Member Info for KeithOz

My reading of the ECT is that it is designed to protect investment from changes in government policy, which was at the core of RKH vs Italy. This is not the problem that PRD faces, it is the issue of the Irish government failing to progress commitments under existing, unchanged and ongoing policy, which is breach of contract. Furthermore, last year the EU announced its intention to withdraw from the ECT, which if enacted could seriously undermine any action taken against Ireland using the ECT. Anyway, at this stage it is all theoretical, hopefully we will have some concrete indications of legal process by the end of the year.

Thanks for the response @Swizz. Others - apologies if this is getting unnecessarily complex, feel free to skip reading and move on. Since this is primarily a matter of breach of contract with the Irish government, I would have thought if it is not resolved by negotiation or arbitration, then it would have to be brought before the Irish courts, and dealt with under Irish law, so preferably handled by legal counsel familiar with the relevant legal procedures.

Unfortunately, Ireland is not in full accordance with EU law, particularly with regard to third party funding of litigation. Under Irish Common Law, there are the concepts of 'champerty' & 'maintenance' which require any funder of litigation to have a pre-existing financial interest in the outcome - for example by being a significant shareholder. There is clear legal precedent to this - the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise, which forbade third party funding. Legislation to enable third party funding of international commercial arbitration (but not Court proceedings) is within the proposed Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023, but this has been stalled for years, and may never be approved if multi-million Euro cases are being lined up against the government.

Corrected thread title! I haven't been involved in commercial legal disputes in Ireland, so just did a quick leaf through the websites of some leading Irish lawyers. Of course, I don't know if the intention is to use an Irish firm, but that would make sense. Some interesting differences to other countries.

* Under the Solicitors Acts, no win, no fee cannot be advertised, but is often available.

* Unlike personal injury claims, in the event of success, commercial claims cannot be charged on a percentage basis, only on time spent on the case.

* The following leading outfits have a successful track record of no win, no fee cases against the Irish government: McCann FitzGerald; Matheson; A & L Goodbody.

* These also have a good track record in government cases, but I can't find any specific no win, no fee references: Mason, Hayes & Curran; Arthur Cox.

* There are also three smaller specialist partnerships that deal exclusively with commercial vs government matters: Carmody Moran; Amorys; Orpen Franks. All have successfully handled no win, no fee cases.

So, common practice with plenty of choice, even in the relatively small Irish legal world. Perhaps our Ireland-based posters can comment?

Does NOT have a leg to stand on. 🤣

Jeez, too much research before my first coffee of the day.

Thank you, @StockCheque, for your detailed and imo accurate summation of the Corrib South legal situation. No thankyous to those who have said you are wrong, without providing any proof of their claims.

* PRD's case has a much stronger foundation than RKH's, since it is based on a failure of required government action rather than an opposition to legally approved government policy.

* I have stated previously that I have used no win - no fee lawyers on a number of occasions professionally, and that they are highly unlikely to take on a case unless they are very, very sure of winning. A 20% fee is about right.

* A critical piece of evidence is this:

Statement in the Irish Parliament on Oil and Gas Successor Authorisations

On 15 June 2022, during a Dáil Éireann debate on Energy Security (Motion [Private Members]), the government's official position was outlined in an amendment proposed by Minister of State Colm Brophy TD. This amendment explicitly confirmed the continued legal existence and progression of existing oil and gas authorisations, including Successor Authorisations for development and production, under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.The relevant excerpt from the amendment reads:

"While no new authorisations for new exploration will be granted, existing authorisations may progress to a natural conclusion, including production, under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021."

This applies to all existing licensing options and their Successor Authorisations, such as those for Corrib South (Licensing Option 16/26), which is an application to progress from exploration to development tied to the existing Corrib gas field infrastructure. The Act's saving provisions (Section 15) ensure that holders of existing authorisations can apply for and receive Successor Authorisations (e.g., Lease Undertakings or Petroleum Leases) without interruption, provided they meet regulatory requirements.

The full text of the debate is here:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2022-06-15/8/

* Finally. it is no coincidence that PRD's Chairman, Dr Stephen Boldy, is also CEO of Lansdowne Oil & Gas.

Roll on All Hallow's Eve.

Https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/from-relic-to-renaissance-the-coming-oil-repricing?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Blog%20Notification&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=386752015&utm_content=386752015&utm_source=hs_email

So, once again, fact or fiction? Can ONHYM award the Guercif licence to a new operator next year?

The First Extension Period for the Guercif licence ends November 5th, 2026. All commitments for this period have already been met. PRD then has the contractual right, but not an obligation, to enter the Second Extension Period, which adds a further 30 months, i.e. until April 2029, by rolling over the current $1.5M surety. PRD then has a further contractual right, but again not an obligation, to apply for a Production Concession for any part of the licence during this period. A Production Concession lasts 25 years, with an optional 10-year extension. Licence rights are transferable at the request of the holder. You can confirm all this online in less than a minute.

