Member Info for Rambo23

MEM I think it comes down to what cards PG has to play, what was in the latest ITR and what other factors can he leverage ie multiple bidders, current marco picture, read across to Rharb etc etc.

The numbers have a wide range based on all these elements. I don't think PG wants anything other than a big deal and for me that means $1bn or more.

He was very positive about something in sept/ oct to change tact and initiate the divestment plan and you don't hire and agent unless you are serious about that. PG has stated multiple times that is the plan.

@donalb I'm of the view PG is selling Morocco now. Why?

1. 7 months ago he hired an agent to faciliate the sale

2. Something materially changed in sept/ Oct to move away from a farm out deal to a sale of the assets

3. A month ago PG made it clear he expects Morocco and T&T to be divested by Q3/4

4. He hardly spent anytime talking about future development in Morocco but DID spend a lot of time about acquiring other assets which are likely material in size if he is prepared to sell Morocco and T&T to buy them. I'm thinking Tullow Oil in Africa might be a place to look here

5. I think he has options here but the gorilla dust is the GSA style deal which someone will agree at some point but over and above that is the ownership of the license which is even more important.

6. MOU6 - This naming convention changed awhile ago so it is no longer mou6. (ignore the account refs which are largely historical, RNS since have not been using this)

7. PG told us he doesn't expect the company to fund mou6 so at some point he has to tell us who is

8. We have not seen the latest ITR despite expecting this months ago. It is likely the basis of a commercial deal hence no disclosure.

9. Why take the risk on MOU6? PG said he doesn't need more wells or to flow gas to ink the deals.

10. Macro picture is unexpectedly favourable for a deal now

11. PG was very clear you need to leave actives and upside on the table for a buyer. He has organised mou6 and the upside is obvious beyond that.

12. Why have we done no drilling in 16months? Looks like a window was created to initiate and allow the Agent discussions on selling this whilst also creating an upcoming event to drive negotiations and increase leverage. A buyer comes in now they can dictate GSA, EC and 2nd amendment plans themselves. Leaving this late in the day ie closer to 5th Nov would weaken the leverage for PRD.

I could go on here but all the signs are there he plans to divest and I think that is now. He has not mentioned anything beyond mou6 for sometime and I think that is the hard stop for a deal completion. Time will tell what plays out.

All this talk of a JV could describe a GSA style deal while masking the actual wider divestment that he has also told us to expect.

Current bids

250k @ 3.2841

250k @ 3.261

1,000,000 @ 3.25

100k @ 3.242

275k @ 3.206

Current offers

150 @ 3.3873

4.4m looks delayed form friday. They want your shares!

Given we were 3.2 bid already and this 4.4m ticket didn't knock it down is telling. For every seller there is a buyer and vice versa.

Marked down 7% on Fridays UT close price of 3.57 for 2574 shares. Nothing to see here on this opening price drop!

@Keithoz re your point on where the upfront payment is coming from what about this scenario......

I am proposing full asset sale is announced imminently to ADNOC or similar. I think they will repay post costs $24.6m and MOU-6 costs on an irrevocable, guaranteed basis (note GRH 17th April post recently on 'Irrevocable' ). So cash to PRD regardless of deal completions. Then there is deal consideration on completion. There is precedent for this.

ADNOC then executes MOU-6 as operator. ADNOC can then sign GSA and submit EC as part as it see fit as asset owner.

But MOU-6 does need to be drilled to that reg deadline, so there is a time constraint to this.

Remember that in current written comms (ie not “as at” annual report, they aren’t referring to MOU-6 as MOU-6, rather the drill targeting the MOU-3 structure. So that heavily points to a different operator using a different naming convention.

ADNOC has a relationship with ONHYM already, so they may have negotiated this 5th October deadline

“The Company is pleased to announce that it has signed Confidentiality Agreements with a company based in the United Arab Emirates and an Asian exploration and production company to evaluate the exploration, appraisal and development opportunities in the area covered by the Guercif Petroleum Agreement.”

“Separately the Company has signed a Confidentiality Agreement with a company in the downstream sector in Morocco to work together to optimise the potential market for gas from the area covered by the Guercif Petroleum Agreement.”

This is from the 2021 annual report. I think this UAE co is ADNOC.

I think this dual channel approach has been in flight for years and is now concluding. Reach materiality, tee up commerciality and divest.

