The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
theiceberg,
Many thanks for your explanation of the BFF structure - very helpful and makes sense, even to an 'A' Level geographer and geologist of over 45 years ago! ;-)
I had it in mind that 88e were also hopeful of the upper structures through the SMD and SFS, as highlighted in the RNS of 7 April.
The issue here is that certain people expect others to accept their repetitive view as of rote without allowing others to question their view, whilst at the same time expecting others to provide high standards of objectivity, proof and calculation in support of their views.
Ford,
I am. This has arisen from a thread on the other channel with his long held contention about the relative proportion of the wider joint field owned by the two companies. He has a long held contention that it is 90:10 in favour of PANR without any form of objective calculation. We know how Scot enjoys putting others to the sword to prove their points by detailed analysis and so I'm just doing a Scot here. Not much forthcoming, I'm afraid, other than bluff, bluster and obfuscation.
22.48
Hilarious and..........rattled!
Fundamentals.............how much oil in your redefined 100% and how much oil, by value, in PANR and/or 88E acreages. There you go, I'll let you choose which one to calculate.
Nearest $1m will do ;-)
21.46
Still not heard from Scot the geologist. Still no calculations. You can abuse all you like Scot but I'm afraid that the bobbing and weaving doesn't hack it. Constant redefinition when put in a corner does not answer the fundamental points. You might be experienced in certain aspects of this business (or so you tell us) but you all too often overstep the mark with an inflated view of your own credibility.
Calculations would be appreciated. I don't want to hear it from a webinar. You've put the views out there. Be kind enough to fully explain them. As I said and, as a Scot you'll understand this better than most, that jaiket of yours is hanging on a shoogly nail. By the way, every time you're questioned you appear to use the phrase, "I have no idea what you're going on about", or something analogous.
Come now Scot, your posts don't represent dissection, merely obfuscation. I'm delighted with the rise in SP.
Thank you.
.....and by the way, yesterdays gold bar didn't hack it, today's puddle certainly doesn't. How much oil is in the puddle?
16.30
Still not heard from Scot the geologist? A feeble attempt to pacify, though yet to be confirmed by those truly in the know. Passable reference to Telemachus (he taught me all I know).
C'mon Scot, questions asked here and in the other place.
I fear your jaiket is hanging on a shoogly nail!?
Neil,
That's an admirable effort at a comparison and is thought-provoking.
The elephant in the room, as you point out, is the rate of flow. Hopefully, we may know more about that after the webinar assuming the information gleaned this season can be accurately converted. It does sound as though the information from Pikka is exceptional in regard to flow rates.
Realpannikin in response to your calculations is also highly relevant - it doesn't take much of a cashflow timing differential to have a dramatic impact on NPV - this is where PANR appear to benefit. In terms of location, capital costs in the form of infrastructure are key considerations affecting the cost and timing of delivery - back to NPV.
Clearly, there is a major oil price differential currently compared to 2017 which works in our favour, though for how long who knows? When might the bubble burst? Though a lot needs to happen in the world before matters get back to normal/equilibrium.
Immediate and guaranteed supply is an issue in North America and Europe should the current global macro environment continue to prevail. How big a factor will this be in the overall market attractiveness of the PANR resources. I would wager it will be extremely significant. For me everything other than potential flow rates appears in PANR's favour, currently.
Back to the $64m question - how do they relate?
As many questions as answers, but thanks again for your efforts.
13.09
"that of the combined Alkaid + Talitha + Icewine East + Theta West asset"
Well, at least the asset is growing and therefore so must the net value of each company's share. Have you extrapolated beyond Theta West to the lease boundaries? What about below the current drill limits vertically?
We really do need that geologists expert view IMHO.
Still no calculation?
Therein lies a quite controversial opinion and in one's first post?! Nothing at all in it remotely relevant to 88e. So your view is that you can write whatever you like irrespective of relevance as long as the 40 word maxima is not exceeded - how odd!
