Member Info for TT-T

That's not the same sofa that TheChancer was keeping his was it? Have you nabbed them off him?

Whether MOU-4 contains the "deep kitchen" beneath it or is just a main reservoir connected to it, yes that's my understanding. The pressure will not necessarily have equalised because (a) we don't know whether MOU-1 has ceased to fill, if not pressure cant have equalised and (b) these reservoirs are not connected by open pipe but porous rock. Like reverse osmosis, the pressure at MOU-4 has to be high enough to push the gas through the tiny gaps in the rock.

This is all over-simplified and I realise I am also talking of MOU-1 and 4 as discrete places rather that sections of a whole, but I feel it illustrates the ideas a little better.

Except it did. Read through the RNS and this BB. You will see that MOU-1 required significant mud weighting during the drilling (RNS 19 July 2020). That is something required for higher than normal pressure drills, not low pressure.

If that is correct, and MOU-1 is under high pressure requiring added mud weight, then MOU-4 would have to be contain areas of higher pressures still. Gas will tend to move from higher to lower pressure areas so long as there is a pathway.

Pressure and density for gas and liquids are closely related. A gas under sufficient pressure will re-liquidise because the energy in the gas molecules cannot escape the effect of the pressure. As a result, it becomes a substance (the liquid) which is significantly more dense than it was as a gas. That liquid in turn will become denser and denser as the pressure increases and the molecules are squeezed more tightly together.

At lower levels of education or modelling, one will assume the density of pressures and gases to be equal across a given volume. In most cases if the volume is small enough that may tend to be true. However, no matter the pressure acting on any substance from the material (rock/air/sea for example) there will always be an greater pull downwards. Everything on top of the substance is pushing down, but the earth itself is also pulling on each molecule (NB treating gravity as a pulling force rather than a spacetime effect). The greater the mass of the molecule, the greater that attraction downwards. The attraction towards the mass of the earth will be greater than any side to side pressure, pulling substances down and 'pooling' them towards the bottom. Again, the greater the volume, the greater the measurable effect might be. What it tells you is that the liquid or gas at the bottom is under greater pressure than at the top.

Splice decided it would be funny to bombard the board with a post on every thread today, which would also have buried the useful research and discussion that has taken place today. Looks like the admins are addressing that spamming.

Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted!

Excellent work method, and for keeping Reddit stocked too. I am of course interested in any critical analysis too, but this is not research that can be dismissed out of hand.

I do agree that it is perceived as a binary play, and I also agree that if some news on Morocco is the first to hit, then it may continue to behave like one. What I was trying to do is look at other scenarios and how that may cause the wider market to recall that it isn't actually binary.

I don't think we are in a single hit and hope position, but the share price does indicate that a significant proportion of shareholders were in that position and then panicked when the update on the progress was not clearly and simply saying "so far so good, the future is bright".

I think that is a fair post and reflects the position we are in at the moment. If Morocco news (good or bad) is what comes first, I think you will be correct. If, however, Trininad news comes first that has a number of different outcomes. It may provide a solid foundation for a higher SP and we see the more gentle increase following pending further tangible Morocco data. We will then likely be in a similar soar or plunge position though.

Alternatively, Trinidad could be lacklustre and the reverse would likely occur. There is a third option though which is some news arrives that plans are in motion to offload Trinidad. if that occurs and underscores the financing required for Morocco then we may see a short spike followed by a more general increase. If PRD demonstrably has the funds to explore Morocco for a little while the market may see it less as a binary play on either MOU-1 or 4 results and there is some longer term perspective as the market feels less at risk from placings or other dangerous financing.

Geowiz, unless you are going to comment on any of the actual real world comparators of the results to the gas logs, what you think they will do is entirely unpersuasive.

Why didn't you come on and comment on the gas log results in the 2019 presentation from GRF1? Why haven't you commented on the comparison to the gas logs in Anchois 1? In both cases PRD have announced 10 times the saturation. That and the clear decision to go on and test contradicts your repeated assertion that this is dry. Give it a rest or back up your... "thoughts".

it hasn't included technical data which can be (was) misunderstood so the pleased is all there is for the market to consider.

