Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Scot firstly the last paragraph as nothing to do with me. Secondly I have never mentioned your mental health, in fact I already stated that earlier which you ignored.
Naïve I may be but I always said I would not invest on the strength of what anyone said on this board. That does not excuse people from deramping/ramping and I called out both sides.
No apology for anything I have said, especially to you as you stepped over the line more than once by telling people to sell 88E and buy PANR. Shame on you not me.
I think you are proud of your achievements, and you still rabbit on about the cost of a barrel, which has been your main gripe for some time. You are on another company's board telling them they are wrong to believe anything they read from the company as it cannot be right as you have decided through deduction, science, empirical data, fundamentals, systems, calculations, in fact anything at all that you could use to convince yourself that you must be right and the company are feeding inaccurate data.
You always refer to 'us' to give yourself some kind of legitimacy but in reality it is your thoughts, your agenda that causes people to complain about your posts. Others have mentioned your mental health, me I just think you are manipulative in trying to favour one company over another.
Nobody needs saving, I invest money that I don't need in the hope of one day making a profit. I don't need your opinion to help me.
I am not sure why you mentioned Older as I don't recall ever being rude to him, in fact he has educated/corrected me on many occasions and I always thanked him, as I have with a few on this board which may also include you.
I do have humility, I often point out my lack of knowledge in this field. and I do consider myself a good person mainly and I readily admit to being out of my depth with regards to the oil industry and not doing enough analysis before investing. I have always taken full responsibility for my investments, but I have never experienced or witnessed the amount of abuse, on this board, before, just because I invested in one company and not another. That is down to you and your kind. Nobody believes you are here to help out of the kindness of your heart.
I have learned much, mainly from Older in relation to the oil industry, but I have also learned the dark side of boards and the abuse that some have to put up with just because they don't fit with your agenda.
Taximan57 - you posted the following sentence earlier today: "Derampers, you must be very proud of your achievement, we LTHs have lost out yet again."
You know what, taximan57, I genuinely believe that's how you think. Reading your content over the last period that sentence is entirely consistent with the naïve manner in which you view the stockmarket. How dare you accuse fundamental investors/analysts like me of being "proud of [our] achievement".
taximan57 - when are you going to wake up? Losing an uncomfortable percentage of your investment in 88E doesn't seem to be causing you to reflect. How about you reflect on the amount of research you did about 88E before you hit the "buy" button? How about you reflect on the conduct of 88E management and BoD who are your employees? How about you reflect on the voluminous unscrupulous posters on social media (including a convicted fraudster in the USA) who have waged a campaign of misinformation to hook the less informed, unsophisticated investor into the 88E investment case? How about reflecting on the frankly childish and vulgar behaviour displayed by many prolific posters on this forum who, despite knowing the fundamentals as well as I do, refuse to engage on the ***facts*** of the investment case with those who are seeking the truth?
And specifically for you, taximan57, how about an apology to posters like olderwiser and me? What started as a perfectly polite exchange where you were chiefly seeking to educate yourself about listed companies/E&P terminology/88E investment case deteriorated into multiple posts filled with vitriolic personal abuse ranging from allegations of unethical financial manipulation to comments about another human being's psychological and mental health.
Do you have no shame, man? Where is your introspection, your sense of humility? At first I thought of you as good person, bit over their skis, but fundamentally polite and well-mannered. However, as soon as your financial position was degraded (by the *facts* of the investment case, not by people like me) then you turned into a snarling, hateful character. Had olderwiser and I been liars, making stuff up to feather our own short positions, we would have deserved every single piece of abuse directed at us. That you failed to comprehend it was us who were the truth seekers, solely interested in the facts, should, at the very least, cause a significant amount of introspection about taking responsibility for your own investment decisions.
It is shameful you and others have, once the fundraise was out the way, started filling this forum up once again with made up nonsense about the flow test data, conspiracies about an Aussie short fund, conspiracies about a paid for deramper campaign, conspiracies about market makers getting "tipped off to rip us off".
