Member Info for Olderwiser

I can assure one and all that Scot and I are different people, we may share a bent for rational objectivity. Many here know this

Chrisev1 06:01

Using the established variables, based on the only result to date, the BFF shrinkage rate of 78%

If the entire stacked drilled play delivers the calculated 144mmbo, that would be compared to the market value of a PANRs barrel.

This is an aggregation of contingent barrels as assessed by independent experts, with the Alkaid ZOI supported by a long term flow test on a horizontal multi stage stimulated production type well.

Roughly 1.5 billion recoverable barrels of blended oil and NGLs. There is considerable assessed upside to this by PANR, but leave that aside for now, and work with todays market cap of £285m/1.5b gives a conservative value of 19p per barrel

Using this 88Es 144mmbo x .19p would give a market cap add of £27m

I wont argue the PANR price is reflective of its asset value, my opinion is it should be closer to 4 times this, at say 76 pence/barrel, but the market does not agree.

Even using my opinion at 76p, 88e would then have a market cap of £108m (.0043/share)

Apply the same to the zones being tested with 29mmbo and it scales back dramatically

29 x .19p = £5.5 m MC (.00022/share)

29 x .76p = £22 m MC (.00088/share)

This is exclusively for the Hickory based project Phoenix impact currently under test

Part 1

Its been a very busy LSE site, with a huge amount of Rah Rah, and precious little chat on the value drivers. IMO over focused on the emotional feel good drivers, such as an up blip in share price, and posters uber positive sentiment expression, some would classify as ramping,.

There are actual facts to consider, that will give a basis for valuation.

What are 88e proving/flow testing this season

Upper SFS, a new reservoir with no estimate on recoverable barrels, take a generous assumption and grant it the same as the lower SFS, a best estimate of 84 million barrels of recoverable oil

SMDB the middle section of a triple reservoir, estimated to have a combined best recoverable of 140 million barrels of oil. It is indicated as the smaller of the three ABC. So again being generous take one third, 47mmbo

A combined pre drill estimate of 84(SFS) + 47(SMDB) = 131mmbo

What did they estimate pre drill, how accurate have the estimates been

The guide on translation from pre drill estimates to delivered independent contingent is the BFF reservoir. Where the net oil was estimated at 341mmbo, and the post drill result was 28mmbo to 88e after royalties and Burgundies share is removed. To again be generous, also allocate the NGLs of 57mmb (NGLs are around 85% of the value of oil) so bring back to oil value (57 x .85 = 48mmbo)

Now the total is 28 + 48 = 76,mmbo

In this best and generous scenario, the BFF reservoir 341 mmbo pre drill estimate, has delivered 76mmbo post drill, a shrinkage of ~78%

If this same shrinkage factor is applied, to the other 5 reservoirs as a possibility

SMDs 140 + LSFS 84 +USFS 84 = 308 -78% = 68 mmbo

To which the known 76mmbo in BFF can be added , a full total of 76 + 68 = 144 mmbo for all of the reservoirs except the Kuparuk, which can be written out, as 88e has already opted not drill this target last season.

They are brutal numbers for a community that talks of 621mmbo being a realistic expectation, none the less there is logic behind it

Break it back to the actual reservoirs 88e have decided to flow test, the Upper SFS and SMDB, (flow testing is the pre requisite in determining commercial potential. It is not reliable to predict to much, from PANRs Talitha well, some 9.3 miles away, in a shallower up dip location, which geologically should be better reservoir.

For 88e to accurately predict commerciality, would require an additional long term flow test, in a new step out location, such as the Icewine pad. PANR spent US $34 m on this at the Alkaid 2 well, in the Alkaid zone of interest reservoir)

It becomes SMDB 47 + USFS 84 = 131 mmbo -78% shrinkage factor = 29mmbo

Given, if the above 29mmbo is proven up with the current flow tests, and the considerable expense incurred in a long term flow test, also proves the discovery to be commercial.

