Member Info for Kasjnaton

Oldslow, I agree that data is key, maybe I am just being pessimistic with being invested in PRD since April 2020.

As I said in my post if the data is sufficiently compelling for a large bid being offered for the whole of Guercif then fair enough.

It is just that at this moment in time I do not see it happening and thus for the share holders to see the ‘big bucks’ we either retain a small percentage of the Geurcif licence or the deal is completed on MOU6 flowing.

There has been significant discussion here recently regarding a complete sale of the Guercif asset and a total exit from Morocco. This speculation stems from PG’s recent comments about seeking new assets elsewhere.

The problem with this—at least as I see it—is that it is doubtful any business would pay a premium for the asset (anything over, say, 10p per share) without a successful flow test. This leads to the challenge of "squaring the circle": how to achieve a payout that is many multiples of the current share price.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong. The information within the ITR (Independent Technical Report) might be so compelling that a premium is offered and accepted by PG regardless. However, my view is that the $25M USD is the linchpin. As an irrevocable payment, it allows for one of two primary scenarios:

Scenario One: Successful Flow

If MOU6 is successfully drilled and flows commercial quantities of gas, the buyer will be satisfied, and PRD will receive a substantial payment. A significant percentage of this would likely be returned to shareholders as a special dividend. In this case, PRD would fully exit Morocco, though they might retain some equity which—along with the $25M USD—could fund the acquisition of a new license area.

Scenario Two: Technical Issues

If MOU6 encounters issues and fails to flow commercial quantities, where does that leave PRD? With $25M USD in the bank, the company could carry out the 3D seismic (if still required by ONHYM) and still have sufficient funds to remediate MOU6 or drill additional wells. The potential buyer would likely remain interested, provided a future well eventually proves commerciality.

Considering these factors, it is likely that an agreed sale value has been placed on the Guercif license area, contingent upon a successful MOU6 flow test.

As for news, while an RNS this week would be welcome, I don't anticipate one for at least another couple of weeks. The share price reaction will certainly be "interesting" when news eventually breaks, but we may have to wait until October for the sale to be finalised

Ksmyth, in response to your post @14:39 today:

I am not suggesting or asserting anything. I am simply repeating what PRD themselves published. If you have concerns about the implications of that tweet, the appropriate question should be directed at PG and PRD, not at me.

On the RNS — you raise a fair question. The tweet used the phrase "in the New Year" suggesting funding was being secured rather than confirmed. PRD is also Jersey-incorporated and listed on the standard segment, which carries different disclosure obligations to AIM. Whether a heads of terms or engagement letter at that stage constituted a material disclosure event is a legitimate question, but it does not change the plain reading of the sentence.

On the upfront costs — the Lansdowne/Diamond McCarthy structure is precisely relevant here. Diamond McCarthy funded the entire process on a non-recourse basis, meaning Lansdowne did not need to find £250k-£500k upfront. That is the entire point of that funding model.

On the Irish court point — I'll take your word for it.

Ksmyth, a couple of points in response.

On the PRD tweet (22 December 2025) — it’s worth reading it in full. It contains two linked clauses: congratulations to Lansdowne, followed by “as we have secured litigation funding to progress our ECT claim against Ireland in the New Year.” The word “as” connects the two. PRD were not merely commenting on Lansdowne — they were referencing their own position in the same sentence.

On the funding point — you’ve shifted from saying this isn’t possible under Irish law to arguing PRD would need to fund €250,000+ upfront to even approach funders. The Lansdowne example is relevant here: their case is being pursued on a fully non-recourse basis, meaning costs are covered without upfront payment by the company. If PRD’s statement is taken at face value, they have indicated a similar route. If not, then the question becomes one of case strength and whether funding is ultimately secured — not whether such structures are possible.

On the Corrib/Irish law point — nobody is suggesting the case would be heard in an Irish court. That is the basis of an ECT claim.

I’ll leave it there. Morocco and Trinidad remain the focus.

Ksmyth, your posts this weekend prompted me to double-check a few things — and they confirmed what I already believed.

Rather than repeat what KeithOz and others have already covered comprehensively, I'll simply leave two links and let people make up their own minds on how PRD may go about financing their legal activity in Ireland:

https://www.sharesoc.org/sharesoc-news/rgl-woodford-group-litigation-claim-vs-hargreaves-could-reach-1-billion/

"The action has been widely covered in the media, but take-up remains low despite the NO-WIN-NO-FEE nature of the action."

https://www.lansdowneoilandgas.com/portfolio-item/funding-secured-for-energy-charter-treaty-arbitration-claim/

"Lansdowne Oil & Gas is pleased to announce that it has signed an Engagement Letter with Diamond McCarthy LLP to pursue its Energy Charter Treaty arbitration claim against Ireland... The EL provides for Lansdowne's expected costs associated with the claim, to be fully funded by Diamond McCarthy LLP, on a NON-RECOURSE BASIS."

Both links were easily found via simple Google searches.

