Member Info for Louis10

I'm sure you've seen the comforting lies / uncomfortable truths illustration, Tony

Where does the idea that potential financiers don't require a flow test come from?

No, Tony, just multiple lies from you and others that a free blog (whose content you disagreed with) was paid. Jim clarified this on Twitter: Substack tracking and stats showed that not one single paid subscription ever came from LSE. His paid blog and LSE readers are two very different audiences.

It's a shame you spoiled people's access to his free blog. It contained useful, relevant information, but I doubt Jim is bothered in the slightest, you didn't affect his paid subscription income by one iota.

I notice on his Substack that he's introduced a new premium tier at £1,140 a year. Let's face facts, it's not really for the likes of you, Tony, is it.

So which are "my other accounts" Brian?

Perhaps I'm not Jim, Brian.

To clarify, Rabito, which flow test are you referring to?

I know you all think you've been very clever today, but all you have done is expose your modus operandi and let everyone know that you all work as a group. There's no independent discussion taking place here or allowed to take place here. That's now established fact.

Kind of proves that spreadsheet valuations don't work.

I think there's a fundraising coming up.

Interesting they don't delete Scot126's highly defamatory posts. So funny if Erik Opstad brought libel proceedings against LSE.

Sounds like we're proving up someone else's acreage.

It's the worst one since AAOG, Sarah Cope's previous disaster. I don't think that was disclosed to shareholders and possibly forms the basis for legal action against the company, directors and brokers in the event that we end up losing money here.

Quite, there is no proof of viability, hence the resource categorisation of contingent.

See they're getting very scared of Oilman Jim, particularly his comments on Twitter this morning. Not even allowed to mention his Twitter handle on here now.

Are you talking about the old 100 bopd one LOL.

That won't get them $120 million.

PANR is a dead man walking. As Rabito admits nothing even begins to start without a $20 million pipeline connection and who's going to finance that without even a flow test (I think we all know why they ducked that). These projects are great for a stock promote, but don't actually work in the real world, which is why these small companies can pick them up (the big boys aren't interested).

That's why 88E wants some real assets. It keeps the show on the road and, most importantly, pays the salaries.

That really shouldn't be a mystery though, Rabito, should it.

Rabito's another one share guy.

Agree, Redirons, I've felt for a while that Olderwiser could be Scot, possibly Rabito too. One thing I'm sure of is that he's a fraud.

Normal investors have more than one share.

Anyone could say that about anything.

Let's be specific, Older.

Otherwise, you're really just another message board scammer.

We don't know what information was used by NSAI.

PANR only published the few lines of final numbers and several pages of their standard disclaimer.

It could be nothing more than a volumetric analysis.

PANR's problem isn't 88E's flow test, it's Scot.

It's not about me, olderpoorer, rather about how people react to aggression from someone who is widely perceived as a company mouthpiece. It destroys credibility and leads to no one believing anything the company says.

As for 88E, why not "do a PANR", skip the flow test and just get NSAI to say there's a billion barrels there.