Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video 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.
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
Not being there to produce oil, as in barrels of. Obviously there to produce oil for the flow. I give in.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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