Member Info for Phrontist

We should remember, 88E SP is also low because Crude Oil price is low. There are plenty of oil production companies with MC down some $20 billion.
The global energy consumption is changing, we know that. But there are still plenty of oil uses in remote electricity generation, air flight, chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture, and so on.
88E land will still be 2 years until production when Brent Crude would have risen from today's price of $43/b to possibly double.
Substantial de-risking could lead to sale of leases for substantial $ price making dramatic improvement in our SP.
Today business looks depressing for many, but rising from the pits can give the biggest % MC increases.
Phrontist

We should remember, 88E SP is also low because Crude Oil price is low. There are plenty of oil production companies with MC down some $20 billion.
The global energy consumption is changing, we know that. But there are still plenty of oil uses in remote electricity generation, air flight, chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture, and so on.
88E land will still be 2 years until production when Brent Crude would have risen from today's price of $43/b to possibly double.
Substantial de-risking could lead to sale of leases for substantial $ price making dramatic improvement in our SP.
Today business looks depressing for many, but rising from the pits can give the biggest % MC increases.
Phrontist

Muscat
I agree.
DW is not perfect, but he does have the resilience to keep fighting on which a young exploration company needs.
Four Drills is quite a low number, it cannot be described as a failure. This geological investigation will result in commercial oil flow.
The now late, but expected soon, analysis of Charlie-1 Drill programme could produce some very good information to support next FO programmes.
Phrontist

Our money was drained with the Icewine-2 project.
Two years of costs to discover bitumen blockage.
What I can't understand is, why was this not realised with analysis of Icewine-1 samples and the glowing report saying better than Eagle Ford.
Unfortunately PB is no longer with us to throw light on the subject.
But DW had already gone 3D Seismic hunting for conventional anywhere he can buy up or do some deal.
And 88E does not have financial strength to pursue both conventional and unconventional.
Until/But, we had a US$23million drill, by luck FOC.
Which is giving us an excellent break on Central North Slopes.
Hopefully choice of technology and analysis company will produce good next stage guidance in RNS soon on CNS region.
88E has had 4 Drills to date in 3 separate areas. That is NOT smart.
Next FO Drill chance in CNS region should be a Strike.
Next move on XCD likely to be 3D Seismic. Then?
Plus an FO unconventional Drill in CNS region for HRZ oil flow test.
IMHO two, even all three could be successful.
Phrontist

10:22
The fundamental issues will remain the same....
THE issue, following XCD integration, is will a shuffled BoD enable / discover an improved plan with optimistic future.
At the moment there is NO plan, so how can we believe in a future?
Phrontist

Note to negative people...
Yes, Free Speech web site, but why do you bother?
I still believe that there is a substantial amount of oil under our patch, recoverable at a commercial rate.
Oil Price will rise, our production is at least a year away, volume at least two years.
Insults may fly at our BoD, but no one is perfect.
As a Team, they are pretty good.
Many people underestimate the impact of our JV Burgundy. Even without PB.
This has become a longer Project than most felt way back in 2015.
Lack of experience.
And a big factor is the Annual Weather cycle combined with difficulties in transporting large amounts of kit across only 30 miles.
Once oil flow is discovered, I imagine gravel roads which can lead to big improvement in Field Work /annum.
I am as disappointed as others that 2 or 3 years has become 6 or 7 years.
BUT there is a reason why so much Lease land has been bought up in this area.
And you will discover that reason in medium term.
Phrontist

20:56
Lab Results could indicate commercial oil is accessible using Charlie-1 with horizontal drilling.
I don't know, you don't know either.
PMO had other reasons to withdraw as opposed to staying and incurring more time and cost.
You may have noticed, PMO's SP dropped from 107p to under 13p before Charlie-1 completed its drilling.
Something to do with Crude Oil price crash, coronavirus impositions, and an HK Shorter....

Yes, XCD / 88E share swap offer is extended from tomorrow to mid-July.
Some suggest that 88E BoD are waiting for XCD Merger to complete before Charlie-1 lab Results RNS.
This suggests the Charlie-1 RNS could be released tomorrow, but will not be.
I don't think our BoD are that stupid.
Also...
Analysing material and results from Charlie-1 is a BIG job.
7 layers and HRZ.
Will this RNS be 'just results analysed' or 'results analysed and next business steps suggested'.
The former leaves us hanging i.e. 'what next?'
The latter could suggest an aspect of Charlie-1 could be made commercial, with a how and when.
Or, the latter could suggest 'FO to drill in new spot (Charlie-2?) where we are sure of commercial oil flow based on our geology knowledge and Lab Assessments etc.'

For us shareholders, the position for us today is, 'we know nothing on this topic other than last relevant RNS'.
Next RNS seems second half of July....
Phrontist

Danny,
Delays should mean technical analysis is still ongoing.
Because if it were finished, regardless of result, shareholders should be advised.
Phrontist

The opportunity with HRZ is that every well is identical over, potentially, 4 bbo slacked into a massive underground mattress shaped region.
This means the production company can invest in its own purpose made vertical well and drill operation staff.
Here lies the reduction in $/barrel production cost.

