Member Info for Scot126

16:40

Oh Bravo, Ayecuramba! Bravo. How long did it take for you to come up with this latest piece of value add content for your fellow forum members? Pathetic.

08:18

So, Ayecuramba, it's cool for Brom to make a factual error when trying to correct a fellow forum member, ignore his error, refuse to retract his post directed at sam245, refuse to apologise to sam245 and the wider forum for mis-informing us on a *factual* matter.....and your gripe is *my* condescension???? I'll take condescension every day of the week and twice on Sunday v's Brom's dishonorable conduct on this website.

Listen up, Ayecuramba. I remember well your non-value add and scornful posts on the 88E forum when folk like olderwiser and rabito79 attempted to inject facts and fundamental analysis into what passed as debate over there. We've also crossed swords a few times.

You must feel somewhat discombobulated, Ayecuramba, reading this forum v's the casino "to the moon" anti-science drivel so frequently posted on the 88E forum.

Brom is not going to get a free ride on this forum. Just because he got away with manipulating the 88E forum *for years* doesn't mean he can bring his unethical tactics on to this forum and remain unchallenged. You'll find the average PANR follower far more interested in facts, science, probability, risk, research, maths and analysis v's the content on the 88E forum.

You clearly prefer the 88E type of forum. Maybe try adding some genuine value on this forum? Alternatively, maybe just let the grown ups get on with their fundamental approach to working towards a consensus understanding of the *facts* of the PANR investment case.

PS. For the avoidance of doubt, sam245's calculations were spot on. Under the terms of the agreement with the Alaska Gas Development Corp, *If* the pipeline goes ahead the annual revenue generated by PANR's gas sales will be circa US$180m. I wish Governor Dunleavy and the AGDC all the very best in their efforts to secure the gas pipeline. PANR's investment case does not rely on the gas pipeline but, as the sole provider of gas, it is easily the most leveraged way to gain exposure to the possibility, to the risk if you prefer, of the pipeline going ahead. I repeat, PANR's mkt cap will roof it *If* the pipeline gets the green light.

[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that a rational observer would *increase* that risk factor. Agreed? In our scenario, would it go from 10% to 20% chance of the pipeline going ahead? Perhaps 10% to 15%? Perhaps 10% to 12%? Whatever the new risk factor assigned to the likelihood (or not) of the gas pipeline going ahead, I reckon it is very safe to say that pretty much every rational observer would have *increased* the risk factor in their financial model after listening to the Governor at the Bill signing ceremony.

So.....if you assess that PANR's mkt cap will rise by, say, £200m on the day a gas pipeline is confirmed, aaaand you assess that possibility, that risk factor, has increased from 10% to 15% (or from 1% to 2% for that matter) then today's increase in SP is easily explained by rational market theory. Whether you love PANR or hate PANR, love the BoD or loathe them, love the asset or hate it....I contend the market is currently repricing upwards the value of PANR's equity as it incorporates and discounts Governor Dunleavy's latest comments about the gas pipeline into the investment case.

Let's set Brom an additional "exercise" in the light of the scenario I have described above.

Brom - I note your post about the gas pipeline yesterday. Would you assess the *likelihood* of the gas pipeline going ahead has a) increased b) decreased or c) remained unaltered as a result of listening to and digesting Governor Dunleavy's public comments on the issue a few days ago?

There's surely a pathway towards redemption for Brom? Let's see if he takes it?! /end

16/8/24 @ 05:26

Ok, Jimbeaux, I'll try to nip this one in the bud. I literally have no idea what you're going on about, linking me to some sort of relationship with ADVFN. Of course you're welcome to believe whatever conspiracy theory is rattling around in your brain, but your journey down this rabbit hole is going to be a solo one in this instance! You've made an accusation, citing no evidence whatsoever. I've denied it twice now. You're effectively calling me a li@r so let's just leave it at that before you disgrace yourself any further.