What are peoples views on this scenario? I'm saying there might be misdirection and Gorilla dust in play here on multiple fronts. Plan A = divestment, Plan B is the GSA with low likelihood of execution by PRD. PRD only do that if near term divestment is delayed or fails. The major = operator, the GSA partner is the domestic entity and buyer of gas which squares a circle. Divestment post MOU6 = More money required perhaps significantly more. The agent was hired over 6 months ago for divestment not a GSA deal!

@keithoz - Thanks

A good point MEM but I raised a similar point yesterday that with the $24m back costs coming back (subject to contract) from a GSA deal those funds could be used to progress Morocco also. This money likely comes back much sooner than T&T divestment adding pressure also.

As per Keiths estimates on the work items earlier this morning this would easily be covered with these funds but would require a lot more time.

Also I don't believe PG can buy material discovery/ producing assets in Africa with this sort of cash $25m that would be substantially more than what T&T is targeting bopd this year without a divestment on large scale otherwise why bother selling T&T?

So big picture PG retains optionality to raise funds (as usual) , can sell T&T or use T&T cashflows to develop Morocco if he wants and like you say suitors will be aware of that.

However what is his appetite here? I don't believe it is a multi year time consuming campaign from here regardless of the potential or to do anymore beyond mou6 assuming that is now part of it. Agent hired, macro pricing favourable right now but for how long?, PG not getting any younger and the second amendment obligations are significant seismic etc and take time. The TGB6 ITR numbers could be pivotal to secure the exit here aligned to EC.

Separately what is the EC deadline view now? 5th August was what we thought it was ie 3 months before 5th Nov but yesterdays RNS said 5th oct suggesting a change? A change or a typo?? anyone? This is key to knowing what they are likely to be able to achieve and what is included etc

@Keithoz Thanks for the great analysis as always.

1. What and when do you think PGs exit here actually is? 6 months ago he initiated the divestment plan, he hired an agent to ensure the right parties are in the room and was vocal about divestment by Q3/4 only a month ago but something was crystallising now in the interview. Has the timeline just changed?

2. Based on what we have seen in the accounts and your take on the required work items on the wells required to exit for a higher number what do you think is in the scope of 75% PRD ownership? There will be always be upside left on the table and PG made this point saying how important it was for the buyers.

3. What minimum value do you think he could get now from Gucerif based on the updated numbers? ( I appreciate we have not had sight of the revised ITR yet but using the BCF numbers from the account)

4. What gave Paul the confidence to initiate the divestment plan 6 months ago? He would have had sight of the BCF numbers/ his own calcs and would know that he can drill and test more if he absolutely needed.

5. - Do you think PRD divest Morocco before the 5th Nov license timeline?

Considerations:

- Paul was confident to initiate the divestment plan over 6 months ago and said he did not need to drill anymore wells or flow any wells for a divestment

- Nothing happens quickly here and the time required to do the drilling, side tracks and fracking of 4 wells would not be a quick process even with a partner. If that is to take a year or more (nothing before 5th Nov my expectation)

- Being involved in anymore drilling and testing = Risk and uncertainty

- EC timeline pushed to 5th Oct but a major would likely need to be involved before then so would a divestment be ahead of this data for that reason?

- Clearly there is a trade off between improving the upside, requiring more time to perform new activities and the risks involved

- When does MOU6 testing actually happen? (usually a long time post drilling due to risk, cost and getting kit in)

My own view is that the last Gucerif drill and results were march 2025 for MOU5. So in 16 months come MOU 6 we have had no activity on the ground and no sight of the revised ITR yet, this is not how to continue, it's a poor use of that significant time. I would prefer an outright divestment now assuming PG can negotiate a fair outcome. If more wells were needed for a divestment and or EC it should have been known long ago and triggered more activity in the last 16 months. Based on PGs comments this MOU6 well was not required for a divestment so the possibility we might now have to wait for this drill which means we carry way more risk on the divestment plan not less in this approach.

Thanks

@Thunderstang yes I think we are converging onto the same place one way or another.

A full exit now would align with PGs agent hire 6 months ago, recent aspirations for African assets etc but I can't see the GSA style deal leading to that now but the GSA would as you point our also help facilitate option 2 ie full exit later on. It was odd he even mentions those other opportunities before he has cemented anything and more so if the timelines are pushed out on the EC and possible full exit as possibly implicated today.

