We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I think that's just your interpretation isn't it? I would consider anything less than 21 days as coming days. Coming weeks feels like three weeks or more to me. Plus, it's been 10 days and so they haven't even missed a two week definition. There being no new rns slots for the rest shouldn't shorten that definition. We would just have to be notified afterwards.
I had read those two RNS statements as pointing towards the same thing. PRD's latest announcement both confirms the intention to obtain an equity stake in a significant asset, and signals that equity stake is likely to be reduced in the near future with other external funding obtained.
I don't see the current team of two running this, but PRD's experience, equipment and links can be used by employees of POGT to run this field and provide recurrent benefits to PRD over time.
That leads me to question whether the stated position has actually changed significantly or at all?
Actually there is quite a bit of EU authority on the public law obligation to make decisions without undue delay. You can't bring a case to force a particular decision, but you can certainly obtain an order that a decision be made within a set period of time.
Hi Jimmy,
I think its largely been lost but I was considering your recent question as to the integrity of the top seal and whether that answer is in anyway indicated by that over-pressurized environment. In your experience is there likely to be a correlation between the two or is the heightened pressure also consistent with a broken/leakier top seal?
Thanks
TT
It is a mixture of overhang, and typical behaviour of crowds and/or investors. There is nothing in the SP which can properly be assessed as indicative of affecting the prospects of the drill or any longer term position of the Mcap.
When there is a placing, there are sellers. When there are sellers buyers will hesitate to see if they can get in at a better price after the price drops. Inevitably that happens. Momentum killing is quite right. However, this builds tension and increasing levels of Fomo. As soon as news is released, such as drill beginning or even earlier stages of that it becomes too risky to wait and the behaviour of the crowd changes. As that pressure has increases so the price rises can increase at a greater rate than would otherwise occur until at least the SP catches up to what it would always have been pre-results.
There is nothing in this current share price position which is due to "proper scepticism" or even which is likely to have any effect at all except on the impatient.
Lol yes I hope so!
I don't entirely agree with the comments today that this conflicts with the fully funded statements. Drilling and testing mou1 and mou2 as planned was fully funded. Nothing in today's RNS actually changes that. However the 'it' that was fully funded has changed. They seemed to have changed the plan as to how/how extensively to tap and test the sites, and have decided to bring forward steps in relation to mou3 which was not said to be funded.
I agree that the team like to change their plans at short notice, but they aren't being shown to have made inaccurate statements earlier. Changing the plans will affect the momentum and decision of some as to whether or not to get in 'yet'. It is also correct that can affect future placing prospects, and the markets reaction is always excessive to any dilution.
I expect that the team are privy to information which did make these purchases a necessity now rather than in q1 2023. Let's see what we get now.
In essence they borrowed that first, exercised the options, sold the shares, repaid the initial loan and then loaned the remainder of the proceeds to the company. That's why the loan is only the £500k (ish) to the company. The company gets the full £1.2m but it hasn't all come fully from the directors.
This is probably the easiest way to access it - reproduced on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/PredatorOilandGasPRD/comments/tm3b0t/2021apr03_grh_michael_caine/
Because at that stage there was only an opinion of (admittedly experienced) management that there was likely to be gas present in the licence. Now, we know there to be gas present, and whilst we need to test for commercial flow rates, that is a huge potential uncertainty that has been removed. When measured against the upside potential, the difference between 1.5p and 10p is not very significant. To that end, it is a better, more reliable investment now at this price. A better risk/reward ratio.
My understanding was that the proximity to the pipeline was only ever a selling point for the assets to others. PRD itself was always clear that we were not intending to go into large scale production of that nature. The proposal for small scale CNG was a new proposal to engage in some production which may help facilitate other work.
I feel almost proud, like a right of passage has been passed. I think that's the first time I have been accused of being someone else on this board.
I would not say it's necessarily just a case of ambiguity. The market, being as capricious and Ill informed a group as it is, has a tendancy to jump to the conclusion that it's negative unless gushing ordinary language is used. I.e. delighted to report, exceeded expectations - even immediate, premature declaration of commercial success as soon as the flow test begins. There will be troops or people with agendas who will be shouting 'duster' irrespective of any technical information without such language.
The clearer heads amongst us will either be delighted with clear language used and share price re-rating upwards, or we can take advantage of those selling in fear. Either way we win. No matter how the market reacts to any one RNS, if the gas is there and flowing at commercial rates for sufficiently long periods, the market will eventually catch up. I can be patient and/or take advantage of that.
Not sure I understand the reason they scaled back the broker offer. People have posted on here that they were scaled back 50% or so, as existing shareholders. That seems strange or was the offer never £2.5m??
*isn't worse* that should have been
I am struggling to see how this placing is worse than just defaulting on the loan and letting Riverfort convert the outstanding debt to shares at a 20% discount. The issued shares, for a much larger sum, are issued at that same discount whilst carrying with it additional or amended warrants to crazily low prices. How is this better?