Couple of points. I trust the forum has noted Brombarb has a) not shared his workings on the revenue accruing to PANR *should* the gas pipeline go ahead, b) not retracted his statement that sam245 made an arithmetic error when converting Btu's to mmcf's and c) not apologised to sam245 nor to the wider forum for intentionally/inadvertently misleading the forum about a issue of *fact*. Please note; not a personal opinion, not a personal take on a question which has not yet been answered definitively......nope, this is purely a factual error on Brom's part.

Same with his refusal to correct taximan57's misunderstanding about gas being produced commercially even if liquid hydrocarbons cannot be produced from the same well commercially. Brom's partial attitude to fact-checking is a one way street. So please all be warned.

Now, that's not to say his post about the gas pipeline today wasn't accurate. Has there been a *concrete* example of progress since the AGDC/PANR gas offtake deal? No. But folk *are* entitled to assign a risk factor to the *likelihood or not* of the gas pipeline going ahead.

Here's how the analysts/fund managers/traders look at this type of issue. Let's stipulate that the chance of the gas pipeline going ahead, at time of writing, is somewhere between 1% and 100%. There's not a 0% chance of it happening because the AGDC would have be defunded and dissolved and the Governor would not have spoken, on the record, about continuing efforts to secure the project for Alaska.

Let's also be entirely reasonable by stipulating that PANR would double from, eg. 20p to 40p on any day the Alaskan Governor announces the pipeline has been given the go ahead. [NB. Personally, I think the stock should/will more than double when considering the US$180m per annum gas revenue stream to PANR but let's just say double for the purposes of this exercise].

Let's say someone who follows PANR has attached a 10% risk factor to the North Slope gas pipeline going ahead, ie. the person believes there's a 10% likelihood of the pipeline being built. Then ask the following question: "Would an observer of the Governor's public comments 3 days ago be more likely to increase/maintain/decrease that risk factor in the light of those comments?"

[End of Part 1, see above for Part 2]

16/8/24 @ 11:15

Yes, FinanceWizard, it's a bit concerning , isn't it? Surely in order to maintain an orderly market in the securities of 88E, the company will have to inform its shareholders on Sunday night (UK) / Monday morning (Oz) whether Burgundy has met its commitment to pay 88E US$3m+ by 15/8/24?

I'm sure the 88E BoD will do the right thing.

14/8/24 @ 12:11

For the avoidance of any doubt.

sam245 posted: "So around $500,000 a day $182m per annum?....hope that's right." Brom replied with a post implying/suggesting sam245 had somehow erred in his calculation of the potential revenue stream from future gas sales, as outlined in the provisional agreement with Alaska Gas Development Corp.

sam245 was 100% correct and Brom, if he had any honour, would retract his post and apologise to sam245. Let's see if Brom is capable of admitting to a factual error, shall we?

Returning to the fundamentals, not only would future gas sales result in annual revenue to PANR of c.$180m, of even greater importance to PANR's business model would be the reduced requirement to drill gas re-injection wells. Considering the full development plan across Ahpun and Kodiak will require perhaps as many as 300-500 reinjection wells to be drilled (at a cost of $10m - $15m per well?) then the increase to the NPV and NAV for PANR will be material *should the gas pipeline be constructed*.

Alaska's Governor Dunleavy certainly appears optimistic - see below transposed from a Bill signing ceremony in Alaska 72 hours ago.

For the time poor this link is cued to start at 11m22s.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5R5iSfz03M&t=682s

11:22

"The last thing I would add is, the last several years there's been discussions about transition. The advent of AI, the advent of power in the terms of, in scale of gigawatts, with data factories, servers, etc. really has us talking about energy additionality.

What does that mean? You're going to need more solar. You're going to need more wind. In addition you're going to need more gas. ***And we continue to pursue the gas line. We think we're getting closer every day.***

But, if we can hit that mark, ***where we have gas coming from the Slope***, gas from the Inlet, and all kinds of energy, we can make things affordable, we can attract businesses here. That's what this is all about. So it's not an either or, it's an all of the above approach.

And we have the things in place, I think, to get there in the next couple years. So this is what I'm excited about."

