The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Stephen Staley stepped down in March 2022 - it's there I. The 8 March corporate update RNS. Thomas Evans also looks like he stepped down about a year ago. So both must have had good leaver status, but neither have the current inside track either.
PRD need the extension if they want to pursue phase 2 as soon as is practicable. If they are willing to wait a couple of months, no, they don't need it. PG explained that the biggest obstacle is there would be a lengthy delay in transitioning between the current phase of the licence and the next one. If memory serves, a further payment/security is also required to move into that which we really don't want to have to do before the testing is completed.
We are not in the position whereby there is any regulatory requirement to get the extension to complete our testing, to take any other steps in order to qualify for the next stage, or any restriction on what we could do with the licence if we simply proceeded to the next phase.
In short, we don't need the extension, we want it. It is a PRD self-chosen pre-requisite to have in place to start the phase 2 testing.
I agree that PG should not have taken his eye off that ball. I would say I can understand it. Having processed all the other amendments smoothly, it is natural to believe the same would happen again. He did not know of the change of ministry staff or the effect it would have and he accepted that was on him.
Older and ... Wiser? Either you are too lazy to dyor, even to the extent of reading the reports of the present evening on this sight within the last few days. Or you are simply trolling and spreading FUD. By this stage those are the only probabilities.
Yes PG talked about the licence. No we are not facing the prospect of someone else coming along and taking it. Yes, we have already qualified for the next stage - as has been included in previous RNS's. No we don't absolutely need the extensions, but they are convenient including to allow the greater flexibility in working without yet more externally enforced downtime.
Time to find a new angle.
All signed off by ONHYM, just with the ministry to process which ought to be a a formality so its imminent. The staff that didn't know what they were doing last time have now done this before and PG is staying more on top of it.
Keith - the regulatory side of things was also given some more meat. PG said that ONHYM had signed off everything as usual, but there had been a change of staff at the Ministry and it took them a while to understand what they actually had to do and get it done. This was a point where PG confirmed he had taken his eye off the ball there a little too as he normally gets more involved to make sure it's all done.
Thinks like the larger guns does sound a bit odd. He said again that the larger perforating guns were being held onto by others. My impression from the way it was described was 'withheld' rather than 'in use elsewhere'.
Paul was properly a lot more conservative as to what the current round of testing was likely to establish. I believe that was 120 plus around 60 BCF. The larger TCF comment was a much broader, and likely a much longer term estimate.
My understanding of the Ireland point was he referred to the dept rather than any one individual. He had said that they were due to have replied to our application by the end of Jan. That didn't happen and the current deadline is by the end of Q1. So we should get a response within weeks but given we didn't hear in Jan we may not by the end of March either.
Another comment that struck me during the CEG presentation was general outgoings of 2-3 hundred thousand dollars a month. That seems a huge outlay and reflects auch larger team. Understandably a team of that size is better able to get things done, and stay on top of them.
Outside of big ticket testing we have a very different cash burn rate. With that in mind, I can understand how it's difficult to get everything kept to indicated schedules. Perhaps it would be worth taking on some.more staff but it's important context for our expectations of what they *surely* could have done in Amy given situation.
It was an interesting presentation.
Overall I remain confident that nothing has changed with the geology and the ultimate risks/rewards recently. The share price is unfortunate noise and what matters is whether or not what we are trying will work. I was reassured that we are in technically sound hands.
My take is that Paul did not really want to be there, and I can understand why. He did lose his temper a little when he was being harangued by a shareholder afterwards about managing expectations and giving time frames. However whenever he spoke about anything technical or procedural you could see he knew it inside out and was generally calmer and more persuasive.
Two key points that were clarified afterwards:
1) the regulatory extensions are a matter of convenience. There is nothing we have to to do keep earning extensions or get to the next phase. We are already approved for the next phase, but to shift from one to the other will require down time of approximately 5-6 weeks (so likely longer). The downtime or delay in the extensions should normally be lesser, and he did admit he took his eye off the ball of that process recently.
2) there was no technical obligation to test. It was essentially market pressure to test something when all good options had been taken away. It *might* have worked but in hindsight had insufficiently good odds. That said, silver lining it has helped them get a better understanding of the extent of the damage so that the odds of sandjetting should be better as a result.
Paul stood out to me as the only speaker who really understood the nuts and bolts of what their company is doing, but that comes at a cost. His presentations are not as slick, he does not do as good a job of communicating news to shareholders. That said, the market does seem to be very odd at present. CEG have a farm in all but finalised pending regulatory rubber stamp. That will give them a payout of £12.5m aside from all the benefit it brings to their operations, but their mcap is £15.5m still. They have definitely been a *confetti* company, but that does seem to be a disconnect.
There was also an interesting comment that the data in hand to date supported an estimate of 7TCF over the prospect. I don't recall off hand having heard anything estimate in TCF terms from Paul before. If that is just the data in hand to date that bodes well.
I think the samples were collected during drilling not testing. So this will be at a time when a degree of damage had been caused, but its not clear how much and how 'bedded in' that damage would have been. I don't think this tells us anything about the pressure as of today.
There wasn't one in 2019 when there had been a project update in November. It may be that with our most recent update we won't get one unless there is more tangible news. Either way, it doesn't look to have been a requirement.
It could be, but I don't know whether it would be. I would agree that the cap essentially means they have exclusivity on the "first" 50mmcfgd. As such, they should be free to negotiate for any production in a day that exceeds that limit. So 51 to infinity is theoretically up for grabs.
This would all depend on the actual terms of any exclusivity and any consideration paid for that, but it could be an implied or express limit to the exclusivity.
This is pretty much the offer that PRD made to buy out FRAM in 2020. It was half what we had an option for but PG didn't want to offer that amount. The offer was rejected, CEG swooped in and here we are some years later getting more or less what we asked for at the time.