Member Info for Thunderstang

Interesting @donalb, but I’m not associated with any of the other accounts you mentioned in your initial post.

@Ibiza28

I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think this RNS supports the idea that talks have stalled or broken down.

This is a year end financial report to 31 December 2025. By its nature, a lot of the narrative is retrospective and operationally focused, it’s not designed to be a live update on negotiations (which Paul won’t do anyway as it’s sensitive). Even the commentary from Paul sits within that context and has to be written carefully from a disclosure perspective. They are not going to spell out commercial deal progress in a financial statements RNS unless something is formally agreed.

If anything, I think the key line actually points the other way, “supported the investment case to parties that have shown interest in buying the potential gas off take”. To me that confirms ongoing third party engagement, not a breakdown.

On tone, yes it leans toward continuing operations, but that’s exactly what you would expect at this stage. They are progressing CNG, refining drilling strategy etc.

IMO, that is how you build leverage. You don’t go quiet operationally just because you’re negotiating, the incoming suitor wants activity remember, it’s what they look forward to, even a major does.

On the Africa point, I actually saw that differently. To me it wasn’t “spending money before he has it”, it was more signalling what the company looks like post monetisation. Which ties directly into his comments around “flexibility” in Q3/Q4.

So I’d say this RNS doesn’t show talks have stalled, it just shows the company continuing to execute while negotiations run in parallel, just as Paul said, “MOU-6 will be drilled as part of a process and we’ll run the divestment strategy alongside”, or something to that effect, I need to find it ;)

@Rambo23, thank you, I agree.

On your points

1. My base case is that the first deal we see is not an outright equity giveaway upfront, but more aligned to wellhead gas sales + cost recovery + carry. The $24.6m reads as historic cost reimbursement rather than a straight asset purchase price. That said, I wouldn’t rule out some form of economic participation (e.g. future equity option or milestone based interest) being baked into the structure. It may start as a GSA on paper but be designed to evolve into something larger.

2. Agree this is one of the biggest tells from the interview. He spent a disproportionate amount of time on future assets for a reason. I truly don’t believe a £20–25m style deal alone funds that ambition at the scale he was hinting at, and to think in those terms, one would argue PRD becomes a Shell company after divestment, which would mean significant divestment. That’s why I see the initial deal as unlocking cash (cost recovery), removing funding risk (carry) and THEN positioning for either a larger divestment or a second monetisation event. For the sake of months, why sell early…

3. I don’t think the strategy has changed, more that we’re now seeing how it’s being executed, and in the words of Paul “trust management” and “you can’t rush this process, it takes as long as it takes” and “it will deliver, sooner than some people would like to expect”.

So rather than a change, I’d say we’ve moved from a concept to structure play. Hence options for re-entry and side track drilled etc.

4. What still supports a full exit being in play?

A few things for me. Firstly the agent, still hard to justify purely for a domestic GSA. Secondly, the scale of what’s being referenced (multi-zone, helium, storage), feels like a package sale narrative. Also Paul’s own wording around crystallisation and flexibility and in amongst it all, the fact they’ve retained 100% equity to maximise negotiating leverage. All of that still fits with a scenario where they de-risk via partner and then sell into strength.

5. In regards to MOU-6 being dependency? This is the interesting shift. Previously, you’re right, flow wasn’t strictly required. Now I think MOU-6 is less a “dependency” and more a pricing catalyst, all in my opinion of course. Without MOU-6, a deal still possible (based on data + concept) BUT with MOU-6 flowing, it’s a material step change in valuation and buyer confidence

So it becomes part of the ratchet, not necessarily a blocker.

I think we’re converging on the same place. The first deal (GSA / cost recovery) is real and likely close but it’s probably not the endgame, instead it enables the bigger outcome (whether that’s full divestment or structured monetisation). I’m leaning more towards the full divestment from the points you raised in previous posts.

So for me it’s less “Option 1 vs Option 2” and more Option 1 unlocks Option 2.

There’s a lot in this and I think Rambo raises some very valid points, especially around the scale of outcome versus what a simple £25m style GSA would deliver.