13:50

“... with my signature on this bill, this becomes law. We can begin the process by which this bill was drafted and the reasons for it.

And as mentioned, really this is, we're in the infancy stage. It's our hope that Alaska is awash in cheap abundant energy for Alaskans, for generations to come.”

***added by scot126 to highlight directly the Governor's most recent comments on the progress of the gas pipeline. Make no mistake, if Alaska announces the gas pipeline will be going ahead then PANR's equity valuation, as the sole gas offtake partner, will absolutely roof it.

"Joint Venture Partner Update"

"JV Partner Burgundy Xploration, LLC (Burgundy) paid its outstanding 2023 cash calls and signed the flow test authorised for expenditure (AFE) on 15 February 2024 as part of the standstill agreement that was entered into at the end of 2023 with the Company’s 100%-owned subsidiary Accumulate Energy Alaska, Inc (88E-Accumulate). The standstill agreement allows Burgundy six (6) months to pay its share of the AFE cost (~US$3m) by 15 August 2024 (flow test cash call). Burgundy will pay its share of the flow test cash call from either (1) the proceeds of a public listing which Burgundy is pursuing; (2) the proceeds of a private capital raise; or (3) if Burgundy has not made payment for its flow test cash

call by 15 August 2024, then Burgundy will be required to transfer 50% its working interest in the Toolik River Unit (TRU) leases to 88E-Accumulate.

At the time of this announcement Burgundy has paid contributions towards lease rentals in Q2 2024, with the balance of funds due outstanding. The Company understands Burgundy is in advanced stages of negotiations to secure funding under options (1) and (2) noted above. Burgundy is aiming to secure sufficient funding via its public listing to pay all outstanding cash call amounts due to 88E-Accumulate, and to secure funds sufficient to acquire an additional working interest in Project Phoenix from 88 Energy and potentially Operatorship to take the project to the next phase of activity which includes a planned horizontal well test.

Burgundy understands that under the current standstill agreement, if payment of the flow test cash call is not made by15 August 2024, this will require Burgundy to transfer to 88E-Accumulate 50% of Burgundy’s working interest Project Phoenix’s Toolik River Unit leases.

The Company maintains its rights under the joint operating agreement (JOA) should Burgundy not be able to pay any future cash calls, including exercising the option to require Burgundy to relinquish its working interests in Project Phoenix and the Joint Venture."

ANN/RNS is surely due overnight so that 88E shareholders are fully informed about the sums due to be paid to 88E by Burgundy Xploration.

Question for the forum: I note the possibility of Burgundy seeking to IPO as a means to raise capital. I have searched for paperwork or admission documents for exchanges in UK/Aus/US and didn't come up with anything. Has anyone else spotted an intention to list by Burgundy? if so, I'd be grateful if you would point us in the right direction? TIA

Let's see what happens about the outstanding balance of US$3m+ (Burgundy's share of the Hickory-1 flow test costs plus unpaid share of lease fees) payable by Burgundy to 88E.

Has Burgundy paid the full amount due by 15/8/24? Will 88E extend the payment date? Will 88E begin the process to transfer 12.5% of the W.I. of the Toolik River Unit leases? Is Project Phoenix worthless?

11:16

Hi Jimbeaux - I'll try to answer each of your points in turn.

1) ref. "helpful posts", no worries.

2) I stand by my comments about Brom.

3) I genuinely have no idea what you're going on about when you state I am a p1mp for ADVFN? How does what work? I have no connection whatsoever with ADVFN except that I post there. I don't know anyone who works for ADVFN or is on the BoD or is a shareholder. Whatever conspiracy theory is bouncing around your head, I trust this confines such nonsense to the dustbin?!

4) Correct, I am targeting Brom's content. For the record, I have no idea of the individual behind his username. I do not respect his conduct as the most prolific poster on the 88E forum (>27k posts for goodness sake). I therefore reject your assessment of Brom as being "respected". Naturally, you're free to think what you wish but the evidence I detailed in my earlier posts suggest strongly his conduct has been deceitful in the extreme. He will not be permitted to manipulate this forum without the strongest possible efforts to inform readers who may be unaware of his history of highly partial behaviour and sustained attempts to manipulate the investment narrative to his financial benefit. I am happy to fulfil that role. I will not be upset in the slightest if you elect not to read my future posts. Feel free to block me.

