Member Info for KeithOz

On several occasions I have posted in response to certain individuals accusing me of making stuff up. My responses have then been rapidly removed by lse admin. I can only assume that the same certain people have attached offensive posts to the thread, resulting in the entire thread being removed - this classic troll technique has also been used against other posters here. The claim is then repeated and the cycle continues.

A. In response that 'I refuse to admit that MOU-5 was a duster':

Why would you put an expensive wellhead on a borehole that has not initially intersected hydrocarbons? Take a look at the top centre seismic chart on p.33 of the October presentation, and it should be obvious.

1). To further investigate the discovery of a Helium concentration of 3120 times the normal background level.

2). To appraise the intersected salt as a potential future gas storage medium, for which a separate ITR has been prepared.

3). To deepen by 1000m to delineate the boundary of the underlying 100kmº anticline of Triassic TAGI sands, which are sealed by a cap of impervious salt.

B. With reference to delaying announcement of a commercial discovery in order to maximise tax exemption benefits.

1). It is correct that the standard ONHYM hydrocarbon contract states that the 10-year exemption from corporation tax begins upon commercialisation. However, the situation is more nuanced than this simple statement may seem to imply. I appreciate that nuance may be difficult for some to understand.

2). Upon the declaration of a commercial discovery, an Exploitation Concession must then be applied for within a defined period. This application must include timed and costed proposals to proceed to production.

3). Moroccan Hydrocarbon Code (Law No 21-90 and Decree No 2-93-786) then come into play. The concession can be revoked ("déchéance") for non-compliance, explicitly including "failure to timely complete development works and start operations."

4). It should be obvious that a company or its co-developers would not wish to prematurely announce a commercial discovery until it was in a position to be able to commence large scale production right from day 1, otherwise it would be losing serious amounts of tax benefits on the larger scale production likely in the later years of the exemption period.

5). PRD could have announced a commercial discovery a long time ago. They have not done so, and will not do so, until they have all the ducks in a row. These include * Completed quantification of available gas volumes. * Signed a definitive cooperation and gas sales agreement with an appropriate third party. * Ensured that a fully costed Field Development Plan is agreed. *The financial wherewithal and technical expertise are available to complete such an FDP.

6). The overarching reason for delaying announcement of a commercial discovery is for maximising tax benefits.

@CReas asked "Please can someone confirm, to my understanding, an ITR is due any moment for Morocco, this report will prove volume of resources. If substantially more, (from what PG has stated), from what I’m researching, this could revalue the company almost immediately and could all be within day / weeks???" The answer is a little more nuanced than yes or no. This is what we know:

From the 17 December 2025 RNS:

“2026 forward programme. January/February.

“An updated Independent Technical Resources report, which will take into consideration the studies completed in 2025, is likely to uplift gas resources for the MOU-1 and MOU-3 structure.”

"Validation of the NuTech interpretation of gas saturations is also likely to significantly increase potential for prospective gas resources beyond the limits of the MOU-1 and MOU-3 structure in the interval down to 950 metres."

From the 16 October 2025 presentation, slide 7

“MOU-6 targeting 425BCF net [to PRD] resources”

and verbally from Paul Griffiths during the live presentation

"Yes, there's the proven gas, 2C gas - but there is now an upside way beyond our what initial expectations were".

And from slide 31:

”Additional unconventional shale gas potential, 150km² [around] MOU-1, Multi-TCF potential”

Then in the 20 January 2026 RNS

"Separately complete an Independent Technical and Resources Report for the 81 km2 TGB-6 fan penetrated by MOU-3 and prepare to farmout."

TGB-6 is below the depth planned for MOU-6, so is likely to be thermogenic not biogenic, therefore is presumably not included in the ITR we are expecting in the next few weeks.  Thus, we are expecting two ITRs.

My conclusion based on the above? We will imminently receive an ITR that is focused on the biogenic gas in the immediate MOU areas. I do not know if this will include the unconventional (needing fracking) resource identified, but assume this is to support the establishment of the CNG and/or LNG projects. I have a suspicion, but only a suspicion, that the ITR release will be timed to coincide with the announcement of one or more agreements for commercialisation of this discovered resource. There will be a further ITR covering just one section of the thermogenic gas. I don't know why it is being done like this. I also don't know if further ITRs are in progress that cover the remainder of the MOU thermogenic gas deposits, of which there are several, or that cover the potential for the Jurassic, Triassic, or any of the nineteen additional prospects that have so far been identified. Will it affect the share price? We will have to wait and see.