Have you learned nothing?
02:52
Is that right, taximan57? Speaking of "promoting", what are 88E shareholders going to do about the highly unethical promotion by 88E management of a bunch of dishonest articles the company's Twitter account reposted in the run up to the fundraise? The articles were absolutely riddled with factual errors and yet, by reposting the articles on Twitter, 88E management lent their imprimatur to this blatant misinformation. I contend they knew exactly what they were doing.
88E shareholders should be apoplectic, especially those who "averaged down" in the days between the RNS relaying the results of the SMD flow test and the announcement of the fundraise. An active and informed shareholder base should be demanding answers from the Chairman of 88E. It his responsibility, together with the NEDs, to oversee the conduct of the executive team.
The AGM is coming up shortly, isn't it? How about the UK and Aussie shareholders stop abusing olderwiser, rabito79 and me and instead direct their ire towards the individuals responsible for 88E's travails?
You could say that it does not matter how long the flow test ran for because it doesnt prove that the flow happened when you were not running it. This is anti science. Unless you are talking about quantum physics - which we are not.
Spinefx
Interesting analogy. So I have a couple of relative questions on this experiment:
Let’s say I leave my water tap on for 24 hours and do in fact get 7000 litres of water; firstly, where do I put those 7000 litres of water? 🤔
Secondly, how do I know that on hour 25 I won’t get air for the next 24 hours? Should I keep the tap running for 2 days just to be sure? Or 3 days? Maybe a week? Now I have about 48 tons of water to store. Should I continue because that tap could run dry for the next 24 hours, right?
…or do I use an educated assumption that the flow rate will continue as fairly constant after those initial 4 hours using industry knowledge and advice from the water company (and my helpful neighbor who checked his tap last week)…
Olderwiser,
My point is that anything you or I, or anyone else, writes in this forum is just opinion (and should be considered so).
However, anything published in an RNS has to be factual.
Yes, you were correct about the cash raise (didn’t need a crystal ball for that one). But you were also wrong about the flare…and the oil/gas ratio.
When 88e published that they were fully funded, they were fully funded. I have $100 currently in my pocket. It probably won’t be there 6 months from now. You can’t call me a liar in October when my pockets contain a different amount because things change over time.
Also, you can’t have an opinion and state it as fact, especially when your opinion differs from the information published in a legal document.
In answer to your question, I will gladly listen to your opinion (at least a few times) but I will base my opinion on published evidence and facts, not on opinions in a chatroom.
It's an analogy to demonstrate that you can draw solid conclusions from partial sets of data. It's appropriate because this is how 88e came to conclusion and how every single other flow test ever came to conclusions to some extent or another.
An interpretation that states the flow rate can only be 4 barrels is in fact cherry picking one piece of data and ignoring everything else. Clearly the flow rate is more than 4.
I can assure you that for the analogy I used that even if I had to call the water company my water flow would be far more than 1 litre a day as an average output.
Skip,
Why didn't you leave the tap on for the 24hrs to get a day rate? You have the time, you've taken 4 days off work to get an accurate measurement.
Not sure about your plumbing but you might get 1 litre in 12 sec then turn the tap off, ring your utility company and report that you are seeing 7200 litres/day
You then turn the tap back on and only get air for the rest of the day but for that 12 sec window you saw a rate equivalent to 7200 litres/day.
In actuality you have 1 litre per day in your jug.
No that's not a good analogy.
This is a better analogy:
Go home and turn your water off at the mains. Leave it for a few hours.
Turn the mains back on.
Now turn on your tap and see what happens. After a small period of time the water flows but it didnt for the full period.
Now time how long it takes to fill a one litre bottle of water and turn off the tap.
Is your flow rate 1 litre of water a day or is the daily flow rate the 24 hours divided by the time it took to fill your 1 litre bottle of water?
Whilst this analogy is somewhat trite it is at least relevant and demonstrates how you extrapolate valid outcomes from limited data.
