Member Info for TT-T

There are two separate agreements to be made subject to two separate rule systems. As far as ONHYM is concerned the licences are 2D areal licences. An exploitation licence covering mou5 would overlap mou3 but that relates only to permissions to conduct activities there and rights to share in extraction from wellheads in that area.

Agreements with partners can be more complex. They will assign a share of that area, and a consequent share of anything extracted in that area from well heads there. However like any commercial agreement it can be filled with any number of conditions and restrictions. It can set out that it relates only to a 3D volume within it, it can relate to specific sands. It could include an obligation to relinquish any proceeds from mou3 extracted within the mou5 area. Alternatively it could clarify that nothing from mou3 will be extracted from that surface area.

There are any number of ways to split this out by side agreement with any partners so their hands are not so tied as that.

I don't think there is a significant difference there really. In relation to both exploration and exploitation permits they cover an area of land. The exploitation permits might relate to a single deposit within an exploration area, but it covers the whole surface area in which that deposit lies. That applies even if deposits overlap which on theory means you might have overlapping exploitation permits.

The ability to sell or transfer for both permits is intended to be identical. You can transfer all or part of it. That means you are not restricted to only transferring a percentage, but could transfer a percentage of a subset interest within either permit. After all of you have an exploitation permits covering a surface area of overlapping deposits you would want to be clear it related only to the target deposit.

It would need wording such as, 25% of exploration licence x and any consequent exploitation licence in so far as it relates to x and y sands, layers or historical levels.

It looked at first glance as if the way to split out the exploitation permits was different because they use any or part instead of all or part in the first line. However further in the same paragraph reference is made to all or part again so this may be a translation issue or just loose drafting.

I feel like an amateur, I have only 28 at the moment!

Well that's my fastest green bin ever, his posting history was a blur of nonsense in a very short time

Change for the sake of change is rarely wise. Change for the sake of SP is usually short sighted. I would only be interested in change backed by a sound plan. I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.

All too easy to get caught up in mob mentality.

Lonny has literally just shown us all his primary focus is on getting his cash out of the company, health of the company and wealth of other shareholders be damned. Isn't it a little dangerous to then hand him the keys?

Anyone take copies? I don't have X and don't really want it. Click on his name without an account and they don't show even though at least one is previewed on Google.

Unfortunately they populate chats and other medium too

The RNS seems quite clear:

"Domerian carbonate primary target penetrated"

and

"The top of the Domerian carbonate primary target was encountered significantly deeper than prognosed due to the presence of mobilised salt above"

So the Domerian was the jurassic target, and the salt seal is above the domerian, not the domarian carbonate itself.

"Below the Domerian carbonate MOU-5 unexpectedly encountered approximately 30 metres of good quality gross sand that had never been seen before in the Guercif Basin"

In other words, they hit the target and just kept going as they were under budget (only 10 days drilling) and hit a new unexpected section lower down.

As I understand it, the Domerian is a part of the Jurassic, but using a different specific term from that used before the drill has led to this widespread idea that the Jurassic was actually missed.

From good old Google AI

Geological Time Period:

The Domerian stage is part of the Early Jurassic (or Lower Jurassic) period, which is a subdivision of the Jurassic period in the Mesozoic Era.

Preceding and Following Stages:

It follows the Carixian stage and is followed by the Toarcian stage.

Location:

The material studied derives from the Calcaires en Rang de Pavés Member (Cubaynes, 1986) of the Brian de Vère

Stratigraphy:

The Domerian is a key stratigraphic unit, used to divide and understand the Early Jurassic period.

Nothing truly runs out before march 2028. See for example the May 2023 corporate presentation in simple terms. The original approval was 8 years, extended to 9 after COVID. That approval has phases with conditions and can be followed by a 25 year exploitation concession if something is found to exploit.

We had a lot of these fears during previous drills. PRD isn't facing a hard permanent deadline at the end of these phases.

Some as rational and objective as Jimmy23 pretends to be would have sold out long ago. I can't remember the last time he said anything positive or even usefully negative. Enough is enough, into the troll bin you go.

It's not often that we see performance only options. The fact that a quarter of these options are purely performance based and don't vest after a period of time is actually a real positive. That signals real confidence in that target to me.

Everyone is happy when directors make share purchases, that is what will happen when or if these are exercised. The directors will be buying into the company and showing more.confidence. Options not bought into do nothing.

Anyone else have trouble reading that? It won't download or go to page 2 on-screen for me.

That seems in line with the state of the pad updates we have been getting regularly, and being updated before the event is a lot better than past developments.

That's been hinted about or floated around as an option for a very long time now. CEG really never cared about those parts of the assets when it swooped in and first kicked us out of the co2 project. Nice to see them taken in and taken seriously.

It is remarkable. I spent years reading every post on here, on the basis that some of the negativity might be worth considering. After years of reading spurious bile without logic or reason, enough was enough. Filters on, let them scream into the void.

Porters is desperate to crawl out of the slime of the green box to taint the board further. Back you go with a shove of a stick. I would encourage everyone to just not feed the trolls

I asked that question about payment because some obnoxious loud voice or other had kept shouting about money being thrown away on the option last year when others drilled and we didn't. It was a simple matter to get clarity on that and of course the shouter was never going to do it.

Sold up but can't leave the share alone. No where have we seen that before. Another has earned the green box. I'm happy listening to reasoned debate but I have no time for this ranting.