Icewine-2 is worth a think. Cost was about $15m over 6 weeks. About $2.5m/month noting it was next to Dalton Highway. I don't have the experience to cost having our own rig built, but the capital cost could be financed over many years.
Inland Wells would need gravel roads and pipelines but on a large scale many years operation, this can reduce costs considerably.
Personally, I have a gut feel that under $30/b production cost can be achieved, even under $25/b.
Many Saudi and Russian facilities are under $20/b.
Phrontist

Icewine-1 produced samples from the HRZ layer in 2016
These samples were extensively Lab Analysed.
Lab never identified.
Summary of analysis was, HRZ layer is better than Eagle Ford.

Icewine-2 drilled for oil flow in 2017, no flow occurred.
Additional effort put into Icewine-2 in 2018, no oil flow.
After year of research, expert report stated why no oil flow.
The Franklin Bluffs location was not a good location, the oil was emerging as bitumen, blocking and preventing flow.

2020 had Charlie-1 drill and successfully retrieve d HRZ samples.
These are being analysed by Lab, not identified.
The first Lab failed 100% in its Report, unable to identify bitumen result.
This failure has cost 88E three years at great expense.
Will the new Lab be able to identify presence of bitumen?
Will they say bitumen problem will not occur at Charlie-1?
Will they have same competence level at 'Lab One'?
Meaning, when Lab Two gives results, is it a competent Report?

Phrontist

Whatever you think as negative thoughts, you are wrong.
DW is sitting on 80million 88E shares with a few more million on the way from XCD merger.
He, and other directors and staff, will be grafting to the highest effort and level.
The contacts, subcontractors, etc will be in the top etchelons of ability in oil excavation.
Why would anyone think different.
The Charlie-1 drill was/is in an excellent spot providing substantial geological information for use within a large area.
The next Drill will be a Strike.
Just have e little confidence and belief.
Phrontist

Spinefx
I agree with you, the limited Charlie-1 RNS comments on vapour phase.
My positive side says to me that there is much information to uncover from the Charlie-1 Drill Results. Technology today for use during Drill and post Drill analysis are considerably advanced on even 2 years back.
HRZ raises my interest and curiosity.
Going back to the Lab Results from Icewine-1 core, I still have some questions. The biggest one is, why is it that bitumen was not found in that analysis?
Will the current Charlie-1 Lab Analysis fail in the same way? Or will they address the issue why bitumen occurred in Icewine-2 but will not occur in Charlie-1 location?
For me, HRZ remains a multi-billion barrels of oil possibility.
Phrontist

Thanks Rabito.
As I said, my only information on PANR was the Webinar plus a few facts from LSE. It was a rambling multi-person delivery about 80 minutes with some excellent presentation slides. Their land connects to ours, there will be some common geological features.
When a company buys another company they can legally claim the bought businesses history.
I noticed the panel stating conv and unconv but crossed out unconv on my notes when the last speaker stated they were only active on conventional.
Clearly their current profile has a lot in common with us, but a very different history, much based on Great Bear.
I recollect from one slide that they have 4 or 5 Drills behind them. Only one oil flow but confident the others are potential commercial assets.
PB said to me that his plan was for a string of exploration wells going North from Franklin Bluffs and staying next to the highway to minimise development costs and increase the working year period since the highway is kept serviced and open 365 days a year.
Unfortunately for HRZ supporters, 88E decided to pursue conventional options when Icewine-2 ran into difficulties.
Phrontist

Jof, I have looked at the document, it is pretty long.
PANR bought out Great Bear.
P

Jof, all I can say is, look at the PANR Feb Webinar.
At the end, after well over an hour, they have some sound-bite panels on the screen. One of them states that they have invested $200m in Alaska operations.
That is all I know.
Phrontist

Brom, how is Panr SP and MC so high compared to 88E?
Surely the difference is not 1 Oil Flow Test at 100 bopb for them?
Some people suggest that multiple laterals can make that a 2,000 bopd production well.
But surely, if that were the case, why no queue of FO Applicants?
Phron

Jof,
I get from Feb 2020 Panr Webinar, he said they have invested US$200m,
I assume it is from CR's.
Phron

Rabito,
My point is, there are similarities between PANR and 88E.
And differences.
Why do they have such a high MC and we have such a low MC?
If we know the answer, then we know how and when our SP will rise.

But my comparison is to stimulate further discussion.
What are my misconceptions?
OK, I take your point, PANR have had accusations thrown at them.
After all, 180p down to 17p is quite something.
But their SP profile is quite similar to ours over last 5 years.

I wrote this following listening to their Webinar from February.
They are obviously concerned about the future, being CR difficulties, low oil price (then), coronavirus, etc

Phrontist

How about some millions:

Expenditure over MC: 88E – 79.0m-19.5m = £59.5m; Panr – 158.00m - 85.7m = £72.30m

No one has accused PANR of incompetance, etc.

But they have 8 years longer than us, and only recently struck oil.
They have spent £13m more than us as at today.
88E have a major catch-up benefit of 'free' Charlie-1 saving US$23m
We have not seen the full benefit ofCharlie-1 yet with results.
Hopefully followed by enthusiastic FO for next well. or wells.

Phrontist

An uncompleted line, now complete:

Expenditure over MC: 88E – 79.0-19.5=£59.5; Panr – 158.00-85.7=£72.30

Phrontist