Member Info for KeithOz

This is getting curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. We have been assured, day in day out, that there is no gas at Guercif and no chance of flowing any to surface, so the boreholes should have been plugged and abandoned, rather than leaving wellheads in place. We are now told that the wellheads could not be removed without a drilling rig and blowout preventer (BOP) in place. If a full BOP is needed, then clearly there is pressured gas in the bore. If the wells are indeed the dusters that various authorities on here claim, then a full-scale BOP and associated gear would not be needed to contain any kicks from the gas that doesn't exist. So which is it? Gas or no gas?

Of course, even in the case of a dead well it would be standard procedure to employ some equipment to ensure safety while plugging, just in case there is some unexpected gas kick. No one has suggested you just cut the casing and pour in cement. Depending on the circumstances, you could for example use a lightweight BOP or stripping head, with only a workover rig or even crane & winch. Or a standalone HWO or snubbing unit that is usually mounted on a truck. Or a stuffing box and simple crane. The short-term hire cost of such equipment is factored into the estimate I gave previously.

I have been asked to address some more misinformation.

"The difference between the gas discoveries mentioned by Keith and the guercif wells is that typically other gas discoveries are validated by conventional wireline log interpretation and frequently supported by extensive gas pressure readings and sampling and sidewall cores".

What I wrote on October 21st concerning farmouts was not just the opinion of some random bulletin board dude, but data from the 2025 Wood Mackenzie Oil & Gas M&A report. I said "... over the last few years around half of all deals worldwide involve assets where no gas or oil has been flowed to surface. Take the US shale acreage out of the equation and the proportion rises to 80+%. The following is a non-exhaustive list of such farm-in agreements (where a company earns an interest by committing to exploration work) or direct acquisitions of licenses/blocks/subsidiaries. These deals typically involve frontier areas where no hydrocarbons have been produced to surface at the time of the buy-in. Most have not even been drilled"

Let me correct that last sentence - "Only one on this extensive list has been drilled (CHAR/Energean)".

In what kind of parallel universe is it possible to run wireline logs, take pressure readings, and cut sidewall cores without drilling a bl**dy hole first???

The information available for the Guercif licences, derived from five actual boreholes correlated against geophysical data, is very substantially more detailed than for the vast majority of farmouts/acquisitions. It includes gas samples, pressure readings, cuttings analysis, conventional wireline logging, and NuTech log analysis.

All the wellheads that PRD have used at Guercif are high-pressure - Class 5000 rated. On slide 4 of the May 2023 presentation, there were some photos from inside the Guercif warehouse, showing pallets of two different types of drilling mud, and another pallet with a boxed wellhead, showing the item code numbers. I looked this up at the time, Baker Hughes were charging around $150,000 each. I raised a question about these that was addressed by Paul in the presentation.

The costs of plugging & abandoning a shallow (1500m) well could range from $10 - 25,000, probably less in Morocco. This amount would be split roughly equally between the actual plugging (cement & labour) and remediation of the drill pad. If you intend to use the drill pad again for a parallel well (as is proposed for MOU-3), then of course you will only be spending on the actual plugging of the first well.

Paul Griffiths has a reputation for parsimony, so there must be better reasons than the ones so far suggested here for retaining the expensive wellheads rather than opting for the much cheaper option of p & a. Here's a hint - the attempted flow testing of the MOU-3 shallow sands actually penetrated the reservoir, as evidenced by reservoir material being obtained from the bore post-perforation. That was through two layers of steel casing, which would substantially reduce the efficacy of the explosives. All the other testing, of every well, would only be through one casing layer.

I have no idea why anyone should think that a NuTech analysis is of less value than a conventional wireline log. Why the hell would PRD be using them otherwise? - they are more expensive! Perhaps you may wish to familiarise yourselves with what NuTech actually do, and why such an evaluation is of particular value for the reservoir characteristics that are found at Guercif:

"Thin Bed Analysis is an enhanced NULOOK petrophysical analysis specifically for low contrast thinly laminated intervals. By determining inflection points in standard open hole logging measurements using a binary process, high resolution porosity, permeability, and water saturation can be resolved giving a better estimate of reservoir quality and volumetrics".

https://www.nutechenergy.com/integrated-solutions/petrophysical-analysis/

"If you're trying to exit something of this scale, we set a time scale of six months to work this through and that process has started. We're not going to tell you who we're talking to, we're not going to tell you what the terms are, because we're in a commercial process, we've started the beginnings of a commercial process. We're not going to give you a daily football report on what we're doing, because we have to protect our commercial interests. By protecting our commercial interests and negotiating leverage, we are protecting our shareholders".

Paul Griffiths,

Investor Meets Company Presentation. 16th October 2025. 35m 20 s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IP0sYvohmc

Oh, that was Oz timestamp. So just after market close on 6th November UK time.

