Member Info for KeithOz

I have just had a conversation with someone who is an hour ahead of me. I am now of the opinion that the four large trades yesterday at the same price were all actually buys - lse shows two of them as sells.

Graham is quite correct, I should have added that this is in no way definitive proof, merely additive positive indicators. Everyone is encouraged to investigate this further, the references provided are merely a starter (I have ploughed through over 300 relevant technical papers). As always, this is your money, you should reach your own conclusions and not rely on information on this bulletin board. You know your own financial circumstances and risk aversion, I do not.

Over an early breakfast, I see there have been some enigmatic tweets from Graham. It may be helpful if I flesh these out a bit.

* A couple of days ago on this board, there was concern expressed that an apparent gas chimney showing on seismic over MOU-5 may have caused all the gas to have leaked out of the prosect.

* I responded that this was already known and discussed. It is too large to be a gas chimney - typically associated with a fault - and is actually a gas cloud, associated with slow migration of gas to surface. I posted a link to a relevant technical publication: https://static.dgbes.com/images/PDF/aapg_hedberg_2005_heggland_chimney_classification.pdf

* Graham tweeted that MOU-5 appears to be gas charged; I suggested to him that he might usefully expand on this.

* He suggested folk look at a 2010 paper by Dietmar Schumacher - "Integrating Hydrocarbon Microseepage Data with seismic Data Doubles Exploration Success", which demonstrates the significant incremental value of both ground and remote sensing in identifying hydrocarbon-charged prospects. He has also tweeted about Adnan Samarrai and curries.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304117299_Integrating_Hydrocarbon_Microseepage_Data_with_seismic_Data_Doubles_Exploration_Success

* Graham was associated with remote sensing company Scotforth, who have conducted RSDD-H satellite surveys over Guercif. Here is how they do it: https://www.scotforth.com/index.php/exploration-methodology

* Graham has discussed this data with the late Adnan Samarrai, who is one of the most prolific discoverers of hydrocarbons of all time. Adnan was in agreement that the Jurassic carbonate was likely to have leached reservoir development (= high poroperm) and be gas-charged.

* There is a possibility 😎 that Paul Griffiths is aware of this data If so, this may explain why he has gone to the additional time, trouble & expense of using a deviated bore to hit a very precise drill location for MOU-5.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about the share price target in today's Oak Securities note. They have used the P50 values as a base, then multiplied the methane figure by 0.12 to reflect the outdated risking, and similarly, the helium figure by 0.06. Thus their risked figure is what the share price should be today, having taken account of the risk. 4.5p actual as opposed to £1.48 is why some (including EVAP) are shouting about an asymmetric investment opportunity.

So what is the Oak figure if MOU-5 does hit the P50 figure? Since I have some reservations about the methodology used to calculate possible helium, I will just use the methane numbers from the previous (04 Oct 2024) Oak note. They suggest $7809M. At GBP:USD of 1.26 that is £6.2Bn. Using the current 662M shares in issue, that is £9.36p per share.

Plus the rest of Morocco. Plus Ireland. Plus Trinidad. Plus helium.

Did someone say asymmetry?

@Porters - If I understand your convoluted grammar correctly, you appear to be sneering at my illustrative forecast (NOT a prediction) made in late January for the then combined T & T assets. At that time, these consisted of:

* Seven wells on Bonasse, currently shut in but previously producing at an average of around 50 bopd, which I assumed could be doubled by workover and dewaxing treatment, thus giving a subtotal of 700bopd.

* Four potential reworkings on Cory-Moruga. Snowcap-1 had a stabilised flow rate of 578 bopd before the waxing issue arose. Preliminary investigation of this well and Jacobin-1 last year showed the reservoir to be at virgin pressure, so it seemed reasonable to me that each reworked well should be able to produce at 500bopd after dewaxing. That gives a subtotal of 2000bopd.

* That gives a total of 2700bopd. Divide by 11 gives 245, I rounded to 250. I should point out that this figure does not include the potential upside that could be attained by perforation of the previously untested horizons in these wells, nor the use of NuTech logging to identify previously missed horizons.

