Member Info for Kasjnaton

Pawn, if the only variable is CO2 concentration, then as a general rule I agree with you, however there is still an optimum CO2 level which I think is around 1000ppm CO2, current CO2 is around 420 ppm ish. I have read that a few plant species don't actually benefit from increased CO2 but have not managed to find what the optimum concentration of CO2 for them is, could be even lower than current levels. But the discussion was on the wider impact to the climate, for which we have seen and are now experiencing a great deal of change, as I have already stated, partly due to human activity and partly due to natural phenomena and this was part of the reason for me posting the link about wells that are running dry.

Pawn your latest post again contains another statement without context... the direct impact of CO2, i.e. the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its physiological effects may not be a problem as animals can cope with breathing in the increased CO2 quantity however the secondary impact that the increased CO2 is causing is a different matter. Just as an aside there is always an exception to the rule and those animals currently living in environments with extremely low levels of oxygen will be impacted more by slight rises in CO2.

We could get into a discussion about the average temperature of the sea increasing, or the retreat of snow/ice, revealing black stone underneath, the melting of the permafrost and subsequent release of methane into the atmosphere, the reduction in biodiversity, I think that in the UK alone there have been over 400 species of plants and animals made extinct and that there are simply too many people on the planet but again digressing from the chat on PRD.

AndroclesB, I was merely pointing out that various points of view or arguments were being made without any context, it wasn't just you.

GRH, Thank you for answering the questions I had the other week, my apologise for the delay.
As for your most recent post, in order to bring things a little back on topic, yes it can be seen that identical plant genus' living under different atmospheric/climactic, soil conditions will have different characteristics when analysed, for instance leaf size, types of and quantity of chlorophyll, as one will have grown in what may be considered a relatively more stressful environment to the other.

I realise that the discussion on climate etc. is off topic but there is a lot of misinformation that has been posted, hopefully I won't add to that or cause any confusion.

Firstly the quantity of CO2 is not the only thing that affects plant growth, light, temperature, soil type and water/moisture all impact upon plant growth. Simply increasing CO2 levels does not necessarily result in increased plant growth.

As an example please see the link below;
https://brewminate.com/ground-zero-water-wells-going-dry-worldwide/

The bottom line is that both human activity and naturally occurring phenomena are playing apart in the changes to the global weather that we are now experiencing.

AndroclesB, your statement, "elevated oxygen levels will damage or even kill you." this is without any context, it is quite possible to not only survive but also live in environments in which 100% atmospheric oxygen is breathed, the atmospheric pressure is the important thing in this instance.

I think Zues is referring to the follwoing;
The plan will result in the increase of its oil production from38,100barrels per day in 2021 to 48,300barrels per day by 2026, with the majority of the production coming from the increase in offshore production of approximately 9,300 barrels per day.Land production from Heritage, its Lease Operators, Farmouts and Enhanced Production Service Contracts(EPSCs)is projected to marginally increase by 900barrels per day.This needs to improve and it is my intention to have Heritage accelerate and expand its lease operatorship, farmouts and EPSCs in order to maximize the quantum of onshore acreage under oil production.I intend to personally push and monitor this.

This is found at the bottom of page number 11 which is the 12th page as adobe sees it as the front page has no page number.

Hi GRH
I know that you changed your mind on posting about risk but now that we have a rough spud date for MOU-1, is there any chance you are able to post anything about the current well location that your tech may have uncovered?
Also there have been a few posts pertaining to the rest of the licence area, my thoughts are that there is no value in these other areas, unless of course commercial volumes of hydrocarbons are found.
I do realise that there is the possibility of commercial hydrocarbons in other parts of the licence area but I am choosing to remain conservative about these until they are proven up as no one is going to want to pay for this undiscovered potential.

I think you will find that 250SWB actually warned people and told them to sell SOU when the share price was more than 40pps.

As for comparing SOU and PRD, the discovery that SOU are trying to commercialise at the moment was all based on the work that Paul Griffiths had carried out.

Are there risks? Yes of course there are but the work already carried out in T&T has greatly reduced those risks and that project alone should see the share price higher than what it currently is.