If you are relatively new to this chat board, you may want to consider this. Whenever I write something positive about this company which is quoted from an independent, expert, technical report published in a respected peer-reviewed Earth Sciences journal, to which I provide a link so that you can read it yourself, one of the same three people pop up and say that I am lying. They are never able to provide any evidence that this is the case. Curious, don't you think?

I knew I had seen a similar paper:

"...the buried granitic massifs extend over about 30 Km to the NNE under the Meso-Cenozoic cover. This result is confirmed by the presence of a metamorphic aureole close to the anomaly.

A trial 3D modelling of gravity structures, using the USGS PFGRV3D program, shows a strong thickness of two granitic massifs. The SSW massif has a thickness of about 11 Km, while the NNE one is about 8 Km."

That's a lot of granite producing helium over the course of 290 million years.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X18302954

A long. long, time ago, I asked my Latin teacher if he thought that Latin could ever become a universal language. He replied "You would have a better chance of getting ink out of a bee's knee". I think there is a similar likelihood that PRD would ever get involved in Venezuela.

Thank you, Rob & others for your helpful replies. It would seem some of the statements on presentation slides and French articles are ambiguous, implying that since helium has been logged and quantified in two well (MOU-3 & MOU-5) then it is likely to be present in the same deep thermogenic gas reservoirs within the same overall structure, even though it has yet to be detected or measured.

Initially I was not that positive on helium potential, since the only obvious sources were the thin layers of volcaniclastic sediments. My view has been changed significantly after reading this paper, which I posted about on X in March 2025:

https://sciforum.net/manuscripts/9367/manuscript.pdf

This study was presented at IECMS in 2020 by Boufkri et al. It focuses on integrating and processing aeromagnetic data from three separate airborne surveys to generate unified magnetic anomaly maps for North-Eastern Morocco, a region with significant potential but limited surface exposure due to thick sedimentary cover.

The primary goal was to delineate hidden structural features—such as deep faults and magnetic sources—that could guide exploration for subsurface resource trapping, including potential hydrocarbon or helium accumulations in basins like Guercif,

The aeromagnetic anomaly map shows magnetic highs (red zones) around Guercif, as potential structural traps for helium generated from uranium/thorium-rich basement rocks. In the Guercif Basin, the sub-circular P1 anomaly and NE-SW AZ suggest basement highs and fault traps, potentially sealing hydrocarbons or helium, aligning with traces found in PRD's nearby wells (MOU-3/5).

It now appears that the red zones shown are aligned with previously unknown, truly massive, granite intrusions. These would be an obvious source of helium.

Interestingly, PG must have read the same paper, since these intrusions are shown at upper left on p.33 of the October presentation. No mention of their presence as a likely source of helium has been made previously by PRD

@Rob. Could you please supply the reference for helium in MOU-2 & MOU-4? Thanks

I'll just add briefly, since I should be in bed. Much of the marriage value here is that a partner company with plenty of money and expertise can very quickly move PRD's Prospective and Contingent Resources up to Reserves. The market would typically value Reserves at around 4x that assigned to a Contingent Resource, perhaps 8x PR. In the last presentation Paul presented the discounted value of the CR being accessed just by MOU-6, and what the undiscounted value would be - i.e. once it had Reserves status. Go look it up.

I should have clarified that their Phase 1 licence extension was due to expire tomorrow, but this extends it until they have found a partner. The DCEE could have taken the easy option of knocking it on the head, I think it positive that they haven't.

Today's EOG RNS indicates that the Irish DCEE may be a little troubled by recent LOGP & PRD activity. Let's hope we hear something similar very shortly.

"Europa Oil & Gas (Holdings) plc, the AIM quoted West Africa, UK, and Ireland and focused oil and gas exploration, development and production company, is pleased to announce that it has received confirmation from the Irish Government's Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment that, whilst the FEL 4/19 licence Phase 1 extension application is under consideration, it remains live and in Phase 1 until the application process is concluded.

