We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Indeed. you and your alter ego olderwiser have almost single handedly turned both 88e and PANR boards into a complete and utter s***shows. And for what? Your opinions still mean jack squat! Your endless repetitive posts seriously rub people up the wrong way. Very very abrasive, non constructive, disrespectful, self-righteous and arrogant. Terrible traits. You two should be ashamed. How the f do you expect people to react when you two constantly bombard the board with the same BS day in and day out? You expect civility from others when you treat their personal choices with such discontent? Who do you think you are? You have lost a lot of money already on PANR, the market still values 88e on a per barrel basis higher and you still have ZERO explanation for this despite for years you saying this will change. Seems like you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are, and you have made some very poor choices yourself! Ironically, if you spent more time watching PANR, maybe you could have actually traded and made money with your self proclaimed analytical prowess (trying not to spill my drink with laughter). Anyone could have told you PANR would drop back from its 40p high last week. After all, making money is what we are all here for is it not? Perhaps you forgot that?
You are fooling nobody by disgusing your hundreds of posts here as "relaying facts" and naturally self anointing yourselves as guardians of the "inferior PIs who are too stupid to make decisions for themselves", and defenders of the faith that is PANR. In nearly 10 years on this board, i can honestly say you two are up there as the one of the worst disruptors. Far far worse than any "ramper" could ever be.
Olderwiser has been shown to relay false information on several occasions, notably how when the photo of the gas flare appeared, posted by a respectable member of another forum, olderwiser automatically dismissed it as fake with zero evidence. Olderwiser was also attempting to convince everyone that the upper SFS was a complete duster because of how some RNS's were worded.. If that is not disruptive, abrasive and ultimately WRONG, then what is?
In this world, you tend to treat how one is treated scot! When you throw thorns, dont expect roses in return, then act thick as to why others are so hostile towards you both. From now on, every post you make that is repetitive in nature will be reported for disruption to the general peace and harmony of the board because you seriously disrupt the flow, and posting in very bad faith. I would recommend everyone do the same, and eventually these posters will recieve the permanent ban they deserve!
Theres a way to go about spreading wisdom and knowledge in a far more respectable manner. The way you two have gone about this is dispicable and completely uncalled for.
No I don’t think so. You both do the same. Shameful.
23:48
chrisev1 - here's an idea for you. When you see "olderwiser" is the author of a post, just swap in your mind his username for "magpie5" and read the content, taking it at face value. Open your intellectual curiosity to reading the information contained in his posts; interrogating the content; investigating the veracity of the information; following the subsequent conclusions and acknowledging there is always more to learn from sector veterans.
On the presumption you're not a dentist, chrisev1, your conduct on this forum suggests you'd fancy undertaking your own root canal treatment! C'mon man, away from this forum you will surely have recognised many occasions in your life when you were in the presence of an expert in a specific field? An expert who made you realise your knowledge of the subject matter was amateurish in comparison?
Think, chrisev1, think. How many times has a listed company had to publish a slide pack and a "further transparency" RNS within a few days of the initial announcement? olderwiser spotted something didn't add up within a couple of hours of the SMD-B results. And if you don't think his analysis didn't prompt a veritable tsunami of questions to 88E management from shareholders around the world then you're being wilfully naïve.
Please stop abusing olderwiser and others. It's contemptible behaviour. Just because you don't like him relaying facts which challenge, and in many cases demolish, your poor understanding of the 88E investment case does not make him the bad guy. I continue to be amazed at the vitriol displayed towards him when your anger ought to be directed chiefly at Dave Wall, Erik Opstad and the previous board members, and secondly at the current bosses for trying to spin like whirling dervishes the disappointing data from the two flow tests at Hickory-1.
What’s wrong with this guy. I have never known anyone with as much anger against 88E. What’s his problem.
Interesting point Rabito, however Alkaid 1 was targeting the Brookian Formation and I don't believe that is comparable when relating to shared resource of a neighbouring acreage, do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe 88e are referring to the Alkaid 2 well as this is linked to the 88e acreage targeting the same formations, so when they talk about there being a difference
from the PANR RNS for Alkaid 2:
"(i) Post well analysis indicates that the frac treatment resulted in vertical propagation across the entirety of the the 200 ft gross (100 ft net) reservoir column and extended laterally some 300-400 ft."
- this generated only 45bopd average, 88e achieved nearly that over a 20ft vertical flowing naturally, in shared resource, so this is probably a better/relevant comparison, would you agree? All interesting stuff.
Marlbs, the SMDB test was a vertical test in the Alkaid 2 well. Only thing I have uncovered is misleading statements IMHO.