Is MOU6 needed for the EC? It appears so as the previous EC deadline was 5th August and as per the RNS today they have until the 5th October to complete that work. This enables MOU6 to be factored into this which was likely difficult for 5th August if spudding end of July. This now aligns better however the EC would likely require the input of a major would it not? so a deal has to be reached much earlier than the new EC deadline to include them if not the same party as the GSA deal. What are your thoughts to this? I agree MOU6 might be a pricing catalyst good point.

Does PG want to take anymore drilling and delineation risk here? Going from I don't need to drill more wells, I have what I need and don't need to demonstrate flow to do them is a big risk/reward profile change to what we read today is it not? Mou6 drilling and data adds potentially more upside to an exit down the line but also adds time and risk. What has changed?

Does PG want or expect to be involved in any re-entry or side track drills etc referenced today? I hope not as it is more risk so what do the minimum requirements look like he wants or needs for a full exit if not available now? What and when? Likewise the second amendment commitments on seismic etc should be for the suitor to undertake post PRD exit. I appreciate that is further out but it is still part of the necessary work to prove out the license area and resources to get even more value.

A full exit removes all risk from this opportunity. Does the ITR we have yet to see (interestingly the report said it would be available in Q1 confirms it was written in part a while ago) provide enough confidence and volume for this to happen?? The publication of the accounts today is a full disclosure moment that can be a pre-requisite for large commercial deals ie full visibility for suitor shareholders not just our own. I'm curious to see what happens next here but the agent must be required for a BIG deal not a GSA with a domestic player and a likely 6 month extension to the BIG deal.

Turning this around on the cost recovery element, If PRD got $24m back via the GSA deal soon why don't they aggressively drill deeper at mou3 themselves, pay for seismic for mou5 asap and drill deeper there if the upside is so big? Conversely why delay a full exit now if you are not going to do that? PG said previously the majors like a plan of activities and you also need to leave something on the table f

100% madman on point with all those and my own view also.

@Thunderstang thanks that is a great perspective and you could well be right option one is the mechanism here. I think you join a lot of the dots up nicely here. A few thoughts..

1. Do you envisage that the first commercial deal we see ie GSA for $24.6m also includes giving any equity away? or is it linked to gas sales at the well head? (my expectation the latter but this might vary on the structure options you make)

2. How does Paul fund the acquisitions in Africa and elsewhere he mentioned in the interview? He spent far too much time on that vs talking about near term Gucerif development why?

3. Do you think something has changed since the interview in terms routes to divestment in Morocco? If so what?

4. Turning this around what aspects of what we have been told make you think PG plans a full exit on Morocco now despite signalling the GSA route?

5. Is MOU6 now a dependency on the full exit of Morocco? Previously it was not and neither was flowing any gas so why the change?

Thanks

There is a lot to wade through but here are some thoughts.

1. A commercial event is close. What does that look like? Simplistically,

Option 1 - A GSA with a third party and back costs for circa £25m.

Option 2 larger divestment of Morocco for material funds.

Option 3 something else.

2. Does option 1 satisfy the previous 'divestment' objective? For me no.

3. Does Option 1 require the agent hired 6 months ago for divestment? no and neither does £25m in back costs justify their remit

4. A month ago PG said he expects someone else to pay for mou6 so point 1 is ever closer to an outcome one way or another

5. Previously PG said he had drilled the wells he wanted/ needed to so is MOU6 a new dependency to EC and or full divestment or not?

6. Has/ can the EC application date of 5th august be pushed back? If yes it brings mou6 + testing outcome into scope of that EC and how have they pushed this date back when it is based on the requirement for 'an exploitation concession must be submitted to the ministry (MMEM) no later than 3 months before the end of the exploitation permits validity? ie 5th Nov. This is key to understanding the wider timetable here.

7. Does an option 1 deal allow for the purchase of new assets he mentioned in the interview? possibly but for me, no for several reasons. Firstly divestment and returning funds to shareholders should be a priority vs buying more assets which aligns to an option 2 deal enabling both. Secondly if he wants to divest T&T this year with say 1500 bopd (post snowcap3 and my assumption on 1500 here) why sell that in the first place if you only go and buy other assets with possibly less production (this assumes what you can get with the option 1 GSA deal cash circa £25m?) Surely they need to be materially larger than T&T numbers and that only comes from an option 2 style deal ie full divestment with material funds.

8. Has the timeline for full divestment on Morocco and or T&T changed from Q3/4 as told only a few weeks ago? Possibly but odd for that to change in this time period.