5) Agreed, I do assign "exercises" on occasion. I trust there's a pretty obvious reason why I have done so? In case folk are unaware I'll give a specific example. Brom is intelligent, educated and well-read about the 88E and PANR investment cases. So stipulated. For years, repeat years, Brom has refused to correct *factual* errors and easily disproved statements on the 88E forum. He knows fine well, for example, that taximan57's assertion that 88E will produce gas commercially if the gas pipeline is built is g0bbledyg00k. Gas will not be produced commercially from the shared reservoirs *unless* liquid hydrocarbons can be produced commercially as a stand alone financial model. This is not disputed by anyone apart from taximan57. Does Brom correct his fellow shareholder's error? Nope, because to do so would lead to a negative conclusion about the 88E investment case. Brom either obfuscated or distracted or questioned or undermined anyone on the 88E forum who attempted to counter multiple erroneous assertions with research-based, science-based *facts*. You may be comfortable to see Brom attempting to bring his 88E tactics over to this forum but I, for one, am not.

I note you did not deny the accuracy of the description of Brom's conduct in 2021 and 2022. There's a reason you, and Brom for that matter, have not denied he made such an admission about selling into the spike (which he, himself promoted energetically remember). That is because multiple members of the 88E forum recall that precise confession.

6) Ref. Merlin 1&2, my concerns surround the budget and financing of the operations, not the power suppl

Wednesday @ 22:58

*sew doubt, not sow doubt

This Bill signing event in Alaska took place within the last 48 hours. Head to 11mins 45secs for the latest in a long line of supportive, and increasingly optimistic, statements from Governor Dunleavy in relation to the gas pipeline from the North Slope. Fingers crossed and "Watch this space!" ;)

hTTps://youtu.be/T5R5iSfz03M?si=pItHFkUEaEEXQtKn

23:02

*650,000 shares not £650,000

15:07 and 12:11

Hi sam245 & Brom,

sam245 - I note your calculation for the potential revenue stream resulting from the proposed gas contract with AGDC. The question I have is why you haven't requested Brom to supply his working after he suggested "you may be missing the conversion from cubic feet to British Therms"?

Brom - get your calculator out, do the arithmetic and transcribe your workings for your fellow forum members. Then tell us why sam245 is wrong about the proposed gas offtake agreement potentially being worth US$180m per annum in revenue to PANR?

While I've got your attention, Brom, this forum is still waiting for you to reply to my post of 12/8/24 @ 00:29.

a) You haven't fact-checked taximan57 about his erroneous assertion that 88E can produce gas commercially even if producing liquid hydrocarbons from the same wells isn't commercial. Why not?

b) You haven't provided this forum with factual answers I posed about 88E and Erik Opstad. Here's a reminder. "With this newly found, and much welcomed, attitude to fact-checking perhaps you can finally get round to answering the following? Is Erik Opstad still retained by 88E as General Manager of Alaskan Operations? If not, when did he depart and for what reason? Are the activities of Erik Opstad and ELKO concerning the financing of Merlin 1 & 2 being investigated by the 88E BoD and/or Australian regulators? If not, why not?"

To everyone who reads and uses the PANR lse forum. Brom has posted about 88E in excess of 27,000 separate occasions. After a period of time he had many of the less sophisticated/experienced members of that forum more twisted up than a New York pretzel. It all culminated in Brom eventually admitting to selling his 88E shares into the spike(s) of 2021 and 2022, spikes where he had been one of the main posters distracting the less sophisticated away from any concept of fundamental analysis and fair value. but the admission he had sold his stock into the spike(s) came ***many months*** after the bubble had burst. Brom is a greedy, duplicitous, manipulative piece of work.

And that's all fine, as long as you don't hold yourself out as the fact-checker par excellence, the arbiter of truth. Only one post out of >27k told the real truth about Brom.