Https://x.com/PredatorOilGas/status/1986475209470132467

2:46 AM · Nov 7, 2025

"1st meeting with one potential investor group in 2 weeks’ time.".

Bed & ISA.

Let's knock this cr@p on the head. On paper, Algeria has numerically superior armed forces. However, it consists mostly of Soviet-era equipment, much of which is unlikely to function and for which they will never receive ammunition, spares or training, since Russia is a little tied up elsewhere. Morocco has a close relationship with NATO, and follows the NATO model of integrated equipment, operations and logistics. It has mostly modern US equipment, including Abrams tanks, BMPs, HIMARS, F-16s and Apaches. Israel supplies highly sophisticated electronic surveillance, jamming, and drone systems. The border is closely monitored including use of US satellites, every time a camel passes wind it will be spotted in what is 100's of kms of open desert.

There is no credible threat to Guercif.

I have pulled this together from a variety of sources, then assembled it using paid-for AI.

On November 16, 2025—just two days ago—Ireland faced a second ECT challenge from Predator Oil & Gas Holdings PLC, a London-listed firm focused on gas exploration off Ireland's northwest coast. The dispute centres on multi-year delays in processing Predator's application for a production license for the Corrib South gas field, submitted in 2019. Predator accuses the Irish government of "bad faith" and "unjustifiable delays," claiming these have stalled development of an estimated 4 trillion cubic feet of gas resources, potentially worth hundreds of millions in revenue. The company argues the inaction breaches ECT obligations on fair and equitable treatment (FET) of investments, mirroring the Lansdowne case but emphasizing administrative foot-dragging rather than outright refusal. Predator has not yet filed a formal arbitration notice but issued a detailed legal threat letter to the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, demanding resolution within 90 days or it will proceed to international arbitration (likely under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or a similar body). The firm, which holds a 50% stake in the project, the other 50% held by Theseus Ltd., highlights Ireland's energy import dependency amid global supply disruptions, positioning domestic gas as a lower-emission alternative to LNG imports. No specific damages figure has been disclosed, but similar ECT fossil fuel cases have sought sums in the hundreds of millions to billions. This development adds pressure on Ireland, already navigating the Lansdowne arbitration and broader calls to exit the ECT. Environmental groups like Comhlámh have urged immediate withdrawal, warning of escalating costs to taxpayers. Predator's CEO, Paul Griffiths, stated the delays "exemplify regulatory paralysis that undermines investor confidence," while government sources defend the process as thorough environmental review. The case underscores the ECT's lingering "sunset clause," which protects existing investments for 20 years post-withdrawal, meaning disputes like this could persist even if Ireland exits soon.

Hope this is helpful.

Thank you for the reminder of the X update. Not mentioned was a significant upcoming event for the Morocco acreage. The last CPR, which is a formal document for evaluation by potential investors, was issued in January 2022. There has been an ITR (informal, not to be relied upon by potential investors) issued in January 2024, with an unpublished update June 2024. A revised CPR is currently being compiled, with publication probably by end-January 2026. This will incorporate a vast amount of data that was not previously available.

The last ITR gave Contingent Resources of 441 BCF net to PRD. A conservative NPV10 of $2M per BCF has been widely quoted as a reasonable valuation for the Guercif onshore resources, unlike on the CHAR board where irresponsible folk are bandying round $6M per BCF for capital-intensive offshore. That gives an unrisked 2C valuation of pretty much £1 per share. In the latest presentation, Paul suggested a current risking of 25% chance of commercial success, giving roughly 25p per share.

I expect the new CPR to show two improvements on these numbers. Firstly, there is likely to be an increase in gas volumes - and it is volume that is the primary interest of farminees. Secondly, with the availability of newer data, particularly relating to the understanding of the quantified effect of overbalanced drilling, I would expect it reasonable to reduce the risking that was previously applied.

Any substantial farminee will do their own due diligence, and run through all the raw data to arrive at their own volume and risk estimates. The CPR is not for their use, but is a formal evaluation of the share of the licence remaining with PRD, that current and new PRD shareholders can use as a reliable independent assessment of their investment in the company.

@CliveBlueSky - This was fíor in 1890, and still true today:

“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Oscar Fingal O'Fflahertie Wills Wilde

Sorry if I appear to have kicked a hornets' nest. We need to clarify a few issues before coming to a consensus.

The target T&T production, shown on p7 of the latest presentation, of 1083bopd is net to PRD, after accounting for the 49% of Steeldrum held by WIEGL (Rex). The bulk of this production is not from Bonasse / ex-CEG, but from Cory-Moruga, which is 100% owned by PRD. I pointed out earlier that for comparative purposes, the FT p/e numbers were EBITDA, therefore we should calculate the PRD T&T numbers in the same way.

