Member Info for KeithOz

The rules quoted here earlier about AGM timing changed 20 years ago.

Companies Act 2006, Section 336 / 583:

"This section replaces section 366 of the 1985 Act but will apply only to public companies since private companies are no longer to be required to hold an AGM. Where section 366 required an AGM to be held each year and not more than 15 months after the previous AGM, a public company will now be required to hold an AGM within 6 months of its financial year-end. This new requirement is intended to ensure that shareholders have a more timely opportunity to hold the directors of a public company to account."

There should have been one before June 30, with 21 days' notice required (s 337 / 584).

Failure to hold one in a timely manner is a breach of the Directors' fiduciary duties - FCA (hahaha) is responsible for compliance.

The notice for the last AGM was issued on 12 April 2024, meeting held 16 May.

I have asked why one has not been held this year and when it is due to take place, no answer yet.

For those interested in the process of karstification (hopefully present in the Jurassic carbonates), in the limestone near Ingleborough, Yorkshire, is the curiously-named sinkhole Braithwaite Wife Hole. Just inland from the Sunshine Coast here in Queensland we have the village of Bald Knob. Maybe they could link in the twin cities programme?

F&M, since it's a slow day - I recall the original joke was based on a advert for tea: "if Typhoo put the T in BriTain, who put the **** in S-thorpe?" Apologies if I've offended anyone.

Evidently I am not allowed to use the word beginning with S and ending in Y that means 'luxurious or expensive'. Just as well I don't live in the principal town in North Lincolnshire famous for its steel production.

there is a reason that comments about chariot get posted on the predator board.

you are the reason.

over the years you have ramped the hell out of char, which is now bumping along at an all time low. at the same time you have continuously posted negative comments on prd, many of which are untrue, as i comprehensively demonstrated yesterday concerning your ludicrous claims about 'residual gas'. my factual comments have been in response to your frequent requests 'to play the ball not the man', you then respond with another offside.

your negative comments often centre around prd's failure to flow test the wells it has drilled. somewhat ironic that char has drilled anchois-1 in 2010, anchois-2 in 2022, anchois-3 in 2024 and oba-1 in 2024, but not even attempted to flow test any of them. i don't see you complaining about this on the char board. now you are here complaining that prd has spent so much money on drilling, but not complaining that char has spent over ten times the amount for less results. again no complaints on the char board about this massive erosion of value, nor the s****y mayfair offices and bloated board of directors. i wonder why that is? i repeat, i hold no ill will towards char shareholders and it is my hope that all investors in this difficult market sector make a positive return. my problem, and i believe that of many other prd shareholders here, is specifically with you, not with char.

your constant trolling on this board is so transparent that you have zero credibility, unless you are hopeful of a place in the buffoons hall of shame.

Yesterday there was a repeat of the suggestion that due to two inversions, the gas in the Guercif region has all leaked away, and all that is left is 'residual gas' of no economic value. This is plainly incorrect for a number of obvious reasons, leading me to the conclusion that this assertion is made by someone woefully ignorant of the geology of the Taza-Guercif Basin (hence TGB Sands), or is a deliberate falsehood.

There were indeed two significant inversions – uplift of strata due to tectonic compression.

The first occurred in the Cretaceous, resulting in the uplift of the underlying Jurassic, giving rise to a series of half-grabens that influenced later sediment deposition. At that time, the Jurassic had not been buried sufficiently deeply for there to be enough temperature and pressure to convert the organic content to oil and gas. Since at that time there was no oil and gas, how could the inversion cause it to leak away?

The as-yet unproven deeper Triassic and Ordovician strata may possibly have been in the temperature and pressure window for hydrocarbon formation at that time, but would remain sealed by a very substantial thickness of upper Triassic salt.

