Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Interesting point Rabito, however Alkaid 1 was targeting the Brookian Formation and I don't believe that is comparable when relating to shared resource of a neighbouring acreage, do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe 88e are referring to the Alkaid 2 well as this is linked to the 88e acreage targeting the same formations, so when they talk about there being a difference
from the PANR RNS for Alkaid 2:
"(i) Post well analysis indicates that the frac treatment resulted in vertical propagation across the entirety of the the 200 ft gross (100 ft net) reservoir column and extended laterally some 300-400 ft."
- this generated only 45bopd average, 88e achieved nearly that over a 20ft vertical flowing naturally, in shared resource, so this is probably a better/relevant comparison, would you agree? All interesting stuff.
Rabito, this is a lateral production test though flowing in to a production facility, correct? 88e is a small vertical well flowing naturally. Did the PANR vertical test well flow naturally, if not then I would agree that there is a significant difference ? Added to that, assuming PANR didn't flow naturally and then flowed 500bopd on the lateral then imagine what 88e will flow on a lateral, maybe you have just uncovered why the vertical natural flow is such a positive for 88e?
Thanks taximan, appreciate your responses, the fact that 99e have highlighted in bold and followed that with the word positively in their most important RNS of this year the specific wording of which was approved by the board leaves me in no doubt this is a positive for 88e, that is how it was intended, you wouldn't highlight it otherwise. I also notice they didn't test the LSFS as PANR had already proven this, so with all 3 plays the potential bopd would be even greater had they include the the LSFS in the flow test, is that correct? And more potential upside on the BFF?
MunnieTorxm er, thanks for your, um, 'intelligent' input, i guess, well done!
Olderwiser, appreciate your input here, the reason I raised this is the 88e RNS states " Quality and deliverability of both SMD-B and USFS demonstrated via oil production to surface with the USFS reservoir producing under natural flow - positively differentiating Hickory-1 from results on adjacent acreage." with under natural flow highlighted in bold text, so they are clearly indicating this is a positive, why would you think that would be if you are correct and it would be more expensive, they clearly have a different opinion so I'm just trying to understand the advantage they have here.
My question was more around the complexity and cost of going in to production with a natural flow, let's just assume the USFS is the main focus which had a similar average flow rate to PANR but with 88e it flowed naturally, does this mean it will be less complex, requires less material to go down the well to get the oil out, and therefor is cheaper, with less equipment and quicker to get to production? Seems to me like this would be the case.
Hi Taximan, did you mean no average flow for SMD-B as the first RNS states "both SMD-B and USFS demonstrated via oil production to surface with the USFS reservoir producing under natural flow", noted that peak flow for SMD is 50bopd and USFS is over 70 bopd. I should think it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a combined average of 50 bopd for both zones for the small test well ?
"Quality and deliverability of both SMD-B and USFS demonstrated via oil production to surface with the USFS reservoir producing under natural flow - positively differentiating Hickory-1 from results on adjacent acreage" I see the producing under natural flow is a differentiator from the PANR result, would this mean getting the oil out the ground would be a more simple process and cheaper to run day to day. Also the average flow rates seem OK, "the well produced at an average oil flow rate of ~ 42 bopd during the natural flow back period" on the upper SFS alone, + the average on the SMB-B, is there an average flow for this test? I seem to remember PANR average flow rate was only 45bopd in total, so is 88e capable of better, natural flow rates?
"This is why I was able to ask 88E shareholders an exceptionally serious and earnest question. How can the you justify the market valuing an 88E barrel in the ground at 18p v's a higher classification PANR barrel in the ground at 10.77p? Not a single answer. Not one." Really? not one? This so insanely simple most people probably just ignore it. Market cap for 88e is not based on the potential barrels in the ground of one asset, market cap is based on number of shares x how much the market wants to pay for those shares. The Market has valued the company, based on multiple factors, assets, run rate, revenue, growth potential, risk, chance of success, cost and chance of development (on all projects) etc, etc investors are not just trying to calculate how much a barrel of oil in the ground is for one asset. You keep recycling this same nonsense argument again and again and it is completely inaccurate. Your own calculations compared to market cap are screaming to you over and over that you are wrong and you keep ignoring it. Or maybe it's you that's right and the whole rest of the market is wrong !
