Member Info for Kasjnaton

So PI's have been approaching various companies on behalf of PRD?
Are we privy to everything that is going on behind the scenes?
Or if you mean providing PI's with information, then my thoughts, as per my earlier post is that I don't think that FS are employed on that basis but on doing the donkey work of promoting PRD to other businesses that may benefit from what PRD are doing and have acheived.

To those that are criticising Flagstaff, I would like to ask them how did PRD get so much interest before the release of the RNS, yes most of the interested companies are T & T based so will know of what is going on, two of them are not though.
These companies may have research teams looking at businesses and licence areas of interest to them to try to find where deals can be done but they are only human, make mistakes and overlook possible investment or business opportunities.
I am sure that Paul and the other members of the board are busy with operations and negotiations with companies that come forward to say that they are interested in working with PRD.
I do not see Paul and the others even having the time to contact dozens of companies to promote PRD, this is, I believe, where Flagstaff come in to play.

Couple of articles not seen posted on here yet, although they are from last week they may be of interest to someone;
www.**********.co.uk/articles/predator-oil-gas-returns-very-encouraging-results-from-pilot-co2-eor-project-e7abf02/
www.bnamericas.com/en/news/trinidad-hydrocarbons-watch-refinery-deal-new-license-dry-hole-eor-project

Thanks PS200306 for your reply
The research that I have carried out states that there is a 15% false negative, i.e. this technology will not always detect where hydrocarbons are but where it does state that hydrocarbons are present then hydrocarbons will be found. Due, I assume, to a lower signal/noise ratio where indicators are less strong.
It doesn’t really matter of course as with that sort of success rate it could still be a game changer for Sound shareholders

I have only said that I think this technology can help reduce risk of drilling more dusters.

GRH never said that the technology is 100%, he only stated that they have been 100% accurate with identifying the outcomes of 3 drills for Sound, Badile, TE-9 and TE-10.

I don't believe he has expressed an opinion to Sound on TE8 but from his posts he did tell Sound in advance about all the other drills, not afterwards as you claim, he also states that everything is auditable, he must therefore have evidence to back this claim, therefore making this more than merely anecdotal.

You mention 'your' several times in your post, this is not my technology, I am not associated with Scotforth, I just want to see a decent return on my investment and as quickly as possible. I feel the only way that this can be achieved is through the discovery of a substantial amount of commercial hydrocarbons.

We have had some wild cat drills, they all failed. Every single one of them. Badile = fail,TE8 = fail, TE9 = Fail, TE10= fail

A truly awful track record, staggering when you consider all the hype, it has cost me a large amount of money.

I am still young enough to try to rebuild my capital but from the boards it is very obvious there are many here who are much older than me and they do not have enough time or residual capital left to hang around here for many years

The market cap is £15m, as Trellis has said, £40m to £50m will be needed in order to get to the point of LNG production, there is, whatever way you look at it, going to be some form of dilution in order to get there.

At which point any value left in the TE-5 horst or elsewhere will be reduced down significantly, not only that but some form of drilling will have to happen at some point in the future anyway.

The question is, do we dilute down now, massively in order to get to LNG in a couple of years, and have no, to very little return on investment, or do we go for a drill first, which would incur far less dilution, and provide far greater upside?

Of course I do not have a crystal ball and Graham may be able to get the funding required without massive dilution but if that were the case why did they put forward the proposal for issuing as much equity as required at the last AGM, if that funding is not needed?

If we do go for a drill elsewhere on the licence area how on earth do you propose we select the right location of the next drill?

Purely on Seismic which has been wrong 4 times out of 4

or do we change tack

Thank you ps200306 for replying to my message in a more reasoned manner than what some other posters have done.
However I must reiterate that I am not selling anything, just trying to get to the truth.

I should perhaps apolgise to the people on this board as maybe I am a step or two ahead of most on here and I picked up on information which a number of people did not understand which resulted in their negativity.

I have always maintained that I think that RSDD-H could be used to help reduce the risk, please note not totally eliminate all risk, of drilling yet another duster.

I am sure that no one wants another duster drilled!

In the past I have worked with Fourier Transform infra-red spectroscopy, and although a different area to hyperspectral imaging it has given me a bit of a background as to what can be acheived, and this is also the reason for it having piqued my interest.

