Member Info for Rambo23

There has just been a 2m delayed trade pop up at 3.375 which is above the VWAP. Looks like a buy to me and the fact yesterday's UT marked us down today to show down 5% plus the crazy spread confirms it. A 2m dump would have knocked the bid down for sure.

@keithoz I agree the option to drill deeper is clearly a big opportunity and goes against the CNG/ LNG option and because of that and the timing to apply for an EC 3 months before license expiry which are set dates now means that it's even more essential that deeper drill happens now and asap. It opens the door to potentially more commercial options beyond the CNG/LNG so the sooner you find that out the better it is for the EC outcome and usage of it.

I agree we don't know if they have compelling data to do an EC now but turning this around what other reason is there for PG to be drilling at the very latest by the last week of July? The EC rationale makes total sense. PG didn't mention testing of this well at all in the interview I believe either.

I'm of the belief that the pathway forward has been decided we just have not been told and final docs being drawn up etc, the RNS is a broad signpost of optionality that can't disclose the former until ready. Despite the optionality in various forms we are against a clock likely deliberately which benefits PGs negotiations. I find it less likely they haven't agreed on what will happen at mou6 already especially considering the ordering of kit and resources and the 3 month lead time. (again this lead time of 90 days helps PG apply pressure).

The RNS yesterday stated 'revised well and drilling fluid design completed for Morocco' it then states lower down 'later possible re-entry and re-completion of shallower objectives and possible future deepening of a well to underlying objectives?'. Is the ref to 'shallower objectives' the previous plan A and the new plan A is the deep drilling? (again they could not tell us until a deal is RNS lands so it reads as optionality). As you point out you wouldn't (couldn't) do that if you had completed the hole for production.

Another factor here is do they think the mou6 location (still TBC if using the mou3 pad or not) is optimal for a deeper thermogenic drill? If yes you don't waste that location just on a shallow drill. So ignoring commercials and cost what is the optimal scenario here for the location of mou6 wherever that is?

If a major comes in now I lean towards you drill deep now and if no major comes in now you stick to plan A and drill shallow but the drill location may also influence what happens next. A new location means extra time and cost to prep a drill pad and we have had zero mention of that either in the interview or RNS.

@KeithOz Hi Keith great post as always. What is your take on this...

If they can/ have proved connectivity and they believe the gas has migrated up surely this only complicates multi deals on the reservoir and that a single deal with a major is the best way to move forward?

Is the multi option approach part of the carrot and stick approach to say look we can print the CNG ticket right now and that only complicates a single ownership (excluding ONYHM here for simplicity) in the future so we do the big deal now with you the major for the lot or we proceed as planned with mou6 and you pay a lot more later for less? (ONYHM might want more equity post mou6 drill another risk to a major waiting)

Re the EC is needed by the 5th august. Great to know that thank you. Interestingly this means that they won't likely have time for testing the well before applying for that. My thinking here is that if a deal is done they will do drilling and testing back to back as the major can pay for that sequence & risk where previously PG could not afford that luxuary which is why it took so long to test as a seperate event.

All this only increases the likelihood of an imminent deal RNS as the clock is ticking to the 5th august being only 111 days until then and lots to be done when there is a 90 day lead time taking up most of those days and assuming no delays!

@middleeastmoney I think it is both but he was clear on the timing in the interview.

Working backwards there are license considerations/ commitments coming up at the end of the year in Nov I think. Therefore you must have drilled and tested mou6 prior to that and had time for analysis/ commercial discussions. Allow a month for each. This means when you consider the 90 day lead-time for mou6 kit etc we are almost out of time already to do all that. This is why I think we see a deal land in the coming days. PG could fund mou6 no problem but he doesn't want to do that or wait too long for the deal to be signed reducing his time to take action. He implied he could get a £/$1m for bonnase now as it is 20k per bopd and it is at circa 50 now. Was that a nod to a funding option that was non dilutive imo? I think he has a deal so there won't be a need to dilute and the timings means that an outcome is close.

@blackdogtaff Great post and well timed.

