Member Info for Gudin

The initial posts were defending PG track record, the "attacks" or responses more accurately, were discussing this view. Mad how on a discussion forum some want to discuss a point of view. Do any of the "attacks" contain incorrect information?

Cephalo ozzies example was for oil, any particular reason you have not questioned the opening post? There have been plenty of oil and gas discoveries in the 90 years since that example by companies both small and large. Stating someone is doing rather well in comparison to something from the 1930s is daft and clutching at straws. Exxon have made 10 discoveries offshore in Guyana for billions of barrels of oil that makes them Saudi lads look like right mugs.

Out of interest if PG shareholding voting for himself keeps in the job how will shareholders feel about this?

The proxy votes for the AGM will be filtering in including PG re-election, I wonder if the defending of PG track record is a coincidence.

Come on now this is just silly. Technology has massively improved since the 1930s. People travelled to Australia by boat in 1930s, if someone said they were travelling to Australia in 2025 by boat instead of flying I do not think a single person would suggest they were doing well.

GKP discovered oil in Kurdistan with their first well with effectively a similar set up as have numerous other companies. Unless Ozzie is suggesting PG is unable to use modern technology cannot see the relevance of the example.

PG current track record in Morocco with PRD is :

Three wells with formation damage that numerous attempts to flow have been unsuccessful.

A partial drilled well seemingly abandoned.

A duster.

That is a recent track record of massive underachievement. In conclusion after 13 years and many millions spent in the Guercif basin he has failed to demonstrate a commercial discovery.

They did for Mou 1, 3 and 4 because they did not realise the extent of the formation damage which they thought was 8 inches it turned out to be 20. It's almost like new information impacts after the event.

There is a well head Donnie otherwise they would have to plug and abandon, unless you think they left it in a dangerous condition open hole?

Mou 5 was a duster. They have put a wellhead on as they think sometime in the future they may side track to the Triassic, may being the operative word. They can remove these wellhead and reuse them you know, once they have been placed on it’s not forever. How has the wellhead on Mou 2 for the past two years worked out?

The general consensus that I have seen is that the contractors running the company have failed to deliver. Maybe some believe in the asset in Morocco and think new management can turn this around. Maybe remove the yes men PG has surrounded himself with to ensure his cosy little empire is his alone to run. Take a look at the management section of the website it looks like the committee of a lawn bowling club, the youngest of the group is sixty. No local executive from Morocco or T&T represented, no experience of production in any of the bios, maybe get someone with experience in the step to production in the last decade. The absence of this experience is telling and the glacial pace reflects the lack of energy in an aged board, the bulk of which seem to there to top up their pensions rather than drive the company forward.

Anyone believing the posts about a big secret should not be investing. It is a common ploy on poor performing shares and is a tonic for those that cannot admit that things have not gone to plan. Mou 5 was a duster has been clear for months, yet some have offered theory after theory, take over ,Moroccan government hands tied etc, when it was fairly obvious they were hoping to bury it with good news from Mou 3.

The harsh reality is they drilled five wells all with issues and management have to shoulder the blame for not testing and therefore exposing all four Mou wells to formation damage when it could have been prevented, plus insisting 3d was not required and subsequently drilling Mou 5 in the wrong place. Well paid executives making decisions have to accept ownership when they do not work out.

The first instance of a big secret fluff I can recall was GKP and we all know who was a prominent poster on that share board.

A commercial discovery needs to be declared for the Mou fan to ring fence this before the farmout process can begin. Although the company has talked about farming out the Jurassic project, this is misleading it is a farmout of the whole licence containing the Jurassic project and the Mou prospect. Only commercial fields can be ring fenced and Mou 5 was a duster so cannot be ring fenced, so either Mou 3 eventually flows or more likely Mou 6 sometime next year before this can even begin. Mou 6 is not funded, neither is Snowdrop 3 whilst other options are available the most likely is the requested 500m shares will be used for this.

My proxy votes are in and I have voted against resolutions 3 to 6. None of the directors have done enough to warrant re-election and there is no trust that the money raised from issuing more shares will be accretive to shareholders based on the last two years and the three equity issues in that time.

Keithoz I have noticed that you have not commented on the results of MOU 5 after months of promoting this prospect. Perhaps you can use your industry experience to explain the poor to non-reservoirs for the carbonate and the water wet 30m lower reservoir and the implications going forward. The impact on the prospective resource figure of 5.9tcf and the general impact on other Jurassic prospects on the licence.

Yours and grh silence on this new information has been odd and seems to lack balance if you are not going to comment on setbacks.

No need for the insults, anger getting the better of you. If you do not know how an analogy works then perhaps educate yourself before calling others a fool. I never said he sold anything, but a planned 10mcf to upto 5mcf is half the size. 5 is lower than 10 we can agree on this for a starting point yes?