* At current WTI of $72 and the stated opex of $16, that gives a margin of $56 per bbl. 56 x 11 x 250 x 365 = $56.2M profit per year. We can now add to that the oil flow from the CEG fields, and the reduction of opex due to operational synergies (using same equipment, personnel & service providers across all projects) and economies of scale.

Of course you are free to come up with your own numbers, please let us know what they are and how you derived them.

"We understand that the company has received several unsolicited expressions of interest for participation in any future drilling programmes that may be required should Titanosaurus hold gas and/or helium in line with pre-drill expectations".

Https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1892043244931805555/photo/1

There is a world of difference between buying existing shares on the open market and investing new capital into a business and potentially becoming the largest investor. Such a potential investor would not only want to verify the accuracy of published information, but is actually required to do so under most countries' financial regulations if they are investing on behalf of clients. This is the whole point of due diligence undertaken with a confidentiality agreement in place. The CA will include the scope of information to be verified, reciprocal agreement for non-disclosure of information, and what can and cannot happen if the proposed deal does not go ahead. It is absolutely standard that the investor would be unable to deal in the company's shares while the CA is in place, and that its representatives and advisors may not make any public comment or recommendation during the period covered by the CA.

Since this is new investment, discussion will also need to take place between investor and investee to agree as to how the new money will be spent, and verification sought that these plans are viable.

Once agreement has been reached, the investment and its scope are required to be released to the market, including any new price-sensitive information - such as the status of potential acquisitions and revised spud date for MOU-5. This has been done, the requirements of the CA have been fulfilled, and all parties are again permitted to deal in the shares of the investee and comment if they so wish.

I was asked elsewhere about the requirement for an overseas entity such as EVAP to submit a TR-1. This may be of interest to some here:

The rules are clear. All shareholders passing 3% and further increments of 1% (either going up or coming down) are required to notify the company within 2 days of such change, and the company is required to notify the market asap after receiving such notification (in effect the same day). In practice, some shareholders ignore this, since if overseas, the FCA has no power over them. A Moroccan entity ultimately held by the King can happily stick two fingers up to the FCA. A legitimate institutional investor such as EVAP would decide it is in its best interests and those of its clients to adhere to the rules of a friendly jurisdiction in which it conducts business, and that is what has been done.

You should also take comfort that EVAP, who has bought a proportion of these shares on behalf of its clients, is required under Australian financial law to conduct due diligence before undertaking a purchase. Such DD includes independent and/or suitably qualified in-house analysis of the technical and financial positions, plus discussion with the company under a Confidentiality Agreement. Presumably those selling yesterday have not performed such DD.

@Jungmana - "What's the issue price of this shares 4.5p? "an initial deposit of $250,000 - this has been satisfied via the issuance to CEG of 4,411,641 unrestricted Predator shares ("the Deposit Shares")"

Purchase price is in USD, share price is in GBP. GBP:USD is about 1.26 currently. $250,000 / 1.26 / 4,411,641 = 4.5p

@Jimmy23. You asked this question on 8th February. I answered it "The Jurassic carbonate at the bottom of MOU-4 displayed measurable gas concentrations & porosity: RNS 13th July 2023 "2 metres of likely gas reservoir with average porosity 19.9% (maximum 20.6%) and average gas saturation 56% (maximum 73%)." I agree that perforating and flow testing this interval, if successful, would move MOU-5 up to 100% gcos. But what if gas didn't flow? What would you do, O mighty armchair CEO? Say let's forget about MOU-5? Or say that all this demonstrates is that the 289m vertical structure is not filled to spill, so we should go ahead and drill anyway? If you had decided on cost and time grounds not to test MOU-4 until MOU-3 was proven, just perforating and flow testing the bottom 2m would be a very expensive exercise, with only a potential feel-good benefit. Gas or no gas in that section, you would still drill MOU-5 to evaluate the remaining 287 vertical metres of a 189 km² structure.

I find it rather concerning that some people come on to this board claiming to be shareholders, but spouting endless negative waffle that indicates that they have not done even the most basic research. In the timed reference in the ImC Q & A that I put in my previous post, Paul clearly stated that the main risk factor was reservoir development. This was Jan 2023. The ITR (which is not at all the same as a CPR) was based on data up to mid 2023, and is now out of date. This fact has already been pointed out by several posters, but has been ignored since it does not fit the repetitive negative agenda.

