Member Info for KeithOz

Any new opportunities in Venezuela will go to large US companies. I cannot believe that PRD would have any interest in, nor be in the running for, any new Venezuelan licences.

The onshore Guyana project that I understand PRD has looked at, is a historically producing field that has received under-investment, making it amenable to the business model being followed in Trinidad.

Goerge W Bush had an unsuccessful oil exploration company called Arbusto Energy (= Bush in Spanish), allegedly kept afloat only by multiple bailouts from Bush Snr. His political opponents claimed the multiple dusters resulted from his strategy of "I feel lucky today, drill anywhere". Another version had him throwing his hat (sombrero?) in the air and drilling where it landed. Both are likely apocryphal, based on the early Texan exploration that had none of the modern geophysical methodology to guide drilling.

Correction: Morocco section, para 2, line 2 - should be October 2025 presentation, not 2024.

NB these are thoughts, not predictions.

Ireland

Certain politicians will poop themselves upon returning to their desks after the break. LOGP's claim for $100M+, plus interest, for just their 20% of Barryroe is only a starter. What if Larry Goodman joins in wanting compensation for his 80%? Then PRD slap on another nine-figure claim? I suspect they will do what politicians always do when faced with existential threat – lie through their teeth, do a 180° turn, and quietly grant the licences. If so, PRD has a partner ready lined up to take over as operator – for a price, of course.

Trinidad

There will be at least quarterly updates on workovers, infill drilling, and preparation for Snowcap-3. The market will wake up to the fact that here is a steadily increasing profit stream, involving minimal capital expenditure by PRD. There will be a realisation that this is already worth more than the current market capitalisation. Paul may decide to add further acreage to this successful business model – non-core TXP is just one possibility.

Morocco

This is where things get really interesting. I eagerly await the updated ITR/CPR in 3-6 weeks' time, for two reasons.

Firstly, MOU-6 is drilling to 950m, which will target the shallow A-Sands, the Ma-Sands, and TGB-6. The Jan 2024 ITR gave these a 2C volume of less than 50 BCF, yet on p.7 of the October 2024 presentation it clearly states that MOU-6 is targeting 425 BCF net to PRD. Funny that no one has commented on this, when the NPV10 (the value today) of 1 BCF is around $2M. Of course, that value will only be obtained when the gas is being extracted in a commercial operation, so we need to apply a discount until then.

Secondly, did no one read the technical appendix to the October 2025 presentation? Take a look at p.31, where it talks about shale gas potential over an area of 150km², a thickness of 200m in MOU-1, gas saturation of 40%, and “multi-TCF potential”. This is based on the unpublished June 2024 ITR. Shale gas is in-situ and will require fracking, making it more expensive to extract, so I suggest an NPV of 'just' $1 billion per TCF. Guercif is far bigger than many realise, do your own sums.

Then we have the curious goings-on with potential partners. Is the real intention to press on with one or more LNG / CNG development options to get early cashflow, enabling further development by PRD? Or are these plans being used as a lever to gain a better deal from a major farminee to the whole of the Guercif licences, who will do all the development from Day 1, including MOU-6? Or is the threat of a farmout being used to get a better deal with the local partners, and get them to finance MOU-6? I guess we will find out shortly just how good Paul is at Hydrocarbon Chess.

Guyana

I've asked around, certainly some interesting onshore producing assets available, but please, Paul, get some of the other stuff wrapped up first.

Current agreement runs until 30 September 2036.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/Approval%20of%20proposed%20transportation%20agreement%20between%20GNI%20(UK)%20and%20PTL.pdf

p.2, para 5.

Only 20% of Barryroe is owned by LOGP, and rather importantly for PRD, the $100M+ claim is only related to that percentage holding.

The other 80% of the licence is held by Barryroe Transition Energy, wholly owned by Larry Goodman & family - who have a net worth of some €4Bn, plus maybe a bit more down the back of the sofa. So a little more than $6M available. I'm curious if the Goodmans will weigh in on the ECT claim, they are extremely well connected within Ireland, I can see an out of court settlement as the likely outcome.

Don't know how the last post appeared twice.

Some have pointed out that the shallow gas reservoirs being accessed by MOU-6 have a current P50 / 2C resource of only 30 BCF, which would have an NPV10 less than 10p a share. They are missing the point, or rather two points.

Firstly, when MOU-6 produces commercial flow rates for a contracted processing plant, not only do those Contingent Resources become Reserves, but the remainder of the Guercif shallow reservoirs are also de-risked since the new well design will have demonstrated that the existing formation damage can be bypassed. This will result in a substantial uprated valuation of the current 440 BCF 2C resource. If required, more MOU's would be cheap, since they would be shallow, copy the MOU-6 well design, be from existing drill pads, through known stratigraphy, and likely financed by partners, either upfront or through forward gas sales.