SR, I was going to post a really sarcastic response, but I shall refrain from doing so, at least for the time being, as you have asked for a summary but I must say your response is quite frankly pathetic, you couldn't even be bothered to answer the question on the first line that I asked! I apologise now to everyone else for the slight off topic, I shall post a summary but it is a summary from the PDF I linked to earlier which is a legal document filed before the Utah board of oil, gas and mining on September 12 2017;
From page 10;
"Drilled Liberty ST#3 (2015)
Followed Scotforth plan and drilled S/SE to encounter RSDD-H Anomalies."
"Drill to reenter, Run Logs, Run Casing, Perforate and place ST#3 Production (2017)
Now that we have idnetified the black oil column and resolved Cretaceous paraffin issues, we will clean up and produce with heated fluids as noted on slide 15."

Page 11 ;
Title; "Scotforth's Scientific RSDD-H Mapping"
Sub title; "Identifies Oil leg in dark green/black"

"The Scotforth Ltd Proprietry Mapping explains why the initial laterals (1&2) found high end condensate... but missed the deeper oil columnfound in Lateral #3."

"This ST #3 Lateral drill intersected EXACTLY where the Scotforth RSDD-H readings indicated."

"These RSDD-H readings at the Nephi location have "similar expression to that observed over the Central Utah Covenant Field discovery." A (50+) million bbl field) analog. Quote by Scotforth"

Just to remphasize everything in quotes above is taken directly from official, filed court documents.

SR, if you are unable to read the above, to big a word count etc. click on the link there's a very nice pitcure for you to look at on page 11.

If you want to convince me that RSDD-H does not help to reduce the risk of drilling a duster then you have your work cut out, you will have to back up your assertion with a solid explanation with facts as to why the conclusion that I have come to is wrong and that you are right.
Finally, just FYI, the above is just one document that I have read during my research of hyperspectral imaging and its use in finding not only hydrocarbons but other natural resources as well.

soundreason, you have, as is your MO, completely ignored all the points that I raise but first an easy question for you, what exactly have I ramped?
It was not me ramping SOU by signing off every post I made on the SOU BB "with £2.50 at least", or shouting out at the Gherkin anyone buying in at these prices won't lose any money (80+pps at the time), which was completely uncaveated.
I was actually saying that the only way for share holders to not be diluted and to get a decent return on their investment was for a commerical discovery to be made.
The only way to have done this was to drill, which you know full well I was for but I wanted Sound Energy to reduce the risk of drilling another duster, as if the dusters at Badile, TE-8 and TE-9 were not sufficient evidence that risk reduction was, for TE-10 and any future drills necessary.
After carrying out research on RSDD-H I came to the conclusion that this could, and should have been used to reduce risk.
Just one piece of research was this;
https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/bbooks/2017/08_Aug/Docket/2017-020_274-02_Hewitt/2017-020_20170912.1_RespondentsExhibits.pdf

(The whole document is actually interesting reading but pages 10 and 11 hold the pertinent informaiton).

As for calling it my technology, I am not affiliated in anyway whatsoever with Scotforth or their RSDD-H technology.

You still refuse to explain how you arrive at any of your valuations.
As for ramping PRD, again that is not me, I just read the published information and come to my own conclusions, for instance who is Paul Deane?
What assumptions did he make in his calculations when he estimated the value of the FSRU project to be worth €26 billion over 10 years?
What risks are there associated with this project to stop it going ahead?
What other papers has he written?
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/JP-Deane-73775387

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Paul-Deane-2163010038

Out of curiosity SR, do you consider anyone stating "€26 billion over 10 years" as ramping? ( I realise that it is pointless asking you as you will avoid answering this question, just putting it in to prove a point)

Well the two links above show the level of detail and quality of other papers that he has either written or been a contributor to but of course I am wasting my time typing this out as you have no answer to any of the above but mayber one or two other people find the above links of interest, at least that will save me from heading off to the nearest brickwall...

I see a few more comments have popped up about (un)Soundreason, AKA SG47 and Shaungreen, if you were to read through his posts on Sound Energy you would see that he was always optimistic, you could even say that he was ramping Sound by constantly stating £2.50 per share, now it's about 2.5pps.

So he ramps Sound, and criticses anyone who is pessimistic and now he is on the PRD board being negative to anyone who publishes figures that have been calculated using information contained within RNS's.

