Member Info for KeithOz

...work out which single member of this board posted all this about PRD:

19 Jun 2023 10:37 "Finally! People are waking up to the potential of this company. It was and is way undervalued and has enormous upside potential."

20 Jun 2023 22:03 "Once in a lifetime opportunity if it comes in."

27 Jun 2023 07:22 "Wowzers! Excellent RNS derisking this investment massively. Well done team PRD."

5 Jul 2023 22:25 "This is a special time to be invested in this particular company. Heavy news period ahead and a great team at the helm."

14 Jul 2023 21:27 "A concerted and quite frankly scurrilous effort by these parasites cheated many weak hands out of their precious shares. I feel sorry for folk who had their pants taken down they must be nursing a very sad portfolio and watching what might have been if they had sat on their hands. It's difficult at times I will concede and it has happened to the best of us over our investing careers. Take it as a very harsh lesson not to listen to these parasites and garner the wisdom not to fall prey to this repugnant behaviour in the future."

17 Jul 2023 22:12 "Not sure why the parasites are quite so active today. I have to mention that the standard of said parasites is falling alarmingly. I certainly fail to comprehend why any holder would sale right now."

24 Jul 2023 11:13 "People selling now will end up buying back in at a higher price for fewer shares. Futile trading strategy that could end up diluting your holdings. The fudsters are just trying their hardest to get in at a lower price point either for themselves, or their masters."

29 Jul 2023 12:54 "The very obvious troll activity should instill confidence in what is about to unravel. Absolute desperation in their postings means one thing and ONE thing only. Just remember the reasons you invested in the first instance and ignore the utter poison they are baiting you with."

30 Jul 2023 20:38 "Where have all the decent folk gone? This forum has been littered with degenerates since GRH's self imposed silence. I believe the drop is as much to do with GRH lack of detailed and informative messages, than anyone listening to the degenerates awful trolling."

It goes on and on in this vein, but then:

12 May 2024 15:21 "If this prospect was even 25% as good as some of the contributers like to portray on this forum institutional buyers would be flocking in to buy. The fact that it appears there is no such appetite in these companies investing in PRD tells me to be extremely wary and not to believe a few armchair commentators that frequent this forum.

The very same ones that have been saying the same regurgitated hype for at least the last 3 years I have been watching this forum."

19 May 2024 08:30 "Whilst PRD fails to update its shareholders with a risible plan. Random old boys scratch their heads and come up with some nonsense and accusations to try and placate their sheep. I think Footandmouth and GRH and KeithOz are the same person."

Guercif Petroleum Agreement

Expires in 3 years, 10 months

Predator has legal right to convert to an Exploitation Concession on declaration of commerciality.

That expires after 25 years.

And just like that! His Linkedin profile now shows 'Error 404 - Page Not Found'. Shame I took a copy of the CV and contacts list yesterday.

For someone who:

- is stuck working in a hell-hole like Basra (why he posts before the UK wakes up)

- put all his retirement funds into CHAR

- has been relentlessly ramping the stock for years without success, under various aliases

- has repeatedly abused other CHAR shareholders and introduced chaos to their BB

- sold 2 million CHAR shares last week at an all-time low

- bizarrely put the proceeds (£150K) into a failing North Sea producer facing political headwinds

- is now desperately flinging bile and lies about PRD and its management

- using his industry knowledge to phrase questions in a negative way

- and venting his frustration and anger at other posters on this board

- attempting to repeat his disruptive tactics here - 1 in 5 of all posts are his

- in a vain attempt to lower the share price so that he can buy in more cheaply

- whose plan is failing because PRD shareholders are a smart bunch and can see straight through his agenda

So, Paul, consider yourself outed - a number of us here have extensive industry networks. You may want to consider deleting your account before your managers see what you have been doing in work time, all your 500+ posts in the last 3 months are timed and dated. Go take a long hard look in the mirror. The poor decisions were yours, not the faults of others. Accept it and move on.

Last post got cut.

Bold, apparently you can either not read well, or cannot understand what you have read. I am sick of your constant disruptive posting, as are most other honest and sensible folk here, and can no longer be bothered to play along with your pathetic agenda. I recall a comment from a friend of mine who is a consultant psychiatrist "the best way to spot a sociopath is by the trail of destruction they leave behind them."