Brom - that you are even attempting to pull the same stunt on this PANR forum demonstrates both your arrogance and poor judgement. *On the whole* PANR shareholders are far more experienced and fundamentally driven v's the casino antics, anti-science, 'pass the parcel' strategies adopted by so many on the 88E forum. You're not going to get away with manipulating this forum as you did for so many years with our southern neighbours.

So, once again......what's going on with Erik Opstad and ELKO and an investigation into the financing of Merlin 1 & 2? And show us your working where you seek to sow doubt in sam245's post of today.

Do you possess an ounce of honour, Brom, or will it be crickets as usual?

9/8/24 @ 10:14am

Hi Brom - I cannot describe how delighted I am that you've adopted this new attitude to fact-checking. No doubt you can imagine my shock (and the shock of all other readers of the 88E forum on lse) on seeing you've elected to correct fellow posters when they make an error of fact. This is brilliant news for all readers of the 88E and PANR forums!

With this new found attitude in mind, perhaps you'd be so kind as to correct taximan57's recent factually incorrect posts over on the 88E forum? You're by far the most prolific poster on the 88E forum (over 27,000 posts and counting!! Wow!) so I'm sure you know the posts to which I'm referring. Taximan57 is under the illusion that producing gas into the proposed gas pipeline (if approved and constructed) will, in itself, be commercially viable for 88E at Phoenix. You'll be aware as anyone else on the PANR and 88E forums that this is factually incorrect. Producing gas into a future gas pipeline will *only* make sense *if* producing hydrocarbons from the same wells is commercially viable. Fact.

I look forward to reading your factual correction of taximan57, and many others in due course.

Out of interest, Brom, what has brought about your dramatic change in attitude towards fact-checking on lse? For many years on the 88E forum you did not fact-check many (if any?) of your fellow posters. Also, you appear more steadfast in your fact-checking on the PANR forum v's the 88E forum? Huh, I wonder why that should be the case? Surely facts are facts, whether it applies to Investment case X or Investment Case Y?

With this newly found, and much welcomed, attitude to fact-checking perhaps you can finally get round to answering the following? Is Erik Opstad still retained by 88E as General Manager of Alaskan Operations? If not, when did he depart and for what reason? Are the activities of Erik Opstad and ELKO concerning the financing of Merlin 1 & 2 being investigated by the 88E BoD and/or Australian regulators? If not, why not?

Long may this Brom 2.0 fellow continue his good works.

(Part 2; continued from Part 1 below)

Burgundy owns a 25% W.I. in Project Phoenix currently. If Burgundy fails to make the $3m payment to 88E by 15/8/24 then 12.5% W.I. of Phoenix can/will be transferred to 88E. Looking at this issue from another angle, if Burgundy don't pay the $3m then, in effect, they are stating that Project Phoenix is worth less than US$24m.

88E's current mkt cap is US$35.83m.

Personal view. I assess Project Phoenix to have no value to 88E, just like Projects Peregrine, Yukon and Umiat. *If* I'm correct about Project Phoenix then it would mean Longhorn, Leonis and Namibia would be valued by the market at US$35m. Perhaps the forum would like to undertake a SoTP calculation solely on those three assets?

I'll be happy to help out by looking up my notes to calculate the total investment in those three assets thus far. From *memory*, I value Longhorn at US$8-10m; Leonis at cost (plus optionality) and Namibia at cost (plus optionality). *If* Phoenix does indeed have no value to 88E then it's trading at double the SP it ought to be.

taximan57 - I'll take no lesson from a fellow forum member who point blank refuses to accept the science and easy maths which conclude categorically that the gas is ***only worth producing*** if the liquid hydrocarbons can be produced commercially. You wilfully seek to mislead other readers of this forum about established science. It's about time you stopped.