Part 2

Then it becomes reasonable to compare against the neighbors, on a reservoir by reservoir and development stage basis

In todays comparison it is not apples with apples, but roughly after allowing for PANR debt, the market values a PANR recoverable barrel at roughly half the value of an 88e potential barrel (subject to success in the current flow test)

In short it is not a safe assumption, that the two flow test will prove a large and valuable resource, even if they flow well. PANR have been down that track and proven the market needs more, hence their revised strategy to take their oil to production in house

I can already envisage, a chorus of outrage from the blatant pumpers and rampers here, so be it. They are only here for a trade that will benefit them, at the expense of those that fall for the hype

But for the other investors, ask if you are better off, with a counter point post to consider, in your decision, on what the value may be, and where the risk reward sits. Hanging on for an ultimate pay day, that is not grounded in reason can leave you disappointed

Take the time to unpick the logic, as any permanent value will be rationally decided, by farm in or other partners/buyers, not the hype brigade

Yet another fine example of the deception, carefully woven into the posts of brevarthan/troughsnout .

Comprehensively exposed for all to witness, cheers Scot126,

Just a manipulating shorters campaign, deceptive to the core as we have come to expect

Something that may have slipped under the radar

In the Alkaid 2 long term test of the Alkaid anomaly, the combined stream of oil, condensate and NGLs have been valued at 90% of the ANS pricing. This IP 30, 505 bpd stream was composed of, 180 bopd of oil and 325 bpd of condensate and NGLs.

Put in percent 36% oil and 64% condensate and NGLs

Compare that to the latest result from the SMDB vertical flow test, at a range of 50 to 140 bpd of combined stream. Using the most conservative result the 50bpd, the composition is 30 bopd of oil and 20 bpd of condensate and NGLs

Put in percent, 60% oil and 40% condensate and NGLs

So the question is how much does that ratio shift to the more valuable oil side change the 90% value

By my calculation it becomes, 93.76% value, it is a base input to the economic return, and skews the result even further to the positive.

Additionally the NGLs in the SMDB have been cut off at pentane (C5), so none of the lower valued butane(C4) or propane(C3) has been included, which again moves the value of the NGLs up. IMO there would be no surprise, if the value of the blended stream went above 95%, of ANS crude

With 88e about to commence its first flow test on the uppers SFS, result should be out soon after the scheduled 10 day duration

This could be a very interesting result for PANR on the upper SFS, which going by this from the RNS 21/4/23 they are well aware of. My read/speculation is the 88e upper SFS, is the PANR upper lobe of a SFS. If it proves a commercial flow, PANR can bank reservoir all the way back to Talitha, and Pipeline state. 88e state this is a distance of 9.3 miles to Talitha, I am not sure they got the distance correct, as the maps appear to show less.

If 88e have positive result PANR can add to the existing estimates, if not it stays the same

Pg14

https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02612833.pdf

PANR

"We are pleased to find that the preliminary data confirms our pre-Hickory drill interpretation, confirming the multiple stacked pay zones (including two lobes of a Slope Fan System, as encountered in Talitha #A). Hickory #1 effectively extends the proven plays that Pantheon has discovered and been evaluating for several years."

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/pantheon_resources/news/rns/story/xelnj2r

Previous post a bit jumbled in the breaking into two parts

Part 2

Troughsnout 18:18

We should note that nitrogen lift is not inexpensive – it appears it was a major factor of the earlier Alkaid 2 ZOI completion running way over budget (see pumping and chemicals, below).

5) Rubbish, pumping and chemicals refers to frack pumps and chemicals associated with modifying water into suitable slick water. If N2 has been included here it would be a minor cost, and will not be applicable in production, as natural gas is then available

Snapshot from Pantheon Webinar Summer 2023:

As a holder of what looks like a failed short position, it is fair to put a point of view, but this level of deception is unethical IMO

Part 2

Troughsnout 18:18

We should note that nitrogen lift is not inexpensive – it appears it was a major factor of the earlier Alkaid 2 ZOI completion running way over budget (see pumping and chemicals, below).

5) Rubbish, pumping and chemicals refers to frack pumps and chemicals associated with major factor of the earlier Alkaid 2 ZOI completion running way over budget (see pumping and chemicals, below).