This board lacks balance, posters such as tmx and donnie frequently request information from anything they deem negative. Not a peep about GRH oil faux pas yesterday, keithoz declaring Mou 5 a discovery because of a new well head. In light of today's new information posters would be questioning these posts right? You have posted about the wax treatment and T&T returning millions a year in revenue, the first six wells are currently producing 10bpd and have generated gross £68k in three months. Have you adjusted your model in light of today's new information including the difficulty of reworking old wells in favour of new wells. No, you doubled down and posted the same tripe. Any positive post is rarely challenged and when posters get it wrong it is ignored.

Why are you here? Is it to help with your research, consider different views or reassure yourself with a positive echo chamber?

Is this an act? You tell me if they had a contract as it looks like you are guessing or assuming otherwise.

They had a MOU with Afriquia Gas the biggest gas company in Morocco for a 10mcf plant. This has been replaced by the second biggest gas company in Morocco for a plant up to half the size. To use your analogy they have sold a house valued at £400k for £200k, has something happened since January to reduce the value. The third attempt to flow akin to finding subsidence. Either way Afriquia Gas after being involved for 18 months have been replaced with a lower capacity plant and a smaller company, if you can spin this to a positive then you have missed your calling in politics.

To put it in simple terms they have been negotiated down.

IT IS SMALLER. You where comparing apples and pears in a pathetic attempt to point score. The CNG plant touted at 10mcf with Afriquia Gaz in January has been shelved in favour of a new one at up to half that capacity. The plant capacity was touted at 100, then 50 can you see a trend?

To flip your question on its head if there is gas why have Afriquia Gaz walked away?

That was me oldslow although I used the company estimate of $12m. It seems to me that dropping the CNG and proceeding to a smaller LNG reinforces the fact the CNG was financially unviable.

The $68k for T&T is from the Bonasse field which started production in March so more inaccurate information from yourself and swizz unfortunately.

Looks like you had your Desire Petroleum moment donnie, confusing water with oil.

Oh Rob what a spectacular public failure of "analysis", how did you get it so wrong?

Be careful who you listen to, posters such as GRH and keithoz have again incorrectly called a discovery (why fit a well head) whilst posters who have been correctly calling a duster abused. The broker report loaded on PRD website for months clearly stated Mou 5 was not a discovery and yet some were unable or more likely unwilling to acknowledge this.

There has once again been proven to be a massive gulf in posters who post what people want to hear and the reality.

Link to oil leaking out? Oil in the reservoir would have shown in the cuttings and would have to be rns as material news. The target price from the broker note is often quoted, but the same broker saying Mou 5 was not a discovery and the lower reservoir aiming for a gas play updip where there is structural closure is not afforded the same weight, I wonder why.

There is still no clear plan to drill or test the main target, Mou 6 is designed to drill above this zone. The bulk of the resource is in the main target, until a solution is found to drill the this then any sale will be based on this remaining a resource which commands a lower price than reserves in any sale. If any one actually believes they have drilled overweight and damaged the wells and spent the better part of $3m attempting to test as part of some overall plan, then you will believe any tripe. You wouldn’t sack the team responsible for this if it was planned as you are leaving the company open to legal claims. Share options have been lost by those supposedly following a master plan, plus hefty pay packages why would they take the fall if they were following instructions?

It’s been six months since the preliminary results. The lower reservoir is mentioned in the broker report from the 22nd April as targeting a structural closure for both a gas and helium play, so the oil is just ill informed opinion with nothing of substance to back up the claims.

Why was no oil reported in the cuttings?

Six months and the appointment of a new company with a focus on compliance and zero hydrocarbons reported from Mou 5. Morocco are taking some convincing that it was a discovery.

The Moroccan asset will be at their lowest potential value for the past couple of years currently, was talk by PG of $200m be lucky to get 25% of that now, due to consequential events.

Mou 5 salt layer missed gave the second major hit to drilling due to poor 2d seismic coverage, 40% of all wells drilled have encountered significant issues due to seismic shortfalls.

Three failed flow tests, small guns, large guns and sand jet.

Log results impacted by 20 inches plus of formation damage, no logs for the lower sands in Mou 3.

No clear plan on how to drill or test the main target in the Mou wells.

All these create doubt in the asset and require more work such as MOU 6 and 3d seismic to address and this will impact any potential sale price until they are addressed.

Masterfly

CEG had no debt in T&T and the liabilities the poster is referring to were tax disputes that had no effect on production revenue. The post was misleading in attempting to claim PRD would get a better return because these issues did not affect them, when in fact they had no bearing on CEG revenues either. CEG also has $10m in tax losses so again this not something unique to PRD.