Member Info for TT-T

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.

Doing dummy quotes I get over 5p to sell and over 5.14p to buy £2k plus

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.

This has been happening the last couple of weeks - the post count often doesnt match the visible posts and some I've read have gone.

Fair enough, you did call that. Some of the negativity on here had been inexplicably severe, blinkered and persistent. When that happens it's hard to sort the genuine from the troublemaker

Nice analogy

Sorry I realise I posted part way through yours!

Firstly, thanks for the work, and especially pulling out the 42km figure, I knew I had read that and was struggling to find it again at the weekend, your picture on reddit let me pull it out. For those reading not on reddit, there is also graphic on internal page 13 of the presentation that shows MOU 1 with an area of 42.17Km2.

Looking at the source material again (the annual report) I agree the 31.7km is described as "new" therefore it is additional area. However, it is also referring to MOU-4 not MOU1, it says "a new MOU-4 prospect covering 31.7km". The reference to 92% is not a reference to the area per se, but is stated as being a 92% increase in estimated recoverable gas. As TGB 1-4 are within MOU-1 I dont think this can be referring to an increase in their area.

I also come back to the reference of 100Km2 in the annual report, and I can only read that as referring to the total area of the targets combined, therefore not an increase which has been concluded from the drill. See for example the Corporate presentation page 8 referring to 100km2 with multiple traps. It looks to me like this overall area was the revised prospects from the Covid period re-analysis.

Morning,

If 31.7 was "a" 92% increase, not "the amount by which it has increased" then the correct sum should be 31.7/1.92 = 16.51 sq km. To reverse that, increase that by 92% = original + 92% extra = original * 1.92. 16.51*1.92 = 31.7

I guess 5p is the target to earn a bonus then

That's my take on the situation, and it makes sense tying in with the reviews that PRD confirmed were undertaken during the Covid hiatus. To speculate further, it may be that it had key strata at a useful distance from the other targets to give information as to what might be further along each path.

Of course only PG and team know for sure, but it fits with what they have said and published.

Ah cross posting there between GRH and I.

Thanks for that - the de-risking of that 100km area was my reading, apologies I had understood you'd suggested the 100km area was an increase in the target area, rather than an increase in confidence across a larger area.

In terms of the 2D surface area (assume all numbers are in sq km) we have the RNS 12 July which stated:
"MOU-1 established the pre-drill geological comparison with the Hoot and Guebbas gas-producing sequences of the Rharb Basin and most importantly de-risked the pathway required for dry gas from a thermogenic origin to charge the primary targets in a prospective area of over 100 km². MOU-1 therefore further enhanced the CPR prospective gas resources assigned to the proposed MOU-2 and MOU-4 drilling targets whilst adding some additional potential shallow targets that had previously not been considered."

The question is whether that 100km was a new figure, or a reference to a pre-existing area. My reading of this is that it is referring to the area which includes MOU-1, MOU-2 and MOU-4, whilst the additional targets referred to is talking about depths, not additional area.

The 100km figure can be seen in the corporate presentation July 2020 page 8 which reads "• Prospective area high-graded for drilling covers 100 km² with multiple traps – some larger than entire Rharb Basin cumulative historical production"

Reference to the area of MOU-4 can bee seen in the annual report at page 4at 31.7km, I can't recall where the 37-42 figure I had in mind before came from and a quick look around isn't showing me.

Hi GRH, I am very supportive of what you do and agree with much of what you say. I do have a query in relation to the 100 sq km being an increase - the company literature has long referred to 100sq km containing multiple traps and MOU-1 was referred to as the 40 odd sq km area within which we chose a tap point. I don't think I understand why you consider the area has been increased from the latter to the former rather than just referring the aforementioned whole area of targets. Are you able to shed light on that?

Thanks

TT

I think the answer to this is indicated in the annual report - final para of page 4 over to page 5. It confirms that MOU-1 aimed to inform both mou-2 and mou-4. It implies but does not state it would assist in considering the varied mou-3. I.e. it was the point where a single drill would be most informative over and above the spot drilled itself. As such it had less riding on the results of finding commercial gas there as it still gives benefit to the surrounding targets.

It's the spot where if you hit the glass and see where the cracks spread you know where hitting again will break through.