As for asking him to back up his perspective with facts and a well reasoned argument or to put a value on what he thinks any of the three areas can be worth even in a range from worst case to best case is a complete and utter waste of time, not just my opinion either, ask PS200306 on the SOU board.

A few further points need to be added with regards to (un)Soundreason's comments about GRH, I feel that this is totally unfair and completely out of order.

Like Soundreason I also held Sound shares, (I still hold some but the value is so small as to now not be worth selling), GRH put a message up on the Sound board last July when the PRD share price was 2.5pps suggesting that people take a look at it.

I read up on PRD because of GRH's recommendation and have been buying as many shares as possible ever since, because of this I have now more than made up for my losses (which were significant for me) incurred through the shares I had bought in Sound.

I just wished that I had listened to 250SWB when this person warned everyone, via the Sound BB, about the trading plan, if I had I could still have left SOU with a sizeable sum of money even then.

So who am I going to take more seriously GRH and other posters who back their calculations up, and then caveat their calculations with statements such as "if everything goes well" or "there are risks associated with investing" "DYOR" etc., or Soundreason who just seems to pluck figures out of thin air and cannot back up any of his statements, he cannot even give a reason for any of the statements he has made.

I suggest that folks just don't bother interacting with him, there is not much point you'll get more sense from banging your head against a brick wall.

S123 you obviously missed the whole point of my post and that was to point out the error of your statement;
"We all know the culprits of negativity and if they have recently sold up are feeling pretty silly right now."

I first asked you to define what you meant by "recent" and I gave you a few timeframes as to what I thought you could possibly mean by that.

I then stated what the SOU share price had done and compared it with a couple of other shares over a couple of possible timeframes.

Why did I do this? Because I made a statement in which I said you are wrong and I backed up my statement with facts.

The only person who should be feeling pretty silly now is you.

Instead of coming back and clarifying what you meant by recent, and even perhaps having a well reasoned argument explaining why I am wrong and why I perhaps ought to reinvest back into SOU, all you have done is complained that I have stated the truth and said that you are happy to break even.

Well if you are happy to just break even wouldn't you have been better off not investing in any company and just sticking your money in ther bank?

As for blocker I am not going anywhere as I still have a very small holding here which just is not worth selling, and I will continue to point out blatantly false opinionated statements which cannot be backed up where I feel a response is warranted.

S123, you are so very narrow minded and I have to call you out on this one, firstly define "recently", yes the share price has increased over the last few days, if we take the 25th April then from 1.3pps to 1.9pps, in that sametime frame 88e has gone from 1.7pps to 4pps, who's looking pretty silly now?

Or maybe you want to look over a longer timeframe? The share for the last 6 months has remained relatively flat, from 1.4pps to 1.8pps

Over even longer timeframes? Jez recommended EUA, and posted here on these boards about it, likewise GRH saying that people ought to take a look at PRD.

So what have those people that remain invested in this share got to look forward to? Well if the deal on restructuring the bond gets the go ahead further dilution.

Calculate what the potential upside is for you, if you are to remain invested in this share, take into consideration the dilution and the time it will take you to realise the value you just calculated.

Of course everyone has to do their own research but in my opinion there are far better opportinities to get a better return on your investment then remaining invested in SOU.

For reference I am in PRD, not though 88e nor was I in EUA, and only providing these as examples.

It is a problem that has been resolved, ergo no need to worry.
It was a mistake and mistakes happen.
If you choose to worry about mistakes happening, for which there are solutions, maybe not the most elegant but a solution nevertheless, then I think that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If mistakes like this happen again and are repeated, then yes I shall share your concerns but at the moment I see it as a one off.

Hi BDT, it can be seen, and rightly so, from the number of upticks and replies that GRH has had in response to his post that a great number of people, including myself, have a great deal of sympathy for him and wish him and his family their deepest condolences.

As for the shareprice, there are posters who continually knock the company, for whatever reason, the latest being about other companies muscling in on T&T, why raise this now? This has been a potential issue for them to raise for sometime.

It, other companies muscling in, won't happen though, there is something called inertia and barrier to entry. T&T have been looking at EOR and wanting to make use of it, not for years but for decades.