I do not wish to get too technical for fear of perhaps not being understood and once again alienating people, so I will try and keep it as simple as possible.

The work I had carried out involved the analysis of specially prepared gas or liquid samples that were placed between an infra red source and the infra red detector.
The produced output depended upon the chemical constituents within the sample.
Basically the energy that bonds between atoms absorb is unique to each bond type, such that each molecule has its own 'fingerprint'.
It is therefore possible, by the use of infra red spectrometry to carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine what molecules are present within a sample.
As for hyperspectral imagery, the sensors on the satellites cover a vast range of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Wikipedia is a good start for both subjects;
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy
Fourier-transform spectroscopy
Hyperspectral imaging
So, if RSDD-H was 100% accurate as was claimed and if both the timeframe and content of information given to Sound by GRH was as per the post on the PRD board, and copied by me to here, is true, then surely questions must be asked of why this information was ignored by the previous BoD.

The shares were 100p and now just over 1p so I think shareholders should have access to the communications that occured between the two parties, so that at the very least we can get to the truth?

Part 2
So we know his name and address .I don’t see anyone else here revealing this information. I have posted my posted my name before as has Trellis

Lastly, for everyones benefit a few more links;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIRhkDqRNRM&t=1216s
It would be a brave man to either stand up and talk about a technology in front of well informed people if that technology were of no vlaue, or hire a hall somewhere and fit it out with branding in order to try and promote a technology and then claim that you were present when you were not.
The reputational cost of the first is off the scale and the legal consequences of misrepresentation plus potentially other charges does not even make such a thing worth cnosidering.

An abstract of a presentation that was given at the AAPG SEG in 2015, sponsors include; Chevron, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2015/90217ice/abstracts/2211376.html

As for trying to get me banned from here, please do contact LSE and ask them to look into my account and which IP address I am using.

But instead of opening up a subject for discussion, this post will probably either be ignored or will return ill informed comments.

Part 1
I am really sorry for making you the subject of some crazed allegations on here
My intentions were and remain decent and honorable, however I hadn’t allowed for the fact that some on here seem hell bent on trying to destroy value rather than build it. It is very sad to see when so much money has been lost, including mine

I am very sure that almost nobody here has read any of the research I posted links to .There was a lot of it, if they had read it then they do not understand the enormity of what the technology can potentially acheive.

Having followed GRH's posts since he first registered on here, it was clear to me that he registered on the BB to correct some technical errors posted by a few posters, since then I have never found a single post of his that looks anything like ‘marketing’ , again if you can find one I would be amazed
I had noticed he recently posted on PRD where he seems to own shares and he had actually published a frankly amazing Sound Q&A on 19th May, it showed 100% accuracy of the tech in prediciting drill results before any RNS related to those drills was released.
Mull that over in your minds .how much money could have been saved /made?
There have been several totally uninformed statements on here that the tech has no value and that the 'majors or super majors' are not interested in this type of technology.
Remember that GRH had not posted any links to the technology, where it has been used, how it is used etc.
It was me that posted all those links, every last one of them
I did that after carrying out my own research on the use of hyperspectral imaging
The reason for posting those links? For one reason only, to have an informed discussion on here.To discuss the technology, it's pro's and con's etc, and if I had made a mistake in the assesment of RSDD-H, for someone to show me where I had made that mistake.
i.e. for them to prove that it is of no use, ultimately no one has yet proved to me that I was wrong!!! The only evidence that I have seen is that it works.
Nobody has shown any information to the contrary in any form, it must therefore only be their uninformed opinions which they post.
Ultimately though all these points do is to side track the point of me posting the links in the first place; to have a discussion about a technology that may help the business that I invested in, and now having to deal with, to me, significant losses!!
But to all the naysayers; never mind, try and refinance at least £50+ million to get the micro LNG project up and running and then a few more years later to clear the debt (can they???)and then a few more years to have sufficient funds to go for another wildcat drill.
Just how much will one drill cost? a lot less than the £50M+ needed above.
GRH was even accused of lying about where he lived, well his address was posted on here for all to see, and I would say that he must be successful to own an approx £4M property (Zoopla ).

Forgot to add that not only shall I shut up on this subject but I will also pay up the agreed sum of money to the chosen charity and offer a full and unreserved apology to everyone on this BB.