6/8/24 @ 19:08

taximan57 - so you "think that whatever PANR manage regarding the pipeline or contract 88E will have the same options without doing all the legwork," do you? Try replacing "think" with "hope" or "pray". I've told you this before but apparently you didn't absorb it properly. Producing gas from these 88E and PANR reservoirs is ***only*** worth doing if the liquids can be produced commercially, in their own right. As you'll be aware, none of 88E's reservoirs (or their portion of the shared reservoirs) have been assessed as commercial. The flow test data from Hickory-1 suggests to most observers that they never will be.

Once again, the good news is that you don't have to believe me. Just read the words of 88E management in the latest quarterly report:

"Joint Venture Partner Update"

JV Partner Burgundy Xploration, LLC (Burgundy) paid its outstanding 2023 cash calls and signed the flow test authorised for expenditure (AFE) on 15 February 2024 as part of the standstill agreement that was entered into at the end of 2023 with the Company’s 100%-owned subsidiary Accumulate Energy Alaska, Inc (88E-Accumulate). The standstill agreement allows Burgundy six (6) months to pay its share of the AFE cost (~US$3m) by 15 August 2024 (flow test cash call). Burgundy will pay its share of the flow test cash call from either (1) the proceeds of a public listing which Burgundy is pursuing; (2) the proceeds of a private capital raise; or (3) if Burgundy has not made payment for its flow test cash

call by 15 August 2024, then Burgundy will be required to transfer 50% its working interest in the Toolik River Unit (TRU) leases to 88E-Accumulate.

At the time of this announcement Burgundy has paid contributions towards lease rentals in Q2 2024, with the balance of funds due outstanding. The Company understands Burgundy is in advanced stages of negotiations to secure funding under options (1) and (2) noted above. Burgundy is aiming to secure sufficient funding via its public listing to pay all outstanding cash call amounts due to 88E-Accumulate, and to secure funds sufficient to acquire an additional working interest in Project Phoenix from 88 Energy and potentially Operatorship to take the project to the next phase of activity which includes a planned horizontal well test.

Burgundy understands that under the current standstill agreement, if payment of the flow test cash call is not made by15 August 2024, this will require Burgundy to transfer to 88E-Accumulate 50% of Burgundy’s working interest Project Phoenix’s Toolik River Unit leases.

The Company maintains its rights under the joint operating agreement (JOA) should Burgundy not be able to pay any future cash calls, including exercising the option to require Burgundy to relinquish its working interests in Project Phoenix and the Joint Venture."

(End of Part 1; see above for Part 2)

26th July @ 10:58am

Hi Brom - I just had a read through 88E's amended and updated policy on securities trading concerning management and associated personnel securities trading. I note you have also read the document.

I have a question for you please. Do you consider Erik Opstad and ELKO to be a) a Company PDMR (person discharging managerial responsibilities) or b) a Key Management Person or c) a Closely Associated Person?

I reckon Erik Opstad and ELKO could reasonably be included in each of those categories, don't you? Using your excellent access to 88E management (a relationship about which you have confirmed on this forum previously), can you ask the Chairman and other directors whether Erik Opstad and ELKO acted outside of these regulations in 2021 and 2022? Has the company begun an investigation into Erik Opstad and ELKO's trading in the company's securities? Has the company self-referred itself to the Perth branch of ASIC? If not, why not?

Regular readers of this forum will be aware I have asked Brom (and others) *repeatedly* whether Erik Opstad is still retained by 88E as their "General Manager of Alaskan Operations"? If he's no longer associated with 88E, is it due to serious concerns about the conduct of Erik Opstad and ELKO during the operations at Project Peregrine together with a scheme of circular invoicing and share placements in H1 of 2021 and 2022?

For a fella who has posted over 27,000 times on lse, does this forum not consider it most peculiar that Brom studiously avoids answering these questions? I do.

17.14

Hiya Brom - thanks for your post timed at 17.14 today. I'll have a look with interest at your numbers.

Something seems a little odd, however. There has been months of discussion over on the 88E forum about its cash position, stretching back to this time last year. 88E shareholders were pondering how/if flow testing would be financed at Hickory-1 in the 23/24 winter season. I'm sure you recall it well.