For me, the key line from the RNS remains the “up to USD24.6m in past costs to be refunded, subject to contract”. IMO, that is not standard GSA language. It points to something more structured, likely involving cost recovery, third party carry on MOU-6, and broader involvement across MOU-1 to MOU-5. In other words, a serious commercial party stepping into the asset, not just agreeing to buy gas but have an interest in a strategic asset.

That’s why I don’t think it’s as simple as Option 1 vs Option 2. I actually think Option 1 may be the mechanism that enables Option 2…part of ratcheting.

A £25m cost recovery deal on its own doesn’t satisfy the previously stated “divestment” objective; I agree with that. It also doesn’t really justify the use of an agent if that was the sole outcome. But what it does do is recover historic investment, fund MOU-6 via carry, de-risk the asset commercially and really importantly, remove the need to sell early or cheaply.

At that point, PRD is no longer under pressure. They can push forward with MOU-6, EC and CNG development and either monetise later at a higher valuation or entertain a larger divestment from a position of strength.

This also ties directly into what Paul said about having “a lot of flexibility” by Q3/Q4. To me, that now looks less like “we’re about to sell everything immediately” and more like we’ll have cash, funding, optionality etc, including the ability to divest on better terms.

On the agent point, I agree, you don’t hire an agent just to land a domestic GSA. That suggests the wider Morocco package has been, or still is, being positioned to potential buyers. But the RNS makes it clear that the live, near term commercial workstream is the CNG/offtake/cost recovery deal, not an announced full sale (yet).

Where I slightly differ is on “full divestment being the only route” despite Paul’s preference to divest 100% of Morocco with full control. There are hybrid structures here that could still deliver serious value, upfront cash, full carry, milestones, royalty tail, and THEN potentially a later clean exit. That still aligns with “divestment” in practical terms, even if not all in one go.

So my current thinking is in the near term, structured commercial deal (cost recovery + carry + offtake). Then towards the end July/August, MOU-6 / EC progression = value ratchet. Then in Q4, genuine optionality, including a larger divestment if the data supports it (which I truly believe it does and will).

I still think something bigger is ultimately being aimed at but I don’t think the £25m style deal contradicts that. If anything, it’s what gets us there.

DYOR as always, but feels like we’re moving into execution phase.

Very interesting development here that ties a lot of recent messaging together. The line about “up to USD24.6m in past costs being refunded, subject to contract” really stands out to me and feels underappreciated. You don’t see that kind of wording in a straightforward gas sales agreement. This suggests something much more structured is being negotiated, likely involving upfront cost recovery, a third party carry on future drilling (such as MOU-6), and broader involvement across multiple wells from MOU-1 through to MOU-5. It reads more like a serious commercial partner entering the asset rather than just agreeing to buy gas later.

This also helps make sense of Paul Griffiths’ comments in his last interview about having “a lot of flexibility” by Q3/Q4 for divestment. Should this deal progress, that flexibility likely isn’t just about having cash from a sale. It means recovering historic investment, having future drilling funded, and materially de-risking the asset while opening up multiple strategic options. In that context, flexibility becomes a combination of capital, leverage, and optionality rather than a single outcome.

Importantly, I feel it shifts the divestment discussion slightly. Previously, the narrative was that the company might need to sell now to realise value. But if they are able to recover costs and secure funding for further work, they are no longer under pressure to do so. Instead, they can continue advancing the asset, through MOU-6, potential CNG development and either monetise later at a higher valuation or still pursue a sale if the right offer comes in, which is what Paul is doing. Making sure the right offer comes when the company’s assets are even more attractive.

Another key point is the scope of what’s being considered. The reference to MOU-2, MOU-3, and MOU-5 suggests that this is not just about one gas zone. It brings in helium indications and even the salt discovery at MOU-5, which is being considered for potential gas storage. That implies the counterparty is looking at the wider system (gas, helium, and storage) rather than a narrow development case, which should strengthen the overall value proposition.

It’s also fair to say that a figure like $24.6m is unlikely to be mentioned unless discussions are already well progressed.