PRD moves in and proves the EOR concept with results better than anticipated, why would the T&T government even allow someone else any space in that field to take over what PRD has done? I tell you now, they wouldn't actions speak louder than words and PRD's actions are very much loud and clear. PG has got in, proved it up and now looking to expand.

The T&T government allowing another company in could set them back not years but decades once again.

Of course if someone were willing to pay mega bucks for PRD's T&T operations then it might be a goer but they would also have to address any fears or concerns that the T&T government would have.

I guess if the bond is restructured on terms that are more preferable to Sound than the current deal, then due as you have said to COVID and low interest rates 8-10p does not seem unreasonable.

You could as I have said sell a percentage, I don't know though the value or the average of your holding.

Best of luck with which ever decision you make.

Firstly apologies for typos in my previous message, obvioulsy weighting not waiting.

Daveyboy, you are seeing this from a different perspective to me, which is fine, I am taking a pessismistic view because of what has happened historically.

I just don't see the bondholders accepting or wanting any deal, as I said previsouly if they did want a deal one would have been done long ago, and it is for this reason that I maintain that it is high risk.
So in addition to my earlier questions, if a deal were to be done with the bondholders how much do you think the share price would rise buy?
Also how much do you think the share price would rise buy if a subsequesnt deal were done with say Italfluids?

This is just a thought but do you not think that the safest play would be to sell now, not necessarily all your holding, and then buy back after news of the bond restructuring had been released?

Yes, you may miss out on a rise but how significant would that be?

I'd just like to reiterate that these are just questions, from my pessimistic view, and I am certainly not saying that anybody should or should not sell any shares.

Agreed, differnt people will apply a different risk waiting to differnt scenario's.
Always good though to see another persons perception as to the level of risk as it can mean that your level of risk becomes more realistic from a previously optimistic or pessimistic viewpoint.

What I would question about Sound though, and the reason for me being pessimistic is that if the bond holders wanted to ensure the best for everyone, then a deal would have been done by now without any fuss.

This would have helped shore up the share price allowed for increased confidence in the company to allow for various deals to go ahead.

Didn't say that there wasn't gas, what I was saying is what is the risk that you will not see the value attributed to that gas?

Daveyboy, Is it really a catch 22 scenario now though?

Surely the risks are very high with very little chance of a significant return on capital invested here.

I don't know what your average is, or how much you are down by, (you don't need to tell me), I was just posing a few questions that would be going through my head in response to your post if I were still heavily invested here ( now have a very small holding which is just not worth selling).

Investment decisions where only hope remains don't look too good.

If there was anything positive to say about refinancing of the bond then news would have been released, even if it was only to say that Sound have entered into discussions with ....(put your chosen entity/organisation here).

Daveyboy, if you consider your scenario a best case situation, what is the chances/risk of it happening/not happening and if it does happen what is the effect to the valuation of the current and any future discoveries?
Will it allow you to break even?
Will you still be at a significant loss?
Or will you it allow you to realise a profit?
Lastly when do you think news needs to be obtained by in order for your "best case" scenario to be implemented before demands on the bond are made?

Another way to look at whether or not you consider it too late to start a position is to look at the previous high, and ask yourself what has changed since then.
Are those changes worth a 3p to 4p premium?
Yes, there has been additional shares issued but there has also been a considerable amount of progress in how the business has moved forward.
What is your personal level of risk?
One option of course is to use only part of your funds to buy now read up more and either maintain, increase or decrease your holding depending upon what your research tells you.
All the best with whatever decision you make.

Sorry for the off topic
Medi111, you are right in that PRD do not have a producing gas well at the moment but:
MOU-1, due to spud by end of June is low risk, and targets more than one prospect
Paul Griffiths carried out the work at Tendrara which paved the way for Sound to make the TE-6 discovery, with of course the help of Schlumberger.
Paul is replicating the work that he had done in Tendrara whilst at Fastnet, with the Guercif licence area.
The work in Trinidad and Tobago has derisked the share price somewhat and has several companies not only interested but queuing up to make use of the technology, the latest Malcy/PG interview PG states that they can cherry pick which companies they work with.
Then there is Ireland, with a shortage of power and wanting to increase the economy via power hungry datacentres, PRD offering an FSRU solution.