The second, lesser, inversion occurred in Neogene times, ending 6.4 million years ago with the Messinian salinity crisis. This was mostly a minor reactivation of the existing structures, together with the formation of ideal structures for hydrocarbon trapping, such as salt-cored anticlines and synsedimentary faulting (flower structures). The thick layers of carbon-containing sediment deposited in the Rifian corridor, linking the Mediterranean and Atlantic along the path of the Guercif graben, became the source of the biogenic gas found in the upper levels of the Guercif boreholes. Biogenic gas is formed in-situ by the action of methanogenic bacteria on the contained carbon material. This occurred after the second inversion, and is possibly still ongoing. Since at the time of the second inversion much of the sediment had not been deposited and the gas had not yet formed, how could this inversion cause it to leak away?

Overpressured gas has been measured throughout MOU-1, and at top and bottom of MOU-3. How on earth can 'residual' gas be overpressured?

Gas clouds and gas chimneys are different phenomena. A gas chimney is a narrow column (around 100-200m across) from reservoir to surface, imaged by chaotic lines on seismic. It usually originates from the crest of a structure and is caused by faulting allowing gas escape. A gas cloud, as seen to the east of MOU-2, is wider in extent, and originates from the bottom of the structure. This indicates a full structure overflowing (underflowing?) from the base. I specifically asked Paul Griffiths if the cloud at MOU-2 indicated a fill-to-spill situation; in his opinion this is the case, and was part of his highly positive opinion of the structure's commerciality.

I sent this to some investors privately, here it is with the names missing for legal reasons. I'm sure it won't overly tax your brains to fill in the blanks.

" ****, new on lse today, is well researched, with good spelling, correct grammar and careful argument construction. I strongly suspect this is financial journalist ****, who writes articles for and coordinates shorts with newsletter publisher ****. Possibly correct about a placing to finance MOU-6, they are in cahoots with bucket shop broker ****, and the late large sells are possibly pre-sales by them of stock already allocated to them. Ho hum.

An excellent post by TRSA yesterday evening, suggesting we stick to facts not emotions. In particular, GRH has come under concerted attack, based mostly on his individual style of presenting information, rather than people evaluating the content of his posts. In particular, this criticism has come mostly from posters who are conspicuous in never providing genuinely useful information themselves. Let's look at some facts that support GRH's obvious enthusiasm.

👀 Oil was flowed to the surface within the Guercif licence over 100 years ago. I have previously put a photo of the quaint wooden derrick and pith-helmeted gents on X:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1902822473143554549

👀 Historic drills were looking for oil, but found gas. This was ignored at the time. since there was little economic demand for gas. The drills were either in the wrong positions into the geological structure, or insufficiently deep to find oil. More evidence for you: https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1919559318023880805 and

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1919558217102983303

👀 GRH refers to surface seepage studies. One has been performed over the Guercif licence, indicating subsurface presence of gas, oil and condensate. I appreciate this may not be easy to understand from the raw data, but is highly positive when combined with other information:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1916976872673710413

👀 GRH has associations with the well-respected hydrocarbon survey company Scotforth, and has access to their RSDD-H satellite data for the Guercif region. I have not seen this commercially confidential information, but take his word that it is very positive. He has used RSDD-H data over the last decade to predict accurately which drills would be successful and which would fail - this is not boastful as some would suggest, but an indication of the utility of the data. This is how the data is collected & interpreted:

https://www.scotforth.com/index.php/exploration-methodology

👀 PRD has three wells with substantial net pay zones of mostly overpressured biogenic gas in reservoirs of outstanding porosity & permeability, as demonstrated with the best-in-class evaluation by Nu-Tech. The latest testing indicates that the formation damage present in all wells can be overcome with the appropriate perforation techniques, and prevented in future now that enough subsurface data is available for optimal well design. You can read the relevant RNSs yourselves.

👀 A co-development contract has already been signed, providing finance for future development. Last two RNSs and latest video.

Don't bother with any 'whataboutery' responses, just look at the facts.

Part 2.

✳️ Prevention. How could MOU-6 avoid these issues? Since the petrology & mineralogy, depths, and gas pressures are already known, it should be straightforward to drill at balanced pressure – no blowouts, no excess drilling fluid penetration.