Bold, apparently you can either not read well, or cannot understand what you have read. I am sick of your

This board should be grateful to Bold & NH for working together to provide a textbook presentation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Firstly, the sand used in Sandjetting is an abrasive, not a propant (Bold spelling) nor a proppant (correct spelling), that is when sand is used in fracking to prop open the fractures.

With reference to the main issue raised, that a second wireline log is not necessary - a little surprising that two posters, who claim to have extensive knowledge of drilling and engineering, haven't worked this out. You may be aware from junior-high physics that metals of different compositions and thicknesses have different rates of expansion or contraction when their temperature changes - the thermal coefficient of expansion. They will also deform differently when under strain - the coefficient of elasticity.

Imagine the first log - the logging string (of a known weight) is hanging off the end of a cable 1.5km long, in a hole where the ambient temperature is increasing on average by 35°C per km, but non-linearly, and may also change over a period of several months. You can take indicative depth measurements of promising reservoirs for future testing, but you do not know the exact actual depth from surface, because that very long cable will have both expanded and stretched. Logging-while-drilling is also performed, here the logging gear will be part of the drill string, obviously above the drill bit, all dangling from 1.5km drill pipe, which will also stretch at a different rate from the cable.

Next, Bold and NH are put in charge of Sandjetting. Since they don't know what they don't know (the Dunning-Kruger effect), they dangle the Sandjet gear on coiled tubing down to the depth they 'measured' on the first wireline log. Of course, the Sandjet gear weighs differently to the wireline gear, and the wireline cable (or drill pipe) has different coefficients of both thermal expansion and elasticity compared to the coiled tubing. Since we are looking to perforate horizons that may be less than one metre thick, there are going to be problems.

Very sensibly, we get Lonny & Moyra to supervise operations. They re-run the logging gear on the coiled tubing, weighted to match the Sandjet gear. They already know roughly where the interesting horizons are, and in which vertical order, they just need to make sure that the Sandjet gear is correctly positioned vertically using the second set of readings. These will be accurate since the same weight of equipment is run on the same suspension on the same day.

@Nordell - you asked a few minutes ago "why has there been no testing? no one has come up with a plausible reason"

I posted this 3 days ago in response to an identical question. Could you please explain why you find this implausible?

"They were aware that MOU-1 was high risk for conventional explosive perforation - it has the big advantages of unconsolidated sand reservoirs with resultant high porosity & permeability, plus overpressured gas. Unfortunately this brings with it the need to use higher density drilling mud which in turn increases the likelihood of easier penetration of the mud into the loose reservoir, giving rise to formation damage. The decision was taken to delay testing until all wells drilled were ready, partly in order to save money and partly to give time to reassess the perforation needs.

Management then decided upon Sandjet perforation, and the gear & team were booked. The planned programme had to be abandoned since another Morocco operator held on to the wireline logging equipment that is necessary for accurate positioning of the Sandjet equipment - the delay would have taken PRD to beyond the end of their then-current licence extension period.

Everything was rebooked on the assumption that new approvals would be received mid-April. On the 1st May we were informed that the requisite licence extension had indeed been granted, and that preparation for flow testing was under way. Shareholders do not have any indication at the moment as to whether there are further delays, everything is on schedule, or whether testing has already started. You can either decide this is poor communications, or alternatively that it is sensible strategy to play cards close to one's chest."

While on the subject of character assassination ... I was having a look through the lse CHAR BB. Couldn't help noticing these posts (abridged) from different posters on the same day, addressed to the same person:

R. constant disruptive posts -

"last post to you today *** as your constant desire to argue/disrupt (and not just on here) is just boring......🤫

Perhaps you should take a step back and ask yourself why 🥱 Genuinely think you should seek help as I think there may be some unresolved issues troubling you 🤷‍♂️"

Re. repeated plagiarism -

"Nearly as embarrassing with posting a copy n paste n rewording it to sound like your own comment🤭🤭"

and with regard to using multiple account names...

"I actually feel sorry for you as every time you try to deny you are a reincarnation of the above, which most of us, if not all on here already know, you just make yourself look even more stoopid.......🤡"

Here's a clue, they have posted here seven times today.

I took the trouble to do a search on Malcy+ONHYM. Nothing of course, but I was interested to see on his company website (HydroCarbon Capital) that their only client appears to be Dart Energy, who were delisted from the ASX in 2014. However, Malcy "is available as a non-executive director as and when required".

