Member Info for Alaric

what issues are those precisely?

we now have in immediate prospect a dedicated secure new pipeline and FSO for OML18, which will be hugely value accretive for us, both in our share of the pipeline project itself and with the increased oil revenues for this world-class oil field.

ha ha ha etc etc

see you got the salmon flying out of the river with that one, Sam. hilarious. i wouldn't give 9p for his thoughts ha ha ha

many thanks Olderwiser for your recommendation on the VAS results. i have listened again to that part of the presentation (from Ed Duncan) and it is utterly compelling and comforting. hard to believe we can remain at these levels long now and, once the guys can sort out Farallon, it will not be 'Houston T minus' any longer we will have lift-off.

Olderwiser, many thanks for posting the Hart piece and for your helpful comments. You touch on porosity and, i think implicitly, permeability, both of which topics the fearmongers pick up on in the absence of flowtests. I am interested in your comments about the VAS results and I'm sure I read something relatively recently from Telemachus1 suggesting similar. Then another poster (I think a geologist from his content) was quoted on the other board, suggesting that they would have to await the SWC results before being clear about these things. Annoyingly I can't find the relevant post now but I think he suggested we would have to wait for a few months before the Sidewall Core results would be known. I wonder if you could elucidate further about this? It occurs to me also (as a complete amateur in oil geology!) that as we have low viscous high Api oil here, this will help in the 'flowability' equation of porosity and permeability? Any further comments you have on all this will hugely appreciated by me and a group of investors I've introduced to PANR

nothing we don't know about. until we clear Farallon, i fear this will remain the pattern. but that is completely irrelevant to the value proposition here, which after this morning's confirmed news is simply immense. big opportunity imo at these levels

it's difficult to know where to start on your stuff, cbaron, as your asinine dissimulation comes so naturally. i'll be brief . it is clear you know virtually nothing about defamation, rules of evidence ( burden of proof and such like), so it would have been better for all of us had you not started opining as if you did. i have given the board an entirely accurate read on why at least one part of the recent posting (the so-called deleted post) was defamatory and would be actionable as such if the available plaintiff/s chose to pursue it and on the court procedures available to discover the true identity behind mischievous handles. this is pertinent to the serious discussion ongoing about the deliberately misleading statements on this board by a certain poster (which discussion has been far from pointless). my labrador could guess that i'm qualified to provide these reads but if you or anyone wants to query any specific legal points i have made, please feel free and i will answer them

quick addendum having just read Scot's post regarding the 'deleted post'. seems now we have a freely given admission from its author as to what it said. so if there are any ambulance chasers out there, to mix my metaphors, that's one bit of very low hanging legal fruit!

ah cbaron, there you are again. first while i have no particular pride of authorship in my previous post, it was nonetheless from my own hand. of course all cases require evidence and that shouldn't prove too difficult in this imagined case. after that i'm afraid you go off the rails a bit. the case here would be brought by one or more of GB founders. the fact that Bob R is also a director of Panr just makes his defamation more insidious. and no need for loss or damage, just likelihood of serious harm to his reputation. given the nature of the statement made and its implications, establishing likelihood of such harm would hardly be problematic. as to the statement itself, it was clearly published and read by who knows how many 3rd parties (and there are easily enough witnesses to that. it being subsequently deleted therefore would only be a minor hindrance. quite possibly an order for its discovery could be obtained against lse.)
what's the point of all this - well you said 'malicious falsehood' was 'very dramatic', so i'm answering you - this was a slamdunk libel. believe it or not a number of successful cases have been brought against abusers of social media platforms. the question i can't fathom here is why, down in the barrack room, you're quite so interested in finding flaws in the case against this guy? mind you on the evidence so far, he would be well advised not to hire you!

my comment this morning, cbaron, was as stated addressing your preceding post . you think 'malicious falsehoods'to be very dramatic? i was going easy as it happens. i can assure you that publishing a statement without justification that GB founders get paid by cheque to participate in criminal action against the company is actionable as libel by those founders. (the fact that the publication is made under a handle or pseudonym on a public forum makes no difference, since there is a well trodden procedure in the High Court through which the real identity of the tortfeasor is ordered to be disclosed. the forum companies tend to consent to such applications quickly, obviatiing the need for,a formal hearing, as they don't want to become co-liable as publishers).

delighted for you Ddraig, i'm sure. strange that you don't include JofHoggit's name in your little list, as he was the instigator and principal subject of the recent discussion - any particular reason?

'For all of those, like me, who've had enough of the petty squabbles here...' frankly that's just pathetic, cbaron. if these were 'petty squabbles ', i'd be the first to agree with you. but they're not . they result from a deliberate orchestrated attempt to damage the company and certain directors through the posting of malicious falsehoods by bad actors. we should, as investors in Panr, be more than grateful that we have in our midst members who have the knowledge and who take the trouble to speak out against this , debunking the lies one by one . period.

wow! seems like wyatt earp and doc holiday rode into town last night, judging by the amount of blood out in the street (all of it the bad guys', i should add). sorry SeaHawk but as you see sometimes gunlaw is the only way. nice work guys - thanks

#rse.

oh for goodness sake will you give it up, it's just like children or i'll have to call Mr. SeaHawk and he'll give you all a jolly good telling off (that should certainly deal with Jof anyway). ps. if i'd known you suffered from tourettes GS, i would have cut you some #rse yesterday, so no need to #rse for being an #rse. #rse.

the problem i have with your approach, SeaHawk, is that you say you see the difference but you fail ever to comment on it. so, as in your post at 13.52 you treat Scot and JofHoggit the same - 2 children squabbling. there you are back in kindergarten again, as the irritated teacher who doesn't care who started the argument or why? i do care because bad actors deliberately disseminate falsehoods about my investment to try and damage it. perhaps if a few more people spoke out in support of Scot's virtually solo fight against malicious posting it would be good. but they don't.

sorry to say SeaHawk, i couldn't disagree more. we're not in kindergarten any more, so if bad actors persist in intellectually dishonest or perverse arguments there will and should be blood. we all know the alternative of appeasement just doesn't work. there is a world of difference between jofhoggit and scot, that is absolutely apparent from their respective posting histories. if you can't see that, then i'm genuinely very sorry for you.

to be candid with you, tony, i'm never quite sure where you're coming from with your posts and you keep 'bad actor' company on this board. you see that's 2 of my tripwires triggered before breakfast. self-righteous - moi? let me put it this way, i have zero tolerance for trolls, bad actors and the like

fascinating 'discussion' guys but just too prolix and predictably now also discursive (sorry to say both classic indications of dissembling in my book). and you think this thread may have gotten too personal for some? what like GS' opening 'Pathetic... FO the pair of you'? nice one.