Member Info for cbaron

23.26
You need a mechanism to ensure that once the cork pops or the screw cap comes off, your access to LSE is denied. Better still, if that's too complex, don't post after dark!

11.18
Ford,
A few things there that we actually agree on. Hype, definitely. Trading share, definitely. If anyone wanted to make money here by trading, the opportunity still exists and so to suggest that some one is miffed at missing out on something, clearly doesn't stack up.
Going back to hype, this morning's video piece is exactly that. An early suggestion that 88e may have something comparable with Prudhoe Bay, Kupuruk and Willow. A suggestion that N14 has been de-risked and remains an opportunity (the drill didn't get to it and there are seemingly no plans to re-drill, at least in the short term, and so how can that be so?). A suggestion that Peregrine can be exported through Willow (what about the mire of ongoing litigation? cost?). A suggestion that it can be exported across Icewine to TAPS (distance/topography/cost?).
Lots of suggestions but when you read above, below and between the lines, a few obvious potential trip hazards, flim-flam and, at worst, disingenuity. AIMHO.
Anyhow, if it's good enough for those who like the hype to catapult the share, I will not argue.
What I'd like to see is a little more on Icewine, the potential from the re-evaluation of old information and bringing forward the potential from likely resources more easily extracted and next to TAPS - now where have I heard that before? ;-)

Scott,

Just taken the time to read it in full and take it in and I recommend it to all. A great piece which highlights the massive resource, the ability to extract next to infrastructure and the value potential. All based on sensible, conservative estimates. Factor in some higher percentages, multipliers and resource growth over time and it's enough to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end.
Keep up the great work and ignore the idiots here and in the other place who question your views and your motives. The facts speak for themselves and if the detractors had a few brain cells they'd realise it, particularly those who start in the early hours of the morning and, over several hours whilst getting further and further down one or more bottles of stiff drink, level abuse. I'm surprised he has the effrontery to show his face again after that, but clearly he does!!! Last week he was consulting a psychiatrist, or so he said, this week it was clearly a distiller!

11.03
Brian
Since when is asking a question and seeking clarity, arguing with myself?
Having now found and understood the 'I drink your milkshake' reference, perhaps you can point us to the legal position in Alaska? As stated at 15.01, the Rule of Capture allows me to drink your milkshake, so to speak, and if it is not to continue to apply there is, presumably, clarifying statute within the jurisdiction.

23.54
Scott, Many thanks.
I struggled to make any sense of 'milkshaking' reference but the Rule of Capture is indeed eye-opening and appears inequitable, as in its purest original form it allows the potential to extract, indirectly, from the acreage of others. It does appear to have been tempered in later applications with the view that a landowner ought to own the resource falling within its own acreage. It would be good to know the approach of the State of Alaska as there appear many points of crossover.

06.30
Rabito, I actually agree that Pantheon don't need 88e and development timelines could conceivably be extended if some form of agreement was needed. It was a genuine question about the legalities of ownership in such a scenario. I suspect that unlike, say groundwater extraction in an aquifer, the lateral flow is so small given that the oil is within the rock, that the question may be superfluous, hence the need for grids of multiple extractions wells in relatively close proximity. Perhaps the experts can answer that one? Again, not an expert, but genuine questions.
At least we have a debate going about the shared resource and its potential implications, which is being addressed by a broad cross section of people here who appeared somewhat reticent in acknowledging its existence.

00.43
The aim of my original post was to explore possibilities and to ask a genuine question about what happens when a play spans lease boundaries. Typical of you GS to bring it down to angst and bitterness.

Keep taking the pills!

Unitization appears to be the answer.

Ah well, I made an effort to have an open debate on a common subject matter, but if animosity must prevail then so be it!

88e & PANR
Disclaimer: I have a foot in both oily camps and so I'm going to post the same on both Chat Forums.
One pint on the table in the pub is being shared, one bloke has paid for a quarter of a pint and the other three quarters, they have two straws. The first bloke drinks half of the pint, more than he's paid for, and the other is immediately pi88ed off. There's an argument. Analogy starting to materialise?
Smacks of a shared oil reservoir resource. Is there a physical possibility that one could pump out more than his entitlement of the shared resource? Is there legal precedent for similar situations around the world? Are joint ventures commonly entered into in such circumstances? I can't believe that it's everyman for himself and he who pumps fastest gets the lions share!
Genuine question. Any takers for an answer?

88e & PANR
Disclaimer: I have a foot in both oily camps and so I'm going to post the same on both Chat Forums.
One pint on the table in the pub is being shared, one bloke has paid for a quarter of a pint and the other three quarters, they have two straws. The first bloke drinks half of the pint, more than he's paid for, and the other is immediately pi88ed off. There's an argument. Analogy starting to materialise?
Smacks of a shared oil reservoir resource. Is there a physical possibility that one could pump out more than his entitlement of the shared resource? Is there legal precedent for similar situations around the world? Are joint ventures commonly entered into in such circumstances? I can't believe that it's everyman for himself and he who pumps fastest gets the lions share!
Genuine question. Any takers for an answer?

22.14 and 07.35 (Brom)
At last, they've switched the lights on!
Perhaps we can now have a meaningful conversation about the fact that PANR's discovery benefits 88e - to the extent, in my opinion, that it is 88e's best chance of success, both in terms of provable oil volumes and proximity to infrastructure.
GS - who could sensibly be 'dischuffed' and why the nonsense about 'true 88ers' - a bit rich from one with a foot in both camps!

17.03
Come into my web, said the spider to the fly............... ;-)

Scot,

Thanks for the Dropbox link - works for me.

I too wondered about the conservatism. Using anything north of the risk factors applied would have produced some fantastical numbers..............for another day, hopefully.

Appears to be a divergence of opinion?
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/eeenf?mod=mw_quote_switch

00.01
Good luck with that one GS. ;-)

Turnstone,

At 7pm on Friday evening, when you were getting your knickers in a twist about me, I was enjoying a few drinks with friends and when you got into an even greater lather later on Saturday afternoon, I was enjoying a competitive round of golf followed by a couple of beers in the 19th.......................yet I'm the one who seemingly has problems?!
Calm down!
;-)

19.02
Sums up your intellect Turnstone. You must have a good memory as that thread was removed.
Just stay away from the facts though as you clearly don't understand them and can't interpret them, as proved beyond doubt much earlier in the day.

16.24
Moda,
CP concerned enough to delay the pipeline upgrade.

How tedious for you Brom, you poor thing, having to deal with this matter of dilution - every year. Another major negative swept under the carpet.
Up until now the dilution has been limited to 15%. It now has the potential to be 25%.
If that's not a material change, worthy of debate, then I don't know what is.