Full divestment is the only route to secure serious cash imo to go buy larger producing assets elsewhere (my expectation is to sell T&T in Q4 you have to be buying something much bigger with divestment funds from Morocco). Is the PG's excitement in the interview justified by a GSA deal for £25m and mou6 drilling when he spent so little time talking about Morocco development and spent a lot more time talking about assets he wants to buy? For me no.

I still think something bigger is in play here and when you consider the work items in the second amendment to come including deep drilling and hundreds of km's of seismic that is not for PRD but a suitor so between now and 5th Nov something has to materially change here. If MOU6 is now a dependency a full divestment takes more time if it is not it can happen now.

Current bids

1,600,000 @ 3.56

200k @ 3.52

Current offers

250k @ 3.675

250k @ 3.685

500k @ 3.694

We are currently 89 days from the monday the 27th July. PG said MOU6 drilling had to commence 'NO Later' than by the last week in July.

Lead time for kit is 90 days...............

Latest date for EC is 5th August.

Clarification on MOU6 deal must be very close now.

P 27 - 'These results have been a catalyst for the Company to enter into substantive discussions with third parties to fund a MOU-6 pre-development well in 2026 and potentially also a pilot CNG or micro-LNG development in 2027.'

Current Bids:

750k @ 3.952

250k @ 3.9403

150k @ 3.9267

110k @ 3.925

2,500,000 @ 3.91

Current Offers

100k @ 4.08

650k @ 4.084

They still want your shares!

Paul is still in the window to deliver what he said would happen in April...the accounts! Any suggestion otherwise and talk of suspension is unwise at this point it's fodder for the FUD merchants so why bother feeding them.

Meanwhile here is the reality....

Current Bids for 100k

150k@ 4.0551

750k@ 3.937

100k @3.93

110k @ 3.925

2,500,000 @ 3.915

Current Offers

200k@ 4.1348

500k @ 4.1399

Conclusion = They want your shares evidently.

19. PG already said he has done the drilling he needs/ wants to!

Madman - I believe a full exit is going on here reasons below.

1. PG told us over 6 months ago he plans to divest Morocco

2. He hired an agent 6 months ago to facilitate this

3. He dismissed farm out in Sept/ oct 2025

4. The 5th Nov deadline is key leverage in negotiations now. Planning for the EC seems more likely and value enhancing

5. A month ago PG stated again plans to divest Morocco and T&T by Q3/4 'some of this is crysrtalising now'

6. In the same interview PG mentions little about Morocco development. He told us he expects someone else to pay for MOU6

7. MOU6 has a deeper drill option - This is likely for the buyer not PRD

8. You don't spend significant time talking about buying NEW assets in Africa which are discovery producers etc without knowing where the funds are coming from to buy those. He wants producing assets not exploration. This is a key change one throws off revenues the other takes years!

9. PG is getting older, if he doesn't deal now he may not get the chance to cement his legacy which is a key factor here.

10. Divestment of Morocco now is the only way he gets near term cash to buy these assets. T&T needs SC3 and more work overs + mentioned storage acquisition before crystallising value imo.

11. If the agent has done his job and there are multiple interested parties a conclusion will come.

12. Macro picture/ Iran war could not have come at a better time for these discussions. Huge opportunity for someone in a benign region with a new gas basin.

13. I would argue that after 8 years in Morocco PG cannot and should not be buying other assets in significant size before shareholders are finally rewarded via special divi. They have carried the risk and taken the pain so that has to be a priority over other exploration and time consuming opportunities.

14. I don't think a major would want to negotiate again with PG for any remaining stub equity. They would rather pay him now for the full 75% which assumes ONHYM doesn't want a larger slice also.

15. Talk of helium is positive but at mou5 we have already been told more seismic is required that could be years before a drilling happens therefore don't see this as on PRD timelines. The sample was taken from mou3 so best to drill deeper there first to see what they find. Helium is a big carrot for someone else as what we know today it is immature in nature and requires further time and money to prove up.

16. If we don't divest now, When? a re-drill from mou3 pad for mou6 tells us what? The log is the same as mou3! Can they drill, test, analyse and upgrade the ITR before 5th Nov? Possibly but you don't run the clock down which is not favourable for your negotiations to do a deal. Deal happens now

17. EC application is needed 3 months before 5th Nov so that is 5th August. 16... drill, test, analysis and ITR misses this timeline by a long way.

18. The EC is the next step to enhance value of this license no slippage allowed.

19. PG has already said he has drill