If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them 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.
Scot, you are more and more sounding like a failed Oxford debating society member.
As for 88E or PANR investment, all day long 88E but it would be a takeover not just a lease. 88E has potential elsewhere, PANR don't. A company that has diversification and income or a one trick pony with debt?
'I put it to you', sounds stupid and out of context right?
[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]
Phoenix: It is here that I observe most forum members harbour unrealistic expectations. I think it's a consensus view that it costs 88E circa US$25-30m to drill and flow test a well during a winter season(s). It takes external parties with deep-ish pockets to commit that type of capital, agreed? I'd suggest 88E shareholders think very hard about the following. Let's say there's an O&G company/wealthy Texas O&G individual/O&G specialist finance firm or fund who fancies having a swing in Alaska and has the capital to do so. Why would that external party opt to invest in the smaller in scale, downdip, lower classification, lower amount of data, questionable flow test result acreage v's the larger in scale, updip, higher classification, greater suite of data, declared commercial by management and Schlumberger acreage?
Being objective, I suppose the price to buy into the respective projects *could* be a key consideration? However, think about this further. In this scenario, a potential partner is looking at a cash investment of, say, US$25m to drill a well on 88E’s acreage. If an entity is looking to invest that kind of cash would they not wish to reduce the risk of failure *and* increase the upside risk if that were at all possible? I submit that an O&G entity would seek to partner with PANR ten times out of ten before thinking about partnering 88E.
Not because the potential partner doesn’t like the number ‘8’ or doesn’t fancy Ashley Gilbert. No, it’s simply because the scale and quality of PANR’s updip portion of the shared reservoirs are demonstrably superior by all geological measures – and the data incontrovertibly backs this up.
I challenge the forum to describe a realistic scenario where a party required to invest a minimum of US$25m would opt to partner 88E as opposed to PANR. I submit that not only is the absolute risk of failure too high for a potential partner to even consider farming in to Phoenix (following the flow test results) but that *any* potential farm in partner would opt to invest in PANR’s updip acreage over 88E’s downdip acreage in every single scenario I can envisage.
Delighted to read any thoughtful responses to the above. /end
26/4 @ 20:05 & 16:50
HandspringGuy and Brom - I found myself in agreement with both these posts. Absent a farm in deal which ushers in a drilling program, I agree with Brom that shooting the 2D seismic in Namibia is unlikely to be seen by the market as a viable catalyst for SP appreciation.
Brom - I note your sentence "Company has forecast net inflow of US$3M at Longbow, which I assume is after workover costs." Would you please point me towards this formal guidance? I don't ever wish to misinform so want to be clear on this matter. Also, is it safe to "assume" this figure of US$3m is *after* taking workover costs into account? Also, how have you accounted for 88E's share of the proposed drilling two new wells in H2'24? TIA.
Let's now examine logically the farm in prospects for 88E's Alaskan assets.
- Umiat: zero chance. It was discovered 70 or 80 years ago and there's a reason it's never been a viable project ever since. Combine that with the hesitance to exploit further the NPRA and the answer is obvious.
- Peregrine: zero chance. It's also stranded and the drill results from Merlin-1 and 2 are sufficiently underwhelming to make it an ultra low priority for anyone apart from Conoco, sometime in the 22nd century.
- Leonis: I've always said it looks interesting. Might Armstrong wish to have a look at acreage west of the Dalton? FWIW I reckon Leonis has the best chance of attracting a farm in partner. Any potential partner will have to provide all the capital, analysis, design work, etc, etc so it'll be more of a case what dilution 88E will face. Looking at the other players in Alaska and their proposed programs of work, I have difficulty seeing a well drilled at Leonis before the 25/26 winter season, at the earliest.
Icewine: mmaaaayyyybe if the gas pipeline is constructed it *might* be of interest to somebody, but not for *many* years if at all, IMHO. If PANR's Kodiak acreage moves into full production then that would perhaps help?
[Part 1, see above for Part 2]
13:41
Sharebel - more conspiracy theories from this prolific poster. To have averaged down such that his average is "around the placing level" defies mathematical probability. *If* we are to believe Sharebel's historical posts contain truthful descriptions of his holdings and seemingly continuous additions then Sharebel would have had to add many multiples of his pre-fundraise shareholding to bring his average anywhere close to these all time lows. Make of that what you will.
13:29
Sharebel posted: "...and trying to conflate 88E just because they have found huge commerical [sic] oil field discoveries like COPL is amateur deramping hour."
Let's me blunt here. 88E has not assessed their discoveries to be "commercial". Sharebel is lying to the forum. He has repeated this lie on numerous occasions since the flow test results were published, That makes Sharebel a fecund liar. I urge forum members to challenge Sharebel to cite a specific quotation where 88E management has stated the discoveries are "commercial". He will not be able to do so because there has been no such statement from the company. Fact.
I note Sharebel goes on to repeat the conspiracy nonsense about an organised shorting campaign and an Aussie short fund, blah, blah, blah. The fantastical musings of a shareholder who a) doesn't understand that 88E was running miles ahead of its fundamentals when he first invested and b) doesn't understand the fundamentals have been brought into view and a significant cohort of 88E holders have decided enough is enough and sold out.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
27/4 @ 18:26
Miner4 - I have only one username. Fact.
27/4 @ 17:31
Sharebel posted: ".... the SP which fell inexplicably fell back from 0.44p on our not one but two pieces of transformative good news so the massive naked short can cover." Sharebel once again refuses to recognise the huge speculative component which was contained within the mkt cap of the company when he first invested in the stock. Contrary to Sharebel's assertion that the fall in the share price is "inexplicable", I contend the fall is easily explained. The empirical data collected during the flow tests led the market to confront finally the effects of Dmax on these deeper parts of the shared stacked reservoirs. In turn, the speculative component of the mkt cap was punctured quite dramatically. Add in the requirement to raise cash to keep the company going and the SP has behaved perfectly logically.
Sharebel's false refrain that the flow data results are "two pieces of transformative good news" is correct apart from one word. Delete "good" and Sharebel has got it spot on.