Another intriguing possibility is to drill without using standard casing, avoiding the need for explosive perforation (and delay in importing the guns). This can be done using one or more of pre-slotted casing, a sand filter, and gravel packing of the borehole. These are standard procedures for highly friable reservoirs such as we have at Guercif, and may enable MOU-6 to be drilled sooner than some expect.

If you have drunk plenty of coffee, this is an excellent detailed technical summary:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373119429_Impact_of_Formation_Damage_on_Well_Productivity_throughout_Experimental_Work_and_Field_case_study

Part 1.

MOU-1 to MOU-4 all have formation damage. What has caused it? How can it be overcome? How can it be prevented in the future?

✳️ Cause. Gas underground is under pressure due to the weight of overlying rock. The deeper you go, the higher the pressure. If you are drilling and suddenly enter a pocket of gas under a pressure of several hundred psi, a blowout can occur, with resultant damage to the borehole integrity, equipment, and of course endangering personnel. To avoid such a problem, adjustments are made to the drilling fluid/mud used to lubricate the drill and circulate the drilling debris to the surface.

The density of the drilling fluid can be changed by adding dense minerals such as barite. This increases the weight of the column of drilling fluid, so exerting counter-pressure on the gas trying to escape. The density is calculated to balance the expected pressure. The gas around Guercif is higher than the pressure that would normally be expected for a given depth, so as a precaution, the drilling fluid has been adjusted to be overbalanced.

The Guercif reservoir sands have unusually high porosity & permeability. This is good in that we have more gas per m³, but bad in that it enables drilling mud to be forced into the pore space more easily, blocking gas flow into the well – this is formation damage. Secondary formation damage can also be caused by explosive perforation – the heat and pressure can compact and plasticise the reservoir material.

✳️ Solutions. Perforation of the bore casing and into the reservoir rock must be sufficiently deep to penetrate beyond the 'skin' of formation damage. MOU-3 A-sands had the added problem of being behind two layers of steel casing, so a relatively large explosive charge was necessary to penetrate the extra steel and still form a deep enough tunnel into the reservoir to go through the formation damage and enable gas to flow. We know that perforation has been deep enough, since undamaged A-sand material has been recovered by nitrogen lift. However, there is still some obstruction within the actual perforation tunnels, and we are waiting to see if the build-up in reservoir pressure is sufficient to clear out these debris. If that is the case (and if we are going to be told!) I would expect we would hear next week. If still no flow, other techniques can be used to clear the perforation tunnels, such as acid stimulation.

An interesting positive is that as the perforation guns worked through two layers of steel casing, they will almost certainly be successful through the single casing used in other horizons of MOU-3, and all the other wells. One day the market might wake up to that.

@Rambo. I don't know the answers to any of these questions, so these are only my guesses:

1. Paul said in the interview that SLB only had 3.4m of gun strip. My understanding is that the whole point of the test is that if the large guns were able to penetrate the double cased sections and the formation damage successfully, they would certainly work on the single casing sections of all the other wells.

2. I would think that you would know within 1 - 2 weeks if pressure build-up was significant, and then be able to decide on next steps.

3. Two wells can be drilled from the same pad sufficiently far apart not to interfere with each other, but still close enough to be pretty sure of the strata you will be going through. A deviated well may be a possibility. As you suggest, one well can be used to access the shallow reservoirs, the other the deeper ones. If MOU-3 shallow (double casing section) does not clean up, then you use the large guns to perforate the lower (single casing) sections. Paul said in the interview that nitrogen lift had retrieved material from the bottom of the well, implying that swabbing had taken place, and thus the lower reservoirs would now be accessible.

4. As per my answer to (1) above, I assume that all the reservoirs of MOU-1 & MOU-4 are amenable to perforation with the larger guns, once these are available. I hope that PG is placing advance orders for delivery of sufficient strip for all the commercially relevant sections of MOU-1, -3, -4 & -6. I would hope that you can make a down-payment, with the balance payable on delivery. If the decision is that money would be better spent on twinning the other wells, that will only happen after MOU-6 has been proven successful.

