed a deal on a licence with 4 billion of prospective resources for $2.5m upfront and $11m in carried costs for a 80% stake. Madness suggesting that PRD will get a deal 5 times that according to the experts on here.

The deal valued CHAR at a market cap of £110m, giving a comparison of 13p for PRD.

Laughable indeed, any more to highlight the massive gulf to my 10p that caused such a storm.

A post suggesting multiples of the current sp has got the board all a tizzy as it is deemed not lofty enough. Could not make it up. Demands for balance and evidence, yet not one single post has explained why this sp is not good enough. Laughable. Surely there must be numerous examples of a similar resource producing a market cap of £70m plus easily produced to justify the outrage.

Just one example will do. Anyone able to take up the challenge?

Oldslow if this is referencing my post, the company stated in an rns in December 2021 that the conventional well logs did not have sufficient resolution to identify reservoirs, hence the poor well logs. No libel there repeating what the company stated. It is something that the data posters frequently overlook, plus the old and sparse 2d seismic that has led to a slump and a thick salt layer misinterpreted. The 10p libel for a share that is 3p is utterly ridiculous.

PRD have by their own admission logs with insufficient resolution. 2d seismic instead of the more accurate 3d. Three failed flow tests. They have a plan to minimise formation damage which is yet unproven. If PG manages to get a deal from that which gets the share price over 10p then he is as good as he seems to think he is.

Hi Marceen

Just posted that expecting between 6p and 10p. The current share price is under 3p. Does this require explanation? I know it does not fit into the ramping narrative but it can hardly be described as any of the scenarios you posed.

Any reason why you have not questioned any of the £15 or 25p posters and asked for an explanation as to how they have arrived at those values? Or is it only what you see as “negative” posters that you question. You are not alone in this by the why, positive posts are never questioned by a large section on here no matter how out there they are.

The oak securities note was based on Mou 5 been a success. It was not. During the recent 2 hour presentation PG made no reference to this note or it target price. He made little mention if any of the Jurassic. Oak securities have not updated the note because they are no longer employed by the company, so it has no value for them to do so.

The website has not been updated, you have been told this repeatedly yet continue to post this false information. It can only be a deliberate attempt to mislead now.

GRH has been very quiet on the Michael Caine valuation, it's one of many things that he is currently pretending he didn't post.

Posters have been giving a valuation of 25p, that's a marketcap of £200mn, cannot see the current status of the asset reflecting anywhere near that. A deal in Morocco is likely to include some carry for wells and seismic, plus a percentage of the back dated costs that have suddenly appeared in the most recent presentation. Keithoz list of deals was based mainly on this for assets with no flowing oil and gas. The poor well logs, old 2d seismic and the failure to flow are going to reflect the real risks still present in Morroco. £15 a share is idiotic, 25p would be great but I do not see it as achievable. 6p to 10p is what I am expecting, if a deal is agreed.

Posters with a large number “in the bin” often seem to have a high average maybe there is a link there. Madman always bangs on about “trolls” with his 10p average, maybe the negative posters were onto something. Confirmation bias ahoy.

It will cost around $2m to drill a new well.

Cannot see any of the interested parties with deep pockets attempting to overcome the formation damage which might not be successful and will be costly, when for $2m they can drill new wells with better mud balance to negate the formation damage. If they attempt to use the current wellheads then it will be more likely a smaller partner with a low budget trying to develop on the cheap.

Jimmy may have a better answer but cost must be a consideration. It costs nothing to leave the well heads on, it will cost a lot to remove, plug and abandon and complete restoration work, money which PRD does not have. There is 20 inches of formation damage which three different perforation attempts have failed to overcome. They are planning a new well with a different mud weight to limit the damage. I cannot see how the current drilled wells can be used in the current state. Mou 2 has sat for two years with a well head and no plans to return so maybe the obligation does not have a pressing time limit.

Why do you think they would be of interest if all perforation attempts have failed and PRD have signalled the need to drill a new well with a design to overcome the damage?

Explain how?

The licence expires March 2026 unless the market is informed of an extension and the terms of the extension, one line underneath a table with zero explanation is not enough. I do not think and have not stated they will lose the licence so unsure how stating facts issued by the company is fud. Page 25 has one line stating an extension to November. Page 26 has the full history and future requirements of the licence explained over multiple paragraphs and the applicable clause to apply for an extension. Both cannot be right. The one with the more detailed explanation and therefore time preparing is in my mind more accurate than one line stuck under a table. If you choose to believe a one line statement with no context then you are easily convinced.

The licence will enter the second stage with Mou 5 replacing the seismic requirements as PG has suggested . Why he would propose this if it already had been extended is a mystery only living in your head.

The annual report gives March 2026 as the definite licence end date and the possibility of an extension under specific circumstances on page 26. A licence extension is only granted in certain circumstances, if OHYMN give PRD a licence extension without a reason then they are leaving themselves open to other companies failing to complete licence obligations and using PRD as a case study as to why they should get an extension. PRD have clearly laid out the terms they feel an exception is applicable and they have not proceeded under those terms so the extension has not been issued. The only time PRD have received an extension is during covid, extensions are not given without good cause.

If an extension had been agreed this is material news and has to be rns to either confirm the terms remain the same or report any changes as they did with the exploration permits, this not been done. Once again you are leaning heavily on one line underneath a table with nothing to confirm.

Your erroneous belief is based on one line with no context. No date. No confirmation of terms. The applicable condition for the extension has not been met, so under what applicable condition has an eight month extension been issued?

The licence expires on March 2026, the terms are clearly explained over multiple paragraphs in the annual report and the circumstances for a possible extension are also clearly explained. One line with zero context is worthless and why would they explain the conditions for an extension if it was already approved? When was this extension agreed? Was any changes made to the work commitments? Any additional financial impact?

A one line note on a table is doing a lot of heavy lifting here without any confirmation that it actually occurred.

Ibiza Mou 5 was a duster and no one is lining up to buy, why would they there is literally nothing to buy. The divestment is focussed on the Mou fan and the potential of the Triassic as made clear in the recent presentation. Maybe a rewatch is needed. If you are basing your valuation on oak securities notes you are going to be disappointed. 75% of 400bcf resources are never going to generate anywhere near that valuation, especially after numerous failed flow attempts and the outdated seismic this is based on.