I know that the only way some people will get their original investment back is by Sound Energy drilling in a location where substantial commerical hydrocarbons are to be found.
Once again I ask the question, how is that to be done? Additional pure wildcat drill(s) with the data that we currently have or bring on board Scotforth to reduce risk help identify where to drill?
Last point I shall repeat if there is evidence that hyperspectral imagery, the Scotforth tech is ineffective in finding commercial hydrocarbons please let me know and I shall shut up on this subject.

Tableleg, I did not ask that you or anyone else put any money up if your negativitiy about the tech is wrong.

All I asked for is for anyone who thinks that the Scotforth tech is a worthless is to provide me with the evidence as to why, because I want to know more, I am curious, I wish to learn and understand.

That is why I did my research in the first instance, which has so far lead me to believe that the tech is genuine, in that it helps to reduce risk when searching for commercial hydrocarbons, thus the reason for me providing those links.

I can of course afford more than a mere £100 to any charity but thought it a good starting point.

I shall tell you what tableleg, £200 is a cheap price to pay for a lesson, find that evidence that states that it is not possible to identify abundant commercial hydrocarbons using hyperspectral imaging and I shall pay that to a charity of your choice.

If £200 is insufficient then let me know how much you would want in order to even consider to start looking for such evidence we can then start a discussion.

As for your point, it may or may not work, why did GRH bother posting the information that he had?
Why does he claim to be 100% accurate with the analysis of where Sound would drill , whether Badile or Tendrara, why did Sound not make use of this technology? GRH claims to have been in contact with Sound, surely questions need to be asked of all relevant parties, BM, JP and GRH, in order to get to the bottom of what happened, what did Sound actually think of the Scotforth Tech, why did they not utilise it etc.

A number of posters on here seem to think that only they matter, i.e. they are only a few k down and would break even when the micro LNG project comes online.

Some people are really naive, throwing good money after bad as the saying goes, in bringing their average down in order to try and break even, I just think this is too risky at this moment in time (as I already have said).

There are some people here who are severly underwater, no doubt suffering depression, ill health and worse because of what has happened.

I am neither in a position to give false hope as I am just an underwater PI like many others, nor am I able to solve their problems.

All I want is for the truth to come out, and there are people posting their opinions without backing those opinions up.

Yes I may be wrong about the refinancing negotiations, I may be wrong about the amount of gas in Tendrara, I may be wrong about the Scotforth Tech. but I am not misleading by quoting mooncheeses £62 per share, or even SG47's £2.50 per share at least, or even Crudettehopelessness' I have paid off my mortgage so I am OK therefore everythnig else is going to work out fine.

Trellis, I wish you all the best for you and 'K'.
If what you state is true then I hope that you treat her with the respect and decency that she deserves.

OK, so you guys are saying that it is boo looks, that it brings no value to the table and that Super Majors are not interested in it.

Well have a look at page 11 in the PDF at the link below;
https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/bbooks/2017/08_Aug/Docket/2017-020_274-02_Hewitt/2017-020_20170912.1_RespondentsExhibits.pdf

That should counter the "adds no value to the table" and also the "boo looks" statement.
I have of course posted the above link previously but not a single person has commented up on it, go figure I wonder why that is? Maybe people just prefer to ignore the facts as presented to them.

As for Super majors, have a look at the following link;
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431160310001642287?scroll=top&needAccess=true

It is, admittedly, only an abstract but the scientificallly peer reveiwed document has the following acknowledgement;
The authors thank the Environmental Baseline and GIS & Remote Sensing teams of ChevronTexaco in Richmond and San Ramon, California, for discussions that led to this study on the use of the 1.73?µm hydrocarbon feature to derive a Hydrocarbon Index. We further thank F. Lehmann, F. Oschütz and T. Bucher (German Aerospace Centre, DLR, Berlin-Adlershof) for discussions and advice on calibration and correction of HyMap data. R.C. Newcomb is thanked for improvement of the English text.

So Chevron/Texaco are aware of this technology, not super major enough for you?...

But of course it is all boo looks, isn't it?
If any nay sayer can provide something (anything?) outside of their closed minded opinions on this subject and provide scientifically validated papers backing up their opinions that detection of hydrocarbons using hyperspectral imagery is not possible, then please provide that documentation, or at least a link to it so that I am able to read why it is not possible.