Not being a fan of Twitter and Twitter types, I do not share your viewpoint as I feel it is better to explain one's opinion rather than have the reader guess what hasn't been said in the inevitable gaps. This only leads to yet further questions and interminable debate.
Sorry, a lot more than 40!!!!
You'll get used to it soon enough.
09.45
..........and so the OIP issue raised again this morning by GS is irrelevant!?
Not sure what you parameters for investment are, but I'd say the amount of oil 88e has within its leases might just be a determining factor for its value and SP.
19.27
"And there you have the definitive information from the man himself, rather funny I've known this fact for years."
On this subject I DO agree with Scot. Whilst ever he (Brom, Mr Prolific) ostensibly promoted LTH's you are now happy to admit that you sat and watched as he may have pillaged his fellow investors. Clearly, you're too stupid to realise what you've just said or you were also happily complicit in the pillage.
16.42
Better than what? In this instance it's not a very high bar.
All of those things WILL vary with distance and changes in structures, but across the boundary, a line on a map, I think you'll find they're homogenous. You keep on boring us with your 90:10 theory, to the extent that you appear to wish to insult our intelligence, with your smelted gold bar. What reasonable basis do you have for such an assertion? Tell us. Do the calculation. You appear all too happy to have others do calculations to prove your point when you see fit. What's the area of the total field and its contained structures? What is the volume of oil in the bearing structures within it? What is the area and volume of oil within the 88e lease acreage?
13.43
Will the man who is pervading this and other forums with his guess at the likely split across the Icewine/Talitha lease boundary please stand up - Scot126. An self-acclaimed financial and markets expert, with many years experience who is given to winding everyone else up on a topic on which he appears to have little expertise -geology. Constant references to non-homogeneity of geology across that boundary - says who?
The two straws one pint analogy is irrelevant, as we now know that there will be an equitable analysis of who is entitled to what, according to the laws of Alaska (though this doesn't follow in all States) - aren't they fundamentals?
The constant put downs by Scot126 on this matter are, like many of his contributions, becoming overly tedious. Yes, I agreed and continue to agree with his opinion on a number of matters in relation to 88e (the list is quite long) - on the matter of Icewine being the company's best opportunity, I have stated that several times.
Perhaps an expert geologist may be able to give us all a considered view on the matter. Perhaps better still, the company might, once and for all, do the work they appear to have walked away from several times to tilt at windmills elsewhere and tell us what Icewine contains.
Until then there appears to be only one man who is carping on about the relative strengths of the company. I agree that the ill-informed or uninformed should be protected but, please, I think all that need to hear have probably been guided, insomuch as they wish to be.
15.32
It appears Alaska has adopted pooling.
See extract from the link Brom provided:
"When two or more separately owned tracts of land are embraced within an established drilling unit, persons owning the drilling rights in it and the right to share in the production from it may agree to pool their interests and develop their lands as a drilling unit. If the persons do not agree to pool their interests, the commission may enter an order pooling and integrating their interests for the development of their lands as a drilling unit for the prevention of waste, for the protection of correlative rights, or to avoid the drilling of unnecessary wells. Orders effectuating such pooling shall be made after notice and hearing, and shall be upon terms and conditions which will afford to the owner of each tract the opportunity to recover or receive the owner's just and equitable share of the oil and gas in the pool without unnecessary expense."
Each lease owner shall therefore be entitled to a "just and equitable share" of the common pool.
12.56
One pint, two straws......
The 'Rule of Capture' provides that the owner on one side of a surface lease boundary is entitled to recover resources which may have migrated from across (under) the ownership boundary, without paying or compensating the adjoining owner.
This subject was debated some months ago in these pages. Some US states have introduced 'pooling' legislation which seeks to attribute value across those boundaries for the migratory resources beneath, including water, gas and oil. I'm not sure that any conclusions were reached in relation to the rules governing resources in Alaska.
Ddraig, I think you' find that some of us have been talking about Icewine being 88e's best chance for a very long time, as opposed to your last minute change of heart, in desperation. Not to mention your prior, highly vocal objections to discussing PANR in these pages.