Will Holland, Chief Executive Officer of Europa, said:

"FEL 4/19 contains the large 1.5 TCF, low risk Inishkea West gas prospect and is a strategic asset that can potentially provide a reliable source of low emission energy for Ireland and play a key role in the transition to renewable green power. Given the proximity to existing infrastructure, a discovery at Inishkea West could be brought online quickly and would reduce Ireland's reliance on imported gas, which carries significantly higher emissions than gas from Inishkea West would."

@Boukephalas. Here's a link to the specific technology I am referring to:

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

btw, great username, how's our old friend Iskandar?

Part 2.

Hyperspectral satellite data (which I have not seen, but I trust the interpretation I have been given) shows abundant gas underground in the whole area. This data cannot indicate the depth of the gas source, so even were there no actual gas in the Jurassic, this suggests that the underlying Triassic is gas-charged.

Across N. Africa, the TAGI is one of the most prolific sources of hydrocarbons. It was known (from the above work by PG) to be at Tendrara. Here the main TAGI is at a depth of 2600 – 2800m. Well TE-6 shows 28m net of reservoir, TE-10 has 10m net, 110m gross. TE-7 & TE-8 show hundreds of metres gross depth. The problem is that at Tendrara the reservoir quality is poor, with 8% porosity, as opposed to up to 15% elsewhere. This requires mechanical stimulation (fracking / acidizing) for commercial flow. Interestingly, the same satellite data referred to above was ignored by SOU's James Parsons, resulting in the Tendrara drills being sub-optimally positioned.

From what I can tell from the limited seismic data publicly available, the top of the Guercif Triassic is about 1000m closer to the surface than at Tendrara. This will not only be cheaper to drill, but also likely to be less compacted, resulting in improved reservoir quality. PG is probably the best qualified person on Earth to make that call, but I assume he has weighed up the cost : benefit potential for large, well sealed Triassic reservoirs as opposed to complex Jurassic structures, hence the change in near-term strategy.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

John Maynard Keynes.

Part 1.

@MwoQ. Great to see a new contributor, especially one asking an interesting question that I'm sure others have also wondered about. The view has been expressed on here by the usual suspects that there is no gas in the Jurassic, so 'bait & switch' has moved attention somewhere else, in this case the Triassic. I don't agree with that, although of course what follows is my own personal interpretation.

Paul Griffiths has a vastly more comprehensive view of these matters – after his MSc on 'Late Mesozoic seismic sequence stratigraphy of NE Libya' he worked for the Libyan National Oil Company and Gulf Oil evaluating exactly the potential reservoirs PRD are working on today. Later in his career he worked up the initial evaluation of the TAGI opportunity at Tendrara, 125km south of Guercif, which will be producing for Sound / Mana later this year.

First, we need to understand the complexity of the Jurassic carbonate. The Titanosaurus structure is basically a huge fossil coral reef, laid down in waters of varying depth over millions of years. When the water was deep, sediment would mostly be fine-grained, resulting in dense rock with poor hydrocarbon reservoir potential. In shallow water, coral reef proper would form, and this rock, already of sponge-like texture, would be further eroded by periodic exposure to the air and/or waves. This exposure results in leached porosity development - which means what it says – increased pores and cavities resulting in excellent capacity as a hydrocarbon reservoir. From this, it can be seen there will be vertically stacked high potential reservoirs alternating with non-productive strata. Added to this complexity is the likelihood of horizontal variation – think of many reefs separated by infilled channels.

Directly beneath the Jurassic is the top of the Triassic – marked by a thick layer of salt resulting from the evaporation of part of the ancient Tethys Sea, of which the Med forms a small remnant. This salt acts as a very viscous liquid, moving upwards and sideways due to the pressure of overlying rock. This layer is impervious to gas, so forms an excellent seal for any gas reservoirs beneath. However, the seismic wave conduction velocities of rock salt and carbonate reservoir are very similar, making them difficult to distinguish.

The seismic data available to PRD is not that great, tbh. As a result, MOU-5 was drilled into a laterally mobilised salt layer, not carbonate reservoir. It seems that the particular part of Titanosaurus that was drilled has been isolated from gas migration by salt above, below and laterally. Correlation of drilled material with the seismic data has resulted in a greatly improved understanding of the structure. There is every possibility that the structure contains multiple TCF of gas, but will require more detailed geophysical evaluation, which will cost more than PRD can afford – hence the farm in process currently underway.

