Member Info for KeithOz

"SEPARATELY complete an Independent Technical and Resources Report for the 81 km2 TGB-6 fan penetrated by MOU-3 and prepare to farmout."

I was expecting TGB-6 to be part of the planned ITR we have already been informed about. TGB-6 is below the depth planned for MOU-6, so is likely to be thermogenic not biogenic, therefore is possibly not included in the ITR we are expecting in the next few weeks. But how can it be farmed out separately when PG has recently stated that this is not an option? Why no expenditure allocated to it in the table?

Not very happy about a large, discounted placing, but at least we get to keep all the output of Snowcap-3, which is being drilled into a known reservoir. PRD will also have prior knowledge of the effect of dewaxing treatment on the Jacobin-1 workover.

I trust that PRD management will be investigating the illegal leak of financially confidential information by certain posters on this website, and take appropriate action.

I might have to withdraw that - no such single share buy is shown on the official London Stock Exchange PRD page, only on this website. Curiouser & curiouser.

Just my opinion, based on rising price and volume, big trades, and now a single share purchase - 'Code 1' at 09.35. In case anyone points out that the last Code 1 didn't result in an RNS, it was a sell and part of a systematic internaliser bulk trade.

Ok, let's be pedantic and keep everyone happy. The five trailers/containers that constitute the Star Valley 101 are warm-stacked on the secure MOU-4 drill pad site, a few km away from MOU-3 / MOU-6. They will need to undergo a brief inspection, before being moved to MOU-6 and assembled. They will then undergo a further few days of routine maintenance and testing before being ready to spud MOU-6. There, does that satisfy even Eeyore?

SV-101 is sitting on MOU-4, ready & waiting.

Yes, I know methane doesn't smell. Thought this overnight question and my answer 'might' be of more general interest:

[19/01/2026 3:24 AM]

Keith am I understanding this correctly because it seems to me that people haven’t cottoned on to the fact that MOU6 is targeting 425BCF… Its only drilling to 1000m … that being the case the CPR P10 figures of a few years ago for resources of 1.8TCF? Should be easily exceeded.. ?

[19/01/2026 6:37 AM]

Hi Roge, yes, I thought it very odd in the presentation [14 October, Slide 7] that it quite clearly stated 425 BCF just for MOU-6, but that nobody had picked up on the implications of this. Previously it was thought that the bulk of the resource was in the deeper fan-sands. The January 2024 ITR (page 7) gives 8 BCF for the shallow A-Sands, 17.5 BCF for TGB-2 and 22 BCF for the Ma-sands - these are the three formations being evaluated by MOU-6. So it seems that the NuTech analysis of the drilling logs has shown a 9-fold increase in the resource, which is why I am so interested to see the ITR. It should also include a first estimate of the shale gas present in the 200m thick interval of MOU-1 - this alone could be several TCF.

A correspondent (thanks, the other Keith) tells me this morning that he uses EMAs for indicating entry points. If I understand it correctly, the EMA is Exponential Moving Average, so will emphasize more recent price movements and give a slightly earlier signal - and in fact the EMA50 / EMA200 gave a Golden Cross at market close on Friday. If that's the case, then I would expect chartists to be jumping in right at the start of the week, rather than my expected Thursday / Friday for the SMA50/250 Golden Cross. Sounds a lot like astrology to me, but if share price charts are also self-fulfilling, who am I to complain?

As I hope you realise, I invest on fundamentals, but many trade based on charts. The PRD share price 30-day simple moving average (SMA30) has already crossed above the SMA200. SMA50 should do so next week - this so-called Golden Cross will be picked up by the likes of Zak Mir and bring in the traders. Shortly after will be the ITR release. Fasten your seatbelts.

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/2012341114456690854/photo/1

Not sure why some are stressing over MOU-6 costs as if it was likely to bankrupt the company. Here's my guestimate - anyone with recent relevant experience please correct where necessary.

Drill pad surveying - $0. Already done.

EIA - $10K, just an update of previous one.

Farmer compensation - $0. Already done.

Access roads - $0. Already done.

Pad levelling, pit digging & lining, gravel surfacing, security fencing - $0. Already done.

Rig hire & drilling crew @ $100k per day, 100m per day - $950,000. Likely to take less time, since drilling through known stratigraphy and pressures.