A proper discussion can then take place, and if for all this time I have been in the wrong then I would offer a full and unreserved apology to everyone, not only that but also I would give £100 to the charity of choice to that person who finds such documentation.

I would be prepared to donate more but funds are limited after my poor decision to invest in Sound...

Soundaspenny, you obviously do not read full posts, if you had you will have seen that I do not know GRH.
You also seem to have taken my words out of context.
The current Sound BoD have stated that they are looking at other financing options, i.e. they are looking to clear the debt the bond holder has over Sound.
Now it could be that the Bond holder is quite happy to refinance but the likliehood is that if this is the case then the terms to extend the loan will be to their advantage, they hold all the aces.
Why would they not put various penalty clauses etc. in to a new set of terms and conditions?
If everything was so very friendly, if the bond holders considers the average PI their best mates then surely they would bend over backwards to help us, I do not see that being the case though.
Thus my thoughts and only my thoughts that as stated by the BoD refinancing through other means is a high priority.
But as I have already said I do not know, I am not part of any negotiations, I am in the dark as much as any other average PI.
You may have a totally different slant on the negotations and think that everything is going to turn out rosey, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Again, if I know of or had known of GRH with what he has posted on the 19th May on the PRD board at 13:35, which I have copied below, do you really think that I would have invested in Sound, or if I had lost so much money?
Kas and Zebra

Thanks

CAVEAT:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% CERTAINTY
WHEN EXPLORING FOR COMMERCIAL HYDROCARBONS

To try to answer your points/correct a few things:

The technology I am discussing below is proprietary and unique

It is NOT correct to say that the error factor at approx 15% is caused by impervious seals
there is no such thing...
not even granite is impervious...certainly not salt seals

Example:
Tengiz was evaluated very accurately
but from memory it lies beneath over 2km salt seal...
that is approx twice the thickness of Tendrara

The 15% factor is almost exclusively comprised of ‘FALSE NEGATIVES’...
ie the inability of the algorithms to ID some active hydrocarbons...
that can be caused by several factors that are too complex for this BB...

but the solution is simple ...
IE if the tech cannot positively ID hydrocarbon energy...do not chance a drill there

However...
it is important to note that, where the tech DOES identify high levels of hydrocarbon energy,it is almost 100% accurate
IE if we say ‘drill there’ ...you might wish to drill there

if you want to, you can further evaluate the locations in advance by throwing limited lines of 3D seismic...
to confirm structural scope/integrity...
but then drill

I am concerned about publishing much detail about Sound issues.
The new team there has a major challenge on its hands and I wish them well

On the other hand, I am also concerned not to allow a false impression to exist as to the tech’s efficacy
It is a tricky balance ...
so just absolute minimum Q&A...

Q...did you ID in advance Sound’s non commercial drilling locations as unsuitable?
A...yes

Q...did you inform Sound accordingly in advance in writing ?
A...yes. including in meetings

Q...do you believe the Sound licenced areas contain significant hydrocarbons beyond the 5 horst?'
A...yes

Q...do you believe you have identified WHERE exactly?'
A...yes

Q...did you advise Sound accordingly in writing?
A...yes ...but without providing co-ordinates of course

The shareholders in Sound suffered massive losses
IMO it was 100% avoidable

ATB
GRH1+

Daveyboy71, I invested in this company because of the asset that they own in Morocco, because of the large quantity of gas in the licence area.

Why do I want to quickly find a substantial commercial discovery? Are you joking with asking this question, or are you serious? I'll make the crazy assumption that you are actually serious.

Well the first and biggest reason is that I would actually like to see a return on the money Iinvested, the only way that is going to happen is with a substantial commercail discaovery.

We are now in May, almost June.

Say for arguments sake we are to get financing, negotiations are still ongoing, how long will it take to complete?

Then the drill location needs to be decided upon.
Then get permits in place for that drill
Then actually drill
Then if gas is encountered tests need to be run to prove commerciality of the location.
Along with an independant assesment of the area.

These steps are not done overnight, to get this all completed within one year from now would be good going.

Again I am being associated with GRH, I do not know him, all I have done is researched the technology that is used by the company that he works for and come to the conclusion that it can be used to reduce risk and help identify the location of commercial hydrocarbons.