Secondly, Paul has made comments concerning shallow gas potential. At the start of exploration, it was assumed that all the gas was thermogenic, being produced deeply and migrating to suitable structures along deep faults. We now understand that the shallow gas is biogenic, produced in situ. It has been calculated by independent experts that up to 7 TCF of biogenic gas has been generated in the MOU area - I emphasize that is just the potential extent of the shallow gas, nothing allowed for Jurassic, Triassic, etc.

At this stage I do not know how much biogenic gas has actually been generated, or trapped, or is recoverable. The upcoming ITR/CPR should give us the numbers behind these statements:

"Validation of the NuTech interpretation of gas saturations is also likely to significantly increase potential for prospective gas resources beyond the limits of the MOU-1 and MOU-3 structure in the interval down to 950 metres." (January 2025 ITR)

and

"Yes, there's the proven gas, 2C gas - but there is now an upside way beyond our what initial expectations were". (Paul Griffiths, 16 October 2025 presentation).

Furthermore, we should not forget that in parallel there is the ongoing farmout discussions concerning the deeper thermogenic (Jurassic, Triassic) methane & Helium. MOU-5 may not have found gas, but that does not mean there is none in the whole Jurassic carbonate prospect - take a look at the map of this huge 177km² reef on p.38 of the ITR, MOU-5 was in one corner, and we now know that to be isolated from the main structure by mobilised salt -see upper centre diagram, p.32, 16th October presentation. Also look at the ITR p.40, with the map showing the huge concentration of prospects within the Guercif licence area.

Finally. re. this licence extension nonsense. It is PRD that has the legal right to extend the licence or not. The 17th December 2025 RNS clearly states that PRD has submitted the extension on AGREED TERMS. It just awaits formal signoff.

Have a great break, everybody. Next year, this will run and run

Thanks, @Obadhia, for your very interesting summary. May I add a little regarding the contract situation? - the weather here is so god-awful that the normal Christmas Eve exploration of our local mountains with the girls is out of the question.

I am not aware that at present we have a contract with Italfluid for the development of any kind of gas production plant, although this may come about in the near future. You mentioned that you used Copilot to help compile this, so I asked Copilot for the specific source from which it derived this information. Rather amusingly, it was this bulletin board. Before certain people fall to the floor with an overdose of mockery, we should examine what is actually happening with gas processing and distribution, using the known and documented facts.

First, we need to understand the differences between a CNG and an LNG operation. My usual proviso that I am not an engineer applies - although I do know that we have at least one professional gas engineer on this board, so corrections are most welcome. A CNG plant is relatively cheap and simple - for the scale we are considering, capex from $5-20M should be adequate. Wellhead gas is compressed into suitably pressurised containers (in our case trucks) and driven to where it is needed. LNG is much more complex, involving chilling gas to -162°C. Transport can be by cryogenic pipeline or truck - both specialist (=expensive) options. For an LNG plant, we could be looking north of $100M for even a modest operation.

Who are the interested parties? We do know that two different companies are looking at both CNG and LNG. Afriquia Gaz, part of the Akwa group owned by the family of Aziz Akhannouch, Moroccan Prime Minister, previously had an MOU with PRD for the development of a CNG plant, probably at either the MOU-2 or MOU-3 sites. We assume, but do not know, that they are still involved. We know from careful reading of the 19th September Interim Report that a preliminary agreement has also been signed with Vivo Energy, who are pan-African distributors for Shell & Engen products. Vivo is owned by Vitol, a private company with a worldwide turnover of $330+ billion.

We further know that Italfluid, world leaders in flow assurance and early production systems, were involved in flow testing MOU-3, and appear to be designing MOU-6. Italfluid are the designers and builders of the Tendrara LNG plant for SOU, now owned by Mana Energy, ultimately owned by the Moroccan royal family. This plant has just come into operation after six years from commencement. It is safe to assume that Italfluid will be involved with PRD and their marketing and distribution partners, and that CNG will be sold before LNG.

All these companies have vast expertise available for due diligence, and would not be spending considerable time and money unless they were very sure that substantial quantities of gas were able to be produced.

Thanks, @Obadhia, for your very interesting summary. May I add a little regarding the contract situation? - the weather here is so god-awful that the normal Christmas Eve exploration of our local mountains with the girls is out of the question.