Drilling fluid (PureBore Silicate @7kg/m³ for unconsolidated sand) - $50,000.

Sand filter installation @ $100 per metre - $95,000.

Gravel pack of open hole @ $100 per metre - $95,000.

Cementing - $0, not needed with an uncased hole.

Perforation - $0, not needed with this type of completion.

Flow testing - $250,000 for 3-day transient pressure testing, backpressure tests to establish AOFP (maximum stable flow rate), and 30-day constant flow to help define reservoir characteristics.

Total is $1.45M. If the drilling is done in six days (perfectly achievable based on previous run rates), then a shade over $1M.

...but got this slightly wrong:

"Predator Oil & Gas Holdings Plc shares are trading up 3.53%, reaching a day high of $4.50, driven by positive momentum related to US-India defense cooperation agreements, particularly around advanced drone technology sales. The company appears to be benefiting from broader sector optimism following reports of ongoing negotiations for Predator drone sales to India as part of the US strategy to strengthen defense partnerships."

You can always rely on AI.

Some may recall that on 24 July 2024, CHAR announced that a preliminary agreement was in place with Vivo to consider a similar arrangement for gas offtake from the onshore Loukos field, yet eighteen months later, we have heard nothing further. At that time, CHAR was claiming a prospective resource of 20 BCF, and suggesting that further drilling could double that. So, let's look at some numbers that might indicate why this deal did not progress.

The proposed initial 5mmcfgd over 10 years would use 18 BCF. That's cutting it a bit tight if you only have 20, and since CHAR did not appear to be doing anything further with the Loukos field, it's hardly surprising that Vivo would look elsewhere. After this initial disappointment, it is very likely that before Vivo would invest a large amount of time and money into the PRD project, they will have conducted extensive Due Diligence, almost certainly with expert help from Shell and/or Vitol. That DD would include expert opinion on recoverable gas volumes, and especially that the MOU-6 new well design will result in commercial flow rates. On p.7 of the 16th October 2025 presentation, we were told that MOU-6 is targeting 425 BCF net to PRD, which provides a lot more flexibility for modular expansion. It will be interesting to see if this number is going to appear in the imminent ITR, or if it will have increased further.

There are certainly some people who get a kick out of stirring up trouble while hiding behind pseudonyms, so the mental health issues scenario is possible, but that is not for me to judge. I have previously speculated here that certain individuals posting constant negativity concerning PRD on this board were working for a competitor - attempting to discourage investment in our company, in the hope that limited funds would instead be channelled in their direction. Paranoid? Maybe. Maybe not.

The first company to secure an agreement with the US government for Venezuelan hydrocarbons is Vitol. They are the world's largest independent energy trader, with 2024 turnover of $321 billion. Vitol also own Vivo Energy, to whom PRD have granted exclusivity to design, fund, construct and operate a micro-LNG facility and distribution network.

Sense of morality? I think not.

"Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behaviour."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928

@Speculiar. It doesn't at all surprise me that you are having difficulty accessing accurate information - certain people here are trying very hard to undermine PRD's progress and denigrate and vilify those genuine investors who actually have industry and business experience. It should be obvious who they are.

Negotiations are currently ongoing regarding the Moroccan arm of the business. Two local entities, Vivo & Afriquia Gaz, are interested in setting up CNG/LNG operations using the shallow biogenic gas discovered at MOU-1 & MOU-3. You will be familiar with both these companies and their influential owners from your investments in CHAR.

Negotiations are also taking place with as yet unknown entities for a farm-in to the whole Guercif licences. This process began at the start of October last year.

The next well to be drilled is MOU-6, which is to access the biogenic gas down to a depth of 950m, and has been specifically designed to avoid the previous issues with formation damage and the friable, poorly compacted (but high porosity & gas charge) reservoir sands. An ITR will be released in the next few weeks that will (among many other things) quantify the volume of gas accessible from MOU-6. The intention is that the costs of this well will be borne by one or more of the successful partners above,

The reason everything is quiet on the Moroccan front at the moment is because these discussions are commercially sensitive. The current emphasis on Trinidad news is to demonstrate that PRD has a growing cashflow, and are not negotiating from a position of weakness. I expect to hear the initial results of these negotiations last week of February at the earliest, mid-April at the latest.