This for me is a reminder evidence that a farm out was broadly dismissed and not the preferred route forward. This was because of the testing so things like connectivity and all the other data have likely triggered a much bigger event happening here.

With Mou6 naming now not referenced, no publication of the ITR overdue to us but will have been disclosed to interested parties sometime ago and telling us he expects the company not to be paying for mou6 is quite telling. (The latter point has to be clarified in the coming days to meet the lead time obligations of 90 days to support that well. We are 104 days from the 27th July where PG stated the drill needed to commence 'NO LATER than the last week of July = deal any day now on that logic alone). He speaks of flexible divestment but what does that look like? Does it mean

1. Gives PG TIME and optionality not to not commit on a Morocco deal for X months (from the time of the comments from PG months ago) mean while the agent grooms more interest parties and then we land the ITR on them in feb/ march 2026? All the while he also knows in parallel T&T revenue is only increasing hitting the bank account and the active drilling campaign out there only strengthens his hand the longer he has to ink a deal in Morocco. You don't need an agent to deal with a GSA imo it is required for a bigger divestment. PG said the landing zone for that divestment was 6 months, 6 months ago. What would have changed to deviate from that critical path? The macro picture likely means you ask for a premium but if you can't make that stick and keep waiting and the war stops that premium fades away.

2. Can he do a phased deal now on Gucerif where that party pays for mou6 but the outcome of that well and testing actually triggers a full divestment thereby getting the benefit of mou6 outcome? It makes it more complicated and the macro picture right now is hot so I think and hope is a full exit now. Why would that party want to pay PG more on the back successful mou6 drilling? Deal now and get shot of him.

3. So if a flexible divestment is not a farm in, a GSA or phased deal it has to be a full exit on PGs terms. Is that what he was saying here?

A lot depends on mou3 and the ITR. Did it flow if so confidence is high and mou6 might not be needed to land a big deal. A GSA surely could have been landed long ago but is flowing gas a prerequisite here?

Separately any cash he gets from divestment surely the first consideration outside working capital is a return of capital to shareholders and not other projects. Therefore to do everything he wants he needs serious cash that can only come from a full exit. Oh the possibilities!

@footandmouth agree about what is missing in the rns. Did you notice that there were ZERO mentions in the RNS of 'MOU6'.......this might imply that the naming convention of the future wells is about to change to someone else's.....= Deal inbound. ADNOC who already invested in schlumberger would make sense as an option....?

What are others views here?

@jamyesterday agree the comment was in part rear view mirror but the point stands PRD is still priced like options currently vs the potential here.

PRD share price not referenced as 'option prices' in some circles for nothing!

@creas no idea on that as so much depends on the ITR, number of interest parties etc but the macro picture right now very helpful. The fact we have not seen this ITR yet makes me believe commercial discussions are in play and we only see that doc post deal news. There is a lot of revision to do for that ITR that could make a material difference to the numbers. Look at the numbers in the October presentation (some very good slides in there with almost too much info on them but keep looking for the clues and that excludes the latest ITR revisions to come). Considering the size of the license area, the pay zones referenced and the known details on permeability and porosity only help the ITR get to bigger numbers now.

I don't think a major wants to come in for some token slice of equity I think they want a lot and that limits the options here for PRD to remain in as ONHYM I believe get first dips on taking more equity from PRD. Plus I don't think they want a multi stage negotiation with PRD that could just happen now. I don't believe mou6 flowing is a requirement for a deal either. I think that is left on the table as per Paul's previous comments on leaving upside for the buyer. Fascinating to think how this will actually play out vs the possibilities. Paul won't roll over easily or for a poor deal and would love to underpromise and massively over deliver

Wise words and my thinking here is precisely why you hire an agent of top calibre.

A reminder what PG stated 'the value in that agent relationship lets say means we can get to the very highest levels of any organisation in the oil and gas sector anywhere in the world'

I wonder if there is any link between Jefferies (Legacy Randall & Dewey) + minehead UCC comment and PRD. It would be a few fingers fitting in the glove if so but this is down the rabbit hole now. Other agent options are available however!

