We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Skippysb01
The experts and non experts are not confused, the interpretation of what it means has been repeated over and over here.
Investor are choosing not to believe or acknowledge it, for their own reasons
SSccss
You are getting it now, it is a monumental blunder by 88e, they wrote an entirely ambiguous RNS, twice in a row.
I and others emailed them for clarification on the 24.8 stk barrels v 42 bopd average in the USFS test, no answers given by 88e
The true meaning has been uncovered
Now investors know how 88e massage the message, trust drops to zero
Taxi, 09:05 that's not correct
This is how they do it, shareholder ratify prior issues at a GM, as was done at this meeting, every share that is ratified by share holders is then available for reissue
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02753879.pdf
RESOLUTION 1 – RATIFICATION OF PRIOR ISSUE OF SHORTFALL OFFER PLACEMENT
SHARES – LISTING RULE 7.1
To consider and, if thought fit, to pass, with or without amendment, the following
resolution as an ordinary resolution:
“That, for the purposes of Listing Rule 7.4 and for all other purposes,
Shareholders ratify the issue of 675,000,000 Shares on the terms and
conditions set out in the Explanatory Statement.”
A voting exclusion statement applies to this Resolution. Please see below
Taxi
Re the 10 and 15% dilution limits, there is a means to exceed these limits
. 88e have done it regularly, call a general meeting, get shareholders to approve the shares already issued in the term. It resets the % limits, so 88e can start afresh
Taxi
I think you are missing the central point, PANR have costed the reinfection of gas produced, as a by product of oil production
No doubt in their budgets it is a cost, requiring 1 reinjection well per 3 producers, even with this cost the projects are excellent. No return is budgeted from the gas, but there is a possibility that that cost, the gas could become an asset, if the gas pipeline is built, as the gas would then be sold for a modest price giving a bonus income, and the considerable cost of reinjection would no longer be required to the same extent
More thinking and less accusing would work better for all, knowledge is power and all
I have been working on decoding the announcement, from what I conclude the 4 barrels in the stock tank stands, also acknowledge it is a calculated number as stated by 88e, IMO as the stock tank gauge is not sufficiently accurate to make such a fine measurement
Looking for a cross check from the 4% average oil cut, and the managed fluid flow rate of ~170 bbl/d over the 16 hr oil cut period
170 bbls per day for 16 hrs, is 67% of 170 = 114 bbls total
114 x 4% average oil cut over the same 16 hrs = 4.56 barrels of oil
Its not a precise match but close enough for me, given the number of `~ approximates and possible rounding errors, ie is the 4% a rounding of a lesser number say 3.6%, or the 4 barrels a rounding of 4.4 bbls
LTI
Yes decoded, stop the spin let the facts fall out
Lots of pigs ears, no silk purses
88e could have written a clear explanation of the results, but chose to so mix, averages with peaks, superlatives and produced barrels that the average investors head spun
The hard reality is setting in, all the fluffing and pumping is failing
88e have produced 4 barrels of oil from the SMDB, in a flow test designed to prove a commercial flow rate, that is a nothing
Such a small nothing, the tank it went to, would not even register it accurately on the gauge, hence the "calculated" 4 barrels
The USFS did better at 24.8 barrels, but proved very gas prone
Overall these are poor results
88e has made the most of it, legitimately claiming discovery, which only means some oil flowed, Their use of peak flow rates, rather than daily averages, has created this media circus
Luckily the truth behind the spin has been decoded,
Sharebel
Yep you are ramping, its obvious, there is no hundreds of millions of barrels of discovered recoverable oil. 88e have never stated that
Defamation requires something to be untrue, by the way so no worries here
Sscss
Clearly you are wrong about that, look at how irate posters get, when others correctly insist the flow was 4 barrels in 16 hrs of oil cut
Skippysb01
Its not a water flow, bopd means oil
I agree the writing is appalling though, reading it you automatically think they have flowed 50 barrels in a day, but no it is a peak rate of 50bopd. Which must have been for a very very short time as they flowed oil for 16 hours and only produced 4 barrels in the stk tank
No stas20
You are a trader and want the best for you, at the expense of another
Sharebel
That there is a blatant unfounded ramp, shame on you
Sheldon
Its the latest SMDB result, it only has 4 barrels of oil in the tank, after 16 hours of oil flowback, and then they stopped the test.
As a compare PANR tested the same reservoir up dip where the porosity is better, and flowed an average of 45 bopd for 5 days, and that was with the hand brake on, to minimize flashing in the reservoir
Stas20
The difference between us is I have called it straight, but you have an agenda
Sharebel
You know we all have charts and can see the 450m shares sold off
Gemstar, WOW, that's the kind of bottom of the barrel nonsense crazy helpful might dream up.
Problem is all the capital is repaid/ costed and the $10/ barrel is the remaining profit.
But bear in mind it needs a good productive well to work. not a 4 barrel fizzer
Stas20
You are just plain wrong, I own no shares, and wont be buying any, and don't have a short
Called both of these as poor prospects long enough ago, for you not to be in this position, blind leading the blind ? or pumper fleecing the gullible ?
I calculate its pumper, now trying to get out
JohnWick1
About now you should be thinking, should I ignore fact based posts, just because I dont want to know
HSG
You are talking rubbish, they only got 4 barrels in the tank in the SMDB flow test, and the SMDB and USFS are their very best zones, that's why they were selected for flow testing
If anyone is unscrupulous its the pumpers trying to save their skins.
I recall you, weren't you the one arguing we would not see a flare because it was illegal, to flare in Alaska, even if you have a permit