It has been quite clearly stated in subsequent RNSs and presentations that substantial new information has been generated regarding the Jurassic carbonates. This includes source rock studies, actual drilling of the edge of the structure with MOU-4 that showed excellent porosity and of gas saturation, and most importantly, reprocessed seismic showing four thick layers of enhanced reservoir development.

It may just be a coincidence, but here is a long but worthwhile read concerning another (maybe the same) Dolt from Holt, also sorely lacking in both ability and morality:

https://sharetipstersuncovered.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/rivington-street-holdings-bedroom-fantasy-to-corporate-catastrophe/

Paul answered my question about the gas cloud at 40m25s in the Investor meets Company presentation 1st February 2023:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xbTMWdGHtQ

@Dicko. This feature showing on seismic line 03-ML-06 was initially discussed here a good couple of years ago. If it were a gas chimney, you are correct that it could indicate a fault-related seal failure when positioned at the apex of a structure. May I refer you to a 2005 paper by Roar Heggland of Statoil:

https://static.dgbes.com/images/PDF/aapg_hedberg_2005_heggland_chimney_classification.pdf

Here he clearly differentiates gas chimneys (diameter of around 100m) from gas clouds, which are much larger in extent, as is the feature you have indicated. He terms chimneys as Type I, and clouds as Type II. Type II formations are indicative of slow release of gas from a charged structure. You have noted that this chaotic formation of seismic reflections extends from some way down in the Triassic (source of most hydrocarbons across north Africa, including at Tendrara) right up to the surface. To the best of my knowledge, none of the deep-seated faults in the Guercif area extend to the surface, since they were formed long before the deposition of the overlying Miocene formations. To me this suggests that every trapping structure in the Guercif region is likely to be hydrocarbon charged.

Paul Griffiths has a vast amount of geophysics experience - do you really think he would not have noticed this feature? I asked via a written question to one of the ProactiveInvestors presentations specifically if this cloud extending above and below the structure indicated a fill-to-spill situation, he answered in the live presentation that he believed that to be the case.

@JamYesterday. "It's currently dilutive, and potentially accretive. Let's be clear about that."

Please explain how an acquisition of assets at book value is dilutive. Please also make an estimate of the considerable value of the intangibles - staff, local knowledge, trade contacts - that are also being acquired without additional cost, and that can also be applied to accelerate the existing PRD T & T businesses, all utilising massive tax losses. "Let's be clear about that".

@Matt - "Caribbean Rex Limited ("CRL"), 51% owned by the Company's wholly owned subsidiary T-Rex Resources (Trinidad) Limited ("T-Rex"), is making the acquisition" ... "CRL is 49% owned by the West Indian Energy Group Limited ("WIEGL") ".

PRD is majority owner.

Who would take investment advice from an anonymous fool who doesn't know the difference between a dilutive and an accretive share issue? As stated, "What a crock of 💩"

Hey "Mr Perfect my projects are always on time and within budget" - have you seen the appalling weather conditions in Morocco over the last fortnight? I put a photo on X of where the SV-101 is being stored:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1886918501778251866/photo/1

You should be pleased that we are being informed in advance of a delay of at most 10 days. But that wouldn't further your very obvious agenda, would it?

Missed out the really important bit - tax losses can be spread across all T & T assets.

These assets were on CEG's books for $5.8M, losing $600K pa. PRD has bought these at book value, and should be able to make a decent profit just on the synergies across the businesses, including availability of experienced local staff, production & storage facilities, and contacts with local service providers. This should accelerate development of the existing PRD assets ( Cory Moruga & Bonasse). All looks positive to me, except I would have liked to see successful application of the wax treatment on at least one well first, just to shut up the naysayers. I have no doubt it will work - it is Petrobras technology, and has been used extensively by Saudi Aramco, doubtless others on here will profess to know better.

From the corresponding CEG RNS "In respect of POGH shares received as part of the consideration, the Company's intention is to liquidate those shares for cash, but in an orderly fashion and at a time of the Company's choosing." ie post MOU-5.