Member Info for KeithOz

Part 1.

Paul & Lonny have demonstrated outstanding ability to deploy capital for the greatest potential return. I see no reason for them not to continue doing so, the following is my guess as to what happens next and why.

1. Testing of MOU-1, -3 & -4. Of course we all know that. The results (assuming they are positive!) will enable validation of adequate gas flows to sustain a substantial CNG operation; give an indication of gas flows in excess of CNG requirements that could be used for G2P and/or G2EU projects by an acquiror or partner; and allow calculation of gas volumes in the MOU-Fan and overlying sand reservoirs. These are currently still perceived as major unknowns by the market, and their positive resolution will facilitate a major re-rating. In addition, information concerning the viability of the Jurassic carbonate prospect may be sufficient to justify a more comprehensive evaluation. Flow test results may be sufficient to enable the signature of a forward gas sales agreement with a local company, which may provide enough cash for exploration & evaluation to continue, and to provide the down-payment for Cory Moruga, without the need for a further capital raise other than that required to return shares sold to finance the Directors' loan.

2. Publication of CPR & Prospectus. The Prospectus will enable further shares to be issued, which will enable a return of loan shares to PG & LB, who have taken on an unusual degree of risk to enable acceleration of drilling and testing. These will also enable the possibility of Reserves Based Lending, despite what a certain poster, who is also an authority on water shortages and Moroccan Fire Departments, will shortly tell us all. RBL could also provide a non-dilutive source of funds for further work in Morocco and the T & T acquisition. Paul has already held discussions with UK-based financial institutions concerning RBL facilities. The CPR will not only give an independent view on the gas volumes and likely profits from a CNG operation, but will also cover T & T - I wonder how many people read all the way through the 2022 accounts and saw this Cory Moruga gem on p.11: "...for a Gross Consideration of USD 9 million and a net Cash Consideration of USD 3 million the Company is acquiring 1,523,449 barrels of P50 oil resources at the equivalent of USD 1.969/barrel and a further 15.5 mm barrels of potential P50 oil resources that are subject to appraisal drilling at USD 0.19/barrel." - for the first time we heard that the undeveloped Snowcap Prospect within the Cory Moruga licence has potentially 17 million barrels of oil.

@wobh. As a former single parent, instead of 'motherlode' (note correct spelling) can we please use the term parentlode in future. 👨‍👧‍👧

Let's put this to bed before I put myself to bed. The last raise, done via the Directors' loan, should have been enough for the drilling and a reasonable testing programme. The drilling took about half the time originally anticipated, so I would guess they have saved a shedload of money, which can be spent on an expanded testing programme. Just my guess.

On the Telegram group, someone using the name Captain Sensible has been doing their best to undermine the share price by posting multiple half-truths. I have been trying to counter this. They then replied, basically accusing me of having a ramping agenda, but replied using a different name - thus confirming they are using multiple accounts but forgot which one they should use for that conversation. Further confirmation of GRH's assertion of a coordinated malign effort.

This is still wrong. It repeats yesterday's error, despite several of us contacting Proactive to point this out, and adds another error by confusing the shallow sands with the Jurassic structure. They are ignoring me as an individual, perhaps someone from the company or Flagstaff might carry more weight.

PRD's youngest shareholder & I have been looking through today's F-D note. One thing stood out - they are basing their Titanosaurus estimates on a 20m thick reservoir. This is near impossible to estimate correctly at this stage, since MOU-4 has only touched the feather-edge (wording sound familiar?) of the structure. I recall that the Jurassic carbonate reef was previously estimated at 200m thick - I accept that some of that may be accounted for by the thick claystone, but would have thought that 1). claystone and reef should look different on the seismic, and 2). 20m is very much on the thin side for a reef extending over 126km, which would have grown in thickness as the underlying rock subsided below sea level. However, let's just run with the F-D 20m thick reservoir - they give just that an unrisked valuation of $590M (£454M, just over £1 per share).

I am very curious as to what parameters they will use for Titanosaurus in the CPR, particularly gas saturation - initial estimate 53% and gas expansion factor of 85 looks distinctly underpressured to me. My expectation is that once drilled updip in the optimum position, these two factors in particular will look conservative. I would also expect a higher porosity figure - we know this reef structure was uplifted after deposition and exposed to the weather, so partly eroded, that leads to enhanced porosity development (can even be a sponge-like appearance to the rock!)

I get the distinct impression that this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

No, I've just lit the log fire (cold & wet tonight) to settle down for a peaceful evening not having to grapple with trolls. The calculations will come out in the CPR, far better than I could do them. But, yes I will need a much wider calculator. Should be able to afford one, too.

We had suggested to Lonny that an update was necessary to counteract the obviously coordinated FUD this week. Here it is. S#d off, trolls.