@Footandmouth I wonder if he is talking about the PRD agent here.....?

@Tincan1995 - No problem

@Nevermind - That is a great post and very helpful. Having listened to the interview at 10:15 PG talks about the AGENT relationship. They are using the same agent now in Morocco as for that Irish deal. He states 'the value in that agent relationship lets say means we can get to the very highest levels of any organisation in the oil and gas sector anywhere in the world'

That is quite some statement. Also the numbers involved in that Irish deal were huge so perhaps this is something overlooked in terms of translation in Morocco and what PGs aspirations are here. Otherwise why is he talking about a deal that never happened. Interesting!

@Tincan1995 if that was in reply to my last message I have not stated 'we do not have a producing asset in morocco'. If that is to someone else no problem I have filters on so can't see all the messages.

@Highlandmatt yes I think both are in play and being used as leverage but the ultimate destination is a complete divestment isn't it. How does he achieve that and by Q3/4 as recently stated?

Option 1 - GSA now then a second divestment later in the year but what activities between now and then lead to triggering the remaining divestment? (I can't see any, this assumes the mou6 is part of any GSA deal near term)?

Option 2 - Full exit now (with threat of proceeding with option 1 and paying more later?)

Option 1 takes too much time to achieve full divestment of Morocco this year and there is no guarantee mou6 flows+ testing takes how long post drilling+analysis+ new ITR etc? I think it will flow but why take the risk and why take that time when discussions on the amendments come into play also? . Option 1 might not allow for shareholder distributions and securing new projects a limiting factor.

Option 2 only works if they meet PG's minimum exit price and the Iran war only helps achieve this now but might not be there in 3 months time. Option 2 unlocks funds for new projects. Why was he telling us about those A before he has returned any money to shareholders who crucially have walked across the Sahara in recent years for him without a drink and B instead of him telling us how and what he is going to do to develop more in Gucerif which surely would be a priority over projects in other countries UNLESS he was selling the lot now. I think he is.

Thanks Madman,

Re your refs to the 'Heads of agreement' points when you consider those terms and the timing of that nearly 2 months ago and then consider all this through the lens of if these comms are not for shareholders but for the buyers this makes it even more likely he is leveraging the GSA for something bigger imo.

A GSA has been in play for a very long time now, does it really take this long to deliver one? I accept the ITR timing a possible factor here.

@kiethoz - I agree the announcements are for the buyers.

You raise an interesting scenario I had not considered about the threat of selling the whole lot to get a better GSA. My counter to that is PG talks about full divestment on these projects this year a near term GSA makes that harder imo. Also do you need an agent for that scenario? Not sure you do. Dealing with the big boys internationally who have the cash and the skills to really develop this basin which also helps cement PG's legacy a point not to be overlooked here are the ones to ultimately deal with. He said very little in the interview about Gucerif plans beyond mou6 and only touched on the helium briefly which requires more exploration but again that messaging is not for us I feel.

Additionally does a GSA deal give him the funds to go and secure decent 'discovery and producing' assets in Africa? & return funds to shareholders who have been on a long journey here. I'm not the GSA secures all that and the fact he is not choosing exploration in this African instance means he could be lining up long term revenue generation to pay dividends from that deal. If you had a big lump of cash you could easily do that with low risk.

The age of the management team also a factor here. Do they want to be starting again exploring other assets where the people, reg & political environment and general network are perhaps completely different to that comfort zone of T&T and Morocco where he is well known and respected?

Re the ITR for the TGB6 sands I don't know. Would that be a mechanism of further formalising the TGB6 asset value for a buyer and separately act as a bluff?

This is why I think selling the whole farm is so much easier and carries less risk. Handing over equity in whatever size means handing over influence and control and I'm not sure PG wants to be beholden to someone else's budget, timeline and perhaps differing priorities to see Gucerif developed over X years from now. It is not his thing but cashing out and securing assets elsewhere more likely and the talk of producing assets further increases the chances for me of one last dance post full monetisation now. Taking MOU5 as an example we have been told more seismic etc is needed and the timelines on this were pushed out to 27/28 from memory. Are we hanging around in Morocco then? Maybe but I don't think so and we have heard almost nothing on this front for a while. The Iran war makes the asset even more attractive now but that premium goes when the wars stop.

