Member Info for KeithOz

Interesting that in the first hour of trading there have been almost 500 thousand shares bought, but only one sale, of a little over 4 thousand - perhaps enough to pay for someone's HRT for a month.

Anyone up for starting a GoFundMe page for AV to help him close out his short and pay for anger management counselling?

The two key points for me:

* Some of the delay in progressing testing / swabbing of MOU-3 was "to avoid the risk of a blowout". You do not get blowouts with dusters.

* Paul very clearly explained the reasons for 12% vs 50% risking for MOU-5 - just as has been explained on this board a few days ago in response to the tedious repetition of the mantra that this is a high risk, or even wildcat, well.

Back to bed for me.

@Ibiza. Paul probably agrees with you, which is why he has brought in Zenith for Morocco and appointed an experienced hands-on GM in T & T, a new Chairman who has Irish experience at CEO level, and is backed up by two NEDs with substantial O & G deal-making skills. This trope of being a one-man band is sadly outdated.

Bonasse - historical drilling info from 1911 to 2009, seismic, location of wells etc., see pp 17 - 23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349226985_Exploration_of_South_West_Peninsula_Mud_Volcanoes_Cedros_Oilfield_Galfa_Point

There is now a proposition here that PRD management are complete fools for buying oil wells producing only a few barrels per day. I have been mocked for suggesting a figure of 250 bopd is attainable. These wells, when originally drilled, did produce at much higher rates. As I explained yesterday, oil can contain long-chain paraffins. These are large molecules that are liquid at the temperatures and pressures found in deep reservoir formations. Once the oil starts to rise up the borehole, pressure and temperature reduce, and the paraffins start to crystallise and solidify into waxes that drastically increase the viscosity of the oil, leading to a reduction in flow rates, then complete blockage.

Chemical dewaxing techniques, that dissolve the wax by heat and help bring the oil to surface by nitrogen lift, have been successfully used since the 90's. There have been a number of improvements to this method, PRD are using the latest. Please note, 'improvement' means 'better than before'. This improved method is new to Trinidad, but has been in extensive use in KSA, as I have already said. As GRH has kindly reminded us, the Saudis possibly know a little more than the anonymous keyboard warriors here who have neither qualifications nor experience. Each well, or even horizon, requires an optimal formulation. This is determined by analysing the oil sample in the supplier's lab, then sending out the correct dewaxing formulation. I suspect this first go at Trinidad oil has taken longer to process than planned, maybe an iterative process was required to optimise the formulation. There is NO indication whatsoever that it has been tried by PRD and failed. This process has a long and successful history of use by many oil majors, I see no reason why it should not work in Trinidad.

So the treatment will work - what will be the result?

Those who have done some research will know that Snowcap-1 production tailed off quite quickly due to waxing. They will also know that initial production was 1450 bopd. Yes, ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY. This stabilised to 578 bopd plus 4.5mmcf gas/d over a 6-day test. Oil was API 37° - this is very light, easy to process, and secures a premium price.

https://www.ogj.com/home/article/17267191/trinidad-gets-rare-onshore-light-oil-discovery

Bonasse & Cory-Moruga have oil with very similar characteristics. We know that C-M is still at virgin field pressure. I see no reason why any of these previously-producing wells cannot be worked over, dewaxed and restored to full production. Perhaps those on here professing superior knowledge can provide us with their detailed reasoning as to why this should not be the case. If you can't do this, how about stopping making fools of yourselves.

For your Trinidad numbers, I suggest you re-visit profitability. P.18 of yesterday's presentation gave OpEx of $16 per barrel. WTI is currently at $78, and has ranged from $65 - $88 over the last 12 months. That gives a profit range of $49 - $72 per barrel, currently $62. That's a lot more than the $33 that has been used here today.

11 wells each producing 250bopd, for 360 days/year = 990Mbbl x current $62 = $61.4M profit, tax-free. At current share price that gives PRD a forward p/e of 0.6. Just for Trinidad. That'll do nicely, thank you.

Ah, but the wax treatment won't work, will it?

It has been working in its simplest form (as I described earlier today) for Petrobras for the last 25 years. About 10 years ago Halliburton patented a new improved delivery system, SureTherm, which has been very widely used. I understand that the patented formulation that PRD are using is a further improvement that has been trialled in the KSA, I would expect that use by Aramco should give comfort to anyone who is actually a shareholder.

I'm curious as to how Trump will be able "to flood the market with US gas and oil". All of US oil and gas growth has come from exploitation of unconventional shale resources. All the shale provinces bar one are now in production decline. This cannot be reversed by more drilling. Just about all the prime locations have been drilled, leaving less productive and less profitable prospects that companies will not wish to drill, especially if the oil price is lower - a collision of geology with economics.

World demand is still increasing, despite what some would like you to believe. The latest round of sanctions is the nail in the coffin for the Russian oil & gas industry, which without western technology and management expertise cannot recover - I spent three miserable years running a JV between a US major and a Gazprom subsidiary - they are clueless. That major supply has now been taken off the market for years.

