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.
GS, thanks for your response. I don’t see the urgency for Pantheon to be working with 88e. I would imagine potential investors will judge Pantheon on its own merits given the potential scale of the assets more than merits stand alone development. Any future deals with 88e would perhaps be an added bonus. Given Great Bear’s previous sharing of leases on the Southern border they will likely have an understanding of the extension into 88e acreage as presented at the last webinar.
I may have misunderstood your last post but Pantheon have already unitised Talitha and Alkaid. Therefore refusal of units is not going to be a problem for Pantheon.
I'm fine with that Rabito. Yes clearly a little early to be getting so deep into this detail. But it's clear to see from the helpful docs posted by Brom, myself and others what the state authorities demand from lessees and what powers they have to force explorers and operators to do 'efficient' work. It all makes sense. And I admit I learn more everyday.
Take care all.
GS
14:29 Just imagine what Doyen 26 could do :-))
08.25 - DW said 'pump, pump, pump'. In reality, it seems that the boundaries are somewhat 'fluid'(!) VGLA
21.48 He said ‘pump, pump pump’ the part you missed out was him saying ‘dump’ at the end of it.
Or even Doyenne 26!
;-))
Wed 11:21
Hi cbaron – Google “oil and gas milkshaking” and “Rule of Capture USA” and I expect it’ll be eye-opening for you? In practice, my *understanding* is there are industry protocols which allow parties who share an asset subsurface to ascribe approximate volumes to each party based on various calculations and technical data analysis. I don’t know how developed Alaskan State Law is on the subject when discussing legal precedent but I would *imagine* it would be reasonably sophisticated and quite technical bearing in mind the oil industry has only been operating on the North Slope since the 60s/70s? ie. in the age of technology, not in the “There Will be Blood” times!
Ok, a few regular posters have now started commenting on the shared asset. Good stuff. Addressing such posters directly; Brom, Goldstinger, Villa01, rfarfa, Blackadder2708, GrumpyScouser, Brian1234……as you’re all “true 88E-ers”, you’ll have watched all the pertinent parts of the recent NN webinar in order to more fully understand the shared asset and thus the equity value of 88E <=> your investment in 88E. Based on the information from the webinar, do you expect the volume of oil attributed to 88E from shared reservoirs primarily located in the Talitha/Alkaid Units to be:
a) 0% - 3% of the NN’s total resource volume?
b) 4% - 6% of the NN’s total resource volume?
c) 7% - 9% of the NN’s total resource volume?
We have a geological team working on that as we speak, best let the experts hypothesise. I have posed a fairly open ended question to you Scott in the pantheon chat. Hope you don’t mind as that’s where I’d expect most of your expertise and time is spent.
23.54
Scott, Many thanks.
I struggled to make any sense of 'milkshaking' reference but the Rule of Capture is indeed eye-opening and appears inequitable, as in its purest original form it allows the potential to extract, indirectly, from the acreage of others. It does appear to have been tempered in later applications with the view that a landowner ought to own the resource falling within its own acreage. It would be good to know the approach of the State of Alaska as there appear many points of crossover.
11.03
Brian
Since when is asking a question and seeking clarity, arguing with myself?
Having now found and understood the 'I drink your milkshake' reference, perhaps you can point us to the legal position in Alaska? As stated at 15.01, the Rule of Capture allows me to drink your milkshake, so to speak, and if it is not to continue to apply there is, presumably, clarifying statute within the jurisdiction.
Cbaron
Why are you asking me
I know sweet fa
But I think it’s probably a little more than you
You post questions and then get all upset that people are not answering you… like delicate little flower
11:39
FORD707 - you asked what I was thinking. Here you go.
hTTps://twitter.com/GeodesRock49/status/1448676827573014528
Have an appy weekend everyone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5mIq3yF6Nc&ab_channel=CliffRichard
Brombarb some more weekend listing, you- tube, DOVYDAS
Gordon Bennett, listening!
Thurs. 23.24
Scott
I'm not in a position to answer your question as I simply do not know enough to comment. That does not mean to say that I haven't read and tried to digest your post, and tbh and imo it does have mileage.... as does 88E's transport requirements....
RE: One pint, two straws - precedent?15 Oct '21
23.54
Scott, Many thanks.
I struggled to make any sense of 'milkshaking' reference but the Rule of Capture is indeed eye-opening and appears inequitable, as in its purest original form it allows the potential to extract, indirectly, from the acreage of others. It does appear to have been tempered in later applications with the view that a landowner ought to own the resource falling within its own acreage. It would be good to know the approach of the State of Alaska as there appear many points of crossover.
Did you find the answer on this one cb? Cus if not I was thinking of nicking your pint when you nip to the bog.
GS
10.20
From recent experience it was no doubt you who drank more than his share ;-) Keep digging!
I'm glad you mention the Rule of Capture - I don't think we have a definitive answer.
Perhaps you should go out there on the Lease boundary with a core drill, a length of hose and a foot pump and see if anyone challenges you? Keep you out of mischief for a while. We'll arrange whip round for a tent. ;-)
https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-rule-of-capture
Interesting if nothing else.
GS
GS,
Thanks. Interesting article. It appears that nothing has changed, save possibly for fracking, and the Rule of Capture is alive and well.