Was that a long way of saying that you don't actually have a tangible opinion of the probability of any figures yourself?
As such, your own views (whatever they are as you have not said) would be wild speculation also on your analysis.
None of these numbers are certain, but they are based on published data. You can contribute to their analysis or you can just make noise to feel big.
Before the CLN, therefore before Morocco, PRD was much more of a punt. Trinidad sounded great but with huge uncertainty as to whether it would work. Placings now are over subscribed, but I don't know that would have been the case at the time. Many of us here spent months complaining about the CLN and its effect, but it got us Morocco and I am far from convinced there was a viable alternative at the time. These insinuations reek of conspiracy theory tinfoil hat time. The raise for the CLN clearance came at a time when the company at its core looked much more attractive. Paul's own relief at ending the warrants was palpable and it had nothing to do with anything being "found out".
As to "hidden" ownership, this is the blinkered and wrong headed approach the likes of HMRC take. Isle of Man is a great place to incorporate due to its tax regime. With it comes non public ownership whether you wanted it or not. To assume that the motivation is to hide again reeks of conspiracy theory time.
I've been in shares where TW has thrown around similar accusations and nothing has come of it because it was nonsense. Again stopped clocks are occasionally right but it does little to recommend regular reliance on them.
In all honesty, Paul's communication has been a constant feature of this share. The lack of comms. during the CLN spiral was infuriating, but it was clear that he has plans and will keep them to himself. Only recently has the rate of interviews increased so to me this has been a factor I've experienced and accepted 'to a degree'. As others I had hopes the IR/PR firm would change that but it didn't.
The only point I make is one can't try to apply normal expected standards when deciding why PRD did or didn't include xyz in any announcements
Well at least you know you had us running around as a result!
That does make sense, so sitting now on £1.575m
I'm not sure if the 1.785 is still for a secret project or generally applicable for the list of future work in the last RNS.
I was just about to post the same and ask whether I was being particularly dense and not seeing it.
The June placing of £1.5m and the July placing of £1.3m give an extra £2.8m not on that list which leaves a similar final figure if that one is omitted.
That isn't a serious question though is it Geowiz? It's one you have asked perhaps a dozen times now only you don't participate in the reasoned debate that follows. You already know all the answers that are available yet you ask again anyway. Just like you now know this drill did not miss and you know why that target was drilled. Yet you return with a very clear disruptive agenda. I don't care whether your reasons are personal puerile or professional, that is not reasoned balanced contribution.
If the likes of Nigel had any messages of substance it would have been worth listening to. Running around in circles saying "we're" doomed is no more a sensible message to listen to than someone wearing s sandwich board saying the end is nigh. If an apocalyptic event occurs it does not prove them to have been right. It's no more a coincidence than a stopped clock being right. There is no indication whatsoever that they were right on all the technical aspects of the RNS - the opposite is true. There was no indication in their messages that issues such as the director selling would occur, therefore they gave no helpful guidance on that either.
As some have said here, with hindsight it would have been nice to sell higher and buy low, but with the knowledge available at the time that would have been an unreasonable gamble. 100-1 shots pay off, but they are rarely sensible bets. People win the lottery despite it seeming almost impossible that any one person will.
HI Michaelnw,
I was thinking of the disclosure and transparency rules - I think the FCA govern them but they were required as a matter of EU law before Brexit so will still be retained law. To be fair I don't have a working knowledge of them so when I say in accordance with the rules, that is just my general understanding rather than chapter and verse. I am aware that related party transactions have to be declared in circulars which include names and details of the arrangements, and it seemed to me the annual report did that. I haven't actually looked any further into it yet i.e. whether there were any RNS etc. I didnt think it was needed previously and I've been tied up all day and have only been able to keep half an eye on this board today.
I had read that section, and I've re-read it now. I haven't read the article so I don't know what the concerns or allegations are; but those arrangements do not strike me as particularly unusual or concerning. They were published clearly in accordance with the rules too, it's your choice how closely you review these documents. It's not like they were trying to hide behind companies registered to the neighbours' dogs.
Potentially bright yes - but you aren't interested in commenting on what was actually said are you? No investor can rationally believe in certainties, they are always potentials.
Whether or not gas shows are "usually" euphemisms for a dry or duster of a well, you are making a huge assumption if you consider that to be the case here. Moreover, that is an assumption that is not supported by the RNS of 12 July or 19 July. We have been told the plans include rigless testing and preparation for an appraisal well. That does not happen for wells considered dry, so your euphemism wasn't applied here. We have also compared the results stated in the 6 July RNS to other non-dry wells and the figures indicate ten times greater content. The RNS of 12 July has that all important reference to establishing whether the well is "commercial" which many bashers relied on being absent to support their previous assumptions. More, it asserts that the "dry gas" presence supports the commercial discussions with off-takers. This confirms the term is used positively.
Where is the logic or rational basis to your belief that this is all bad news and the prospects are poor? Why do you hold your opinion? If you have no reasons, how do you expect to be taken seriously? You are then just making noise for attention.
With potentially commercial gas finds in MOU 1 the prospects of much greater content at MOU-4 where this gas may trail from are significantly improved. That is why this very experienced geologist wants to drill there asap.
Whether or not you agree with the predictions or projections, I dont believe anyone can genuinely refer to this as mindless ramping. Mindless ramping is saying this will be £1 next week without giving any reasons. Where calculations and rationalisation is included in posts, as many of the valued contributors here have included, that is mindful prediction. You can agree or disagree, you have the information and analysis to do so.
The only mindlessness I have been seeing is the deramping. The constant negativity from those who will not engage in the reasoned debate because they have nothing of value to contribute. Anyone can yell "you're wrong" but they doesn't mean they were proven the voice of reason if things don't work out. Stopped clocks are right twice a day after all.
We all know there is risk involved here. Nothing is certain, but the future is looking potentially very bright indeed.
I am down about 12.5% at this price. I have been down more with this holding, and I have averaged up recently as a calculated risk which may well have paid off had this information been released in a better way. I do, however, believe it will still pay off even if not as much as if I had saved that money to buy now. This is an incredibly strong buy at this price, but obviously comes with risk.
What happened to just wanting the placing and moving on? What happened to wishing all well? If you disagree with any analysis, explain why, otherwise I am afraid you join the mindless brigade.
Their negativity really doesn't find much footing in the face of a clear and full RNS like that one today. Yes there was a placing, but the details outlined confirmed the positive interpretation so many have added here in the wake of their dripping poison.
Considering the dilution we had to suffer from the CLN required to obtain the Morocco licence in the first place, this is fairly small potatoes. That said, both that effect and the dilution from this are likely to be well worth the sacrifice in light of these reports.
We have Trin news, the results of further MOU-1 testing and the re-assessment of the MOU-4 prospects to come before one needs to worry about covering the drilling costs. Why on earth would PRD want to get the funding for everything at this low price when the above is very likely to increase it??
The placing announcement seems to quite clearly confirm the market misread the previous announcements. All the cries of duster and the claims that any find which might be commercial would have been described as such are undermined by this confirmation that the commerciality of MOU-1 is to be tested. The first entry in the table setting out the work programme confirms this.