I'm sure PG will structure the best deal possible and I think he will want to stick his fingers to the market who have doubted him for years. We find out soon what it looks like. I hope he goes big here and has multiple parties interested which only improves the likelihood of a big money exit. 'Gather round gather round, here is the data set, best and final bids pls by end of March'

@footandmouth......to add to the list of reasons why I think a full exit of Morocco is in play is this from slide 4 of the October investor deck. Well worth reviewing this, so much info in there that is relevant to where we are now all the while knowing many of the numbers provided across the board likely get revised positively in the new ITR we are due to see at some point soon.

'Agent appointed to market the PRD gas & helium discoveries & potential gas & hydrogen storage project

• 6-month marketing exercise focussed on initial list of substantive Middle East, SE Asia & African entities'

I agree a CNG project near term is definitely a possibility, that is what PG is trying to get the market to focus on primarily but I think it is gorilla dust from the reality to sell everything and over deliver here. GSA is also the bluff for dealing with majors, ie take all of the Morocco super basin now or we print the GSA and drill mou6 oursleves and you pay X more in the future. Why hire an agent 6 months ago for any of that when the scope of their remit is so much bigger? Paul spends money for purpose and I believe that is divestment.

Is it more complicated for him to do a CNG deal now therefore partial divestment with remaining divestment to come towards the end of the year as per the interview? almost certainly yes. MOU6 would be involved in the scope of any CNG project almost certainly so beyond that what happens in that period from now to Q4 this year that adds any extra value to conclude a full divestment? PG stated very little about future plans in Morocco in the interview but did spend time telling you about future assets. MOU6 likely left on the table for the buyer again as he highlighted 6 months ago that majors like to have planned drilling activities ready to go when they take over, this is precisely that. PG ref to divestment in Q3/4 I believe means deal on Morocco now, deal closes in a few months time (funds could then be used to acquire African assets and do that T&T storage deal but deals prepped now in parallel and close upon Morocco closing, then T&T is divested later in the year with more production, snowcap 3 and more storage which PG said is crucial to enabling your wells to keep pumping. So by the end of the year both assets are divested. Morocco happens now in full and enables the other deals to be done.

This is just my take on what is going on here time will tell what surprised PG has.

I think it depends on what is in the ITR that we have yet to see. It could be very large if they can prove up the resources and connectivity etc.

Paul stated 6 months ago that majors like to take over projects which have proactive drilling etc organised and for us we have MOU6. Pg recognises that he has to not be too greedy and leave upside on the table for a major. The Iran war makes the timing perfect to transact and for a major to secure a significant long term opportunity in a benign region. GRH thinks Gucerif is a super basin and he is a very knowledgable and smarter man than me in this area of expertise so pay attention.

I think the big reveal happens soon and PG can't bloody wait to stick it to the doubters. Look how smug he was in the latest interview.

I would rather a full cash exit here. Stub equity on an unknown timeline controlled by a major has lots of uncertainty and we have waited a long time already. I also think a major would prefer as much equity as they can get and ONHYM already have 25% so would you want to have to negotiate with PG twice, first now and then again to buy out the stub equity in the future? I imagine he plays hardball so I think full exit and crack on. In the interview he talks about buying discovered producing assets in Africa. He is an exploration specialist and here is talking about buying something very different which likely required decent cash. That comes from divestment of Morocco imo. Time will tell but I think he massively over delivers here.

We are showing 'down' because the uncrossing trade (first trade today) was at 3.6p. However a short while ago the are bids for over 1.75m between 3.325 and 3.4 waiting to be filled. Accumulation has been going on for some weeks now and the MM's will nudge up and down the price to fill the orders and hence the spread is typically wide much of the time.

I believe we are very close to a transformational deal and I think that is an exit on Morocco for a lot of money.