It's aim, you can do all the crazy calculations you like, it doesn't mean a thing, I would have thought Scot may have realized this by now! All aim shares are a bit of a punt, it's a risk game, who has a chance of making it, who is likely to go bust, PANR have debt and no income, 88e have income and no debt ! Doesn't matter how much potential resource you may have, if you go bust then it's irrelevant, that's the only fact that matters. Personally I hope both companies can get in to production or have something tangible to sell before the lights go off as I think they both have good potential.
Be wary of anyone who thinks writing 'fact' at the end of a sentence somehow makes their personal opinion an actual fact. Anyone looking for facts should read the RNS releases and the corporate presentations, anyone who is not a member of the BOD and not releasing actual factual information through official channels, but claiming they are facts, is by their very nature spreading dis-information.
Some useful resources for anyone new and thinking of dipping their toe in 88e for this drill !
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02612833.pdf
https://youtu.be/ozTW67UqURU
Hoping for an exciting month ! GLA
Maybe he is secretly selling PANR and buying 88e to recover some loses, or maybe he was dancing close enough to the exit to get out in time ! In fairness I'm sure anyone who has invested money in the stock markets long enough has had that horrible feeling when you see a stock plumet, it's not nice, and we are all here to try and make some money at the end of the day, even if some are a bit annoying at times. PANR will bounce back eventually, maybe a good result from the 88e drill will give them a bump this time. Best of luck to everyone.
Phrontist, "Since acquisition, the Longhorn investment has resulted in net cash flow returns to 88E of A$4.3M" quarterly cash for Q4 2022 was A$1.5M, more than "Administration, staff, and other costs of A$1.2M" for 88e as a whole, not Longhorn Energy Investments LLC. I didn't notice anything in the last cash raise regarding Longhorn, (although this could fall under "portfolio expansion opportunities / new ventures and additional working capital") but with all work overs successfully completed last year, the Q1 2023 will be even greater. Longhorn has low operating costs and is generating cash flow. 88e invested capital in expanding this field last year so it is now generating even greater cash flow, so it will be interesting to see what this is in the Q1 report. "Four workovers and at least six new drill targets remain on the acreage, with the forward work program and timing for future capital investments to be determined by the Joint Venture in 2023" So this will increase further, but may not be this year? Would a conservative estimate for 2023 be A$6M? Enough to cover Administration, staff, and other costs. All other 88e expenses are related to exploration, as a stand alone entity, this quarter, Longhorn Energy Investments LLC is generating positive cash flow.
So Longhorn is losing money? Is that what you are saying? Or is Longhorn a cash positive operation that makes positive cash flow, with further upside this year to produce yet more positive cash flow? I would call this a sustainable business and a subsidiary that is 100% owned by 88e. Maybe I've missed something?
Scot126, you always seem to ignore that 88e are an oil producer, they have a revenue stream. It seems odd to me that you are providing all your calculations based purely on this one drill? comparing an oil discovery company (PANR) with an oil producer (88e) is not as simple as one calculation. And the risk for PANR, is that they don't get that blockage sorted and still need to find a way to keep the lights on, while 88e are years ahead of PANR in producing oil and continuing to increase production at longhorn. How can you criticise 88e for never flow testing a well when it's flowing nicely every day. The fact that 88e has a sustainable business makes it a less risky investment than PANR for me. This drill is also by far the most promising for 88e, with the COS and proximity to TAPS, it shouldn't be a surprise to you to see a decent increase in SP as many investors may well see a bigger opportunity this time around.
I don't see why there is any issue with the rig here. 88e have executed a contract for that rig to be on site for a contracted period by a contracted date window. I'm pretty sure the contract wording isn't "Once PANR have finished can we then have our go please" ! The only risk here is for PANR, in that they can not complete their operations in their contracted time window. I also agree that having the rig mobilised on another job is a good thing, iron out any bugs and ensure it is in tip top running order. Everything feels like it's warming up nicely. Just my opinion of course.
jjp1985, if you are investing in AIM with the aim of getting dividends you're investing in the wrong place my friend, I don't think anyone is investing in 88e thinking it they may get a nice quarterly payment !! That made me laugh. Personally I think this is the strongest position 88e have been in for years, fully funded, no debt, massively de-risked with income from Longhorn. With the quality 3D data they have for this drill and great results from PANR next door, I can't think of a previous drill with so much potential for success. As for the number of shares, it's reflected in the price, I don't see the point. Consolidation, why would they do that before such a promising drill, if that ever is on the cards, I can't see it being this year. Just my opinion.