Right on cue, an RNS detailing increasing production, including from a shallow horizon ignored by the previous operator. With production now at 367 bopd, the 1000 a day target by year end looks like it will be exceeded, given the upcoming developments I mentioned in my post earlier today, plus the updates today to the ongoing, fully financed ongoing programme.

Part 2.

It has been necessary in Moruga West to drill many wells, covering an area of around one hectare (2.5 acres) each. This isn't as bad as it might appear, one MW well producing a total of 455,000 Bbl just using old style rod pumping, with an average cumulative total of 141,000 Bbl from each of the top 50 wells. To date, only 18% of total estimated oil in place has been recovered from a field that has been producing since 1955, with an expected EUR (Estimated Ultimate Recovery) of 30%. Many of the MW wells were drilled 50 – 70 years ago, using outdated subsurface evaluation and drilling techniques, but some compartments have already produced 38% recovery.

The ITR for C-M has used also a 30% EUR, which is low compared to most newly drilled fields. PRD has the benefit of modern subsurface methods to identify reservoirs, more sophisticated drilling and completion techniques, dewaxing technology, plus experience of CO2 EOR to increase the recovery rates. C-M oil also has dissolved gas at 700 CF per Bbl, this is unlikely to be commercial, but is certainly available for re-injection to help maintain oil production pressure. We also saw this week that TXP have employed horizontal drilling to increase borehole / reservoir contact area, a technique that may be transferable to C-M.

It is apparent that the existing wells on C-M were sub-optimally sited, poorly drilled and not fully evaluated (RD-1 dates from 1955). The ITR also notes incomplete logging, giving additional potential from missed horizons in the historic C-M wells. The use of NuTech logging may reveal substantial additional gas not taken into account in the ITR volumetric calculations.

In short, I see the Cory-Moruga ITR projections as being conservative, that this is already a more valuable asset than many realise, and agree with GRH that it has an excellent chance of surprising to the upside. We will have our first real insights very soon – Snowcap-1 re-entry and workover in March, and Snowcap-3 due to start drilling in April / May, at no cost to PRD. Snowcap-4 perhaps June – July. The deep value in these is not the oil production per se, but in the detailed re-evaluation and de-risking of the whole block.

Hard numbers from the ITR, opinions my own.

Part 1.

Ignoring the squabbling, a little more on the Company's assets. The issue of rapid decline of production from the Trinidad Herrera sands has some important commercial consequences, so is worth looking at in more detail.

The theory proposed in the January 2024 ITR was that oil waxing was the cause, however subsequent drilling by TXP has shown the same phenomenon in gas reservoirs. TXP explained this as being due to rapid release from gas-charged fault structures, followed by slower release from the reservoir matrix. I'm not so sure of this, since in Cory-Moruga the faults appear to act as seals rather than conduits. For example, C-M strata extend into Moruga West, separated by a fault. On the C-M side, oil is at virgin field pressure, in MW low pressures reflect 75 years of depletion. The faults pass through both reservoir sands and the sealing shales; if the faults were gas conduits, why would they not allow gas to have escaped?

I suspect the real reason is due to the Herrera Sands being turbidites – think of deposition of sands by underwater avalanche. While distal turbidites can have very significant lateral continuity, when proximal to the source of sediment they are likely to be more confined to channel structures. It may be what we are seeing is a three-dimensional matrix of such channels and lobes, sealed both laterally and vertically by shales. This will mean that rather than one large continuous reservoir, there may be many smaller reservoir pockets, clearly these will lose pressure faster.

Another thing I found interesting in the TXP RNS was that they had done some horizontal drilling in the Herrera Sands. All of TXP's recent wells, and two of the historical wells on our C-M (Snowcap-1 & Rochard-1), showed very good initial flow rates, but quite rapid decline. This could be due to:

* Paraffin wax crystallisation as temperature and pressure drop due to the oil nearing surface.

* Low permeability of the formation.

* Complex structural geology - faulting & overthrusting - leading to reservoir compartmentalisation.

Horizontal drilling through the reservoir will greatly increase the bore : reservoir contact surface area, leading to more consistent flow. I am sure that Paul & Geoffrey Leid will be looking at this very closely.

I've put a map on X showing the along-strike proximity of TXP's Central Block, where they announced a discovery yesterday, and PRD's Cory-Moruga Block. Both blocks have the Herrera Sands as target reservoirs.

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/2008437224413757523