Member Info for Jimmy23

Louis10.

Thank you for confirming that oilmanjim and I are on different wavelengths.

It appears that our investment time horizon are different.

It’s seems to me that oilmanjim recommends investment after a placing and before well results, whereas my timeframe is to get to positive cashflow and get the low risk basin drilled from cashflow.

Jimmy

Louis,

Thank you for posting the link to oilman Jim newsletter .

You asked for comments regarding his newsletter.

Firstly, it does not take a genius to recognise that a non revenue generating company will need more money to drill appraisal wells.

From a long term investor perspective what is required is the identification of a pathway to cashflow generation and value creation and the equity dilution to achieve that.

Key to establishing that pathway is an analysis of the well results announced to date and their implications for commercial production. The reported reservoirs with elevated gas readings in a horizon which is shallower than the same proven gas horizon in mou 1 is a substantial de risking of the area and the project and yet oilman Jim appears to be silent on such an important result.

With regard to the Fca not approving the placing document, and hence the placing failing, I see that as somewhat far fetched, as the issues can usually be resolved by fine tuning the wording and additional disclosures.

I expect the delay in issuing the prospectus is that predator have a new expert to get up to speed on the data and without flow test data experts will be cautious .

Jimmy

Nigel.

I can’t make sense of your last message.

J

IJT,

Until the reservoirs flow, there is risk because sidewall cores and gas samples have not been collected, as far as we know. So a flow test is required to prove gas flow, permeability and the depth at which gas is proven down to , and hopefully to establish if there is reservoir pressure communication between mou 1 and mou 3.

So clearly it’s not 100% till it happens.

However, what we do know is that the basin is similar to the adjoining rharb basin where seismic bright spots and amplitude anomalies prospects have had a success rate of over 80%.

In addition, we know that the depths at which reservoirs with elevated gas readings in mou 3 were shallower than the audited equivalent gas at mou 1 , so above a gas water contact.

That makes the presence of gas highly likely. And 42 meters of gas in mou 3 is calculated to flow at over 46 mmcf per day, more than the volumes needed for 34 mmcf per day for cng.

And that’s just one reservoir in mou 3 , a total of 151 meters to be flow tested.

Yes, investors will need to wait for the profit taking from the latest placing to churn through and then the flow test results will justify a re rating.

Not 100% , but pretty dam good odds.

Jimmy

GRH,

Thank you for your comments regarding the placing and book build process.

The factors that make the placing feel uncomfortable are.

1. Loyal shareholders not given the opportunity to subscribe at aheavy discount when insiders who particaipate in the placing got the opportunity.

2. It’s my strong view the share price was engineered down to fill the book, not very pleasant.

3. Funds raised previously to flow test wells which has not happened, and many shareholders do not understand why even some flow test results could have been performed and released before the fundraiser to avoid a near 50% drop from the recent high.

I believe in the asset and think it will come good, and in particular I like the strategy to get cng production cashflow so that we do not have regular share price dilution.

So what can be done about it at this stage.

1. Announce the nuetech log analysis results, even if preliminary and selected.

2. Paul and lonny to buy shares in the open market, same as ordinary shareholders.

3. Announce the mou 4 log results for reservoirs below the 2 meters of 19.9 % porosity carbonates , as these are likely to be gas bearing up dip.

4. Announce a time frame and cost to appraise mou 4 updip from proven gas.

All of these factors will help to reset the alignment of directors and shareholders interests.

Jimmy

Hi GRH,

Reassuring you recently added to your prd investment .

Hope directors add to theirs in the market and not the placing , as well to re assure the market that the recent placing was not a bait and switch tactic before cpr data is released.

Jimmy

MEM.

What I find frustrating is that mou 4 encountered 2 meters of carbonate high porosity reservoir of 19.9 % .with elevated gas readings.

The pre drill target was for over 200 meters of carbonate reservoir.

So we don’t know if circa 200 meters of reservoir was encountered but that only 2 meters was gas bearing, in which case if the remaining carbonates of 198 meters had high porosity then the upside volumes up dip would indeed be low risk and huge potential.

But there was limited news regarding the carbonates, which could have really helped get a better placing price.

Hopefully all included in the new cpr, does anybody know who is doing such cpr since previous expert is unavailable.

Jimmy

Dealbreaker.