I don't have a problem if people have a different opinion to me regarding an opportunity. I do have a problem when they deliberately lie, repeatedly, as part of an attempt to discourage investment.

Agreed - as I said a couple of days ago "The acquirers will use this data to assess if they have the technical and financial capabilities to commercialise the assets. Their assessment makes the historically assigned ccos irrelevant - they will bid solely dependent upon their own evaluation."

One of the reasons I am invested in this company is their openness in releasing data - even including actual well logs. The availability of such a mass of detailed data has a downside, in that people of malevolent intent can cherry pick information, and present isolated data in a negative manner. This is exactly what is happening here today.

A Contingent Resource is a discovery. By definition this has a 100% geological chance of success (gcos). To move the classification up to Reserves, a clear pathway to commercialisation must exist - the resource will become commercial contingent upon this pathway, hence the term Contingent Resource. This commercial chance of success (ccos) is dependent upon a worked-up Field Development Plan, and the financial, technical and logistical capacity to carry out the FDP.

The A-Sands, Ma-sands, TGB-2 sands and the MOU-Fan are all Contingent Resource, therefore 100% gcos. In 2022 the latter three were assigned a 25% ccos, since none of the above factors were in place. This was of course before either Afriquia Gaz or Vivo (Shell's agents in Morocco) became involved. Any potential acquirer will have access to the full data sets produced with the participation of industry-leading service providers such as NuTech, Rockwash, SLB (formerly Schlumberger), Baker-Hughes and Italfluid all providing added credibility. The acquirers will use this data to assess if they have the technical and financial capabilities to commercialise the assets. Their assessment makes the historically assigned ccos irrelevant - they will bid solely dependent upon their own evaluation.

It has been stated here today that the project has only a 25% chance of success. Once again, you must decide if this is fact or fiction.

As I said, it is up to each individual to decide upon fact or fiction. Here's just one of this morning's fictions that you can easily fact check by looking at the publicly available ITR. "Entire portfolio in Morocco is classified as prospective resource only". I repeat, disinformation, aka lying.

Please note, I posted that most of these divested assets not only had no hydrocarbons flowed to surface BUT HAD NOT EVEN BEEN DRILLED. It is a direct result of drilling that Guercif reservoir depths, thicknesses, areal extents, petrology, gas pressure, charge and composition are all known. How anyone can deduce that a shallow onshore basin with 5 logged modern boreholes, plus historical exploration, represents a higher risk than an undrilled deepwater prospect is beyond me.

fyi, there is a whole sub-industry devoted to O&G Acquisitions & Divestments. These A&D firms actively seek out and/or promote suitable opportunities for their clients, and provide technical, financial, and strategic advice. While many are US-focused, some such as Energy Advisers Group and Piper Sandler are Europe, Middle East & S.E. Asia specialists in asset transfer. Investment banks such as Citi & Jefferies also have specialist O & G teams. What PRD are planning is standard industry practice.

Facts or fiction? Your money, your choice.

Some here have been claiming that because gas has yet to be flowed to surface, then there is no gas (an obvious non-sequitur). 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).

I have been thumbing through the latest WoodMac O&G M&A reports for the first six months of 2025. I can't provide lengthy quotes, since this is a subscription-only service ($2,700 per annum).

Upstream (exploration) - 85 deals, $71Bn, just in the first 6 months of 2025. Over 70 have been deals for specific assets, rather than corporate acquisitions, with an increased focus on natural gas.

“The growing prospect of a delayed energy transition points to more resilient demand for oil and gas over the next decade”.

“Long-life, high-margin assets continue to be the most highly prized”

https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/whats-been-happening-in-upstream-ma/

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+%. 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. 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.

2023

88E / Monitor Petroleum – offshore Namibia

ECO Atlantic / Tullow - offshore Guyana

CHAR / Energean – offshore Morocco

2024

Hibiscus / Petronas – offshore Malaysia

Total / Impact – offshore Namibia

CEG / Chevron – offshore Uruguay

ECO Atlantic / Total - offshore S. Africa

2025

Total / Chevron – undeveloped leases Gulf of Mexico

Vaalco / ICE – offshore Cote d'Ivoire

ECO Atlantic / Tosaco - offshore S. Africa

Valeura / PTTPE – offshore Thailand

New Stratus / Vultur – Colombia

Block Energy / XIQ – onshore Georgia

CEG / Sintana – offshore Uruguay

Most of these deals are offshore, so high cost to develop. Good onshore assets are rarely available. As has been stated here many times, the Guercif assets are onshore, low development cost, astride an underutilised pipeline to Europe, in a tax-friendly, stable jurisdiction. Imo, Guercif represents an outstanding opportunity for an acquirer, with the potential for a premium purchase price. Paul Griffiths is intending to sell the operatorship but retain a substantial stake in order to gain exposure to long term upside.

