Member Info for cbaron

Tsk Tsk Tsk!

Alex you know how Ricky boy gets upset when you pull him up - how dare you!

You'll now be inside his head for the rest of the day. Take some reading matter in there to pass the time as it's a very empty, cavernous space.

😜

I don't see any question marks.

As to the rest - I rest my case.

😜

10.23

Playtime at the kindergarten?

Years of posting utter drivel, retrospective commentary on the share price, quantity of shares purchased and unkept promises not to post again. only ever when the SP is on the up and silence when it's going in the opposite direction.

🙄

No sense whatever in your mindless diatribe. How about you just sit on your hands and await the next news.

10.08

Let's not carried away with the idea that staff and Directors are foregoing their every day monthly salary cash payment for shares further (much further) down the track. Firstly, the staff need to live day to day and secondly, if the actual cash payments aren't aligned with industry norms they would never have attracted them or been able to retain them. This is clearly a bonus structure payable in shares rather than cash.

That the share issues are linked to performance and hence aligned with investors is laudable.

For a man not known for statements of this kind, I take Bob's enthusiasm at face value.

A very exciting few months ahead, even if he's only right by a small fraction.

Comparisons with Pikka and Horseshoe extremely favourable, only ours is closer to the point of delivery to market. Still sceptical about the recent gas phenomenon, but for me it was only ever a make-weight and overplayed, irrespective of the enthusiasm for it.

A clear funding requirement now of $60-85m as a pre-requisite to the next stages of the plan, which is clearly based on the benefit of gas sales. History is being re-written based on the emergence of gas and now Helium. The presentation quotes a former funding requirement of $350m whilst more recently they were quoting variously $120-$150m as the maximum requirement. The target price has for a very long time was in a range of $5-10 per barrel. It is now very clearly being stated as $5. Another erosion. FID now 2028 not 2026!

When the gas rabbit was pulled from the hat a few months ago and became the new basis for the success of the company, we started to smell a rat.........and here we are!

Initial waffle, word trips and apparent nervousness on the part of Mr.Hobbs explained as the presentation went on. He was delivering very underwhelming news!

What if no AGDC? What is the initial funding requirement?

08.52

To clarify, my post was aimed at both sides of this sordid debate (apologies for defaming the word).

You see, it's not all about you.................

For what it's worth , I agree with a balanced argument, just not the extraordinarily tedious repetition several times a day.

You may be in danger of breaking a nail?

You may be pleased with yourselves in the point scoring stakes, but you are doing no favours to either business, nor, most importantly their shareholders. It's all about self-importance.

Please button it for the sake of the very significant and mainly silent majority.

We had the old one pint, two straws debate some years ago whilst considering shared reservoirs across a common boundary and we're clear that there will need to be an equitable agreement as to how that resource is shared. Regulators will make those determinations, thus avoiding 'obfuscation' and 'cruel spin' and 'approbrium'.

I'll accept that it is not a 'fight' between shareholders (I called it a 'pi..ing contest') when you, for one, take a step down off your soap box. We all get data, maths, probability, etc. - let's face it with you banging on, how could we not?!

...........oil flow from common horizons only a few hundred metres from our licence boundary. what is not to like?

this ****ing contest for no good reason is becoming tiresome.

congratulate 88e and take all of the good news coming out of it for our own benefit in the better part of those same reservoir horizons within our own acreage.

Once again, this board is being dominated by stiwkcuf with an agenda to disrupt. Can't we just ignore them, especially when there is meaningful debate going on.

11.21

Olderwiser,

I think we're all on the same page when it comes to the asset value and its potential. Both are fantastic and every RNS appears to be adding to that - wonderful!

I wholly agree with Seahawk though, that the missing element is securing the funds to get the stuff out of the ground; here we have a circular argument. We need more funds to do some more work in the short term to convince those who may ultimately be interested in backing the company, or buying it, to invest. So we need it now.

We now have gas an a 'potential' further revenue stream - one which was, hitherto a liability but now may 'potentially' add value. Again, all fantastic 'potential' - that word again.

The only way to turn that word into income is in capital invested, wheresoever it comes from and in whatever form, equity or debt. For the latter, and back to the circle, we need proof of the ability to get the stuff out of the ground and we need equity to leverage the debt.

I know this, to you and to most, will be statement of the blindingly obvious and I don't mean to demean, but it's a huge frustration - not just the 'get rich quick brigade'.

Hopefully, the business will soon find the investor. It needs to if it is not to lose credibility in its extending fundraising timeline.

Keep believing in the tooth fairy and the fairy godmother!

Here for the long term as a LTH.

Good luck.

cb

09.56

Olderwiser,

Thank you, I stand corrected.

Apologies all.

cb

For clarity, at circa 6'13" of the presentation DH refers to ongoing discussions on "vendor financing" with "one large contractor". In Q&A he later states, at 44'24", that they've narrowed discussions down from two parties to one party. Any reference to the potential to go back to others is fiction.

.........as I said after the 28 March RNS. Yesterday's was a fantastic resource upgrade, but it's all about getting the oil out of the ground. The question on further prove-up drilling was answered with the usual caveat from Jay - " subject to funding".

We now have Helium(another gas) to add into the mix alongside 'ordinary' gas. What next? I'm in the camp which questions gas pipeline deliverability and hence its use as a funding catalyst, but I hope I'm proved wrong.

I implore the company to concentrate on the core activity.

We're now appear to be down to a list of one partner in negotiation as a potential funding partner - let's hope that deal comes off.

It's all about funding, funding, funding.

Good luck all.

cb

..........as the rest is less than positive with deadlines missed and financing far from resolved. May sound a little glass half full but that's my take.

SG22,

Can't think that your post is other than a little dig or wind-up but I agree that we will be watching the results from 88e. On balance I think they'll prove what they hope for and that will be good for 88eand PANR alike.

One pint, two straws.

Good luck

cb

10.33

Darth,

Many thanks for the link. Some good coverage, in particular, extolling the virtues of location next to the Dalton Highway and great upside potential.

"scot will be there and a few others incognito. unless you know scot from previous agms you will not know him!!!"

Ha ha!

Is it an AGM or an episode of Traitors?