In project financing of this kind, you would usually have a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the contract which requires certain factors to be completed before drawdown, such as the GSA and the production licence to issue.

I suspect that the farm in partners will be a party to the gsa and hence the farm out is required before the Gsa and then the Fid.

Jimmy

I am still shocked at how poorly that placing was handled, with the share price engineered to fall.

There have been a series of fundraising to perform flow testing, and funds were raised without such testing occurring, and we have not had the nuetech or predator well log analysis, which is poor . There needs to be a very good explanation for this.

I can understand the delay in updating a cpr, but the log results , even the initial results are known to some .

To restore confidence, it’s important that the directors publicly buy shares in the market place, in addition to those share they lent . This can be done after the prospectus is issued as all price sensitive information will have been disclosed therein.

Jimmy

GRH,

A 40% drop in the share price and an oversubscribed placing and certain posters here clearly were aware of an imminent placing . Seems to me there is a good case to report our broker to the Financial Services Authority and the stock exchange for a full investigation.

Jimmy

Page 5 of the presentation reports a large prospect updip from the LNB 1 well.

That well encountered 300 meters of reservoir with elevated gas readings.

The average flow rate in the onshore rhab basin is 1.1 mmcf per meter.

Very exciting.

Jimmy

Louis,

We all knew there was a fundraising coming, which is important for the short term investors who wish to make a quick turn.

The long term investors are looking for strong sustainable flow rates that will support cng development asap so that we do not have to endure these regular placings.

Looking forward to nuetech validating the logged intervals for testing.

Jimmy

Jonny.

There were almost as buy as sells to day and yet the price dropped 9.38% , so in my view that was engineered down. Similar story some time back in chariot, and does not do the uk market reputation any good.

Anyhow, most knew there would be another funding and great to see it will be extended well testing which hopefully will prove reservoir communication between mou 1 and mou 3 and high end p10 reserves.plus the carbonates .

Jimmy

The price certainly looked like it was engineered down to facilitate the placing in my opinion .

The price is a real disappointment for long term shareholders.

£7 million seems excessive for extended well testing plus mou 4 residual well costs.

Good to see there will be extended well tests, but pity they have not announced the nuetech log analysis results before the placing announcement, I hope this is not a case of bait and switch. Will know more to morrow or when the prospectus is issued.

I will be surprised if the placing is at more than 11 p.as the price looks like it was engineered to achieve a completed book build.

Jimmy

Louis,

Have you or oilman Jim, calculated the revised contingent resources based on the rns information released to date, assuming that reservoirs updip from proven audited gas , are indeed gas bearing?

Is that relevant to the share price in your opinion?

Jimmy

Louis,

Of course flow testing is important and valuations will re rate when this happens.

However, to dismiss the current valuation because one well has audited contingent resources which has been validated by two wells completed up dip from audited gas , and there is likely to be be an equity fundraising to further appraise updip from a logged carbonate discovery in a truly giant prospect, is extraordinary fear mongering.

Hold tight do not be frightened to panic sell as some are focused on.

Jimmy

Louis,

Thank you for confirming that your opinion testing is high risk comes from an unnamed source on the internet without any scientific or reasoned analysis.

Jimmy

Hi louis,

Interesting that you consider testing to be a gamble, I could understand such a view if the reservoirs sands were all very thin, and hence there was a high risk that there was limited lateral continuity as happens in fluvial sand reservoirs. However, the reservoirs found to date have been reported as turbidite sands and have been identified as laterally continuous on the seismic. In addition mou 3 had 43 meters of a reservoir in the mou fan sands up dip from the audited gas reservoirs in the mou fan in mou 1, in line with the p10 contingent resource estimate.

Can you please explain why this is high risk testing.

Thanks

Jimmy

Nigel a nd Matt.

The question of when to do 3D is relevant. If this was offshore you would do 3 d seismic before drilling mou 2.

We are dealing with both thick and thin sands in both structural and stratigraphic traps, so 3D seismic will be needed at some time,particularly to identify the high fracture zones in the carbonates. But first drill the top of the carbonate structure to confirm gas up dip and high porosity. As the location is updip in a carbonate reservoirs that’s reported 19.9 % porosity at the bottom of the structure, the issue will be how much of the 200meters of carbonate updip has high porosity, if so then multi tcf .

Jimmy

I got the impression, GRH goes quiet before news.

J