I wouldn't bother Androcles, I've tried giving him the benefit of the doubt and answered his questions. He's only ever responded with comments such as "great post" yet there my name is too.

His agenda is not only clear, he has told us. He wants to encourage the so to fall to 3.5p in order to join us for the ride. Frankly if that happens I'll up my stake too, but it's clear no one can take his posts seriously now (if it wasn't before)

Excellent post Wacky, especially pulling up those mud logs. I can't believe I overlooked those!

Given how many variables are unknown, and given the decision to move ahead with testing, all the figures can reliably tell us is "potentially commercial quantities". Beyond that would largely be speculation... That's all I would expect at this stage before further testing though.

Pastabelly - part of the problem is even now, there is no clear statement of mass appeasement. When they tell us they have completed the well, and when they tell us they are testing for commerciality, then any ordinary person would conclude that means the analysis supports the possibility, if not probability of a decent find.

To get more information you need to be quite technical. You have to do work to find out if 2-3% of a gas is good. You have to know what mud weighting means and what increased pressure may tell you. Many on here have shared their understanding of those and it supports a bright future, but the average investor won't look that deeply. In effect, once a share price has gone into a tail-spin like this does, there is mass fear. You get PI's simply looking at the graph and thinking no thank you. There is also real doubt as to the motivation of a director's sells which, if you don't analyse the technical data, might have been a signal of doubt in PRD's future.

When in a situation like this, you would expect the share price to stagnate until (a) there is concrete news or (b) a time scale for some concrete piece of action is in place so that the masses start pushing up the price with more crowd thinking and FOMO etc... Smart money will be getting in now as the risk:reward is really quite something and there is sign of that in the trading. There have been some really substantial buys in recent weeks with a large proportion of the sells being small. Yes there are chunky sells too, but it seems the bigger bets are more in favour of buy vs sell. That points to the fear amongst the crowd too.

What utter nonsense. Share price is a terrible indicator of company health - did you really think Gamestop was in that great a shape?

Share price is an indicator of mass sentiment, something which is heavily susceptible to herd mentality and both positive or negative hysteria. It is only sometimes reflective of the underlying value of a company, but even on the most widely traded and solid blue chip companies it is only a reflection of expectation and the market is replete with examples of those expectations being spectacularly wrong.

I do think there is a distinction between "has been established" which indicates a degree of certainty and what has been set out in the RNS. The Company is confirming that the data supports an interpretation that MOU-1 is part of the MOU-4 structure, i.e. it may be saying it is more likely than not to be the case. It is not saying its beyond reasonable doubt.

For those wondering - Chesh made a simple post of a smiley face in another BB I've followed for some years (where Chesh is normally positive... probably) and I was blown away!

Lol Chesh, that is the single clearest post I have ever seen you make!

I understood the 6 July RNS to suggest that MOU-4 was connected to various other reservoirs akin to the way MOU-1 seems to be. I had read GRH's msg below as suggesting that MOU-1 might not just be connected to MOU-4 but to others. I'm not sure I see how that is a good thing if correct as would not not lessen the de-risking of MOU-4 as that may be filled up more significantly by other connections instead?

If you want the simplest explanation that is that he needed money.

He had shares, they were exchanged for money, the simplest reason to explain that transaction is that he had a need for that money.

Anything else, good or bad, requires more complicated supposition as to motive. That includes an apparent disbelief in future prospects.

Selling 5m shares is not a great fit to a belief that the shares will never be worth that much again. Selling all the shares would demonstrate that, but if you held that opinion, why leave any behind? A fit of pique is also not a great fit, but it's slightly better as selling a large percentage makes a point almost as well as selling all.

We just don't know, and any who assert that Ron just would not do X y or z are failing to recognise that. It's all opinion with very little to go on.