Member Info for investor33

From the LSE Trustpilot, dated 01/07/20. That's nearly 5 years ago now of course, and was written during covid, when MATD staff had to take pay cuts, the borders were all shut and they had neither the local access consent nor the 25 year special purpose licence granted ;

"Expensive platform, members are clueless folks passing misinformation to novices and insulting anyone who disagree...great examples are the matd chat with clowns like ojay and friends who will insult you actively if you disagree with their fantasy views of a 3 pence per share failed oil company about to go bust at any moment..."

Unnd ; " ADW just another thought. If PC or a proxy tried to buy the shares of MATD in the open market then the market cap would be a lot higher than it is now."

Conversely, if an entity through a proxy bought a lot of shares on say a raise, then they could strategically dump them in order to keep the share price supressed, and hence the mcap.

As manipulation of the mcap may not be out of the question, then presumably there's no way that MATD will allow this factor to be one used in a calculation of the value of Block 20.

That's all fair enough Unnd. It's good to debate points - so thanks for your input.

Based on your reply to Adw, he's trying to assert that the value of the oil is related to the current mcap. Well done for pointing out that this is nonsense. Besides, over the last 10 years the mcap at any snapshot moment throughout a given year has varied wildly, as has the price of oil over the last 5 years. In 2023 for example, the mcap suddenly went from around 30m to 90m in about 6 weeks following a 2.5p raise in February or March of that year. There was no legal access consent, or 25 year special purpose licence granted at the time, which meant that MATD had no legal right to start work on Block 20.

Going back to Soco, I expect that many of their 27 wells were useless to PC, given that Soco were only extracting about 350 bopd when Block 19 was sold. They had no 3D seismic data to go on, so it's not that surprising that so many were dusters.

"It would have been reasonable at some point when the deal was being worked out in 2004 or 2005 to have taken the 5 year average of the price of oil to have been about $50 "

In today's values I should have said.

It would have been reasonable at some point when the deal was being worked out in 2004 or 2005 to have taken the 5 year average of the price of oil to have been about $50. At times during that period it had dipped as low as $20....

Anyway, quite a bit less than the average of the last 5 years even at adjusted prices.....

Unnd ; if you take the previous full calendar year prior to the year that the deal was done ie 2004, then $41 in 2004 would be the equivalent of $53 today. In 2000 the average price of oil was $30, which would be $49 today. In 2003 it was also an average of $30 per barrel - so also $49.

Presumably in their calculations they would have taken an average going back a number of years given the volatility in the price of oil?

Unnd; You are quoting monetary amounts which relate to 2005 - not 2025. You need to convert to today's values, as 20 years is a long time in monetary terms. After a bit of browsing, it seems that $93m in 2005 would be the equivalent of about $145m to $150m today. I mean, you wouldn't compare the monetary value of assets as they were priced in 1975 vs those priced in 1995 would you ?

And the other factor you have neglected to mention when making a comparison is that in 2005 the price of oil was $56. In 2004 it had been $41.

A raise doesn't have to be on the open market anyway, as some of the bashers always seem to assume. Simply increase Petrovis' shareholding at the current market price. With the current share price being relatively low, it would bring Petrovis' average down anyway. Their current average must be higher than around the 1.5p mark. It would be a no-brainer for them very likely.

Not that I think that any kind of raise will be necessary - however if it turns out that there is no other option then this would be the way to go.

"Those talking about a massive raise or the need for another well may be missing the fact of the same geology / basin as Petro China blocks 19 & 21 hence hence no real need for additional wells to prove anything. "

That was an excellent comment by RealPro. Plus the northern portion of Block 20 already has 3D seismic data which was previously commissioned by PC as part of their survey of Block 19.

Proquo ; can you give the link to the article please ? Thanks.

Wigster ; thanks very much for requoting those comments about that other sale to the Chinese - I hadn't heard about it.

And I should have added that Block 19 has been a big success for PC, despite the prospects for this block at the time being far more uncertain than our Block 20s would be today.

Thorno ; re a sale, the basis of comparison is the 2005 Soco sale of Block 19 which is the next one up to the north of Block 20.

- It was sold to PC for about $120m in today's money.

- It had no 3D seismic data sold with it, and Soco had only extracted 350 bopd from some 27 wells. So actually seemingly quite a big risk for PC.

- The price of oil back in 2005 was about $45.

- Block 20 ( our block ) has 3D seismic data for some of its northern portion, which PC had done for Block 19 when they bought it. Their survey extended into Block 20.

- H1 and 2, Gobi and Gazelle are all located in that area which the 3D seismic data covers.

Dazzer ; people were probably complaining like mad when the share price was 1.7p in November 2022 as well. Then lo and behold in May 2023 it was briefly 7p....

The fact is that with this share to date it's all been about the timing of entry, and the exit as well if you wanted to exit during the times since 2017 when the share price hit around 5p or better at some point during the year. Every year there's been a 100% to 450% difference between the high and the low of the year. In 2017 it was the difference between 2.5p and 38p...which was a 1,500% uplift.

Like I said - it's not just reputational damage being incurred by MATD, it's their parent company, Petrovis as well.

I bet he had no idea that MATD is a subsidiary of the Petrovis Group.

Exactly Proquo - I don't know what profession this Aquisace is in, but it's clearly not the legal profession.

Aquisace providing more and more material. When you are in a hole maybe stop digging.....?

So blatant defamation can now be excused through it being " freedom of speech ?" I don't think so some how.

I suggest that " Aquisace " reads this article below ;

https://rfblegal.co.uk/insights/how-to-handle-defamatory-content-on-the-internet-or-social-media/

BP ; I bet you had no idea that online anonymity wont protect someone from defamatory comments made online.

It's one thing for people with anonymous IDs to throw insults at each other, but another thing to name a company and and the CEO of that company and then make defamatory comments about both of them. LSE can be forced through a court order to reveal the email, IP address etc of the defamer. Don't forget too that MATD is a subsidiary of the Petrovis Group - so he's defaming their name and reputation as well.

Just to say that I'm going to be writing to the company reporting comments made recently by the individual " Aquisace."

Here's an example of what he wrote yesterday ; " Moral of the story, don’t invest in a 2 bit stock like MATD run by an inept doddering old duffer, propped up by his illiterate cheerleading scam artist WOS and followed by the Zombie crew! "

He's also made some serious allegations about the company - likening it to COPL etc. Obviously his comments about MB too are highly defamatory, as well as abusive and offensive.

What this individual probably doesn't know is the following ;

" A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) requires an individual or organisation involved in wrongdoing, whether intentionally or innocently but who is unlikely to be a party to the proceedings to disclose certain documents or information to the applicant.

If you have been subject to defamation online, you can apply to the court for a Norwich Pharamacal Order to identify a wrongdoer, obtain the source of information contained in a publication, trace assets and identify the full nature of the wrongdoing to enable you to plead your case. For example you can apply for an order for a website or social media platform to disclose details of a user account publishing defamatory statements about you or your organisation"