Most curiously you didn't provide the 88E forum with the benefit of your analysis on this question. And yet here you are today, replying to one poster on this forum on a similar-ish question. It's clear that when sufficiently motivated you are prepared to do something more than cursory reading of accounts/RNSs. Yet somehow you never appear keen or willing to conduct a similar exercise for 88E.

Huh, I wonder why that should be the case? Factually, you are the most prolific poster on the 88E forum, >27,000 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeepers. It's clearly not because you are shy about posting your thoughts and analysis on the 88E forum. Hmmmm.......most odd indeed. Not.

Now then, let's see if you are willing to reply to *this* question as you did earlier today. Is Erik Opstad still associated with 88E? If not, why not? Is there an investigation as to his conduct, and the conduct of ELKO, during the operations at Peregrine? If not, why not? Brom has stated that 88E management always reply to his communications "very quickly" so we should all look forward to his prompt reply to these entirely legitimate questions.

Look forward to your detailed reply.

10.39

My pleasure, Ausnsw. As I stated on numerous occasions, on its best day I could not justify 88E's mkt cap being any higher than 1/7th of PANR's.

That being said, I can't help but worry you don't understand what the term "comparative analysis" means. In order to set you off in the right direction, I reckon you should start with looking up the dictionary definition of "comparative". Once you're comfortable with the definition then look up "comparative analysis investments" or "comparative analysis equities" or "comparative valuation equities" and you'll be fully caught up.

And before you or anyone else is tempted to double down on your idiocy, firstly supply the forum with evidence of an historical post of mine on lse where I've published an absolute valuation on PANR's SP. You won't be able to do so because I've never posted same.

This post is addressed to anyone tempted to invest or trade 88E shares based on the outrageous, and easily disproven, lies by sharebel, newbie et al. Let me be crystal clear - 88e's cash position is nowhere near its mkt cap of £30m. After paying for the flow tests at Hickory-1 (including Burgundy's 25% share of the costs because 88E is the designated operator, thus obliged to pay the full amount due) plus the costs of shooting 2D seismic in Namibia plus G&A for the next year plus budgeted investment in new wells in Texas, and 88E will be lucky to have US$4m of unallocated cash at hand at the end of Q3'24.

Let me assure any inexperienced readers of sharebel's posts that if 88E did indeed have unallocated cash almost equalling the mkt cap, as he would have us believe, then 88E directors and senior management would all be purchasing shares in the market, hand over fist. MD Ashley Gilbert does not own a single 88E share.....MD Ashley Gilbert opted to take his bonus in cash rather than shares.....MD Ashley Gilbert sold *all* of his performance rights (shares) as soon as permitted to do so in Q1'23 and Q1'24. Does that sound like the action of a fully informed employee who is in charge of a company with cash = mkt cap???? Nope, not for a millisecond!!

Buy, sell or hold 88E but please do not be taken in by fecund liars like sharebel and newbie. I'd urge anyone who is tempted by their sophistry to do your own research and to fact check their nonsense. If you recognise you don't have the training or knowledge to do your own research, at the very least please demand sharebel show you the cash at hand balance and it moves from the end of the March quarter to the present day.

One of three things will happen when sharebel reads about this direct and fact-based challenge to his many lies. He'll ignore the challenge completely as if this post was never published. Or he'll pour personal scorn on to this forum aimed at those who have called out his b/s. Or he'll have an amateurish shot at misleading the forum further which someone like me or olderwiser (or perhaps even 'Brom the Prolific') will ridicule and show him to be the liar that he is.

07:19

So what, BeanCounting? Once Ahpun East is drilled and tested, PANR's contingent resources will increase by 20-25%. Don't know about everyone else but that looks like a bargain to me!

Now then, this in interesting......contained within this RNS is reference to a farm out, in fact that's first in the list of financing options. DH has, historically, downplayed the farm out option since communicating his refreshed/alternative corporate strategy. Which leads me to wonder if the receipt of the two IERs and/or deal with AGDC has attracted external parties from the O&G sector?

Hmmm, as DH said in the recent Proactive interview, "Watch this space".