This feels like one of the clearest signs so far that meaningful commercial engagement is underway and that value is beginning to “crystallise already” (Paul’s words from the interview). At the same time, it doesn’t confirm a full sale yet (as KeithOz said), but if anything, it suggests the company is positioning itself to either develop further with support or sell later from a position of strength. That balance of de-risking, cost recovery, and retained upside fits very well with the strategy that has been hinted at over recent months to eventually sell the asset later in the year.

Sticking with my car analogy again. From my point of view the RNS is like opening the garage door and realising the other classic car you bought as a project (Trinidad) is now paying for its own restoration.

Trinidad is the daily runner that PRD fixed first. It’s now insured, taxed and on the road. You are hiring it out as wedding transport so the customer is paying the servicing and fuel and therefore already generating cash every month. The plan is to uprate the engine over 2026 to 1,000bhp equivalent to get the bride and groom to the ceremony quicker.

That matters because it means we’re no longer selling anything under pressure. Morocco is the rare classic in the same garage, as I said in my previous posts, the engine block is confirmed (seismic, logs, petrophysics), fuel is in the tank (gas samples up to 99.5% methane), compression is proven (over pressure) and the problem was mechanical (wrong oil = overweight mud), not that the engine (gas) was missing.

This RNS confirms the mechanic has now diagnosed exactly why it seized, written the fix, priced the restoration and lined up partners who want to fund it.

Crucially, we don’t need to fully restore the car to sell it.

After much reading, this statement stands out. “The purpose of the fully funded desktop work during this period is to ensure that the Company and its shareholders get the best possible mutually acceptable terms in commercial negotiations to monetise the discovered gas…”

This is basically saying that negotiations are active, terms are possibly being shaped now, technical work is being used to support valuation, therefore this is about monetisation.

That’s why PRD can now talk about partnership building, financial engineering and FID without waiting for flowing gas.

In car terms:

The updated ITR in Jan/Feb is the full inspection report.

The desktop work is the restoration plan.

The partnership is the buyer funding the rebuild.

So I think the RNS isn’t saying “we’re still fixing it”, but It’s a credibility and positioning RNS.

Its purpose is to show three things simultaneously: PRD is no longer capital constrained, Morocco is now commercially leverageable (not exploratory) and management bandwidth is freed up to transact.

That combination is exactly what a buyer wants to see before committing serious capital to our very rare classic car.

It’s saying…

the daily runner now pays the bills,

the rare classic is proven,

the fault is understood,

and we’re negotiating the sale from a position of strength.

That’s exactly when value is crystallised, not when the keys are finally turned.

And so in essence, a serious collector gets access to all the documentation that the general public never sees (mainly because it’s pointless unless you’re seriously interested), potential buyers of Guercif will receive: The updated CPR, reprocessed seismic, integrated petrophysics, full basin models, proprietary reservoir maps and the upside across both fan systems and underlying plays and this is why PRD doesn’t need another well right now! The suitors see the real file, not the public brochure available in dealerships. Serious operators prefer assets before first production because they’re cheaper, they can apply their own technology, they choose the drilling fluids based on the data PRD have pulled together, they avoid repeating the formation damage mistakes and they get the full upside of the entire basin model whilst we retain 51%. Which is exactly why Paul said,“I do not need the gas to flow to get a deal done.” And this is just like the Irish deal, done purely off the inspection file, not a road test.

PRD isn’t selling a half built kit car with parts from every manufacturer, they’re selling a rare classic with a massive history folder with confirmed engine (working petroleum system), multiple inspection reports (logs, petrophysics, samples), HPI clear and straight chassis (seismic & reservoir models), proven originality and upside (the areal extent) and importantly a specialist broker, (Scorpion, Equiom etc).

The buyer doesn’t need to watch it redline down the motorway, the paperwork already proves what the engine can do and therefore, divestment is happening exactly the way a proper asset sale should.

Hit send too early!

I’m going to stick with my analogy of the classic car from the other day.