5) Rubbish, pumping and chemicals refers to frack pumps and chemicals associated with modifying water into suitable slick water. If N2 has been included here it would be a minor cost, and will not be applicable in production, as natural gas is then available

Snapshot from Pantheon Webinar Summer 2023:

As a holder of what looks like a failed short position, it is fair to put a point of view, but this level of deception is unethical IMO

Troughsnout 18:18

Part 1

You are no doubt aware of my previous rebuttal of your disinformation, in which the prime case you created from thin air is undone. I suggest you look it up

Moving along lets look at this section for more errors, I will prefix my replies with the word rubbish, where inserted, 5 glaring errors in just one page by my count

Pressure & Nitrogen Lift

The Ahpun “topset” test zone initial reservoir pressure is 3490 psig (below initial expectations) and the bubble point of the reservoir fluid is close at 3500 psig (25/1/24). This will be difficult to handle to avoid excessive gas production (their gas flashing).

1) Rubbish, PANR have already allocated and budgeted, 1 reinjection well per 3 producers. Furthermore the in production GOR drop achieved at the SMDB flow test, demonstrates how easily handled this is

Nitrogen was used after 5 days presumably to lighten well bore load and reduce downhole pressure allowing the oil to flow freely and reduce having to drawdown below bubble point.

2) Rubbish, a logic fail, using N2 to reduce down hole pressure in the wellbore, will of course INCREASE the drawdown below bubble point

Nitrogen is expensive and it does appear that they will have to use it from the outset to maximize oil production: the question is for how long per well.

3) Rubbish, N2 is used as a starter gas only, once natural gas is in play as the well produces, it becomes the lift gas and N2 use stops. I have worked on low gas yield oil fields where N2 is only used in the very rare occasions that the facility is fully depressuried. It is the produced with an onsite N2 generator. A simple reverse osmosis and compression set up that produces N2 at 99% purity from air itself, which is already 79% N2. Takes about 6 hours

As the company stated:

“Expectations for flow rates, water saturations and water cuts had led to plans for nitrogen lift (necessary to reduce bottom hole pressure and ensure that fluids were recovered to surface). Encouragingly, nitrogen injection was not required until the last six days of the eleven day test, resulting in the operation coming in at or below budgeted timelines and costs.”

The encouraging fact that nitrogen lift wasn’t required until the last six days of the eleven day test is perhaps balanced by the fact that the well only flowed oil for five days of the test (we don’t even know if these were the final five days).

4) Rubbish, the sequence is known to be, recovery of frack fluids first, then transition to reservoir fluids. (PANR “During the flow test, after recovery of approximately 60% of the frac fluids,”)Given the 11,000 bbls of water pumped in, that would be some 6600 barrels recovered, quite the flow rate in fact.

Hepran, it is not that simple

https://glossary.slb.com/terms/d/dry_hole

dry hole

1. n. [Drilling]

A wellbore that has not encountered hydrocarbons in economically producible quantities. Most wells contain salt water in some zones. In addition, the wellbore usually encounters small amounts of crude oil and natural gas. Whether the well is a "DUSTER" depends on many factors of the economic equation, including proximity to transport and processing infrastructures, local market conditions, expected completion costs, tax and investment recovery conditions of the jurisdiction and projected oil and gas prices during the productive life of the well.

See: crude oil, duster, hydrocarbon, natural gas

Adz_K

Are you basing the optimism on satellite pictures, if so, I think that is a bit unlikely as a reveal, the resolution is too low to pick it up IMO. A roadside picture might capture something, as it is unlikely to be large

What could be occurring at this point in the timeline, is the flaring of diesel from the wellbore, that has been used as freeze protection to below the permafrost zone (maybe 1500ft). Or more simply the significant IR/UV heat signature from the operating equipment

To give a perspective on the possible flare size during the flow testing of the SMDB and Upper SFS zones

From the latest PANR testing results on their SMDB, far to the North at Alkaid 2, the GOR varied from 3000 to 4000scf/barrel of oil produced.

On their best days production 100 barrels of oil were produced, so 300,000 to 400,0000scf of gas produced per day range

Take the mid point of 350,000scf/d and convert to ft/second (86400 secs per day) gives 4.05scf/sec

For those that think in metric, that is 0.115m3, or 115 litres per second.

A 2000cc car engine at 3000 rpm or 50rpsec would give around 100 litres/sec

So when looking for a flare, think a fuel source no bigger than an average car exhaust plume

The diesel power plants on the rig will be far in excess of this

To give a perspective on the possible flare size during the flow testing of the SMDB and Upper SFS zones

From the latest PANR testing results on their SMDB, far to the North at Alkaid 2, the GOR varied from 3000 to 4000scf/barrel of oil produced.