Your response prompted me to check the Alkaid 1 vertical test as well, guess what:
'The Brookian ZOI has an estimated gross 400 feet and net 240 feet of pay. A six foot interval was perforated and stimulated and the well flowed naturally until 30% of the frac fluid was recovered, when a nitrogen gas lift system was initiated. Light oil (40 degree API) was recovered and c.40% of the frac fluid was returned within the first 14 hours. The well was shut in for 72 hours due to equipment problems and severe weather conditions (stage 3 Blizzard). The well was then turned back on and the oil cut increased steadily to +40%, producing about 80-100BOPD with occasional slugs of oil producing at much higher rate.'
Note Pantheon has occasional slugs much higher but didn't report these as peak flow rates. They also only perforated 6ft opposed to 20ft. However I don't think it's wise to compare well tests as they are seldom like for like. For instance there has been considerable learnings from Alkaid 2, which Pantheon have advised 88e on.
Olderwiser,
I’m gobsmacked you are still bleating about 4 barrels.
“…Proving just one reservoir viable would have been an outstanding success…”
I agree. And they just proved 2 of them
Rabito, this is a lateral production test though flowing in to a production facility, correct? 88e is a small vertical well flowing naturally. Did the PANR vertical test well flow naturally, if not then I would agree that there is a significant difference ? Added to that, assuming PANR didn't flow naturally and then flowed 500bopd on the lateral then imagine what 88e will flow on a lateral, maybe you have just uncovered why the vertical natural flow is such a positive for 88e?
Taximan, please note the SMD-B flowed under natural flow:
'Expectations for flow rates, water saturations and water cuts had led to plans for nitrogen lift (necessary to reduce bottom hole pressure and ensure that fluids were recovered to surface). Encouragingly, nitrogen injection was not required until the last six days of the eleven day test, resulting in the operation coming in at or below budgeted timelines and costs.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/validation-of-frac-design-and-fluid-sampling-tcrx4qvdikio0t4.html
The Alkaid 2 well also achieved natural flow. Note 88e have referenced Alkaid 2 as being a SFS play previously, although I am not sure Pantheon agree:
'Encouragingly, despite the blockage, the well is flowing naturally into Pantheon's recently commissioned permanent production facilities located on the Dalton Highway at a rate of over 500 barrels per day ("bpd") of hydrocarbon liquids which includes oil, condensate and natural gas liquids ("NGL's"), as well as significant natural gas, from an estimated 4,000 ft of lateral.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/operational-update-qdows7bk03aci0x.html
The language used by 88e is misleading at best as evidenced above.
99e, oh dear :-), I mean 88e !!
Thanks taximan, appreciate your responses, the fact that 99e have highlighted in bold and followed that with the word positively in their most important RNS of this year the specific wording of which was approved by the board leaves me in no doubt this is a positive for 88e, that is how it was intended, you wouldn't highlight it otherwise. I also notice they didn't test the LSFS as PANR had already proven this, so with all 3 plays the potential bopd would be even greater had they include the the LSFS in the flow test, is that correct? And more potential upside on the BFF?
I understand what you are saying but I don’t follow anyone or influenced by any on here. If you can’t admit that there people on here with their own agendas and have nothing positive to say then I’m shocked. I’ve been invested for a good few years here now and losing enough. I personally have to be hopeful that this will come good.
What older fails to tell is the GOR on SMD B was minimum to none. Also injecting gas for raising oil is expensive, a cost that will be far less for 88E than PANR as 88E have natural flow in the upper whilst PANR injected all wells during testing. Did I mention the derampers grabbing the 4 barrels for dear life? It is hard to grasp reality when you have an agenda. Nothing they hear is ever positive, there is always spin. You have to decide whether you believe the company who say these are excellent figures or the derampers who say they are poor. Also the fact that they are on this board without holding any shares shouts loudest for me.
Marlbs, Older is knowledgeable and often helpful and says he is on this board to level the playing field with the rampers. He is the level head amongst extremists. You have to decide if he is for or against 88E. He is also on the PANR board.
Ask your self this Dreadman, would you prefer to have known how bad these results really are, before the market woke up too it, or after
Weigh that in your mind a little before asking to fly only with a flock, that only paint rosy pictures to induce buying of their shares, at artificially high hype pricing
Marlbs
Positively differentiating is IMO pure spin, read it differently, positively as in certainly differentiating
As the exceptionally high gas rates is a negative, and that is what drives the natural flow. Apart from the production costs it generates, a high gas rate means there is less oil in the rock pores, as gas occupies space at these levels, unlikely to be all associated gas that exsolves from oil at High GORs
There is so much S-IT spun on this message board it’s ridiculous . It’s so boring. Surely real investors that have hard earned money still in this company only want good things to happen. Why would you keep being so negative. What’s happened in the past is in the past and can’t be changed. If you can t say anything decent or aren’t even invested here., do everyone a favour and f-ck off!