Some takeaways from the CHAR result.

* Nothing is certain in O & G exploration - some individuals were claiming this had 85% cos.

* 3D seismic is not the be-all & end-all of exploration methodology.

* Don't believe the pundits - Malcy still has this on his bucket list.

* Don't believe the company brokers - Cavendish have maintained their 57.5p target.

* Don't believe the 'experts' here, such as the one who 'knew' that this drill would take 26 days.

Buddha was right when he said "Question everything you are told, including by me"

Always DYOR - after all, IYOM (it's your own money) and other people want to get their hands on it.

RNS 05 February 2024:

"The majority of the critical long lead items required for drilling are available from the Company's surplus well inventory stored in its Guercif warehouse, thereby potentially further reducing drilling costs. .... The Company is fully-funded to drill MOU-5 using currently uncommitted, discretionary, cash on the Company's balance sheet."

Paul Griffiths, Executive Chairman of Predator, commented:

"We are delighted to have concluded the extension to our 2022 rig contract as it provides us with the perfect opportunity to accelerate the cost-effective and fully-funded drilling of a large Jurassic structure adjacent to our area of focus for rigless well testing."

Now I'm able to access a laptop rather than trying to do stuff with a phone.

* Discovery Bonus - Yes, I agree that the discovery bonus is a payable (by PRD to ONHYM). Very confusing wording across several documents. Unlike lots of posters here, I don't get everything correct 😁

* 2750m well. This is a 2nd Extension Period requirement, but there are no drilling requirements in the 1st extension period. Since PRD are very keen to get MOU-5 drilled, and much is already paid for, and the 2750m 2nd EP well is stated as being for appraisal of the Jurassic, it would seem eminently sensible to bring that forward. Swapping of commitments from one period to another has already occurred several times. In response to a related question, it seems pretty clear that Paul wants to have results from the Jurassic carbonate asap, since that will be vital to crystallise maximum value. I would think he will want to make sure it has the best chance of success, even if that means delaying for a month

* Time taken for acquisition. Paul has made it clear that he is not pursuing a standard farm-out, for the very reason that this takes forever and a day to sort out the necessary regulatory approvals. What he has proposed is the sale of a share of PGV(M), the local subsidiary. While this would still require the support of ONHYM for a suitable buyer, such a transaction would not require formal approval by the Finance & Energy ministries.

* 3D seismic. Following the previous requirements swap, there are now commitments for 3D in both the 1st & 2nd Extension Periods -200km² & 400km² respectively. If the 2750m well is pulled forward, the balancing item would be to put the two seismic programmes together into the 2nd Extension Period. This gives plenty of time to get organised, and should also result in cost savings.

Here's a potential sweetener... just had a conversation with GRH, who reminded me that the deposit paid to ONHYM can be rolled over from one Period to the next. If any additional fee is payable in these inflationary times, that would be more than offset by the Discovery Bonus that ONHYM would have to pay to PRD - the last reference to this that I can find is a few years old, but at that time was a payment to the discoverer of $1M.

Part 2.

What happens next?

I must stress that this is my own opinion, but is based on the existing legal framework, together with how this has been implemented with other companies.

* PRD will complete flow testing before expiry of Amendment #4 in June 2024.

* They will apply for an Exploitation Concession for the MOU area – note this is a distinct and separate agreement to the Petroleum Agreement, one covers exploration, the other production.

* Since a discovery will have been declared for this area, ONHYM will contribute their 25% of further development costs.

* PRD will enter into the 1st Extension Period of the original Petroleum Agreement for the remainder of the licence area.

* MOU-5 will be drilled as part of the commitments under the 1st Extension Period - one of which is currently for one drill to a depth of 2750m, hence speculation about MOU-5 being extended into the Triassic and confirmation that SV-101 has that capability.

* The costs of the deposit to cover entry to the 1st Extension Period and for potential deepening of MOU-5 and subsequent testing are likely to be covered by a forward payment for gas as part of the GSA with Afriquia Gaz – such forward payment has been a standard part of other GSA's within Morocco.

* After completion of MOU-5 operations, PRD will be very well positioned for negotiations with potential purchasers for all or part of the Morocco business. The purchaser would then be responsible for their share of the remaining 1st Extension Period obligations, including the 3D seismic.

Hope this is helpful.

Part 1.