On their best days production 100 barrels of oil were produced, so 300,000 to 400,0000scf of gas produced per day range

Take the mid point of 350,000scf/d and convert to ft/second (86400 secs per day) gives 4.05scf/sec

For those that think in metric, that is 0.115m3, or 115 litres per second.

A 2000cc car engine at 3000 rpm or 50rpsec would give around 100 litres/sec

So when looking for a flare, think a fuel source no bigger than an average car exhaust plume

The diesel power plants on the rig will be far in excess of this

Re Brevarthan Research

“You’re the spoofer, the playactor, the two-faced fraud—the stool pigeon, the scandalmongerer—the prowler and the rat—the human trafficker and the car jacker,”

Bob Dylan, sums it up

Brevarthan Research has produced an appalling misrepresentation of the facts, perhaps related to the need for shorts to exit, before good news on financing, Hickory or the updated Kodiak report from NSAI are released

Laughable in its attempt to reinterpret oil field terminology and common English language, in a blatant attempt to create confusion where there is none

Case in point below in quotation marks

“Confusingly, for a company whose main objective is discovering oil (given Alaska’s current unsuitability for other hydrocarbon streams), in neither of these releases do we see an actual “oil rate”. In the first quote the oil rate is qualified by the parenthesised “separator liquids” which from elsewhere in the press release we guess (but can’t be sure) means heavier NGLs, condensate and black oil. No mention of actual black oil rate, however. Why?”

There is nothing confusing about “separator liquids” It is oil exiting the 3 phase separator.

As is well known a 3 phase separator, separates oil, gas and water, into 3 separate streams, condensate and NGLs remain in the gas stream as there was no chiller to cause them to drop out with the oil, oil and water come out as individual liquid streams.

So to be clear it is oil only, not condensate or NGLs, as mischievously suggested

Now to marketable liquids at 140 bpd, again no confusion, clear as a bell. They are a combination of oil + condensate + NGLs, the quantities are given with a 100 barrels of oil day, now having a further 40 bpd of condensate and heavy NGLs (all in the C5+ range, added from the gas stream liquids recovery, so none of the less valuable C4 (butane ) or C3(propane) included)

How Brevarthan is confused is truly a mystery, its all there in black and white, quantities and ratios

Then to GOR, again simple as

Measured GOR (3000 to 4000scf/bbl) is the actual in production number as the oil flow from the separator is compared to the gas flow off the top of the separator. This gas off the separator is rich in recoverable liquids, adding 162 barrels of liquids/million scf of gas

Calculated GOR of 1012 scf/bbl is the in reservoir undisturbed ratio, the actual number nature has created.

Brevarthans calculations in fact arrive back at the number range PANR have already stated for a 50 bbl day, 30 barrels of oil plus 20 barrels of other salable liquids, so 60% oil and 40% high value C5+ NGLs

Or in the 140 barrel day, 100 barrels of oil and 40 barrels of C5+ liquids, so 71% oil and 29% C5+

How on earth do they get so confused

In summary it is all a beat up based on misinterpreting the released data, then crafted this into a series of deceptions, based on those misinterpretations

Shareguru22 10:24

The comparison of Net asset bases is a flawed analysis in junior oil explorers, as that asset is mostly loaded with exploration and drilling expenses, that the companies have capitalized, rather than take as a loss when incurred.

In the 88e case some $107m of the asset is this, (not yet written off exploration expenses ) it can change very quickly. As it did when 88e finally wrote off $67m of its Perigrene costs in the previous term

What the market is saying is, it does not have much faith, that these “assets” have much chance of being valuable

The real asset is not the costs of finding oil in the past, it is the oil you prove and its value after costs that matters

In the current 88e case, by my calculation of the 88e released numbers. They are flow testing targets (SMDB and the upper SFS), that could contain as much as 125m barrels. In the success case that these prove up volume wise, and flow commercial rates, the going rate for assets at this stage of development is still low.

