We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Treeshake, MMs, shorters, burnt investors, what manner of misinformation will you try next
The answer is simple, the flow rates were poor, they needed top tier flow rates, the gilding the lily has not worked
The market is adjusting
Skippy
They are very reluctant to move on from failure, still holding candles for Merlin, Charlie, Umiat
Barno
That was a year ago
Since then PANR have had a great flow test result, and 88e just had this bad one
SMDB 4 barrels in 16 hrs
USFS 19 barrels in the best 10.5 hours they could find
Both tests stopped before sustainable flows could be stated, I have to think that is a bad thing. Otherwise they would have flowed for longer
Who was the genius that calculated this £20 to £40 million a year
With such low flows and a $17m drill and complete cost, it just will not happen
Ssccss
There have been a number of formal complaints laid with the ASX, I think this is the result, a reluctant clarification
Openhiemer
Did you seriously think you could post a series of rampy B/S, and that would fix a production of 4 barrels of oil problem in the SMDB, one of 88Es best targets
Looks like a fresh batch of pumpers have hit the board, talking big
But the company just confirmed the numbers
4 barrels from the SMDB
24.8 from the USFS
Multiply by 12 and its still small
US $17m for a well that produces those rates will go broke
Openhiemer
Yep the numbers are clear
SMDB 4 barrels in 16 hours
USFS 19 barrels in 10,5 hours
Poor numbers
Sharebel
You ask investors to ignore the facts, and just follow your shameless ramps, MMs to blame, not the geology, and so on
I bet the ones you duped are spitting tacks right now
Taxi
The ASX close was a last second spike to .5c, look up marking the close. It is a pattern close to a capital raise to see this kind of price support
My screen shows a trading range of .004 to .0045 all day, with only one last second spike to .005
Which is supported by the VWAP of 0.00445
Taxi, you can and should dismiss the 70bopd rate, it is not sustainable, and only gets in the RNS as a fluffer, to give false hope to the gullible. The average is the only number that counts, and as in my earlier post 11 hrs is not long enough to make the average meaningful
Oil wells must have sustainable flows, if you are going to count this peak, you must also count the trough of 10 bopd.
Then average it all together for a meaningful number, after all the economics are determined by the daily production rates over a year.
Then you have to factor the decline rate over a year, eg PANR have modelled their SMDB, at 4000 bopd at IP30 (average over the first 30 days), which translates to 2000bopd average for the 1st year of production, because tight oil reservoir have a sharp decline rate, 50 to 60% being quite good
Finally 88e has been made it clear, the USFS flowed at a CALCULATED 42 bopd RATE for the best 10.5 hrs during oil flow cut, and the 70bopd was only for 30 minutes
The SMDB was much worse at only 4 barrels in 16hrs, and the 50 bopd was momentary/instantaneous
So to be clear, no sane investors can multiply instantaneous peaks, by 6 to 12x, to arrive at an expected production rate from a horizontal.
The numbers to use must be sustainable flows, and neither of these tests ran for long enough for 88e to include the words, sustained flow.
Investors are left with incomplete results, and the question, how could 88e have so mismanaged, flow testing on a pre existing well, that they ran out of time to do the job properly, on both tests.
Just another 24 hrs on each would have been much more indicative of the potential
So what are the numbers using the most optimistic assumption that the calculated rates are sustainable, and the upper range of the 6 to 12 is used
USFS 42 x 12 = 504 barrels
SMDB 6 x 12 = 72 barrels
USFS
“During the established production period of 10.5 hours the well produced at an average oil flow rate of ~ 42 bopd during the natural flow back period, producing a total of ~ 19bbls of oil. Approximately 6bbls of oil was also recovered during the clean up / non-established production period. • The USFS test produced at a peak flow rate of over ~70 bopd, which was an instantaneous rate calculated during flow back period via an oil tank volume measurement of 1.55 bbls over a 30 minute period. “
SMDB
“The well produced at an average oil cut of 4% following initial oil to surface, with instantaneous rates observed during the 16-hour period varying as the well continued to clean up at managed fluid flow rate of ~170 bbls/d with a calculated total volume during the flow back period following establishment of oil cut of ~4 bbls of oil. • The SMD-B test produced at a calculated peak flow rate of ~50 bopd, which was an instantaneous rate calculated during the flow back period via a measurement of observed oil cut and fluid flow rates”
Https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02796819.pdf
There it is confirmation that USFS 42bopd is a calculated value, achieved by picking the best 11 hrs of production, in which 19 barrels are produced.