If I did know him, do you really think that I would have invested in this company and end up losing several £10's of thousands?

As has been mentioned on many occasions Sound is in a precarious financial position, and it appears from what the Sound BoD have said that the bond holder appears to be unwilling to restructure the debt that Sound owes them.

Of course this maybe totally in error and the bond may well be up for renegotiation perhaps though any new terms are too onerous. I obviously do not know as I have not been party to any negotiations, it is just the impression that i get from the current Sound BoD.

CIP therefore see it in their interest to have their money paid back to them BY the time it is due, no matter the consequences to Sound Energy and the associated share holders.

If GL is able to obtain financing to pay off the bond then CIP also win, provided Sound discover significant commercial hydrocarbons, due to their holding of 18+ million shares.

As for the selling of shares, maybe the question that should be asked is for a complete history of all shares that Marco and backers/asociates owned, when they were bought and when if any they were sold, the most interesting point in time of course would be when the shares were at 80p+, at the end of 2016 early 2017.

As for GRH, if you had noticed he has posted both on here and now posts on the Predator Oil and Gas board. Of more interest to Sound share holders though is his post on the 18th May 2020 at 13:41, which is as follows;
Thanks all...
really nice of you

Wack

I am going to phrase this carefully
and merely tell you 0.01% so you can gain an appreciation

Here goes:
please start by studying my GKP post of 20 DEC 2011... to understand where I am coming from
and compare my prognoses on every well with the actual outcomes achieved AFTER my posting date

Then suppose...just suppose....
the following :

that Sound was told …
in very many emails and meetings...ALL in advance...
that they were drilling in INCORRECT locations

Suppose that did not just extend to Morocco …

but re Badile too
and that they needed to deviate the drill there in order to achieve a decent result

suppose also that they received email copies of technical images showing what are considered to be extremely attractive prospects exhibiting high levels of hydrocarbon ENERGY within Sound's Moroccan licenced area...
BEYOND the TE5 Horst area!

Clearly, the financial results for the poor shareholders in Sound
could have been 'rather' better than they have been to date to put it mildly

ATB

Soundasapenny, Sound Energy may not have any choice but to let the whole lot go for £20M plus change, the change to be distributed to Sound share holders.
A liquidity event of the decade or perhaps even the century.
You still do not fully realise how precarious the financial position of this company is...
As I said, IF SM is worth enough to clear the debt why not just sell that to raise the funds to pay the debt off?
The reason I suspect that this is not an option is because it is worth very little, therefore Tendrara then comes into the equation with regards to how much that is worth.

Lets just hope that GL can pull off a major piece of financing then but even if he does, how are share holders going to get see any return on their investment? The only way is for another commercial discovery to be made within the the Tendrara licence area outside of the TE-5 horst area.

So what strategy do you suggest that Sound should employ in order to make a commercial gas discovery?
And if you state they ought to continue with previous methodoly of what is effectviely wild cat drilling, then I might just as well bang my head against the nearest brick wall.

Sundance, from an earlier post Continental Investment Partners SA hold 18,675,509 1.61%.
At a share price of 1.5p this amounts to £280000 ish.
At the time you asked the question the value of those shares would have been less than £200000, do you really consider either of these sums to be a significant amount of money for CIP?

OK, I shall rephrase, if it is in the bondholders interest to restructure the debt why why has there be no formal communciation to this effect, stating that talks are dues to start, have already started or will start at a certain point in time to addess this issue?

OK, so why do we not just sell SM now to clear the debt and have a bit of extra funding available in order to carry out some exploration?
Maybe JP over paid for SM and no one wants to pay for it for anything near the amount we bought it for?
What can OGIF do about our share of Tendrara if we have a debt owed that cannot be paid off?
OGIF will retain teir share holding, if the sale of Sounds % in both SM and Tendrara is insufficient to clear the bond then the bond holder walks off with a loss, this happens in business.
If it is in Marco's interest to restructure the debt, why has there be no formal communciation to this effect, stating that talks are dues to start, have already started or will start at a certain point in time to addess this issue?

I have only raised the points in this and the earlier post for discussion, I am in the dark as to what is going on as everyone else here and if I have made some stupid WAG then I am more than happy to be corrected.