5. Not only do the terms of the Guercif licence require 3D seismic over the Jurassic, but I would think that it would be money well spent to ensure optimal drill positioning for multiple wells across this very large prospect. Given the uncertain location of salt migration, I would personally look to do an FTG (Full Tensor Gradiometry) survey as well, but Paul knows vastly more than I do about this location.

I repeat, this is just my viewpoint, others will undoubtedly think differently.

I am in general agreement with the methodology behind the anonymous revised valuation. However, this model assumes an NPV of £3.87 per BCF, or $5.17. That looks far too high to me, since PG and others have previously talked about an NPV10 of $2 per BCF.

Using $2 per BCF, 700M shares, and current exchange rate of 1.33 USD/GBP, I come up with a value for their High case of £3.92p.

That may not sound as impressive, but is for the biogenic / CNG operation only. Add to that Titanosaurus, Helium, other Guercif prospects, T & T and Ireland.

@Donal - Paul did say the bottom of the well, so I assume below the packer. No idea what design they will come up with for the new well, but they will obviously use the optimum casing solution, certainly won't be double this time. Huge advantage knowing exactly how deep the various formations are, their mineralogy, thickness, poroperm and gas pressure, easy to get the mud weight and drilling speed spot on.

Some interesting things that I haven't seen mentioned.

* The big guns almost worked (and may still work given time). This is despite being used through two layers of steel casing.

* Paul said that none of the previous attempts at perforation (including Sandjet) had actually gone beyond the formation damage.

* The lower reservoir layers only have one layer of casing, so the big guns will almost certainly be effective.

* Nitrogen lift was used to get gunk from the bottom of the well. This means effectively it has been swabbed, and the lower reservoirs are able to be perforated.

* Unfortunately, SLB only had 3.4m of gun strip available, so only part of the 11m of A-sands was shot. It will take 4-6 months to import more, hopefully they are ordering enough to do MOU-3 lower levels as well as MOU-6

* Two producing wells are required for a workable gas sales agreement. This will be MOU-3 and MOU-6.

You have previously asked posters here to play the ball, not the man, so please explain how:

1. You get 'residual gas' at 122psi overpressure?

2. Why you think it reasonable to describe an 11m thick reservoir as 'relatively thin'?

3. Why you think testing at the very base of a potential 250m thick reservoir will give you definitive information about the upper 240m?

"The guy from Oz should be banned imo ! An absolute charlatan, along with a few notable others. Lost so many people money , including me, with their constant hyper ramping !"

You have joined just to say that? I present what I believe to be facts, based on research, and very often show my sources. Please indicate where I have acted as a 'charlatan'. Anyone who invests in O & G exploration knows that there are always risks. Investment is always your own decision - I have never encouraged anyone to invest here. If you are so irresponsible that you invest your money without your own basic research, based on what someone has said on a chat board, then you are beyond help.

MOU-6 is to be a relatively shallow well - 950m - on an existing pad, with the drill warm-stacked a few km away. That means low-cost, almost certainly enough cash available from existing resources. There is also a good chance that the newly-commercialised ONHYM will be interested. I'm sure certain people here will disagree, and will be jumping up and down about another placing. The question is, why are they pushing their persistent negative agenda?

I can see the green boxes appearing already, doubtless the usual suspects trying to score cheap points.

This is an engineering issue, pure & simple. The fact that formation damage extends beyond the reach of the largest guns and sandjet indicates that the reservoir sands must have very high porosity and permeability, enabling the drilling mud to penetrate easily. This means that once a properly designed well is completed, the gas flows should be very substantial from such an open, unconsolidated sand layer.

Of course, the delay is frustrating, but far from terminal.

MOU-3 formation damage is clearly more extensive than hoped for. However, MOU-6 is effectively a new MOU-3 drilled from the same position but with a well design suitable for the conditions. This will have the benefit of being able to efficiently access all the substantial reservoirs at this location in one go. I assume that they will not be testing MOU-1 & -4 this time round, since the problems with formation damage are likely to be the same.

Let's now see what is known about MOU-5.

.