No explanation of the SMDB 4 barrels
It is a shocker, in the way this has been spun
Sharebel
Instead of posting huge amounts gibberish, focused on personalities, and conspiracy theories about MM holding share prices back.
Why dont you put your energy into something meaningful . like the truth behind 4 barrels in the tank v a 50bopd flow rate
Imagine the positive effect you would create if you could demonstrate that 50 bopd was a sustainable rate v the one quarter bbl per hour 4 barrels in 16 hrs calculates to
Ausnsw
When you tell a lie, dont be so nerve wracked when it gets called. Wriggling away from your lie, by recasting it as an assumption, is a poor excuse
As to your question I tend to ignore Taunts, as they are meaningless to knowledge acquisition
But here goes, yes PANR dropped from its high, and yes it was still good value there.
The reason it dropped was a dishonest sustained short attack that was able to exaggerate a few unclear results, such as the high GOR (12k to 14K/bbl) displayed in the Alkaid long term flow test, that had an IP 30 of 505 bpd of salable liquids v the expectation of 750 bpd of oil.
All of which has subsequently proven to be no problem, so no basis on fundamentals for the beat down
So in fairness, should you not also be commending those same posters that commented on the extra ordinary value PANR held at 10p ,20p, 30p and probably 40p, 50p, £1, £2 and so on
The important fact in relation to funding, is the timeline at which funding is required.
The quoted $150 m included 3 delineation/exploration wells in Kodiak, with $120m being for initial production in Ahpun, including G&A till then
What is required is a funding stream that draws, as required, with the bulk of it being at the back end, where drilling, hot tap and refrigeration plant are paid for. This will place the heavy expenditure close to receipts of oil revenues
Funding options, be it vendor, off taker, reserve backed lending, debt, or equity, will be accessed as needed, not some big pile of cash sitting in PANRs bank account earning less interest than it costs to have
More a commitment to advance services when required, by say the vendor client.
I understand the impatience by investors to rip off the plaster, pre fund everything now and tell the fudsters where to stick it. But that option would although satisfying, lead to greater dilution than required, so I am happy to let PANR follow the path they have laid out (minimize dilution) , continue to build the share price with more IERs and other progressions
Raise small amounts via equity if required against an ever improving share price if prudent, the end goal is clear $5 to $10 per barrel, of an ever increasing amount of resource, with vastly improving flow rates, significantly above the now ultra conservative modelling, used in the base case that delivered $10/bbl at $80 ANS oil price
Taxi
Sorry I did not get back to you on this. I am not 100% sure of the intricacies so did not want to give guidance.
Take this generalization with a pinch of salt , more opinion than fact.
Escrow is a hold on shares that the owner holds, it means they cannot be sold with out permission from a third interested party. In the ELKO case say, 88e had to approve the sale before it could transact, but Elko would have been the owner. This of course can have a cloud of invisibility thrown over it through nominee holdings etc
Ausnsw and redirons
Stop lying . I have never filtered either of you, or in fact anyone here. If you get ignored it is because of your content alone.
Filtered or ignored are different things, just like spin and lies are different. If 88e spins a 4 barrels produced into a 50 bopd peak headline, thats spin, so long as the 50bopd rate was achieved for even 1 minute , it is true. It would be a lie if they claimed we produced 50 barrels of oil in a day
Subtle differences make all the difference to perception
What a co incidence, the crew of rampers from 88e, where every word is a celebration, facts are hissed at like they are demons and logical discussion is shouted down, are moving in vent their frustration at their failed annual pump and dump.
The blame for the failed pump and dump of course goes to posters like myself, who committed to bringing fact and analysis to the 88e table, so allowing the intended victims to escape the fiction mob mindset that was being sustained so vigorously
Time has now shown, the tight down dip low net to gross pay reservoirs have flow tested poorly, with their SMDB only producing 4 barrels of oil, in 16 hrs in the oil producing section of flow back and clean up.
No apologies from me for bringing fact to fantasy land, and geology always was going to have the last say.
Unremarkable for me to see this same crew of deceivers, have now changed their spots and can only find FUD to spread here, what ever happened to the unicorns and rainbows
MMO
Your blinkers are fogging up, no one is saying I told you so or gloating