The Troll Density Forward Indicator (proportion of green boxes to total posts) reached 59% yesterday, plus another negative note from TW. To put in so much effort, these people must be cr@pping themselves about something - must be positive incoming news.

My very brief note on X, in answer to GRH's question on shale gas, has been re-posted here, so I'd better expand on it so that no one is misled.

A quick intro – shale gas is formed by the action of methanogenic bacteria chomping on organic matter deposited within the shale. The more organic content, the potentially higher the gas concentration. These bacteria die off above 75°C, so work best when the shale is at shallow depths. The gas remains in situ, and is not reliant upon migration to a suitable reservoir stratum as with conventional gas.

Extraction is by drilling multiple (8-12) horizontal boreholes through the gas-bearing shale, radiating out from a single drill pad, then blasting them open (aka fracking). The horizontal sections are typically 5000ft long (1500m), so the area drained by one pad can be around 6 – 10 km². A rule of thumb is that to be commercial, flow rates should exceed 3 mmcfgd per 1000ft (300m) of horizontal borehole.

In the Beetaloo Basin here in Australia, three companies (Tamboran / Empire / Falcon) have drilled and fracked pilot holes, suggesting a combined 2C resource of 5.52 TCF. Their combined market cap is equivalent to £469M, giving a value of around £80M per 2C TCF. Obviously it will be a lot more once it achieves Reserves status – suggestions are around US$ 1 Bn per TCF. Australia's tax regime is very poor compared to Morocco, and the Beetaloo is a very long way from anywhere.

My assumptions (guesses at this stage) for Guercif:

* Area – given as 150km² for the structure penetrated by MOU-1. However, the whole Guercif graben is maybe 10x this size, shale may have been deposited all across this, maybe not.

* Thickness – given as 200m. I do not know if this is uniform, average, or just at MOU-1.

* Depth – this has not been stated, for calculating gas pressures I have taken it as averaging 500m.

* Porosity – not at all simple, since gas also adheres to shale grains and is not just found in the pore space. US Permian shale is around 6%, but Guercif has not been buried as deeply or for nearly as long, so is likely to be less compacted, so I'm using 8% equivalent.

* Gas Charge – given as up to 40%. I have used a conservative 25%.

* Bg – this is the number of m³ of gas at surface temperature & pressure that you can stuff into one m³ of reservoir. I do not have the actual depths, pressures or temperatures, so my Bg of 50x is roughly what you could expect at 500m. However, the geothermal temperature gradient at Guercif is a lot higher than normal, and gas nearby has been overpressured due to sideways tectonic squeezing in addition to overburden pressure, so this number could be higher.

* 1 m³ = 35.3 ft³

That's how I arrived at 1.06 TCF for just the structure penetrated by MOU-1. We will have to wait for the ITR for some real numbers. In PRD-speak, January/February means we would like to have it by next week, but it is more likely a couple of weeks later!

Just read through yesterday's posts, a couple of things to clear up here. Drilling of SC-3 will be using TRex's own rig, the T38. This was part of the physical assets acquired along with the CEG oilfields. It has been refurbished by an as yet unnamed third party (not NABI) who will also be doing the drilling under TRex supervision - as PG stated in the latest RNS, this is so that PRD can establish that they have the necessary credentials for undertaking work on new fields on their own. This presumably related to the potential acquisition of operator rights to the three fields I mentioned last week.

The cost of drilling and testing SC-3 will very likely be around £3M - this is quite a deep well, with potentially up to eight horizons to be tested. The 5th February 2025 placing RNS stated that £300K of the money raised was being allocated to SC-3, but specifically for long lead time items, well planning, and pad preparation. The latest raise is specifically for drilling and testing.

The unspoken upside is that as well as operations by NABI, PRD now have their own refurbished drill rig up and running, and presumably a second operations crew also available to contract. This could result in a very rapid build-up of oil flow. I suspect that PRD will run the high-reward Cory-Moruga field themselves to get 100% of the revenue, NABI will do field refurbishment & development of Bonasse, Goudron & Icacos. Innis-Trinity is an interesting one - PRD are very familiar with this field from the historic CO2EOR project, and no NABI work has yet been announced for this. I wonder if the idea is to re-start the CO2EOR work there?

