Member Info for cbaron

Alaric,

"guys"? Only one of me you'll be pleased to hear.

In your parallel universe, and I would say utopian rather than dystopian (note 'y', not 'i'), you suggested we talk about you and so I was going to talk about you too. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume we were going to be talking about me - so have no worries.
"you was asking not me"? What did I ask? It should be 'were' not 'was', by the way. You really do need to start using capital letters to start a new sentence.
;-)

20.47
Alaric,
That may indeed be interesting, or then again, not. I am genuinely disappointed.
You could tell me about you and your professional life - interesting to note that we'd be talking about you, no real surprise there.
My aim would be to advise that you might get a little further in whatever it is you do and also on this blog if you toned down the pomposity and tried not to sound like an arrogant pri**.
For someone who holds himself in such high regard, I would have thought that you might have understood, by now, that sentences start with capital letter. ;-)

14.53
At least try to use some variety in your vocabulary - you appear somehow self-congratulatory in the repeated use of "style discursive and suggestive of dissimulation".

You appear redolent of a young student with a GCSE in Law who's hamming himself up to be a big shot QC..............

I asked some weeks ago what the Law Society might make of your antics on this board, if you are a lawyer, and I too received little by way of response................kettle calling pan?

Tony 12.46

You appear to be getting a little hot under the collar.

'CHICK'............ on the Wirral?

Ha ha ;-)

Infrastructure is the big issue. There will need to be massive expenditure on network upgrades to support the levels of EV anticipated.
We must not forget that this will not just be limited to cars but there are major drives with commercial vehicles too.
as someone involved in the property industry we are finding that all manner of new facilities are hiking up electricity requirements to future proof for EVs. An example is the logistics industry (Amazon/DHL/DPD, etc) where the new requirement is for all parking spaces to have EV charging points that could be 500-1000 spaces and many requiring the upgraded fast charge points which require a greater energy input.

20.15
There goes the tailor responsible for the Emperor's New Clothes..............again!
Just speak straightforwardly with a justified value calculation based on fundamentals and those with more than half a brain might believe you.

Seems like there's a huge reliance on this market as the new crutch for the SP.
Let's not forget that many will still be applying ointment to their burned fingers following a spiking. Do we really think that they're daft enough to allow lightening to strike twice?
Interesting that the OTC/Reddit phenomenon is the new tomorrow.
More Emperor's new Clothes................
What happened to fundamentals?
Not a deramp, just observations.

Ddraig - (he won't hear this as he's got me blocked, but I'll say it anyway)
Firstly, a certain Scot contributor was berated by you not very long ago for discussing PANR on this Board. What's changed?
Secondly, you need to go back and read the details of the January 2019 acquisition of Great Bear, before spouting unnerving nonsense about hostile takeovers. Under the SE rules 30% requires a bid and there is no reason why shareholders need to accept that bid unless they are going to sell themselves short. They will be some way off control at that point.
Are you now deramping for personal gain? Why would the shareholder you claim to be spout such nonsense?

Are you related to Schachmeister?
Why would PetroleumGeology subReddit need a moderator?
Is it a cult? Where have I heard that before?
;-)

Tele,

For me, read 'Total Confusion'. I'm not sure of the point being made. Not being pejorative, merely seeking clarification, as an old fart.

What does, 'I simply do not have time to manage a presence in more than one place so have basically migrated to Reddit and am working with GeodesRock on our joint PetroleumGeology subReddit and as a mod on the Pantheon subReddit.' actually mean.

Whilst all of the building blocks of resource are there, they will remain 'potential' until further proving and testing are carried out which demonstrate commerciality. A major component is location which will hopefully reduce costs and improve NPV, but I think there is still some way to go before a commercial operator will step in.
I also agree with Ddraig (yes, really! ;-)) that were an offer to be received in the short term it would likely be derisory and therefore unacceptable.

Bynari,

Many thanks for posting the article - also a few more interesting ones in the thread.