I am not aware that at present we have a contract with Italfluid for the development of any kind of gas production plant, although this may come about in the near future. You mentioned that you used Copilot to help compile this, so I asked Copilot for the specific source from which it derived this information. Rather amusingly, it was this bulletin board. Before certain people fall to the floor with an overdose of mockery, we should examine what is actually happening with gas processing and distribution, using the known and documented facts.

First, we need to understand the differences between a CNG and an LNG operation. My usual proviso that I am not an engineer applies - although I do know that we have at least one professional gas engineer on this board, so corrections are most welcome. A CNG plant is relatively cheap and simple - for the scale we are considering, capex from $5-20M should be adequate. Wellhead gas is compressed into suitably pressurised containers (in our case trucks) and driven to where it is needed. LNG is much more complex, involving chilling gas to -162°C. Transport can be by cryogenic pipeline or truck - both specialist (=expensive) options. For an LNG plant, we could be looking north of $100M for even a modest operation.

Who are the interested parties? We do know that two different companies are looking at both CNG and LNG. Afriquia Gaz, part of the Akwa group owned by the family of Aziz Akhannouch, Moroccan Prime Minister, previously had an MOU with PRD for the development of a CNG plant, probably at either the MOU-2 or MOU-3 sites. We assume, but do not know, that they are still involved. We know from careful reading of the 19th September Interim Report that a preliminary agreement has also been signed with Vivo Energy, who are pan-African distributors for Shell & Engen products. Vivo is owned by Vitol, a private company with a worldwide turnover of $330+ billion.

We further know that Italfluid, world leaders in flow assurance and early production systems, were involved in flow testing MOU-3, and appear to be designing MOU-6. Italfluid are the designers and builders of the Tendrara LNG plant for SOU, now owned by Mana Energy, ultimately owned by the Moroccan royal family. This plant has just come into operation after six years from commencement. It is safe to assume that Italfluid will be involved with PRD and their marketing and distribution partners, and that CNG will be sold before LNG.

All these companies have vast expertise available for due diligence, and would not be spending considerable time and money unless they were very sure that substantial quantities of gas were able to be produced.

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Lewyrchus

There are still some here, I do not know whether mendacious or just ignorant, suggesting that MOU-6 is only to be a shallow well because there is no gas deeper down. How do they 'know' this? The logic is that since SandJet perforation didn't produce the hoped for gas flow, then there can't be any gas. The SandJet process uses a mix of water and sand at high pressure to cut through rock – unfortunately, the same pressure also forced fine particulates and drilling fluid cake deeper into the highly permeable reservoir material, thus compounding the original formation damage problem. It was for this reason that Paul clearly stated they would not use SandJet again.

What is the objective of MOU-6? To produce enough gas to meet the initial needs of the proposed CNG / LNG developments being finalised with the two parties, as quickly and with as little difficulty as possible. To get the gas to flow, a more sophisticated well design is being utilised, to avoid the previous engineering problems. Drilling will be better balanced to avoid formation damage. It is likely that the completion will be such that perforation of any kind need not be performed – these kinds of completion (one or more of slotted casing / gravel pack / sand filter / resin treatment) are absolutely standard for the sort of poorly-consolidated friable reservoir sands found in the upper levels of MOU-3 / -6. Italfluid are world class in Flow Assurance.

Why only 950m depth? The initial requirement is for 10mmcfgd. This equates to just 3.6 BCF per year. The A-Sands have 8BCF 2C/P50, 16BCF 3C/P10, while the Ma-Sands have 22BCF 2C/P10, 41BCF 3C/P10. 10mmcfgd at a conservative $8 profit per mcf gives $29M per annum. So plenty of gas for several years supply, even before these numbers receive the upgrade expected in the ITR/CPR to be issued in the next couple of months - I guess this is why the shorters with their 2p target are starting to poo themselves, even without the encouraging Trinidad growth.

Drilling deeper than currently needed could also present complications – different drilling fluid might be necessary for the debris slide encountered in both MOU-2 and MOU-3. The gas in the deeper levels is under higher pressure, so co-mingling gas flows of radically different pressures is likely to present problems. Very sensibly, they are keeping things as simple as possible. Why make life difficult and expensive to produce gas that is not yet needed?

For those of a more technical inclination, I've put some MOU-3 striplogs on X. The overpressured A-Sand is here:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/2002517871809929558

and the Ma-Sand conventional striplog, together with a NuTech interpretation of the same interval, is here:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/2002519690086920579

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience". and

"No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot".

My favourite from author Shannon L Alder, particularly relevant here...

"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; it knocks over the pieces, shlts on the board, and struts around like it won."

Have a great pre-Christmas weekend. My top tip - Make it better by not going to the shops.