For what it's worth, like most long-term holders here, I have not based my investment decision on a successful legal outcome in Ireland — even if that were to occur, it will take time to resolve. The near-term case rests on Morocco and Trinidad, and I'm looking forward to positive news from both operations in the not too distant future. That said, with European gas prices up over 70% since the Hormuz closure and Ireland uniquely exposed with no LNG infrastructure and a declining Corrib field, the political environment around domestic gas licences in Dublin may be shifting faster than many expect.

Sorry for the off topic but I thought worth posting here as people tend not to visit the BB of companies they are no longer invested in so might have missed this and I suspect that there are a number of former SOU investors who are now invested in PRD. Anyway the following is from keepingitfiction as posted on the SOU board:

Good Evening

I’m looking to ask any posters who can help with the above looking into James Parsons John Traynor Malcolm Graham Wood (Malcy) Sarah Dees and others regarding Sound Energy ( and other companies) Please email me at geoff.phillips66@btinternet.com if you have any information that can help. You can’t use your poster name and contact details will be needed, Many Thanks

I suggest not replying to this thread but posting replies to the one over on the SOU board please due to the already high level of disruption seen here.

Ibiza28, I believe that your statement of :

Plans afoot to get license agreement extended to next phase now rather than wait to November next year.

My understanding is that PG is looking to delay entering into the second extension period until November 2026, as per the latest RNS, which states that:

"· A request with agreed terms for an Amendment No.5 to extend the First Extension Period of the Guercif Petroleum Agreement from 5 March 2026 to 5 November 2026 has been submitted.

This will allow time for a programme of work to be completed to potentially support an application for an Exploitation Concession in 2026."

Now from the website (https://www.predatoroilandgas.com/operations/morocco/) you can read the following:

"The First Extension Period expires on 5 November 2026 when a decision to enter the Second Extension Period must be made."

Either the extension to November 2026 is just a formality and the website has been updated to show that likely outcome or it is an oversight.

The programme of work I suspect that PG would like to undertake during the extension is the drilling and testing of MOU-6.

Next points:

1) Unfortunately I read some of the FUD posts as was on different computer and not logged in, and someone said (not sure who) something along the lines of: PRD is high risk as there is the possibility of PRD losing the license if ONHYM do not agree to the extension.

This is total BS, at the end of the current extension period, whether it ends in March or November next year makes no difference, PG has to make a decision as to whether or not to enter the 2nd extension, this comes with a different set of activities that must be met in order to retain the license.

Yes PG can relinquish the license that though is so unlikely I have more chance of winning the EuroMillions each week for the whole of 2026.

2) Posters on here have been saying that gas has not flowed to surface this is also false as both Helium and Natural gas have flowed, the current situation is that:

We have yet to be informed of gas flowing to surface in a controlled manner and in commercial quantities following perforation and flow testing.

Aquisace, Just to add, I have taken a screenshot and reported your post.

Aquisace

I am sure that I am not the only one who finds your insulting insinuation that GRH is insane as being completely unacceptable.

As for him being wrong what exactly has GRH been wrong about?

He has long stated that there is a LOT of hydrocarbon energy at Guercif, along with high permeability and and porosity, this has been proven with evidence in the RNS's published and interviews that PG has given.

The fact that, as of yet, no commercial quantities of gas have yet flowed from any of the current wells is hardly GRH's fault.

It is not as if he is the drilling Engineer responsible for the formation damage.

So the only other thing that you can claim he is wrong on is the share price, and to that I say you are perhaps jumping the gun and I suggest that the share price will improve dramatically on first commercial gas flows.

You can of course reply but I won't be reading it as you'll be in the green bin.

Not posted in awhile, obviously disappointed by the initial lack of flow however there does appear to be the chance that the well will flow given a bit of time.

Perhaps just as important is the news that we should start to see increased revenues from T&T in September, this should alleviate the need for any more fund raising or if future fund raises are needed then they should only be minimal.

As for the 6 month timeframe for drilling MOU6 PG could very well be erring on the side of caution in saying this having rightly or wrongly been accused of missing deadlines in the past.

I have not seen a link to this this short interview posted on here before, hopefully it is of some value even though a few months old:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bkY0w8V65WM

PG has stated that the reason why the Ram’s head license was relinquished was due to the funding required, IIRC I think PG mentioned €12 million was needed to prove compliance for being granted the SA for Ram’s Head.

Without the funding there was a significant chance that the SA for Corrib South as well would not be granted.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush I think is the phrase that comes to mind.

What if PG did not do something as expected with the MOU5 drill, I.e the drill was expected, by share holders, to be at the crestal high point but due to the wording of the RNS, it was only ‘up-dip’ of MOU4.

As for subtle this is a ‘relative’ point of reference, for instance if you were to expect something to be 1 meter away but it was 1 metre and 1 cm then you might say that the difference is ‘subtle’.

Some context is also needed as it should also be remembered that GRH has also stated that his risk profile is some what extreme.

