George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Older,
It's a bit like saying, because Usain Bolt can achieve a running rate of 44.72 km/h, therefore he can run a marathon in less than an hour.
Fine print: Running rate measured over 100m.
Skippy
I dont know where to go next, they flowed 4 barrels, in the 16hrs they flowed oil, you are arguing this is not the key data
Once flow is sustainable, How much oil a well flows over time is the most meaningful data point in any flow test.
Peaks and troughs are just data noise, sustained average flow is what counts
In order to get it going we need some fantastic news : it could be about- Longhorne/ Namibia or revised data for Hickory- 1. 88E is not just about Hickory, it has its fingers in other projects as well. Now the funding is sorted , time is needed and patience might pay off eventually. It’s not going to happen tomorrow or next week, which all of the investors would have liked. But it’s AIM market: invest only what one can afford to lose or patience might pay off one day. Good luck to me and all in the waiting of good news in the future!🤞🏼😎💊
6bopd is also not the outcome from the data.
It's a valid point.
But blimey - it is SOOOOO obvious these people are not real but actors with a very very clear purpose. They appear on all of the message boards. Often you can identify very clear language and syntax that demonstrates an individual with many accounts. This one is very familiar.
Skippy
4 barrels is the actual flow collected over the 16 hours in which oil was flowing, you can extrapolate that out to 6bopd, it is still poor
No they stated quite clearly what the flow rate was based on the data and valid assumptions. You just picked 4 conveniently as a position in the data that suits your objective and bias. It is not the outcome of the data.
Skippy you are arguing that, the purpose of the flow test, was not to produce a viable flow
88es favorite pump site next investors even put out their expectations, under 50 was the bear case, which makes 4 pretty sick
Yes that's right Olderwiser. And so this - 'The SMD-B flow test was concluded with sufficient information for the next steps'
Any form of testing requires extrapolating results from a dataset. It is never to run permanent sustainable outcomes. You can debunk any test outcome with your approach.
As you put it - the viability can be calculated!
You people are arguing with stupid! You can’t win.. 🤷🏼♂️
Skippy
The purpose of a flow test is to establish a sustainable flow, so the producibility can be known, so the viability can be calculated
No it really does. You have assumed that they made a decision to stop before achieving 'sustainable flows' when in fact they stopped when the test had completed the companies objectives. This opinion is bias. It means a lot.
Skippy
Thats a good example, when you look really hard, it actually means nothing
Olderwiser 'the decisions to stop before achieving sustainable flow, answers every question an investor needs to know'. Again - an opinion with no basis but to achieve the agenda driven bias.
From the company: ‘The SMD-B flow test was concluded with sufficient information for the next steps, and the data recorded will assist 88E in optimisation and design processes in the next phase of advancement of Project Phoenix.’
Mikee
I think you just worked it out,
For evil to flourish, good men need do nothing
Olderwiser why don't you tell us what your agenda is? are you really just a good Samaritan who spends all his time trying to save people from bad investments?
Actions speak louder than words IMHO. The company has largely sat back and watched the share price drop post the flow test results. They were happy to raise money at the lowest price in years post flow test results. These are not actions of a company aghast with the market's reaction to 'successful' flow tests.
If they indeed think the reaction was unjust a few puff pieces from Next Investors et al was not the defence required. They could quite easily have scheduled a webinar to give a summary of their findings and support the share price a little more. They didn't even add additional commentary on last Friday's further information RNS.
Moving to the resources from prospective to contingent is not an assessment of commerciality. Likewise claiming a farm out process is underway doesn't mean anything, remember the Yukon farmout out.
Many will want to see some 3rd party modelling to demonstrate commerciality. If you apply the company's guidance of 6-12 vertical flow rates to even the peak rates I think you are struggling to be commercial.
Skippy
Entirely based in data, the 4 barrels from the SMDB and the 24.8 from the USFS, with 1.45mcft of gas
These are poor numbers, and even poorer for the brevity of the oil cut periods of 16 and 14 hours
The 70% frack water recovery means these flow tests are well into normalizing, the decisions to stop before achieving sustainable flow, answers every question an investor needs to know
But your opinion has no basis in data. You have extrapolated an opinion to fit the data rather than extrapolated from the data to build a model of the potential. You can accuse the company on 'spin' if you want to but it's hard to see how 88e could release any option without you choosing to address it in a negative way.
Investors do need to be aware. This is a high risk investment. BUT you do need to be wary of wise men bringing strong opinions which meet an end - its not being done for our benefit. You have no reason to post on this board other than to try to influence the SP. Clearly the hundreds and perhaps thousands of posts you have created have an agenda otherwise there is no reason to do it. Unless you are mad - which you are not.
Skippy, if thats what you think, then the spin worked.
Time will unravel it
Older, makes more sense ;)
Olderwiser 'How much credibility does a company still have after the flow test RNS debacle'.
The 'debacle' is a manufactured fantasy, largely pushed by you. The company published legitimate data on the flow rate that point to a potential commercial discovery and are now seeking JV partners.
Taxi
I will reword it as the meaning got lost somehow
Information and informed opinion is not your enemy, nor is it malicious intent
Older, I agree 'Information and informed opinion is not your enemy' but surely 'malicious intent' is? Especially as the average person may not recognise malicious from a poster, but should not expect it from the company. I have to say that mainly I take your content seriously but others have crossed the line too many times, one in particular.
As for averaging I did admit to buying more at 0.24p which brought me down slightly to 0.69p but thinking 0.24p was a limit reached due to proving oil was there, then a second time, so not expecting it to drop even further.
If you look back I think you will find a comment from AG that he would only consider consolidation if it was in the best interest of the shareholder, I don't think it was their intention to have it on AGM business but was added later. Another point why did they change the AGM from the 2nd to the 13th?
'It may be better to sit here with less shares at a lower price, and weigh the options coldly', that I agree with now as I would not consider dealing at least until the consolidation is complete, if it is decided. And may decide no more regardless, but wont be selling in the near future as a partner for either lease would be a changer.
I still do not get the too many shares argument other than a better SP may attract better institutions to invest so consolidation should be considered, but to me 30M or 30B is not the reason why the SP is languishing. Illiquid is a good word and may be a further reason for consolidation, I don't disagree with doing it.
Sharegerbil...
There are a few billion shares for the 40% discount placees to sell into the market. Looks like your pal HandSpringGuy made the same mistake as you. He also thought the after hours prints were 'buys'. Dear oh dear... Do folk never learn?
Why did the directors not participate in this placing?
When is the next placing?
When will the shares consolidate?
These should be the questions on your mind.