The force is strong here.
Ah! A second RNS!
Right on time.
Now the management team can get back to the serious business of thinking up the next excuse for delaying testing.
Especially the testing of Mou-1 after two and a half years.
My bookmaker won't take my bet that no testing will happen in January 2024.
He will take the usual "Elvis will be found working in a Dorking supermarket" and "aliens with 3 eyes and frog legs will have the Christmas number 1".
Be careful. |
The force is strong here.
Some things management does well.
Free shares, bonuses and options.
Always on time, unambiguous and plentiful.
Be careful. |
Mike290 and sirmark and markliddiard.......all related and should be filtered. |
The force is strong here.
No, I can't.
And I think it has yet to be decided, according to the RNS, by negotiation.
It would be better for Predator shareholders, obviously, if it was Afriquia so that Predator could concentrate on drilling.
Be careful. |
Just a suggestion:
Mike290
4 Dec '23 - 11:22 - 6486 of 6487 (Filtered) |
All right, I wasn't clear:
- IMO the 50 mmcfg/d should be regarded as upside, not expectation.
- IMO the CPR states that PRD pays 100% of development costs up front, and recoups 100% of these costs from proceeds. That's how ONHYM covers its 25% share, which seems quite normal in a carried situation. I shouln't have said PRD will "end up with" 75% of development costs, it's not how it works.
By the way, I'd like to correct my understanding of who bears transportation costs/funding. The RNS says purchase is on delivery to the CNG trailers, which suggests PRD will not be responsible for transport. However the MOU suggests either party may fund the purchase/leasing of the trucks/trailers, and the final terms will adjust for that. I would have thought Afriquia would be much better placed to sort out transport, as well as source funding for it, so I'm not sure I have this right.
Can you add any clarity? |
The force here is strong.
"And I have said previously, it would mean Predator expect to achieve 66.7 mmscfg/d."
Might be better to see that as upside potential rather than an expectation"
No. To sell 50 mmcfg/d Predator must produce 66.7 mmcfg/d.
If they only produced 50 mmcfg/d, 25% of that would belong to ONHYM and they wouldn't be allowed to sell it without an agreement. There is no such agreement.
So they have to produce 66.7 mmcfg/d.
The question is what happens to Onhyms share.
And Predator states in the RNS it is finding the cost of the facililities. There is no mention of ONHYM at this stage.
Be careful. |
OK. I'm saying, if the project is commercial, Predator will only end up with 75% of the development costs. And if the tests or contractual terms suggest it isn't commercial one might reasonably assume they won't go ahead. Are you suggesting (that the RNS allows for) anything different?
"And I have said previously, it would mean Predator expect to achieve 66.7 mmscfg/d."
Might be better to see that as upside potential rather than an expectation. |
Pl give it a break Mike
Tiresome in the extreme
We are all grown ups and make our own choices
Thank you |
The force is strong here.
"you're speculating that the context has suddenly changed from participating interest of sales to 100% of cost"
I don't think that is true.
I am reading the RNS as it is written.
The "sales" relate to PREDATOR'S participating interest and tas for costs PREDATOR shall fund and operate the CNG development and production facilities.
No mention of the ONHYM 25%, whether costs of sales, but if they were "dragged along" then they would surely have to get their share of sales and pay their share of costs.
And I have said previously, it would mean Predator expect to achieve 66.7 mmscfg/d.
Be careful. |
It is time for another warning about the extremely deceitful Pro_S2009.
Newcomers to this thread,
Here is a repeat of Chris0805's warning about Pro_S2009's extremely deceitful activities on Advfn's bulletin boards/threads.
"Pro_S2009 frequently posts misinformation in order to attempt to manipulate share prices,
Pro_S2009 does this across multiple stocks and has an appalling reputation amongst most other posters.
Pro_S2009 frequently creates new threads on his/her target company and bans any poster who questions the Pro_S2009 integrity and complete lack of ethics & morals.
ProS_2009 also edits posts previously made when his / her viewpoint changes to suit his/her trading style.
...... (two sentences removed to avoid confusion) - my note
Trust the Pro_S2009 poster at your financial peril." |
" Not much research needed."
We could always use more research. Though we may not realise it's needed, as Dunning and Kruger pointed out. |
Yes, but you're speculating that the context has suddenly changed from participating interest of sales to 100% of costs.
I think the natural interpretation of that second statement is that the deal will be structured such that Afriquia will pay a price that includes transportation. And it is not decided yet who will supply the infrastructure (trucks etc.)
The language may also reflect that ONHYM's carry extends to commercial production. But at that point Predator will be entitled to recover all development costs.
"Predator has a 75% interest in this permit, with ONHYM
having a carried 25% interest in the exploration phase. ONHYM will contribute its share of costs once commercial production is declared."
p5 of above CPR.
BTW I share your scepticism of this management. But I don't want to get carried away. |
If the force is strong here why has the share price dropped from 9.75 to 9.25 in the last hour and a half?
More porkies from the crayon muncher. |
The force is strong here.
I think the evidence is in the RNS:
"Predator agrees to sell and Afriquia to off-take and purchase the CNG corresponding to PREDATOR'S participating interest in the Guercif Licence"
and
"PREDATOR shall fund and operate the CNG development and production facilities"
That's why I ask what will happen with the ONHYM 25%?
Not much research needed.
Be careful. |
Do you have any evidence regarding PRD picking up the full tab? (I'm assuming that's what you're suggesting that last quote might mean.) I think it would be Helpfull to do a bit of groundwork before posting pure speculation.
"• ONHYM has carried interest of 25% during the exploration phase but will pay its full share of development and future other costs." |
The force is strong here.
Here's a thought.
Wording is important.
"Predator agrees to sell and Afriquia to off-take and purchase the CNG corresponding to Predator's participating interest in the Guercif Licence"
It can be assumed that if Predator is talking about a contract of :
"an absolute cap of 1.4 million cubic metres per day (equivalent to 50 million cf/day) and the results of the Guercif Rigless Testing Programme and 2024 Drilling Programme"
that it expects potential flow rates of 66,700,000 cfg/d to account for the ONHYM 25% interest.
What happens to the ONHYM 25% interest?
Do they get drag along rights of have they to negotiate their own contracts?
Would they pay for 25% of the CNG facilities?
" Predator shall fund and operate the CNG development and production facilities"
Be careful. |
Helpless - what are your thoughts on a placing?Please can you crayon an answer back? ?? |
So what are people's thoughts on a placing? |
They aren't on AIM...great research:) |
Wow haven’t seen che post for years!
What’s your thoughts on IMM after all this time? |
The force is strong here.
Here's a thought.
Does anybody think that Predator, bearing in mind highly placed connections, were coerced into signing a MOU with Afriquia Gaz S.A before they were allowed to do anything else?
Be careful. |
Fat share issue again awarded to themselves, nice work for a job well done. |
Spawny If you could dig holes 1500 m deep…. They would give you good money for that… |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
