We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
For me this is less about the job announcement itself. It seems that RNS has been utilised to give some welcome positive confirmation. It has reiterated that the well has been completed in a way which allows for rigless testing - something doubt has been sown over on this board recently. It re-iterates PG's view that this is positive and should be considered a success. It allows for the new COO to air his view that this should be considered a success too, and that he shares PG's view of the future.
None of this could really be justified as an RNS in and of itself, but as commentary on this position, we have some of the confirmation and re-assurance posters have been asking for before the analysis is complete and more detailed results and interviews can take place.
I'll admit I was a little more dismissive or critical of the complaints regarding investor relations before. In hindsight it made little difference so long as progress was clear, but this is certainly a situation which demonstrates that better relations could improve the value per share in the future if any form of placing is required. It may not be, there may be different partnership routes pursued instead. That said, I also appreciate the comments from others that hands may very well be tied at the moment in relation to any better comms or clarification. There is only so much that could be done with the data in the RNS, and we can see that there are many personalities here that would be just as likely to spread fear.
I am interested in negative views, but I want reasoned ones. The consensus on the negative side seems to be summed up as 'that just wouldn't happen'. The views on the positive side from some very valuable contributions have set out logical analysis of multiple RNSs. I fully accept those are analyses and necessarily are extrapolation not fact. What I would hope for in a negative view is a counter analysis of the same base factors. Simply dismissing it as nonsense begins to look less and less credible without 'showing your working'.
I do accept that ordinarily many companies will stress any potential for positivity. However, those who have come to know Paul's style know he does not stress much at all in writing, and only sometimes in interview. Therefore references to 'good' and 'positive' are as much as one would expect from this company under the circumstances.
I don't think anyone on the positive side would not have been happier with a greater concentration, but as has been said that would have other issues such as trying to determine the centre and extent of the kitchen.
So bring on the negative analysis, but if all you want to do is call the positive posters fools or rampers you can properly expect the negative backlash.
That is a very obvious false equivalency. However, if you disagree with the contents of GRH etc' message, why not critique the specific parts of it with which you disagree? Why not set out the basis you take a different view? Why just dismiss it as nonsense propaganda but get offended when others do that to you?
There are no assumptions of discovery or non discovery there. Kas has very clearly set out the possibilities of discovery or non discovery and set out that it is not known which. All your views are based on an assessment of the statement and reaching your view of most likely outcome. None of us, including yourself, know what was or was not discovered beyond the few details in the RNS.
Ah I see, so in essence 40 BCF is sufficient to provide not just a good commercial return, but such a good return that it will provide/secure funding capital in and of itself. Therefore an ordinary good commercial return for any other outfit would be set at lower than the 36.5 set out there.
Signing any onward agreement is a separate piece of news to the results of the latest operations - that is what was expected at some point after 62 days from the start. There are also always two parties to any signed agreement and one side unilaterally delaying signing for no apparent reason is never a good sign to the other party. There will always be myriad factors to consider how and when to finalise agreements coming from both sides.
You can't just sit on important market relevant news to best assist the share price later. A certain amount of wiggle room whilst still evaluating the news could be facilitated.
I would be quite surprised if we didn't have some news one one of the projects at or before the AGM.
How does the wire line logging take? Is that a largely instant result or something that is conducted over a period of x days? 4 July is the period from when the drilling may be finished, its the gap after that for testing I dont really have a frame of reference for at the moment.
Doesn't seem to be new news: https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2021/02/335021/hydrocarbon-exploration-repsol-to-exit-morocco
I see the RNS and the announcement on the website talks about the attached proxy forms for the AGM, but I don't see any. Is anyone able to assist with where this is actually to be found?
I've not previously held so much of s single company that it's been worth bothering with such things.
PRD was only in the 5.8p to 8p range over a spread of either 1-2 weeks with ups and downs from around 10 Feb. You took the plunge in OMI around 11 Feb. If you sold out at 8p like you said then how have you been invested since March?
Lots of new investors do come to this board and are treated very well. Some with more suspicion, but not usually without reason. Challenging posts ought to be of benefit to genuine new readers who don't really know who is or is not a reliable voice yet.