As a fundamental analysis kind of guy, there's only one technical analysis factor I rely on - the TDFI - troll density forward indicator. Judging by the large proportion of green on the screen, there is going to be one hell of a kick off when the results of the testing programme come in.

@Gemstar. What the Dickens? - Yes, a lot of good insights in Bleak House - in both private & business life I have followed that advice - and seen many others who have not come seriously undone. In any dispute there can be only one winner - and that is always the lawyer.

One person, MEM. Today's post questioning whether management realise they have to get planning permission for a CNG plant is very similar to the one asking if they realise that sand jetting requires water.

"Especially when the peoples (sic) technical knowledge appears to be so low that they evidently don't even understand what avg porosity is nor why it's important to know!"

Perhaps you don't realise that porosity is only one part of the equation. Perhaps you don't know that definitive porosity is defined by testing that has yet to be completed. Perhaps you haven't appreciated that there are at least ten regular posters on this board who have relevant qualifications and O & G industry experience, including one who is a recognised authority on turbidites. Perhaps your only interest in being here is to try and put people off investing in this company. Perhaps you think your opinions will drive the price lower. Perhaps you don't realise that everybody here knows that you need to try harder and is laughing at you.

@Edark. I suggest you read the post today at 06.14 by GRH. His friend's view sums it up perfectly.

I have emailed both Flagstaff & Proactive, suggesting a rectification. Don't hold your breath.

The Proactive article yesterday contained two significant errors. The second paragraph reads "Two of four prospects seen in initial drill results have been ruled out through wireline data analysis, with one lacking “structural closure” and another “impacted by poor borehole conditions”.

What the release actually said was "No structural closure was mapped pre-drill within this interval". In other words, this was an unexpected prospect, not an expected one that failed. It also said "The wireline logs over one interval of 16 metres of sand are impacted by poor borehole conditions with possible washouts. NuTech wireline log analysis will be run over this interval." Quite clearly it has NOT been ruled out - further analysis is being performed.

With supposed expert journalists publishing the opposite of what was actually released, it is hardly surprising that the share price was down yesterday.

I'm not in any way knocking CHAR, just pointing that today's research note by Cenkos gives the company a valuation of £578M, which works out at £900,000 per BCF, ignoring any value for non-gas assets and debt. Using like-for-like that would give PRD a market cap of £265M. This of course does not take into account different future capital costs for the two companies. You may wish to make a note of that for when PRD's testing programme has finished, so that you can compare market cap per BCF of resources.

2022 CPR, not 2002, but you knew that. Past my bedtime.

@Keel1. That's a very interesting question. Perhaps as interesting is why Paul & Lonny are not giving away the information necessary to do the calculation. What we do know are the assumptions made in the January 2002 CPR, from which the Contingent & Prospective Resources were calculated. It would seem that the area of the MOU-Fan has increased by perhaps a third, the thickness of the potential reservoir sands has at least doubled, maybe trebled, and that additional shallow gas will potentially be found over an area that is a multiple of that previously expected. The gas expansion factors used in the CPR do not imo take into account the significant overpressure that has been seen. Then consider that the CPR used a gas charge of 66%, which is lower than elsewhere in the Rharb basin. Finally, we need to add to that the likelihood that at least some of the 200m thick reservoir in the Jurassic 126km² structure will be gas charged.

I do have access to a full set of professional kriging software, but don't have the necessary input data to get a meaningful output - I guess we will have to wait for the CPR. Meanwhile, I entered what we know above into my calculator - it just said 'E'.

Q 1. Nigel, you do realise that the TMP is currently being 'reverse flowed' as you quaintly put it? It was originally designed for gas to come from Algeria, through Morocco, and into Spain. Since the end of normal Algerian / Moroccan diplomatic relations, gas is now being sent from Spain to Morocco, in the opposite direction to that originally intended. It surely can't be that difficult for an engineer such as yourself to work out how to do that.

Q2. Have you ever been to Morocco? - If so, you must have seen that gas cylinders are outside almost every home and business, and been nearly run over by the numerous gas delivery trucks from companies like Salam Gaz, Atlas Nord, SMC, Ziz, etc. Currently, that is all shipped in to the distributors from overseas in big tanks, at high cost. I think folks would be falling over themselves to get a cheaper supply.

Q3. I don't know if the testing will come after the Prospectus & CPR (which have been promised to be issued at the same time) but if it does, it would make them out of date rather quickly, don't you think?

Q4. What's all this about unconventional gas then? Are you talking about shale gas, fracked natural gas as Sound Energy are likely to produce, coal bed methane that I haven't heard of in Morocco, or catching biomethane in recycled Tesco bags from the rear-end of a donkey?

Anything else I can help you with?

@Jonny - I'm really curious about two things you say:

1. " I’ve been in prd from the start....it's all a scam" Why have you stayed a shareholder when you know it's a scam?

2. Why are you opening yourself up to legal action by claiming illegal activity by directors of Novum and an identifiable individual here?