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.
That's my point skippy. I don't feel like we have actually learned any useful information that we didn't already know. They got some oil out. We were expecting that because PANR managed it. But as to whether it's commercial or not is completely unknown at this point. There is nothing in the RNS figures to even offer a hint that it might be commercial... And yet the wording by the company is very vague and forward looking. It appears in congruent to me. Every day is a school day.
11:24
"Since 88e are masters of ambiguity and spin, one can very reasonably assume that they would have taken any possible opportunity to word the RNS more positively."
88E are not unique in building up their prospects, there are NO O& G companies on AIM who do not talk up their prospects, my view is that 88E are pretty clunky in their RNS content, a company that was really adept at spin would not be so clumsy.
Ssccss, did the company not say that they expected the figures to improve had they continued both flow tests?
Success. Don't think it means nothing but agree you would ideally want them to run with it for longer. It could drop off after 2 days or 2 years so there are limits to what this well test can demonstrate - as with all well tests we are left with an amount of ambiguity. Question is does it provide enough confidence to attract investment/partners.
A 50 peak flow rate literally means nothing.... That's why I'm annoyed they led with it in the summary. Flow rates are transient and inevitably drop off.
Olderwiser. No the likely explanation is that they achieved a flow rate of 50 for a period of time. Which is enough. One of your mates tried to draw an analogy about taps and plumbing yesterday which was a load of nonsense. It's more like they turned a tap on that is millions of years old, cleared the tap of what you would rightly expect needed to be clear (OK a lot of that is what they introduce during the test), it spluttered for a while but once it got going - 50bpd flow rate. You dont' have to keep it going to know what flow was being achieved and whether it contained oil.
Unless the company corrects their own statement (which will have gone through a review process), we must assume they are telling the truth: 4 barrels recovered.
Since 88e are masters of ambiguity and spin, one can very reasonably assume that they would have taken any possible opportunity to word the RNS more positively.
They did not. Nor have they (yet) corrected it if it gives a falsely negative view of the results.
Until then "the market" will put a value on it.
Perhaps *one* day a different BoD will be able to bring some value to my remaining holding.
Skippy
There is a hole in the logic, in that oil cut took place over 16 hours, so when the 50 bopd rate occurred it must have been at that rate for a short time. Further the drawing on the well while it was flowing oil at whatever rate only produced 4 barrels of oil over 16 hours. Which means the average flow rate over the 16 hrs is 0.25 of a barrel per hour, on a 24 hr basis, 6 bopd
Skippy, this is why I stated the other day
- correct and from what I read it flowed very well and the small number of barrels collected can be understood by the fact that they were still cleaning up the well. thus they were concerned with how well it flows, not how much oil they could get, as they have already stated,
"Some 70% of stimulation fluid had been recovered at the conclusion of the test at which time water salinity measurements indicated that stimulation fluid was still being recovered and the well was still cleaning up. Oil cut would be expected to improve once stimulation fluid was fully recovered."
The collection of oil was imo unimportant the test was to understand the flow rate, not to be in oil production, they achieved this but in doing so they were still cleaning up once this question was answered.
Unfortunately it has provided ammunition for the two trolls to jump on, bit of an own goal by the company, they should really spend more time on their RNS's and understand how each word, sentence and paragraph will be disseminated by those that seek to use it for their nefarious aims.
Well I was hoping for a correction or clarification to the RNS, but nothing so far. They could have put out a tweet clarifying the result.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The result was poor.
Sharebel
To whom Facts are ridiculous, I see it all now
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!
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
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"
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.
"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.
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
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.