ValiRx CEO confirms the TheoremRx deal remains 'on track' with payments expected before year-end. Watch the full video here.
Of course its not coincidence... sorry this will teach me for posting whilst focusing on another task. if you increase the base figure or its double by the same percentage you will end up with the same 2:1 relationship between them. If someone else wants to consider this whilst I go back to work...
Absolutely arbitrary, it was on the basis that it was not certain and fell broadly in between .57 and 1.0 to reflect increased confidence from new data without certainty.
On the scale, if the low to high was based on depth then one would assume a 5BCF per metre range (being 50BCF if covering 10m). That would suggest that the high estimate ought to have been 275 BCF rather than 138. That would imply that the estimate was not linear in accordance with the area and there were other factors at play. If so, then the top estimate would not grow with the same proportion as the depth found.
Very roughly, 138 was half of the top liner figure of 275, so it is possible one might reach a correct figure by doing (275*136%)/2 which coincidentally also gives 187BCF. I suspect that isn't an accurate reflection of the interaction between depth and volume estimated though.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that the new estimate is likely in the scale of 68-187 though.
In relation to MOU-1, shouldn't a review of the lowest estimated figures look at the 36% increase from the low estimate, ie the 50BCF?
i.e. (75/55)*50 = 68.2BCF
On the COS, is the figure chance of hitting that target, or chance of hitting that estimate? If the latter, it would be improved but still not a probability of 1, if the former, what would a new reasonable estimate be? Thumb in the air given that the figures do look positive in comparison to the likes of Anchois 1, would it now be 75%?
I.e. probability weighted low end figure of 68.2*0.75 = 51.1BCF perhaps
Great post and a nice balanced view.
I haven't read the main article (behind a paywall) but the abstract to this paper on rig vs rigless testing in Morocco had an interesting note that the rigless testing was only really suitable for candidates with low uncertainties. That would seem to be to be speaking about the underlying structures rather than as to the volumes to be found, but if we add reliable (i.e. low uncertainty) physical structures, positive shows and all the supporting pre-drill analysis of the bright pockets it does suggest that the testing is more likely to be positive than negative/
The comment if the link doesn't work:
Proper weighting of the previously mentioned points will help to decide the suitable testing technique; retrievable DST string or permanent completion testing string, in other words Rig or Rig less operations. Reservoirs of high uncertainties on the expected response require flexible techniques that can handle any unexpected conditions. They are thus candidate for retrievable DST string rig operation. Otherwise reservoirs of lower uncertainties are usually candidate for permanent completion to test on rig less operations without DHSI (Down Hole Shut-in Tool).
How self destructive would you have to be to view a share as "worth a punt" at 5p, actually invest money in it, then spend all your time trashing the share, it's directors and seeking to make the BB discussing it a thoroughly toxic environment.
That is possible. Far, far more probable is that you have no interest in the share at all. As I have said before, you have a clear agenda, and I don't care whether your reasons are personal, puerile or professional, they are certainly not an intention to help the poor beleaguered PIs of the world.
Enough already, you are just embarrassing yourself now.
We all welcome negative views, we only ask that they be based on facts and logical reasoning. The data is there for us all to see and consider. The problem with Nigel and his ilk is he throws out questions and insinuates disaster without giving any tangible basis for his views. He is less cagey and more slippery or evasive.
The most common complaint from the negative chorus after the RNS of 6 July was that the word pleased wasn't in the first paragraph and the company did not use the word commercial. Many posters, Nigel included, referred to the well as dry or a duster because the company simply wouldn't have issued an RNS like that if it wasn't true. Other posters, especially wacky, went out to find resources to help us understand the figures and find comparators where there were commercial quantities found. The company has now confirmed it has a reasonable expectation there are commercial quantities present, enough to do further research to confirm the position. Nigel, however, continues to drip poison without actually engaging in the debate in any tangible meaningful way. In fact, he is remarkably evasive and won't even give us details of his background he himself confirmed would be forthcoming later.
After that, he has really burned all bridges to being taken seriously whether he began making positive or negative comments. In short, Nigel himself has failed/refused to give out any rational basis for his views in all the time he has been here bashing the share.
In all honesty, I have not added a great deal on the research front and have been very grateful for the work of others here. I have reviewed on commented on it for the most part, and was reading for a year or so before I even registered. Its worth noting that Thewackmiester has done some good work too and was doing so well before the latest noise.
I've only posted more frequently recently as the relentless agenda driven bashing of the share needed to be called out.
Nigel is more like the little chihuahua of the board - very noisy, thinks a lot of himself but doesn't really have the substance to back that up.
This board has a lot of really valued contributors, but you can tell from the content of their posts who is doing proper research and who is just spouting hot air. You may find it useful to look at the reddit page where a lot of the well researched posts have been collated: https://www.reddit.com/r/PredatorOilandGasPRD/
As to when to get in, many of us are buying right now. I suspect the bottom was hit some days ago and barring some minor variances, most likely up from here.
As always dyor etc.
What we think about you Nigel is perfectly clear. What we know about you is that you are unable to answer very simple questions on topics you yourself bring up and promise responses to 'later'
That will remain the case unless of course you answer the question posed by GRH on 3rd July, which is as follows:
You did claim relevant experience a while ago ...
and you were kindly going to set out for the BB what you have achieved
either in the markets
or of course within E&P itself
Despite a reminder having been posted, I don' t recall seeing your note on that...
The allegation in an article from a site of certain repute was that it was hidden from investors that PG was part owner of Theseus which is the JV partner in Ireland. The further allegation was that this undermined claims of PG being aligned with shareholders.
As Micktrick has shown, the interest was declared openly in the prospectus so the first claim is unfounded. As to the second claim it was misguided anyway. If PG has a greater interest in Ireland than just his holdings in PRD, he has even more skin in the game and is even more committed to that project than his shareholding in PRD would show on its own.
Cash has properly been paid out to the likes of drilling companies yes. The directors have been paid, relatively modest sums in the circumstances where projects have visibly proceeded. No, cash has not merely flowed out to suspicious groups for unclear reasons. If anything, the entities raved about here have allowed cash to flow in.
So I repeat the questions you have singularly failed to answer, despite promising to do so. You, who have demonstrated your own unreliability and untrustworthy nature as a result. What is your experience? What is your background? What is your precise interest in PRD?
Only no cash has flowed out of PRD has it? So it is still about whether there are assets there worth serious money. It may be a question of what proportion we each get, but on any measure, to be worthwhile, it's a damned site more than 5p