Ddraig,

;-)

......forgot to add just one final point...... perhaps you would ask your Labrador to post his view ;-)

IF you are qualified, you might want to confirm what those qualifications are, particularly in relation to the issues you contend are at hand. IF you are practising, I'm sure the Law Society will be keenly interested on whatever it is you PURPORT to be on such forums as this as ,clearly, you appear to be offering advice.
No half measures.
Over to you.

Aleric,
I did not look to find flaws in any argument against the perpetrators of these terrible deeds, merely pointed out the burden of evidence and proof, which would include a causal link. I don't hear any cries of foul from the grievously harmed. Perhaps you might want to take out an action on their behalf. Good luck!
I'm not a lawyer, barrack room or otherwise, just pointing out what I believe would reasonably be necessary for a successful action. That you should refer to me as a barrack room lawyer, when you are the one quoting the law is not a little ironic.
This is a pointless conversation and serves to perpetuate a situation that I believe should have been laid to rest some days ago.
An ambulance full of low hanging fruit is an interesting concept. Are you an ambulance driver or a fruit picker? Perhaps you might be more adept at one or other or both than advising on the finer points of libel and defamation. ;-)

Tony,
For me the SP is dependant on
1. provable
2. quantifiable
3. extractable

In relation to 1, I feel certain that the results will take us to this point. As to 2, there have been suggestions that this will be significant and the comparisons with Prudhoe Bay are exciting. As to 3, its about technology and methodologies, which may differ at the different intervals.

Clearly, a flow test will not be able to be carried out until next winter and so the absolute answer to 3 may not be known until then - Bynari's comparison with other fields of similar geology may be the means by which there is sufficient confidence in the forthcoming results as to make a significant difference, even without waiting for the flow test - those better versed in oil exploration may disagree with this and it may just be wishful thinking on my part. I'm happy to be corrected.

So, as to SP 1 + 2 may leave us with a small increase, pending 3.
If 1+2+3, without flow test then a significant re-rate which will depend on sensible NPV using conservative volumes derived from 2. Also depends whether or not a producer steps in with a buy-out bid and that will govern price.
After flow tests, assuming they are successful, then we have an extractable viable resource of high grade oil and the world could be our oyster, especially if volumes any where near comparable with Prudhoe are provable, not forgetting that we are next to TAPS. values will be multiples of where we are now - but just how many?

The downside and a possible re-trace may happen if the results are lukewarm and we need to wait until further proving of the resource next winter, though this seems unlikely based on the information to hand.

Just my own thoughts.

Aleric,

All well and good and I'll take your word for the clear cut and paste.
Are you a lawyer?
If you are I'm sure you'll be aware of the need to produce evidence and also of proof of loss or damage.
It appears the evidence has been removed and unless you (personally) are going to commence proceedings - unlikely as it would be difficult to prove damage (evidencing your own loss arising from the 'malicious falsehood' - there is no clear and obvious impact on the company through its share price), I'm not sure where you think this may go, other than to protract the argument here.
Apologies are clearly not going to be given.

Just in case you hadn't noticed I've spent time attempting to debunk some of the suggestions about alleged controls arising from the original Sale/Purchase agreement with Great Bear.
The squabbles over all of the misinformation put out about divestment of shares are partly covered in my contributions also.
Were all of those contribution 'pathetic' too?
Given that a lot of the alleged comments and 'malicious falsehoods' (very dramatic) have now been removed from this site by the thought police makes the ongoing squabble doubly futile. Were the matter not being dragged out as it is, it would already have been consigned to history.
Just to clarify who and what were you referring to yesterday at 17.11 when you said "oh for goodness sake will you give it up, it's just like children" ?

Well done GS and Bynari for reintroducing positive elements of what we hope will be affirmed in the results as a fantastic find.
For all of those, like me, who've had enough of the petty squabbles here, go back and re-watch the PANR presentation - it's uplifting stuff!