Member Info for TT-T

I've been wondering at the deeper depths too, particularly as that target was the one with the highest pre drill cos, albeit with a small volume estimated

Re reading the 2020 presentation is quite interesting. I note that they compare the MOU-1 prospects to anchois 1 which proved 126 BCF (page 11). I also note on page 13 that the 1972 logs found 0.21% gas which was comparable to the 0.23% find at anchois 1.

Compare this to the various finds of formation gas at MOU 1 of between 1.67 and 3.8% does that not suggest we found rather a lot more than previous indications? Background gas between 0.60 and 1.70 also compares favourably if that was what was being referred to at those pages.

Does anyone have any reasons I am wrong to compare these?

To be neutral on this, although the words success and pleased have been used by company announcement, the inclusion of data without commentary as to what the data means has resulted in ambiguous company announcements. There has been some detailed analysis by longterm holders on here which indicates it should be read positively. There has also been a lot of voices asserting that any positivity would have been shouted from the rooftops, ergo the analysis must be wrong. So far the market has leaned towards the latter camp.

My view is that the positivity does outweigh the negativity or the uncertainty, but it does take a bit of work to understand that. Try reading this thread as someone has helpfully collated some of the key analysis of the last weeks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PredatorOilandGasPRD/comments/oindbu/open_analysis_and_review_of_prd_data_shout_free/

Has it increased? Wasn't the 37-42km the area of just MOU-4 and the 100km was always the prospective area covering the multiple targets? See for example page 8 of the 2020 corporate presentation - 100km with multiple traps.

The annual report confirmed it was the sweet spot to drill as it would inform us as to the prospects of MOU-2, 3 and 4. It was the centre of a spider's web and it was not certain where the next drill target would be.

Do we have to wait 5 months to play a game of football in the middle?

MOU-1 however was not the "biggie" within Morocco

For those who have not followed the whole debate lately as Clueless posts near constant negativity (are we about to see another buying surge this afternoon?), the documentation published shows MOU-1 had multiple goals. It was "supposed" to find evidence of gas at the outskirts of a large gas region to increase the intelligence and probability of a large gas kitchen and it did this. It was "hoped" that the gas levels it would find may be enough in themselves to tap and monetize to assist later work. The jury is out as to whether this hope is achieved as the wire logs are assessed, but from independent case studies, the figures published do not rule this out.

Neither PRD, nor Morocco nor even MOU-1 were a binary play with a single fail/success criteria.

Hi James,

Frustration and feeling let down are perfectly natural responses, shared by many here but they are also emotional ones. My view is that one of the key successes of the negative shouters on this board has been to cement the idea that success or failure are binary positions. They aren't, success is a sliding scale.

Would Paul have like to see more gas that could be exploited? Probably for the short term though it may have made him doubt where the core is and spend more time fishing around, albeit with financial security.

There have been some very well reasoned cases for elements of success from this drill sufficient that calling it a failure does not seem accurate. There is positive information that is useful to the company and which indicates a real promise for the future. So did it go to plan? Partly yes, partly no but with more gained than missed. To that end the results are net positive in my view.

Paul's communication choices have been a subject of much gnashing of teeth for all the years I've been invested. That has been true during good and bad times, so it's hardly surprising and I do not believe indicates all the dire conclusions spouted on here. For myself, I don't feel that assigning the damage limitation motive to the silence properly reflects the past actions.

notwithstanding the fact that pleased and positive were in that RNS, because it was in the wrong paragraph...

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.

That reference is internal page numbers rather than pdf pages btw.

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?

Outstanding effort Wack, thanks very much. That's a post worth adding to the Reddit library if no one has yet.

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.

BB has already pointed out that was the level for a 10 year lifespan which is pretty close to the RNS:

"For a 10 year pilot project life, total gross gas resources required are 36.5 BCF."

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.