Bring it to production and the value will go parabolic, but that will require considerable further investment. PANR have costed it at $120m to first oil barrel, and they already have the long term, multistage horizontal production test required for proof of commerciality, completed and paid for

PANRs assets are similar, but the difference is the probability, these sunken exploration costs will translate into a viable producing oil field. Their projects are on track to be producers, the data supports development. The project is underway, they are passed the pure exploration stage of 88e

Shareguru22 10:24

The comparison of Net asset bases is a flawed analysis in junior oil explorers, as that asset is mostly loaded with exploration and drilling expenses, that the companies have capitalized, rather than take as a loss when incurred.

In the 88e case some $107m of the asset is this, (not yet written off exploration expenses ) it can change very quickly. As it did when 88e finally wrote off $67m of its Perigrene costs in the previous term

What the market is saying is, it does not have much faith, that these “assets” have much chance of being valuable

The real asset is not the costs of finding oil in the past, it is the oil you prove and its value after costs that matters

In the current 88e case, by my calculation of the 88e released numbers. They are flow testing targets (SMDB and the upper SFS), that could contain as much as 125m barrels. In the success case that these prove up volume wise, and flow commercial rates, the going rate for assets at this stage of development is still low.

Bring it to production and the value will go parabolic, but that will require considerable further investment. PANR have costed it at $120m to first oil barrel, and they already have the long term, multistage horizontal production test required for proof of commerciality, completed and paid for

Relevant to the quality of the reservoir, how easily it will flow, tighter deeper flows less. So even if it is present it may never be commercial to extract

Deeper burial will not necessarily change oil quality, but deeper is also hotter which cooks oil into gas if it is too deep/hot

I would not expect that to be a factor here

SG22

You are confusing tight oil with conventional oil, where the permeability allows the gas, oil and water to separate into different zones, stacking on top of each other.

This is tight oil where all three exist in the same pore space, and as a rule the gas is mostly dissolved in the oil

88e are flow testing only two zones, the SMDB and upper SFS, that is this season target

Going on 88es independent expert estimated numbers

SMDB has ~40 million barrels

The upper SFS has no given estimate at all

How did it get missed there are 3 separate parts to the SMDs, A, B and C, only B is getting a flow test, it is the smaller reservoir

Then bear in mind the Basin floor fan had an initial estimate of 341 million barrels, but only yielded 85 million barrels post drilling.

Apply that kind of shrinkage to the initial SFS and SMD targets and the prospects diminish considerably

SG22

That is absolutely incorrect

Oil is lighter than water, therefore it floats on water, it rises to the updip

Secondly it is tight oil here, so will not be flowing any where significant, without a comprehensive fracture and stimulation program.

Deeper burial will create greater compaction of the reservoir, which will make for an even tighter reservoir

Hi Scot

The relative ratings make no sense to me. PANR are derisked by the already achieved flow tests of their reservoirs, this is the stage 88e hope to achieve this season. Making 88e barrels still cum a risk event, and with an expectation the flow will be lower than PANRs even in a success case, as the reservoirs are deeper, with greater compaction

I have tried to understand the quantities 88e are attempting to prove further in the two targeted zones, and come up with 125mmbo. Which would further increase the market value attributed to the already more speculative 88e barrel

See repost of relevant section from my Hot copper post

"Beyond that it is important to be clear on what is being tested and the expectations on volume of oil.

There are two zones being tested.

The newly encountered upper SFS, at present there is no estimated volume associated with this target. I would not expect it be as large as the lower SFS estimate of net best of 84mmbo, as it did not show in the previous seismic, but for the sake of argument assume a generous 84mmbo.

Then there is the SMDB reservoir, all up the sum of SMDs A + B + C is estimated at net best of 140mmbo. In breaking this down refer to page 17 (December 2022 presentation) https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02612833.pdf

in which SMDB is allocated 80 production wells, with SMDA and C having a combined 196, so giving 29% of the SMDs within the SMDB reservoir. Worked through that gives a estimated target of 41mmbo for the SMDB being tested.

Over both the SFS and SMDB it is a quite modest 125mmbo in the success case.

Then bear in mind these are down dip reservoirs at greater risk of reduced flow rates, due to compaction and composition, the SMDB is around 1000 ft deeper, plus DMAX adding about another 1000 ft of effective burial depth.

https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02508470.pdf Pg3 "