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.
I am contacting the company and have highlighted the market abuse misinformation that’s being twisted from the RNS and also made a complaint of market abuse re social media boiler room campaign by a targeted shorting crew. MM have been compliant as they make money on the way down and back on the way up! They don’t care! All gone in to market abuse team. However the company should straighten this disinformation on the 4 barrels nonsense immediately and issue a response!
ADMIN you need to remove any posters repeating this lie.
IMHO DYOR
Sharebel, what is your interpretation of it then?? Because I have read the RNS multiple times and I can't find another interpretation that makes sense
The only interpretation of it is, by the time they had flowed back frack fluids, the window was closing time wise and the costs of the rig were increasing daily, plus the window for removing the rig was getting smaller. So once they had obtained a good idea of the flow rate of 50 over a very short time line (agree, too short) but obviously good for what they required. They decided to call it a day. Only thing is, that very short period of flow only produced 4 STK barrels of oil. But they were not there to produce oil, they were there to check the flow. That figure of 4 would not have even been in the report but for the rules of asx reporting. As it wasn't a goal of the flow test.
Ok but peak flow rate means nothing really... It could have been just for a few seconds. There is no information in the RNS to give any practical significance to that figure. The issue is the data in the RNS and the way it has been written I. E. Putting the 4 stk bbl figure in the appendix but not providing any context for it in the main body. This has made the communication ambiguous. Honestly, doesn't make sense to me. If it's a good result the communication should be unambiguous. That's basic business skills. So either the company are inept at simple communication, inept at testing or the result was poor.
According to Neversatisfied...
"they were not there to produce oil, they were there to check the flow. That figure of 4 would not have even been in the report but for the rules of asx reporting. As it wasn't a goal of the flow test."
Flowing oil wasn't a goal of the flow test. Incredible. A no oil flow test hoping for no oil. They were certainly successful, then.
Now I've heard it all. I'll leave it to the market and SP to keep doing the talking on this 88 disaster story.
They need to explain it. An interview would do the job on Practive or anything really. Even the 'experts' are stumped.
Ultimately the RNS tells a story that ends with the a view on the path to commercialisation. Using the word 'discovery' in the RNS headline if it's just dripping oil doesn't stack up. As usual if the language isn't tight and they don't second guess the response from all sides when writing the RNS, this will happen.
SSccss
You are getting it now, it is a monumental blunder by 88e, they wrote an entirely ambiguous RNS, twice in a row.
I and others emailed them for clarification on the 24.8 stk barrels v 42 bopd average in the USFS test, no answers given by 88e
The true meaning has been uncovered
Now investors know how 88e massage the message, trust drops to zero
MT can you read? They were never there to start production. It was all about ensuring the oil flowed. Hence Flow Test. My lord hard work with these fools!
Not being there to produce oil, as in barrels of. Obviously there to produce oil for the flow. I give in.
Skippysb01
The experts and non experts are not confused, the interpretation of what it means has been repeated over and over here.
Investor are choosing not to believe or acknowledge it, for their own reasons
No olderwiser. You might be right but actually you might not be. Interpretation on an RNS is often ambiguous - it shouldn't be. But the headlines and next steps yesterday do not align to a failed well test. So something isnt right. I'll wait and see.
Your objective is very clear and there is one of you on every LSE message board. If you spend as much time as you do pulling out every negative you possibly can, you cry wolf I'm afraid, so you and the other obvious suspects (probably also you) are widely ignored. You might well be right but your reputation makes you meaningless.
Old duffer you don’t hold and yet you post on here through the night you’re clearly from OZ part of the boiler room crew or just a saddo! You think the company is confused do you and their competent expert? Have screenshot all your comments and others! Your accusations against the company are libellous and quite pathetic ! IMHO DYOR GLA
"I and others emailed them for clarification on the 24.8 stk barrels v 42 bopd average in the USFS test, no answers given by 88e"
What you mean the company ignored a request from the important OlderWiser, hmmm yes you must be right then its obviously the ONLY explanation.
09:23
Sharebel - what market abuse????? It's right there in the RNS....Appendix A, Box J....4 stk barrels.
If it was a typo or error the NOMAD in the UK would have issued a correction by now. I know the NOMADs at Cavendish. They would be aware of the market's disbelief at this outlandishly low oil figure.
Stop posting ridiculous threats to folk re-posting what 88E itself has published. You should be contacting the 88E chairman to issue a correction RNS if this figure of 4 stk barrels is incorrect.
Stas20
Understanding is not your strength is it. ELI5 for you. The email to 88e asking this question is, confirmation that 88e know there is confusion about the meaning, but have chosen not to act to address it
"I and others emailed them for clarification on the 24.8 stk barrels v 42 bopd average in the USFS test, no answers given by 88e"
Skippy if he or Scot spent as much time actually investing in any stocks as they clearly don’t want to here he might make some actual money…in the time he’s been banging on about his own interpretation of the results I’ve bought several stocks as well as another 10k here! OldDuffer put a sock in it there’s a good chap! You’re coming across obsessive and ridiculous now with your own boiler room agenda! IMHO DYOR
Older you should be more interested in the almost 1 billion share dilution that is likely to come to PANR as detailed in my posts on that site this morning. Of you pop chap!
Sharebel
To whom Facts are ridiculous, I see it all now
The result was poor.
10:31
Stas20 - fact check? False.
Embarrassingly, but unsurprisingly, Stas20 has misunderstood something he thought he heard in PANR's most recent webinar. Pitifully, he has mixed up the potential size of a finance facility *If* the gas pipeline gets the go-ahead ($250) with what he understands, wrongly, to be the "requirement" ($120m). The actual guidance from the PANR BoD is $120m will be required to move to FID and a self-financing development of Ahpun.
Anyone else noticing that all this flailing about by the likes of sharebel, stas20 and taximan57 is simply highlighting how painfully under-researched they are? Yikes.
Scot, I'll await your response when the placing is delivered to the PANR shareholders and the negotiation breaks down. You know how to eat a hat I presume.
Snotty and his chums are predictably having their day in the sun right now trashing 88 and pumping PANR but why has PANR fallen 25% in the last week ????.........well Snotty is blaming 88 for this,,,,,,,,No really , check it out he's saying PANR are being dragged down by 88. This from the pundit who encouraged the mugs who listened to buy PANR at 130p. The death spiral financing at PANR is a glaring red flag and Snotty's day of reckoning will be here again soon.
Good luck to all 88er's
I will try again. For those on the spectrum, when I say not there to produce oil, I am obviously referring to the 4 barrels. They obviously need oil to check the flow rates but they already knew that.
The only interpretation of it is, by the time they had flowed back frack fluids, the window was closing time wise and the costs of the rig were increasing daily, plus the window for removing the rig was getting smaller. So once they had obtained a good idea of the flow rate of 50 over a very short time line (agree, too short) but obviously good for what they required. They decided to call it a day. Only thing is, that very short period of flow only produced 4 STK barrels of oil. But they were not there to produce oil, they were there to check the flow. That figure of 4 would not have even been in the report but for the rules of asx reporting. As it wasn't a goal of the flow test.
Neversatisfied. I think you have it. It's why they should come out and do an interview and answer this question. Those stating they can only produce 4 barrels a day are just saying it because it's what they want the message to be.
It was likely 4 barrels at a rate of 50 a day for the duration the flow test was effective.
Skippy - Yes they need to do an interview asap. Best advice is ignore all the white noise on BBs and see what the experts say. I'm sure the likes of COP etc understand the numbers far more than anyone on here.