Certain posters here continuously demean the company, its management, and supportive shareholders. Consistent with this, one has insulted an individual whose X post was repeated here today, while conveniently ignoring the reason for that post.

GRH has links with Scotforth, a company that uses satellite data to add to more traditional hydrocarbon exploration techniques. Using that data, GRH correctly forecast the potential and correct well positioning for GKP's Shaikan discovery, and posted this information publicly - this is the post he is referring to. The late Adnan Samarrai was in charge of exploration at GKP, reviewed the Scotforth data, and was very impressed.

Scotforth, and hence GRH, also has satellite data for Guercif. Adnan Samarrai has also reviewed the Guercif data, and believed it to be very positive. Hence the relevance of GRH's post today, reminding us of this. It is on the basis of this data that GRH has championed the potential of the Guercif licences for many years, even before the first drill. Subsequent work by PRD has strongly suggested that the Guercif hydrocarbon charge will be at the scale and level suggested by the Scotforth data. Certain people really don't like that idea.

Here's how it works:

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

Just discussing this offline. This bit: "demonstrate our in-house operational capabilities to ensure we are well-placed and qualified to acquire any new attractive opportunities that may or may not become available long-term" is important - Heritage have just offered up sub-licences on the Moruga North, Tabaquite and PS-3 blocks, and will want to see that PRD can operate these themselves rather than just using an agency such as NABI. imho of course.

There's the first of the baby rabbits out of the hat. Not long to the first of the big meaty ones:

"We have chosen the option to fund, operate and drill the Snowcap-3 appraisal/development well on a 100% basis as our wholly owned subsidiary (T-Rex Resources) is the exclusive Operator of the Cory Moruga block, where we shall demonstrate our in-house operational capabilities to ensure we are well-placed and qualified to acquire any new attractive opportunities that may or may not become available long-term." P.G.

There's nothing like a night's sleep to help look at things more objectively and try to separate the two components of investing – logic and emotion.

I'm sure many reacted with negative emotion seeing a steeply discounted placing sharply reducing the holding value of their investment – I certainly did, it's not a pleasant feeling seeing your portfolio value reduced by a six-figure sum overnight. There's also the knowledge that this will create an overhang that will take some time to clear, and that a full recovery may not happen until something material is announced.

How about some logic, some basic arithmetic? Monday lunchtime, there were 843 M fully-diluted shares (inc unexercised warrants & options), changing hands at 5.25p, giving a market capitalisation of £44.3M. That's what people thought the company was worth.

By last night's close, the fully-diluted number had risen to 980.6M, and there was an additional net £4.2M in the kitty. 44.3 + 4.2 = 48.5. Divide that by 980.6, and the current share price should logically be 4.95p rather than 3.45p. Why isn't it? – emotive response, of course.

Logically, it should be a little higher than this, since the pathway to drilling Snowcap-3 is now clear, and PRD are going to receive all the income from the well, rather than sharing that with the rig owner as previously mooted.

So, what will kick the share price back up to the proper level, after the placing overhang is mopped up? After so many false starts and delayed promises, PG has finally to pull a real live rabbit out of the hat.

His chances are good. For the next six months, there are a number of potential rabbits:

* The MOU-1 / MOU-3 biogenic gas ITR we were promised Jan/Feb.

* Now a new ITR just for the TGB-6 Sands.

* A biogenic gas sourced CNG agreement; an LNG agreement; or perhaps both.

* Possible divestment of the 81km² TGB-6 resource as a separate project.

* A larger scale Morocco divestment, for which we are over halfway through the six-month timescale.

* Snowcap-1 re-entry in March, which should include use of dewaxer and help to derisk SC-3.

* Snowcap-3 drilling & testing in April/May, connection to production Q3. At 500-1000 bopd, that gives annual revenue of $10-20M. Nice.

Plus a few baby rabbits (kits?) to include progress in Trinidad; and potential acquisition of additional producing fields in Trinidad & Guyana. I accept that these won't move the needle much, but are still positives.

Hopefully the 'woe is me' will evaporate quickly, and be replaced – apparently for at least one person here – with the fabled 'hookers & cocaine', but as our governments like to remind us, please always copulate & inhale responsibly.