For those who do not subscribe to Goehring and Rozencwajg.

"EV adoption—once assumed inevitable and universal—is already showing signs of plateauing in several markets. We believe the long-term growth rate will fall meaningfully short of consensus expectations. Whether or not EVs dominate by 2035 is less important than acknowledging that demand for oil remains far more resilient than the narrative implies.

Meanwhile, oil has undergone the same treatment gold suffered in the late 1990s: declared obsolete, dismissed as uninvestable, and traded down to levels that defy historical comparison. In gold terms, oil has fallen nearly 90% in a quarter-century. [Today] an ounce of gold [buys 77.2] barrels of oil [WTI], surpassed only during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2004, when the last oil bull market began, the gold-oil ratio stood around 12...Energy’s weight in the S&P 500 has fallen from 6% then to under 3% now.

Oil is cheaper and more under-owned than it was on the eve of its last great rally.

At the same time, the supply dynamics that triggered that earlier surge are again coming into focus. Non-OPEC production growth is slowing, and depletion is accelerating in ways that echo the early 2000s. The underlying machinery is familiar—and so is the market’s refusal to acknowledge it.

Put simply: gold remains strong, but oil is stirring. And for investors concerned with relative performance—a crucial constraint for many institutions—the case for raising energy exposure grows stronger by the quarter. This is not a call to sell gold completely. We continue to believe the long-term prospects for precious metals are robust. But as in 2003, leadership is shifting—and investors who adjust their exposure rather than cling to past winners may once again find themselves rewarded for seeing what others overlook."

[...] = my correction for today's prices.

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/gold-vs-oil?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Blog%20Notification&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=395315614&utm_content=395315614&utm_source=hs_email

Trinidad.

Current annualised net income of $1.2M. At the average E&P UK and US-listed company price:earnings ratio of 12, that should be a market capitalisation of $14.4M for Trinidad alone. At 5 to 10 x this as quoted, that would give a market cap of $72 - $144M.

Morocco

* Now TWO interested parties for CNG/LNG.

* MOU-3 testing "validated the NuTech interpretation of gas saturations and gas shows seen whilst drilling before mud weight was increased to shut off gas inflow into the well. It provided the data necessary to ensure that appraisal/development wells can be programmed to mitigate against formation damage to ensure maximum possible stabilised gas flow rates from the NuTech-interpreted gas reservoirs".

* Licence Amendment to November 2026 has been submitted, which should give time for an Exploitation Concession for the LNG/CNG plant.

* ITR for January "likely to uplift gas resources for the MOU-1 and MOU-3 structure. Validation of the NuTech interpretation of gas saturations is also likely to significantly increase potential for prospective gas resources beyond the limits of the MOU-1 and MOU-3 structure in the interval down to 950 metres."

* "The purpose of the fully-funded desktop work during this period is to ensure that the Company and its shareholders get the best possible mutually acceptable terms in commercial negotiations to monetise the discovered gas with the existing entities agreeing to join the Company in a potential FID and development programme."

All looks good to me, coincidentally just going out to slightly belatedly celebrate our anniversary, might order a more expensive dish than usual :-)

.

If you decide to publish your own valuation here, or dispute that posted by someone else, please clearly state your assumptions. That way we can have a sensible and reasoned debate rather than the usual pointless mudslinging. Thank you.

I have been asked via various media to suggest an UNDEVELOPED valuation for the Guercif assets. I do not wish to state a figure, but am happy to suggest a methodology for individuals to come up with their own numbers.

1). Estimate 2C and 2P resources, in BCF, using published data (441 BCF 2C in June 2025).

2). Increase these by whatever you feel is a suitable multiplier reflecting Paul's statement in the last presentation that the upcoming ITR will demonstrate greater volumes "yes there's the proven gas , 2C gas - but there is now an upside way beyond our what initial expectations were".

3). Put your valuation on resources per BCF, using NPV10. As a guideline, I could only find publicly available data for three onshore deals in the last 12 months, involving exploration stage assets (2C & 2P, as opposed to Reserves) which were:

* 2C - $2.64M per BCF, 2P - $2.49M per BCF for Horizon Resources / Bielsko-Biala (Lachowice field in Poland)

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/horizon-resources-inc-announces-34-bcf-2p-reserves-with-npv10-value-of-us-84-million-and-163-bcf-2c-contingent-resources-with-npv10-value-at-us-431-million-for-the-recently-acquired-bielsko-biala-concession-in-poland-302350974.html

and

* 2C - $3.08M per BCF for Vermilion Energy / CanCambrian (Kiskunhalas project in Hungary)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/VET-T/pressreleases/36188174/europes-russian-gas-import-ban-is-creating-a-unique-opportunity-in-hungary/

and

* 2P - $2.08 per BCF Prospex Energy (Viura project in Spain).

https://petroleumaustralia.com.au/projects/prospex-restarts-spains-viura-1b-gas-production/

I suggest you ignore the silly numbers that certain people associated with CHAR have suggested for their assets.