MunnieTorxm er, thanks for your, um, 'intelligent' input, i guess, well done!
Olderwiser, appreciate your input here, the reason I raised this is the 88e RNS states " Quality and deliverability of both SMD-B and USFS demonstrated via oil production to surface with the USFS reservoir producing under natural flow - positively differentiating Hickory-1 from results on adjacent acreage." with under natural flow highlighted in bold text, so they are clearly indicating this is a positive, why would you think that would be if you are correct and it would be more expensive, they clearly have a different opinion so I'm just trying to understand the advantage they have here.
Up 19% across the pond
When a company has to put out three rns and one of them being a follow up rns to try and explain-O-pump away the previous one and even that doesn't move the needle you know its game over.
It was already clearly game over on the first reading. Its still game over now in my opinion. Nothing has changed. 4 barrels of oil is still 4 barrels of oil, even if its a calculated flow. If the test was good at early cut they would simply have carried on but even late into the cut there was really nothing except a few slugs, a very low % cut of oil. That much is clear. Never seen any flow test reported in such a way. The market saw right through it. Price is all time lows. Ask yoursepf why... exactly.
What would be very vexing is if yet more people who just wish to make some gains decide to invest in this company based on the ramblings of a few posters who appear intent on misleading with their stance that the flow rates here have been anything less than disastrous and disappointing, at best.
The inevitable placing (not Farm out) will be the icing on the cake and even then the promotes here will be saying its a good thing there are 50... 60... 70 billion shares in circulation.
Wait until May, June, July... Money is needed and it is overwhelmingly likely to come from equity dilution. Anyone thinking this will be farmed into really doesnt understand the industry.
My opinion. Discuss and offer a counter argument.
Marlbs
No it is the same if not more, the fractures are still needed at the same scale, but the very high gas rates that give the natural lift are a problem. This gas must be reinjected, PANR have budgeted 1 reinjection well for every 3 producers, based on the Alkaid 2 ZOI reservoir
FYI where natural flow occurred for more than 2 months, not the few days of the USFS.
The measured GOR there was in the range of 12k to 14k/barrel, much lower than the USFSwhere on the available numbers it showed 58k/barrel. on its very short flow period, so take that number with caution. Eventually 88e will have to fessup on that post PVT analysis
If it finishes up at 1 to 1 GOR of 36k/barrel, that adds $15m to every production well
My question was more around the complexity and cost of going in to production with a natural flow, let's just assume the USFS is the main focus which had a similar average flow rate to PANR but with 88e it flowed naturally, does this mean it will be less complex, requires less material to go down the well to get the oil out, and therefor is cheaper, with less equipment and quicker to get to production? Seems to me like this would be the case.
19:41
Unfortunately our leases in the NPRA have probably become untenable, I suspect that although drilling on the actual leases may remain a possibility we will find more and more evironmental restrictions and even if a big discovery was made the costs of meeting those requirements would knock it out, the risks of green lawsuits (as COP with Willow have experienced) is probably just too great..
Current leases suspended (12m) by which time BLM will have more answers and a final decision can be made.
Taxi
Oil flow is typically expected before 30% clean up, and well settled by 60%, these test were at 70%.
They were not going to get much better
I am gob smacked the 4 barrels of actual collected oil in the tank over 16 hours, is still being spun as a stable 50 bopd
It could not be more simple, in 16 hours they produced 4 barrels of oil, that is never going to be worth developing
I do not for a moment believe time pressure was the reason the test stopped, if the result was good in the USFS, they would have persisted, even if it meant coming back next year to flow test the SMDB.
Proving just one reservoir viable would have been an outstanding success
As for testing each one individually, so did 88E.
Older, we will always differ on the interpretation of flow rate, I cannot agree that it was 4 or 6 bopd and the 50 wasn't based on flow over 16hrs as the majority of the time was spent on cleaning up, it says that in the release. I am happy to take peak rate as over a longer period it was going to improve, again mentioned in the release. Also there are some on here that will not accept any bopd figure as they are calculated. To get a real bopd it would have had to wait on the cleaning to end then run for a full 24hrs. You are well aware that they ran out of time/ ran over time and had to stop to allow the services and rig to leave. If they had continued until after the cleaning then i'm sure the flow rate would have been closer to the peak than the barrels in storage tank. We did not have a day's production so had to be calculated. I'm happy with 50 as the company were happy with the results and that would not have been the case if it was just 4.