With increasing demand and reducing supply, the oil price will inevitably trend higher over the next few years. Buying cheap assets that require little capital expenditure and can produce at a very high margin and with nil tax, seems like a very sensible strategy to me.

Mr Ninja - you misunderstand. Bold told us only yesterday that it is the MMs deliberately misrepresenting the price. All those buys are actually Bold's sells.

Fyi, for those still invested. SGN is NGS in English - Nitrogen Generating System.

Paraffin waxes are long-chain hydrocarbons (C18 - C36) which crystallise at STP. Ammonium chloride and sodium nitrite are mixed in acid at the blockage site. This results in a highly exothermic reaction and the production of a large amount of nitrogen gas. The heat melts the paraffins and the nitrogen lifts the oil to surface. Each well horizon will require analysis for wax composition, and a slightly different treatment mix to optimise results - you will have seen in the presentation the lab results for Jacobin-1.

Perhaps Bold can correct my simplistic explanation, I am sure I must have got it completely wrong again.

I am guessing that if the treatment works, and results in a decent cash flow, then we may do similar deals for the other CEG Trinidad assets. Dewaxing for some fields, CO2EOR for others, such as Innis-Trinity, with which PRD is already very familiar. There is a lot of potential remaining in SW Trinidad, but lots of small licences with scattered ownership, and sod all investment for the last 30+ years. PRD already have an excellent relationship with MEEI, could be the foundation of an interesting standalone business requiring little further of PG's time once the various deals have been finalised.

Of course, others will think it is a distraction and waste of time, but they have probably invested the same amount of time in research as the current field owners have invested in their wells.

I've put a map and more details on X

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1881604155925819493

Acquisition, unlike some here I am literate, just not a great typist.

I expect some here will be complaining that this is happening too quickly, and want PG to delay things.

So what have we got? If the margins and other assumptions are the same as for Cory_moruga, then for $170K we have bought 51% of $16.4M worth of oil. Yes, an a proper NPV neds to be calculated, but this looks a pretty fair deal to me. My guess is that all the de-waxing can be done as a job lot in a couple of months.

Will be a big comfort to have income, especially in USD.

A quick calculation over breakfast. All revenue numbers as per the presentation. Additional assumptions -

GBP:USD 1 ; 1.23,

Margin on all Morocco gas 80%,

700M shares in issue.

Price:earnings ratio of 5.

Value per share of each project:

Titanosaurus - £6.32

A Sands 3mmcfgd - 6p

Fan Sands 10mmcfgd - 55.7p

T&T 300 bopd - 3.3p

T&T 1000 bopd - 11p

Helium - no estimate, no numbers as yet.

Pick which projects you think will go ahead, compare the current share price with your total, decide whether the current share price reasonably reflects the inherent value. Decide if there is a reason that every trade after the first 2¾ hours of trading was a buy.

A little disappointing imo.

* MOU-5 spud 25th February.

* MOU-3 flow testing after MOU-5 completed

* MOU-3 shallow perforation Q2

* T & T no production yet.

" goodness knows how much of your daily life you take up on this but it cannot be healthy, especially as most everything you have posted has proven incorrect to date."

76 negative posts from one person in 30 days. They provide nothing of any use to anyone. lmfao. Follow your own advice

I got the second part of my wish granted.

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2025/01/Corporate-Presentation-21-JANUARY-2025-FINAL-version-2.pdf

I note that in the Medias24 article, there is a map showing the MOU-5 location. This is a copy of Fig 22, p.38 from the ITR, presumably supplied by the PR company. There is a slight difference - in the ITR, MOU-5 is shown on seismic line 03-ML-06. ( I put a diagram showing location of seismic lines on X, this line is purple there

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1878602743348355550/photo/2 ) The Medias24 map has a yellow star some 500m north of the ITR position, between seismic lines 77-GR-27 (yellow on my X diagram) and GA-06 (red). This corresponds with the location I suggested last week.

IF this is a changed location, then it would have been changed for good reason, especially since the cost and hassle of a diverted well is necessary to reach this spot. It may just be that something has been seen from the reprocessed seismic, or perhaps Paul bit the bullet and bought the available hyperspectral satellite data. I hope it is the latter, since there are models suggesting that the combination of both seismic and hyperspectral data for exact well location can increase the chance of success to around 80%. Whatever, Paul must be very confident that this is now the right location, hence his increased internal estimate of gcos.

Of course we will only know once the drilling is completed, but this gives me greater confidence that what could arguably already be described as an appraisal rather than an exploration well, is likely to come up with the goods.

I am hoping that this week we will get a detailed RNS operational update concerning Morocco & T&T, followed by the availability of the set of presentation slides on the PRD website, and then the presentation on Thursday evening (Friday 3.30am for me 😴).

While it is nice to see the PR starting, it would be nice to get the numbers right. All the articles read as if MOU-5 is targeting only 169 - 630 BCF, rather than the CNG operation. I have sent comments to Flagstaff.