Divestment of Guercif is NOT about seeing gas flow on camera, it’s about the technical “vehicle file” so basically the equivalent of:

• well logs are your engine diagnostics

• gas samples are the fuel quality analysis

• petrophysics is the internal engine condition

• seismic interpretation is the chassis & structural mapping

• reservoir mapping is the drivetrain alignment

• analogue evaluation are the known comparable models

• prospective resources is the future tuning potential

• basin geological model is the overall engineering pedigree

• working petroleum system is the proof the engine really runs

The test drive (flow test) is nice to have, but the buyer already knows whether the car is legit from the documentation.

And PRD’s documentation is enormous.

Following on from MadmanRob, PRD have made available to Scorpion Geoscience an extensive database…

That’s the classic car equivalent of handing the complete inspection folder to a specialist broker.

The process now is:

PRD —> Scorpion (the broker) —> Buyers

Scorpion’s role is to:

• verify all the technical “inspection sheets”

• package the data into a buyer-friendly evaluation

• prepare private Data Rooms

• present the asset to qualified suitors

This is exactly what Paul meant in the video when he said the divestment process already being underway.

But that’s like saying a collector won’t buy a rare classic car until they’ve seen it tearing down the motorway.

That’s not how serious buyers operate.

A proper collector buys based on provenance, documentation, and the inspection file.

If the chassis is clean, the engine numbers match, the panels are original, the compression readings are good, and the history folder is immaculate — the deal is done long before the first spirited drive.

PRD is exactly in that situation.

The idea that PRD “have nothing” is just nonsense. Every well has either hit gas or proved a highly effective seal. We’ve got clean methane up to 99.5%, big mapped fan systems, stacked reservoirs, over pressured gas shows, helium, Triassic salt confirmed for the first time, and huge stratigraphic traps outlined. That’s not speculation; that’s data.

The only thing missing is a clean mechanical flow because the heavy mud clagged the formations. That’s literally the whole issue. Geologically it’s already a win. Mechanically it just needs the right tech on the next well, which is exactly what they’re planning.

Buyers don’t need a flowing well when the dataset is this strong. They look at logs, cores, samples, seismic, reservoir mapping, pressure data, upside and PRD has a full, high quality package ready to hand over. On top of this, they look at the fiscal terms, the commercial attractiveness and the government’s backing in strategically placing it’s highway! Anyone serious will see the value immediately.

It’s like saying a rare classic car is worthless just because the starter motor is sticking. The value isn’t in whether the engine coughs the first time you turn the key, it’s in the chassis, the bodywork, the provenance, the originality, and the fact it’s a model collectors fight over (if you haven’t already gathered from my account name, I’m very much into my classics). Serious buyers don’t walk away from a rare classic because it needs a particular part. They look under the bonnet, check for matching numbers, look at it’s future returns, see the potential, and snap it up.

The past 6 years has been a geologically successful campaign waiting on mechanical success

Looks like Jimmy forgot which account he was using…

*J (oops)

Liam!! You’re back!

TT-T, Paul did indeed lose his temper a little when he was being harangued by a shareholder afterwards about managing expectations and giving time frames.

Maybe he was trying to sell him a house in Telford?

Perhaps a certain someone from Telford Homes who joined in October 2021, with over 20 years of experience of acting for large real estate developers, obtained both in-house and from private practice is an O&G expert by night.

I guess this Tom character would benefit from proof reading their posts for repeated punctuation mistakes before seeking validation for their opinions on here.

Might give them more credibility.

Perhaps...

Lol

I found the first half of this video helpful in explaining optionality for those who aren't too sure how it works in context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0axAGK4f9g

Many thanks again GRH for taking the time to repost the Michael Cane's figures! It's incredibly helpful.

Just adjusting for the current number of shares in issue, it now results in 1.31 pence per share (instead of 1.51 prior to July 2021).

Low estimate discovery: £3.65 per share
Best estimate discovery: £10.73 per share
High estimate discovery: £23.88 per share

Note as in GRH's original post, these aren't the special dividend figures as downwards adjustments need to be made for costs.

Thank you Wacky!

It's just not allowing that phrase, try this https://vimeo.com/271525843

Hello,

Been invested here for a little over a year, once again, many thanks to all those posters who continue to contribute valuable information and research. I have the pdf document but have made it available to download here via a third party file transfer site: https://we.tl/t-o4y9VAERPO

It took me a good few days to fully digest this document!