If you disagree then show why with data and research8 Feb 2026 11:50
Great post Keith !
The trolls are trying hard to fill this BB with FUD.
Factual post like this harm the trolls agenda.
They are unable to to analyse your post and respond with ignorance.
ONHYM do not award licences. ONHYM and the company agree the terms necessary to award a licence. This was completed last year. The licence is awarded by the Energy Ministry, after sign off by the Finance Ministry. This is a contractual obligation. I am not aware of a single situation where ONHYM, or their predecessor ONAREP, has agreed licence terms then a licence is not issued. If you know of such an instance, please reference it.
I have never said that a declaration of commerciality is up to Paul Griffiths “to make by himself “, so please do not distort my statements. I have made it crystal clear what specific events need to occur and be agreed before such declaration can be made – these constitute 3 of the 4 bullet points in my first post this morning, including commercial gas flow, a gas sales agreement and an FDP. So why suggest that I have not stated this when I have? I repeat, PG does have significant say on WHEN such declaration is made, and yes, the timing is driven by tax issues.
Dr Tim Wright, FGS, FSEG, MIMMM of Scorpion Geosciences is an accredited Competent Person, meaning that he is deemed fully qualified and has direct personal experience of the necessary geological, geophysical and geotechnical aspects of this project. He is well known within the industry. It is a requirement that he has full and free access to whatever data has been generated. There is a lot of data. This same data will have been supplied to all companies and organisations (including ONHYM) for review by their own technical experts. I cannot possibly imagine that any credible potential partner would sign an agreement without doing their own very detailed Due Diligence. If there were to be significant discrepancies in their interpretation of the data compared to Scorpion's, that would be resolved by further discussion. Please detail the qualifications and experience that you have that put you in a reasonable position to question the veracity of past and forthcoming ITRs.
I repeat that I had absolutely nothing to do with any 'Research Report' posted on this bulletin board. Anything I post is my own opinion, under my own name, based on publicly available information, which I usually reference. Potential investors should always check the facts behind any statement here. Please note that the Company has made it very clear that information on social media can be inadvertently or even deliberately misleading, and urged investors to rely only on statements in an RNS and the Company's official X account.
I don't expect an apology - but if I said why I don't expect an apology, it would indeed be an insult, albeit a deserved one.