There has been much debate over the status of the Exploration Licences held by PRD over the Guercif area, this seems to have generated more heat than light. Some here have (mistakenly and/or deliberately) stated that failing to complete certain work programmes before what they perceive to be the end dates of various phases of the licences will result in the termination of PRD's licence rights. It may be helpful to summarise 1/ the original agreement, 2/ the subsequent amendments and their implications, and 3/ what is likely to happen in the future. To avoid confusion, I will use the official ONHYM terms (capitalised) for the various agreements and amendments.

You can read further details using the following sources, all of which can be accessed from the PRD website: CPR 2020, p.179, CPR 2022 p.8, CPR 2023 p.5, ITR 2024 pp.13/14 & 49, RNS of 30 November 2023.

This is of necessity rather long, so I will split it across two posts.

Original Agreement.

A Petroleum Agreement was signed March 2019, allowing for exploration over a 9-year period. This was split into three phases – an Initial Exploration Period, a 1st Extension Period, and a 2nd Extension Period. Each period requires a minimum programme of specified work to be carried out, together with a breakdown of agreed costs. A deposit is paid by PRD on entering each of these three stages. PRD is currently still in the Initial Exploration Period, and on completion of the agreed commitments, will have full legal rights to enter into the First Extension Period.

Amendments to the original Petroleum Agreement.

In response to the Covid restrictions, ONHYM extended all companies' licences by 12 months, so for PRD the Initial Exploration Period was automatically extended. As exploration activities continued, discussions continued between PRD and ONHYM reflecting the changing geological discoveries, and the realities of supply chain operations post-Covid. At no cost to PRD, ONHYM agreed a number of Petroleum Agreement Amendments, the most recent, #4, extends the Initial Exploration Period until June 2024. In addition, a number of changes were agreed to the work commitments and expenditures, in particular amending the drilling depths to accord with the actual geology, and moving the commitment to do 3D seismic into the 1st Extension Period in exchange for additional expenditure already incurred by PRD. With the completion of flow testing the MOU wells, PRD will have met ALL their commitments under the Initial Exploration Period, in fact will have exceeded them, and as stated above have full legal entitlement to move to the 1st Extension Period.

"keith oz says we could be actually have commenced SJ operations already"

KeithOz actually said at 10.28 today, using normal English grammatical construction: "Shareholders do not have any indication at the moment as to whether there are further delays, everything is on schedule, or whether testing has already started."

But let's not allow facts to interfere with the agenda.

@Porters. You are of course entitled to do your own calculations and present your own opinions, perhaps you have been the CEO or Chairman of a successful O & G explorer. I am equally entitled to give precedence to Paul Griffiths' statements. I do so since I know he has actually held both positions.

@OF - May I suggest you read back through a few RNS's?

They were aware that MOU-1 was high risk for conventional explosive perforation - it has the big advantages of unconsolidated sand reservoirs with resultant high porosity & permeability, plus overpressured gas. Unfortunately this brings with it the need to use higher density drilling mud which in turn increases the likelihood of easier penetration of the mud into the loose reservoir, giving rise to formation damage. The decision was taken to delay testing until all wells drilled were ready, partly in order to save money and partly to give time to reassess the perforation needs.

Management then decided upon Sandjet perforation, and the gear & team were booked. The planned programme had to be abandoned since another Morocco operator held on to the wireline logging equipment that is necessary for accurate positioning of the Sandjet equipment - the delay would have taken PRD to beyond the end of their then current licence extension period.

Everything was rebooked on the assumption that new approvals would be received mid-April. On the 1st May we were informed that the requisite licence extension had indeed been granted, and that preparation for flow testing was under way. Shareholders do not have any indication at the moment as to whether there are further delays, everything is on schedule, or whether testing has already started. You can either decide this is poor communications, or alternatively that it is sensible strategy to play cards close to one's chest.

I'm not sure why there is an ongoing debate.

*Sandjet-based testing of MOU-1, -3 & -4 is fully funded and for all we know may already be under way.

*PRD's share of setting up a CNG facility is fully-funded, and is awaiting flow test results and finalisation of the GSA with Afriquia Gaz. I assume agreement on payment for CNG trailers will be sorted at the same time.

*Drilling of MOU-5 is fully funded, we are in the queue for the rig.

It's not a question of which of the three - everything is in process and will be done at the best time, I am sure none of the team is sitting round sipping mint tea and puffing on a local spliff.