4). Consider that these NPV10 values per BCF were all based on gas prices lower than likely in Morocco, development costs likely greater than in Morocco, and tax rates higher than in Morocco, and adjust your Moroccan value by a suitable factor.

5). Add a value to represent resources not yet defined from additional prospects.

6). Assume a discount to net present value that an incoming developer would want, since they are taking on development cost, development risk, and would still want to make a decent profit. It is reasonable to assume that a purchaser would be prepared to pay in the range of 25-50% of NPV10, which is pretty much the going rate.

6) Multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 to get the total value.

7) Divide by number of shares in issue, plus warrants and options outstanding, to get the fully diluted value per share. To help you out, the last announced Total Voting Rights (31/07/2025) were 686,286,395. Options & warrants at 31/12/2024 (Annual accounts, note 20, p.114) 65,748,976 warrants plus 34,355,486 options. Add 45M options issued 20/02/2025, 10M warrants issued 05/02/2025, and 1.6M warrants issued 21/07/2025. I make that a total diluted 842,990,857.

For those who might have difficulty accessing it. While sitting right next to ONHYM head Amina Benkhadra, Energean CEO Mathios Rigas said:

"Independent operators can bring the focus and efficiency needed to unlock smaller fields that often sit below the radar of the majors. For African nations, progress on domestic gas supply and exports must advance in parallel to reduce energy poverty, lower prices, and support industrial growth. This requires stability, realistic expectations, and conditions that enable experienced operators to secure financing and deliver major projects responsibly".

Maybe an African onshore opportunity might be more attractive to Mr Rigos next time round. Lower development costs and risks, more gas and more profit. I'm sure Mrs Benkhadra has one right there in her handbag.

@EarEyeAm. The TXP financials on this website are not very helpful to the point of being misleading. I have taken a look through their Q2 results, which are detailed, and the less comprehensive Q3 results. Three things caught my attention (and not positively).

* In Q2, under 'Assets' is $175M of Property, Plant & Equipment. Note 7 also refers to this, where it is revealed that Petroleum & Natural Gas Development assets totalled $266M. All this investment, mostly in currently producing fields, is failing to generate a positive cashflow, which shareholders should find disturbing.

* Q3, "Net debt increased to $77.75 million at September 30, 2025, reflecting the issuance of the Debenture".

* Q3, "The September 30, 2025 unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements include a going concern statement. In a downside scenario, and in the absence of mitigating actions, the Company's current cash resources may not be sufficient to fund expected operating and development expenditures and scheduled bank debt repayments over the next twelve months. These circumstances represent material uncertainties that may cast significant doubt on the Company's ability to continue as a going concern".

"As at September 30, 2025, Touchstone had a working capital deficit of $16.74 million, excluding the carrying value of the Debenture, which may be converted into common shares at any time prior to its August 2028 maturity. The Company's going concern assessment is dependent on the timely collection of value-added tax receivables and anticipated incremental production from its 2025 development program, which has experienced additional costs and operational challenges to date".

In brief, I wouldn't pay 21p a share.

Donal - please go easy on M. Sygmaa. He suffers from aphasia (more specifically, expressive dysphasia), a result of an atherothrombotic brain infarction a couple of years ago, which explains his change in posting style. I see no reason to doubt his assertion that he is a PRD shareholder, and that his wife is indeed from Krong Battambang.

Sorry, I mis-read their rather confusing numbers in the Q3 accounts. I thought TXP oil production was 4000bopd - it's not - nearer 1000bopd. So less of a mouthful if PRD wanted to bite.

TW usually writes complete cr@p, on this occasion he has maybe picked up on limited talks between the two and made 2+2=21. It is quite possible that there have been discussions with TXP about the remainder of their oil assets. PRD already acquired the rump of Cory-Moruga from them, and earlier this year TXP sold off Fyzabad. Their remaining fields have been producing a little over 4000 bopd, in slow decline.

Certainly, TXP needs to do something - they have over $70M debt and less than $30M market cap. The share price has sunk to around half last month's placing price, after disappointing Q3 results. Cascadura (mostly gas) has been serially disappointing with rapid production decline from each new drill., and Central (gas) seems to be requiring more investment than expected for less returns.