Member Info for TT-T

Same here in SIPP and ISA both

If you are spending £0.25-0.5m to prepare a case for litigation funders, you are getting ripped off. I have prepared cases with hundreds of millions at stake for a fraction of that cost.

Hopefully they are still around. I spend a fraction of the time I used to on here - really we know most of what there is to know by now. Even the positive posts don't add as much to change the picture anymore, time to just await the practical outcomes.

It is a general principle of our constitution (or administrative law) that retrospective laws will not be brought about other than for tax. It would be very tricky/likely unlawful to change this for past years

It's alright, he's tapping out now too

The Q&A session after the last meeting was mammoth - almost as long if not longer than the presentation. I was really impressed with the coverage.

Questions can be submitted during the presentation. Ask or dont. That is all there is to it, but don't bleat afterwards if you don't ask.

It was switching the muds from 1 to 2 that caused the unexpected reaction issues at mou2. They needed to (we think) go back to the old drilling mud for 3 but using that at significant weight to deal with the over pressure now expected appears to have caused our formation damage. Each of these were incremental learning steps that could only be taken by drilling and seeing what was there and how it reacts.

I don't think these tests on MOU3 do justify a stance that mou1 should have been tested earlier. We don't know whether that was drilled without any of these issues. If it was, do you think the share price would really have supported the much higher raises achieved to drill 2-5? Testing immediately may well have been a company killer without allowing the knowledge gained from these drills and tests or the development of TT.

He doesn't know - he added the question mark and is basically musing aloud (but in writing).

Sorry donal, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not Tim or anyone from Flagstaff. Feel free to trawl through my history to see for yourself.

The existence of a maintained or updated collaboration agreement is consistent with the 1 July RNS where PG stated the company will announce one - as opposed to aim to, hope to or are working towards such an announcement.

To save folk effort the wording of the resolution was for the following power:

This resolution seeks Shareholder approval for the authority for the Directors to allot sufficient Ordinary Shares

to give the Directors flexibility in issuing shares for additional capital as required to demonstrate to potential

purchasers of gas that the Company, if and when required, has the flexibility to progress the initial development

of Compressed Natural Gas in the Guercif Licence and for further infill production wells thereafter to scale up

production. Sufficient flexibility in issuing shares is also required for the potential exercise of existing share

options and broker warrants,

The Directors be duly authorised in accordance with the Articles of Association of the Company (the “Articles”) to

exercise all the powers of the Company to allot, issue, convert any security into, grant options over, create share

warrants or otherwise dispose of Equity Securities (as that term is defined in the Articles) as if the pre-emption

rights set out in the Articles did not apply to such process described above, such power to be limited up to a total

of 200,000,000 Equity Securities provided always that this authority shall expire at the later of the conclusion of

the Annual General Meeting of the Company to be held in 2025 and 15 months from the passing of the resolution

but, in each case, during this period, the Company may make offers and enter into agreements which would, or

might, require Equity Securities to be allotted after the authority ends and the Directors may allot Equity Securities

under any such offer or agreement as if the authority had not ended.

Donalb - If you just read the AGM resolution 3 on the website the vote was explicitly for shares or warrants as well as other instruments.

Errors that are obvious or de minimas do not need correction. This was an erroneous word only. No right minded person could believe that a company of less than 700m shares intends to issue warrants for 1.6tn when they only have lawful authority to issue up to 200m. An RNS about an obvious impossibility does not require an RNS correction.

The 2024 AGM only granted the power to create up to 200m shares. It's not possible to issue 1.6trillion shares or warrants, so it can only be an error. You don't need flagstaff or the company to confirm that.

I've only one green box so far this morning. A short simple and clearly positive message and not via RNS has perhaps caught them on the hop.

I think it was the maintaining funding bit he was focused on rather than the blue sky bit (correct me if that's wrong of course).

I don't think it does mean third party funding is obtained. It looks like it references this but of the RNS;

The Company intends to maintain interest in the "blue sky" MOU-5 updip and deeper potential through a farmout process to be initiated in Q3 2025, with the intention of securing a carried interest in a 3D seismic programme over the MOU-5 structure in 2026.

Maintaining interest in funding Vs maintaining funding obtained

Well you bet wrong and earn yourself a swift dump into the green bin. Honestly who really thinks setting up a brand new account to dump on a share fools anyone these days? Begone peon.

Never mind the "previously", the source for that statement is hyperlinked, and its their previous article from March which merely notes that the RNS they were reporting on then did not mention natural gas. That's a huge leap from "it wasn't mentioned" to "I can not confirm nothing was found" based on the first statement as the only source. This is just some guy writing with no more information than we have. Good or bad, that is an opinion just like the posts on this forum. That much is clear.