Older,
It's a bit like saying, because Usain Bolt can achieve a running rate of 44.72 km/h, therefore he can run a marathon in less than an hour.
Fine print: Running rate measured over 100m.
Skippy
I dont know where to go next, they flowed 4 barrels, in the 16hrs they flowed oil, you are arguing this is not the key data
Once flow is sustainable, How much oil a well flows over time is the most meaningful data point in any flow test.
Peaks and troughs are just data noise, sustained average flow is what counts
6bopd is also not the outcome from the data.
Skippy
4 barrels is the actual flow collected over the 16 hours in which oil was flowing, you can extrapolate that out to 6bopd, it is still poor
No they stated quite clearly what the flow rate was based on the data and valid assumptions. You just picked 4 conveniently as a position in the data that suits your objective and bias. It is not the outcome of the data.
Skippy you are arguing that, the purpose of the flow test, was not to produce a viable flow
88es favorite pump site next investors even put out their expectations, under 50 was the bear case, which makes 4 pretty sick
Yes that's right Olderwiser. And so this - 'The SMD-B flow test was concluded with sufficient information for the next steps'
Any form of testing requires extrapolating results from a dataset. It is never to run permanent sustainable outcomes. You can debunk any test outcome with your approach.
As you put it - the viability can be calculated!
Skippy
The purpose of a flow test is to establish a sustainable flow, so the producibility can be known, so the viability can be calculated
No it really does. You have assumed that they made a decision to stop before achieving 'sustainable flows' when in fact they stopped when the test had completed the companies objectives. This opinion is bias. It means a lot.
Skippy
Thats a good example, when you look really hard, it actually means nothing
Olderwiser 'the decisions to stop before achieving sustainable flow, answers every question an investor needs to know'. Again - an opinion with no basis but to achieve the agenda driven bias.
From the company: ‘The SMD-B flow test was concluded with sufficient information for the next steps, and the data recorded will assist 88E in optimisation and design processes in the next phase of advancement of Project Phoenix.’
Mikee
I think you just worked it out,
For evil to flourish, good men need do nothing
Olderwiser why don't you tell us what your agenda is? are you really just a good Samaritan who spends all his time trying to save people from bad investments?
Actions speak louder than words IMHO. The company has largely sat back and watched the share price drop post the flow test results. They were happy to raise money at the lowest price in years post flow test results. These are not actions of a company aghast with the market's reaction to 'successful' flow tests.
If they indeed think the reaction was unjust a few puff pieces from Next Investors et al was not the defence required. They could quite easily have scheduled a webinar to give a summary of their findings and support the share price a little more. They didn't even add additional commentary on last Friday's further information RNS.
Moving to the resources from prospective to contingent is not an assessment of commerciality. Likewise claiming a farm out process is underway doesn't mean anything, remember the Yukon farmout out.
Many will want to see some 3rd party modelling to demonstrate commerciality. If you apply the company's guidance of 6-12 vertical flow rates to even the peak rates I think you are struggling to be commercial.
Skippy
Entirely based in data, the 4 barrels from the SMDB and the 24.8 from the USFS, with 1.45mcft of gas
These are poor numbers, and even poorer for the brevity of the oil cut periods of 16 and 14 hours
The 70% frack water recovery means these flow tests are well into normalizing, the decisions to stop before achieving sustainable flow, answers every question an investor needs to know
But your opinion has no basis in data. You have extrapolated an opinion to fit the data rather than extrapolated from the data to build a model of the potential. You can accuse the company on 'spin' if you want to but it's hard to see how 88e could release any option without you choosing to address it in a negative way.
Investors do need to be aware. This is a high risk investment. BUT you do need to be wary of wise men bringing strong opinions which meet an end - its not being done for our benefit. You have no reason to post on this board other than to try to influence the SP. Clearly the hundreds and perhaps thousands of posts you have created have an agenda otherwise there is no reason to do it. Unless you are mad - which you are not.