Facts or fict

@Sygmaa. Bonjour, and 'aroun suostei' to your wife (did I guess correctly?). You are quite correct that turbidites can easily cover 100km², as Caterham7 had previously told us. I know who Caterham is in real-life, and can confirm his knowledge of turbidites is world-class. I suggest that readers should take a closer look at slides 28,29 & 30 from Thursday's presentation. These show the potential huge areal extent and thickness of the TGB-4 & TGB-6 fans.

* The upper TGB-6 has a potential area of 81km², with a measured gross thickness of 91m in MOU-3. MOU-2 was drilled closer to the fan axis, and may have twice this thickness.

* The lower TGB-4 has a potential area of 68.5km², with gross thickness of 24m.

Stacked with these are:

* A-Sands

* Ma-Sands

* TGB-2 Sands

* Potentially 150km² of shale gas - MOU-1 had a 200m thickness with gas saturation of up to 40%.

Either: A). Believe these charts, that's one hell of a lot of gas; or, B). Believe the trolls, who say there isn't any gas because it has not yet been flowed to surface. My money is on the industry players believing option A.

This article appears to have been drafted by Flagstaff, and is worth reading since it fleshes out some of what Paul said about the divestment process. Unfortunately, it is not possible to copy & paste it here without subscribing. For any technophobe non-Francophones, click on the dots on your browser task bar to get to 'settings', then go to 'languages', then 'auto translate' or 'translate to English'. Bon chance!

Quite incredible that some clueless individuals are still bleating that there is no gas in Morocco. P.4 of the presentation: 441 BCF Contingent Resource net to PRD. That alone has an NPV10 of around $900,000,000. Current market cap 25.7M.

The trolls will continue to squeal, because that is what trolls do. However, the real picture is rather different...

* Ireland. At no cost to PRD (no win, no fee) in two weeks' time, a very good case will be opened against the Irish government. I have worked with no win, no fee lawyers previously, primarily on breach of contract issues - they will not take on a case unless they are VERY sure of seeing a return for their efforts. The claim could be very substantial, go take a look at Rockhopper vs Italy.

* Morocco. It would seem that the relatively shallow biogenic gas field(s) have the potential to be substantially larger than first expected. There is also huge natural gas upside in the lower fans and the Triassic, plus gas storage and helium potential. The marketing of this package is already underway, with the considerable database being made available via an updated ITR. The low-tax regime, proximity to the trans-Maghreb pipeline and low-cost onshore development, all make this a very attractive proposition for a trade buyer looking for geographical diversification into a politically stable location.

* Trinidad. Things are progressing smoothly, at NO COST to PRD. Despite what the naysayers would have you believe, even Snowcap-3 will be low or even zero cost to PRD, due to Paul continuing to negotiate very clever deals with service providers. As I said earlier, a very interesting business model.

Yes, we will need to continue to be patient, but should see a dramatic improvement by mid-2006.

Interesting that the local T&T market does their valuation on bopd. So PRD can buy a low-producing, high reserves field for peanuts, get it producing at no cost to PRD, then sell it at a premium.

An update & correction after a more leisurely reading.

* S. American opportunity is ONshore, so not CEG Uruguay.

* p.31 a reference to unpublished June 2024 ITR suggesting multi-TCF of shale gas around MOU-1.

* p.32 top centre confirms my view that salt below, above and to the east of MOU-5 location has isolated the Jurassic carbonate from gas charge. p.32 top right shows that MOU-5 would have missed the Triassic target. imo a new well will be needed north of MOU-4. 100km² TAGI target 1-2 TCF. Still good potential in Jurassic carbonate further north of MOU-5.

* p.33 top left confirms my previous posts on X re. large granite intrusions being the source of Helium.

* pp. 36/37 Decision to be made on whether to drill Snowcap-3 or Snowcap-4 first.

* The 6-month marketing operation is not to compile a list of names as one buffoon stated, but to start discussions with the names already generated. This is being supported by a new Morocco ITR under preparation, incorporating all known new data.

* New Scorpion ITR August 2025 looking at gas storage in salt. * Agent appointed to market Morocco opportunities across Africa, Middle East & SE Asia. * Deadline given to DECC to conclude Ireland licencing decision by end-October. * Snowcap-3 AND -4 Q2 2026. * Now looking at S. American offshore opportunity - presumably buying in to CEG licences. * Risked valuation (25% cos) of 23.4p per share. * Interesting new seismic data in appendices - pp.28 - 35.

I realise it's annoying when the facts get in the way of a good story, but....

PRD began discussions with CEG for the acquisition of T & T assets in mid-2002, initially resulting in a transaction in December 2022 for just Cory-Moruga. CEG hinted at the possibility of the remainder of the T & T business being up for sale in 2023 & 2024. The acquisition of Innis-Trinity, Icacos & Goudron was again discussed with PRD in late 2024, with the deal announced in February 2025.

I understand that CEG & Sintana have been in discussions over the last three months, which means they started talking a full five months AFTER the T & T disposal had already been agreed.