Member Info for TT-T

That comment was a little ambiguous, I was wondering if it meant that the TD they should actually drill to was 20-30m below where they thought, rather than needing to go only 20-30m from where they paused.

Does anyone recall whether we have had clarified when the 25% needs to be returned? I don't remember seeing an update on that off-hand and if so it could make a good question.

It's not PG or Lonny that need the technical expertise, but the drilling team hired. They are specialists in what they do and should easily have the resources to draw on to determine the correct path.

Using that link, it looks like there was a more significant spot on 3rd than 16th. The drop from 15th to 16th looks comparable to 21st from 20th. It seems so variable day to day that I'm not sure what conclusion can be reached. As has been suggested, that could be equipment set up one day and in the ground the next over those dates. With hindsight it may be right, but only if it's the end of this variable pattern.

Everyone knows that feeling when you kind of need the loo. You have kind of needed it for maybe an hour or more as you travelled home, but basically it's fine. You know things will be fine when you get in. But that moment with the key in the door it suddenly feels more desperate and urgent than you can imagine.

Perfectly human reaction. Sometimes the hardest period to wait is right before you get what you have been waiting for.

I seem to recall it was an increase of 100 b/d per well from injection rather than total per field. We have at times been presented with calculations as to how that can increase quite quickly as its rolled out.

I imagine he just has a terrible pain in all the diodes on his left side that makes him a little grouchy.

We also already know that the wireline logs for mou1 took more than 2-3 days to interpret comprehensively. I do not therefore see a reasonable expectation here that similar logs must be fully interpreted in 3 days or less.

I am amazed at the lack of thought in many posts this morning, but clearly the sky is falling on the heads of some.

Today is the last trading day when announcements can be made for 4 days. It's new years, and the drill is on site.

This is not a total unknown drill 'within weeks possibly'. If that were the case they would not have pulled the drill out of the temporary racking yet. They don't want to pay the team to be on site with the drill for nothing. They can't send a drill started message with the market closed. I don't see this as reasonably likely to be anything other than drill starting within the next four days, when notification is impossible.

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.

What is the time frame they are supposed to have broken here? Coming days had no set parameters, and there are still 7 more days of 2022 for operations to start.

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.

How (if at all) would the over-pressurised environment fit with the top seal scenario? Does that indicate an intact seal more than it would a failed one leading to wholesale gas leakage.

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.

That conflates any unnecessary dilution with any dilution at all. You may or may not agree it was necessary, but the explanation seemed sound to me

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/