Member Info for cbaron

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.

For clarification, my point about verification was in relation to your second point at 06.52 in relation to 88e's Icewine.

At long last 88e has something to which a half decent value might be attributed rather than the flights of fancy into more and more dusty chasms.

Could be that you ARE missing something or it could be that you ARE having your digit pulled?

06.52
Mmmm? How might one grade that, oily water or watery oil?

One pint, two straws.........do we have a geologist to verify Scots view?

One pint, two straws.........where have you heard that before?
Keep up! ;-)

Taran,

What's the story with West Sak and Ugnu. Before my time here and admit that I hadn't researched back.
Thanks.

Mindbender,
Firstly, I see the massive potential here, so let's get that one out of the way - the key word for me though is 'potential'. I'm normally more 'glass half full' in all things but, not being an area of my own expertise I'm a little more cautious here and I'm taking it a step at a time, this, coupled with already having made a handsome profit having benefitted from an entry average a little over 30 pence. The results of our neighbours in the last few days provides me with an example of why I ought to be more cautious. Great hopes based on evidence of initial tests, dashed by an ultimate inability to commercially extract.
That leads me to the secondly. It is purely proof of the ability to commercially extract oil or sufficient evidence from data, not yet published, by the company and its advisors that I and the rest of us are waiting for. As I've already said, I 'get' the potential.
I've made clear my views on the season so far and there's no need to repeat that. In my head the appropriate word is still 'inconclusive' whilst still promising. To my mind also, the market is telling us that realisation of ultimate value remains uncertain.
Clearly, value flows from this uncertainty and circa $0.60/£0.70/bbl is where the market is currently comfortable. The current SP is derived from all our collective views - those more 'glass half full' are disappointed. Some have already got to the Holy Grail in their own heads and try to convince the rest of us likewise. Perhaps more in hope than sensible expectation, but we're all different.
Ultimate value? The Pikka deal has to be the baseline benchmark for comparison. Who is to say where it goes from there, other than upwards. There needs to be an upward adjustment for current oil prices, though with some caution as to the sustainability of these levels. Quality and proximity to market and route to market are in our favour. Timing of delivery, with Alkaid this summer, may offer a great opportunity to benefit from the current price hiatus - though let us not forget that this too is yet to be proven. Future demand remains a question, with the green lobby still pressing for reductions in fossil fuel usage. The current Putin factor will, hopefully, not last too much longer and supply and demand balance will almost certainly be maintained at some point. This may result in a commensurate reduction in the current pricing levels and a long term partner/purchaser will almost certainly wish to factor this into long term revenue streams and deal pricing.
As to ultimate revenue value to PANR reflected in a deal, one might expect double the Pikka deal and perhaps more. Early positive macro events (end of war and re-balancing of supply/demand) after that could actually adversely affect value if the hiatus eases. Then again? The world will always need good quality oil in spite of what the green lobby may think.
A much longer reply than I anticipated and you may have hoped for - hope you're still awake.......

11.29
Balanced overview.
Risks in the eye of the beholder as to commercial deliverability.
'Place your chips' still sums it up.

perfect! ;-)

18.45
Just make sure the LV co-ordinates with your outfit............... ;-)

16.49 & 16.54
Setting a response to the many petty insults apart - my instinctive tendencies as to a response and the questionable language therein would almost certainly have the content censored and hence I won't go there.
There's not much left to say other than refer you to the stated plans for the season as outlined in the RNS dated 24 January. I note you now claw at a distinction between 'objectives' and 'expectations', in itself an admission that objectives were not met - my point entirely. If planned objectives are not met, I think most objective observers would consider that the season has been less than successful. Hatch a plan and deliver - great! Hatch a plan and don't deliver and it's entirely reasonable that questions are asked.
The plan? By reference to the RNS referred to above.
Theta West - "The forward plan is to drill to target depth, estimated at c. 9,200 ft, case the hole, and begin testing operations on both the Lower Basin Floor Fan and Upper Basin Floor Fan."
Talitha A - "Testing operations commenced over the weekend and will start from the lowest formation, the Lower Basin Floor Fan, before proceeding sequentially to the two shallower Slope Fans (which will be tested together) and the Shelf Margin Deltaic horizons."
Now I'm no genius, though I'm sure you would beg to differ, but I count six target horizons for testing across the two wells, two of which are to be tested together, therefore 5 tests.
How many were successfully carried out?
Not a trick question Scot!

Villa,
Ha ha! Oh boy, can it!!!???
;-) ;-) ;-)

9.30,
Not sure what the silly "- or" change to my moniker is all about - I'll put it down to being childish.

Para 1. BR has all the data - agreed. That he knows more than I do about O&G - agreed. I wouldn't know what he's forgotten.

Para 2. The suggestions that I'm calling BR a liar or dissembler is both a ridiculous extrapolation and complete nonsense. I have no reason to doubt the man's credentials and nor do I.

Para 3. I haven't misjudged anything. The guidance was clear, the target horizons were clear. Given the issues this season whether arising from human error of an experienced contractor or climate, the muted SP response is not all surprising. We don't yet have data sufficient to prove this is a commercially extractable find. All of the company's own caveats warn us on this point. I have not lost sight of the fundamentals and, judging by your last paragraph, you too acknowledge that we can't know what they are until we are told in detail, hopefully, at the late April webinar. I'm not apportioning blame to anybody. The facts are that, for a number of reasons, pre-season targets have NOT been met. FACT.

Para 4. You are interpreting the numbers in a way which is personal to you. I'm doing likewise. Your investment strategy is personal to you, by definition. Not sure what your point is.

Para 5. Thank you for the beginning of my education. I've read everything the company has produced, but thanks for your concern.

Para 6. I asked a question. I did not pose a conspiracy theory. Simple. I've since clarified. I didn't for one moment, when I posed it, consider the points you have helpfully managed to extrapolate from it. A prior thread had already made reference to a lowball (my word) offer. Lots of PIs have been disappointed when an ultimate sale price has completely undermined their position. Sirius is one such example.

Para. 7 I don't know what 'Billions' is, though I can guess. I take this to be one of your cheap shots?

Para 8 Now we're getting to the nub. You say, "No point in going back and forth until we're all armed with the knowledge and expert interpretation of management from the upcoming webinar." I'm cautioning against making any rash interpretations, projections and dreams of fantastic wealth until we have the facts. On this point we appear to agree. Hurrah!!! And so why is it that you've become head ramper and you're criticising me for expressing a more cautious view.
After your mission over months and years on our neighbours blog to undermine overly positive views with constant references back to fundamentals (much of which I openly agreed with) how is it that you've now changed your spots and it is you who appears to be extrapolating results when you acknowledge we're not yet "armed with the knowledge and expert interpretation of management"? Hypocrisy might be an appropriate word.

Villa,
Perhaps better wording would have been "under value". Perhaps "under the counter" suggests underhandedness, which might be unfair.
A value range of 170-200 was suggested earlier and there appears to be a history of AIM companies who have sold out at levels considerably lower than the expectations of PIs. Again, just adding caution, especially when we are continually served up with the $3.10 per barrel previously paid as a lowball benchmark without necessarily providing comparative background information.
I believe there is much reason for confidence in the future of the company, but just trying to keep the lid on expectations. Fundamentals are potentially being proved up, but not quite there yet. IMHO.

08.20
Would you care to explain why you say no?