So no tax in these numbers. Perhaps some here with genuine accounting knowledge can give their professional opinion as to how the acquisition costs, both initial and deferred, should be treated - will the material assets such as storage tanks, drilling equipment, etc, be depreciated (over 10-20 years)? Will the non-material acquisition costs (eg licences) be amortised? Thanks.

Why a p/e of 6.5? That is half the average ratio for both UK and US oil producers, not including the integrated businesses. You would expect a higher-than-average p/e for a company such as PRD, with rapidly growing oil revenues. The reason I presented the calculation was to show that just Trinidad projected production to the end of 2026 should value the company at up to three times its current market capitalisation. Then add in Morocco & Ireland. Not a very quiet future at all.

FT P/E ratios are EBITDA, not net earnings.

Should have mentioned that the P/E calculation is FT data for all UK O & G companies, main market & AIM, that are actually producing as opposed to still in exploration phase I have not included BP & Shell since they are integrated operators (upstream, midstream & downstream).

Assumptions:

* 1000 bopd by end 2026.

* Trinidad oil $61.5 pb = ave of today's WTI & Brent.

* 12.5% royalty.

* No tax payable by PRD.

* Either a). 30% of revenue to PRD if self-financed, or b). 15% if financed by partner.

* Trailing P/E ratio of 13 for UK listed oil producers.

* USD : GBP = 0.76.

Gives market capitalisation of a). £58M, or b). £29M

Nothing in that for Morocco or Ireland.

Off Topic. fwiw, I think @sygmaa is who he says he is, and lives in the Lyon area. There is a good reason why he has developed difficulties with language, including his own, over the last couple of years, and it is not appropriate to make fun of this. He understood my message in phonetic Khmer, which is not available via Google Translate, which is reasonable confirmation that his wife is from Battambang. He is generally supportive of PRD, so not reasonable to label him 'troll'. Thank you.

I am a little surprised that some here are suggesting that Paul Griffiths doesn't know how to raise legal issues with the Irish government. Paul is not the only member of PRD's Board of Directors. Our Chairman is Dr Stephen Boldy, also CEO of Lansdowne Oil & Gas. He has some knowledge of these matters:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/LOGP/update-on-energy-charter-treaty-claim-m4ovt8249nizc0w.html

1). A little strange some here are complaining there has been no RNS on Ireland. Perhaps you should listen to what Paul said in the presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IP0sYvohmc

54m 33s: "So they (DECC) were given communication in August that basically said we gave them three options to resolve the situation...so they have until 31st October to respond. One minute past midnight on 31st October it will be trick or treat time. If we don't get a responsible answer or a satisfactory answer to our request, then we will start the process of engaging an no win/no fee lawyer".

I would have thought it obvious that 'start the process' is not the same as serving a valid legal notice. I don't know if lawyers have already been pre-selected and given an outline brief, but it will clearly take a while until formal notice is given to the Irish Government. I would be at that stage that I would expect an RNS, not before.

2). Repetition of the claim that there is little chance of selling a portion of the Guercif assets without proving commercial flow rates. I covered this comprehensively in my post of 21 Oct 2025, 01:02.

In that post I said "Others claim that without gas flowed, there can be no asset divestment. Either they are ignorant of standard O & G industry practice, therefore not qualified to be providing advice here, or else they are publishing deliberate misinformation (aka lying)".

Then, based on the Wood Mackenzie H1 2025 Oil & Gas Mergers & Acquisitions report: "My guestimate is that over the last few years around half of all deals worldwide involve assets where no gas or oil has been flowed to surface. Take the US shale acreage out of the equation and the proportion rises to 80+%".

I then provided "a non-exhaustive list of such farm-in agreements (where a company earns an interest by committing to exploration work) or direct acquisitions of licenses/blocks/subsidiaries. These deals typically involve frontier areas where no hydrocarbons have been produced to surface at the time of the buy-in. Most have not even been drilled. Here are some of the major publicly reported transactions from the last 24 months. I am aware of others but am not able to publicise details - many deals are confidential, or involve non-quoted companies".

There was a reason for the deletions, and it's not good. Someone deliberately had a thread removed by posting offensive comments. They did that because the thread contained some interesting information concerning the ownership and management of Corrib South that they would prefer not to be public.

The Corrib South licence is owned 50/50 by PRD & Theseus Ltd. Theseus is owned 50/50 by Pul Griffiths and Vivian Caston, a former colleague of Paul's and Providence Resources Director. The day-to-day management of Theseus was handled by a small company that became part of CI Financial, who in turn were acquired by Mubadala. Mubadala is the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi.

Friends in high places.