I think the actual terminology that he used was something along the lines of making people’s eyes water.

It is quite understandable therefore that he would have reduced his share holding if he perceived an increase in the risk associated with his investment.

He has mentioned the number two in a few ‘tweets’ that has been alluded to as being representative of his holding i.e. approximately 2% of shares issued.

Furthermore we do not know what percentage of shares he sold down, was it just 1% or closer to 99%?

What we do know now though is that he has increased his holding back to a quantity that is acceptable to his risk profile, probably most likely due to additional information which allayed some or all of those concerns relating to his increased perception of risk.

To my mind this whole thing is rather moot now, it’s like crying over spilt milk, and is certainly water under the bridge.

Last point; it is also strange that those spreading FUD claim that their comments on here don’t impact the share price and yet claim that a single person’s (GRH’s) in this case does and call him out as being a trader.

When I asked ChatGPT about this the following was the response I got:

In a standard onshore well (like MOU-5 in Guercif, Morocco), the typical operational headcount at the rig site during drilling would usually be around:

30–50 personnel, depending on complexity.

This includes:

Drilling rig crew (toolpushers, drillers, roughnecks, etc.)

Mud engineers and mud loggers

Directional drillers (if directional drilling involved)

Cementing crew

Geologists and wellsite geologists

Safety and HSE personnel

Supervisors from the operator (PRD in this case)

In more remote areas or larger exploration drilling projects, a few more specialists (up to about 60 people) might be there, but 100 is much higher than normal for just drilling.

Why Would 100+ People Be Present at MOU-5?

If over 100 people were present, it strongly suggests additional parties were on-site beyond normal operational staff. Likely possibilities:

Afriquia Gaz representatives:

Since Afriquia Gaz (a major Moroccan gas distributor) has shown interest in PRD's gas assets, they could very well have sent:

Engineers

Business development staff

Technical evaluators

Government officials:

Morocco's ONHYM (Office National des Hydrocarbures et des Mines) — the regulator/partner — often sends representatives to key exploration wells.

Third-party evaluators:

Possible farm-in partners, investors, or industry consultants observing.

Environmental inspectors:

Especially since hydrocarbons (like the oil spotted in the waste area) can trigger more environmental oversight.

Security:

Extra security teams might have been deployed if "strategic" interest was high.

So Gudin, if you are presented with new/updated information on particular subject, your view/opinion on that subject would not change?

Hi Dave, PG stating what he has about MOU5 is all well and good but is of no to little value.

He has misled shareholders on several occasions, whether it is the use of funds or timelines or future activity, the biggest one of which that springs to mind is that he was adamant that he would be getting the right drilling mud to go again at MOU2 which of course never happened.

Why put a well head on MOU5 to re-enter it when he has admitted as much that the real spot he wants to now drill at is several kilometres away?

I very much hope that MOU5 is commercial however I doubt that is and we shall probably find out in a single RNS in July where it is hidden in amongst some more positive news, whether this be MOU3 results or something from T&T we shall have to wait and see.

As for the various news articles that have been linked here by various posters purporting to say that there is negotiations on-going re the sale of the Geurcif licence, I suspect it is more a case of things getting lost in translation first from English to Arabic/French and then back into English again.

MEM

In one word yes.

RSDD-H helps to reduce risk, it removes the false positives out of the seismic interpretation.

I am not involved in any part of the oil and gas industry but did some research on the subject, page 11 of that linked PDF has an image which proves the point of its effectiveness to, I would have thought, even the most doubting of Thomas’s.

Wealth maker, and how did it work out for Sound? Would they have been any worse off if they had made use of RSSS-H?

I do not know what Scotforth would have charged Sound to have this tech however I am sure that any deal made between the two companies would have been mutually beneficial particularly in the success case.

Or do you think that the approach taken by Sound was in the best interests of shareholders, I would suggest that with the number of drills that were plugged and abandoned that the wrong decisions were made.

Perhaps reading the document that I have saved to Dropbox will indicate how effective RSDD-H is in reducing risk:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/do96yckywkabfcipfedsx/2017-020_20170912.1_RespondentsExhibits-7.pdf?rlkey=0ja0ymhmuto759ucyjeur6ewc&dl=0

You need extremely high pressures at room temperature for Helium to enter a liquid state.

If considering lower pressures then you need very low temperatures.

As per the RNS:

The helium chromatograph registered a 1557 ppm helium show 16 metres above the top of the Domerian carbonate. This has been correlated probably with the presence of a flat-lying fault connecting to the area of salt diapiric activity to the east of the well.

Not sure how oil or condensates would impact on the overall volume of helium and of course the percentage may vary depending on drill location, degree of variation is not yet known.

As already stated though this is a preliminary RNS.

Apparently the highest concentration of Helium discovered was 13.2% in Babbit Minnesota, the remaining gas percentage being nitrogen.

Suggest Googling and doing some research on:

Helium temperature pressure phases &

Chromatography