Member Info for Scot126

30/4 @ 10:19

Brom - don't forget the Australian *total* volume is ASX plus Cboe (used to be called Chi-X, I think?). Very, very broadly over the last few weeks, I reckon the volume split has been 66:34, ASX:Cboe. Trust that helps.

30/4 @ 11:04

Brom - thanks for the citation about 88E's guidance on net cash inflow from Longhorn to 88E in 2024. The guidance is a net figure of $US3m for 2024. 88E's Q1 dividend from Longhorn was only US$460k so the workovers and new wells will be doing some pretty heavy lifting to get up to the net US$3m guidance for 2024. Again I'm delighted to be educated but to reach that net figure is such a heavy lift that I *strongly suspect*, but am not certain, that the US$5m debt facility will have to be employed for the capex required to drill the two new wells. I say this because the latest fundraise could not have delivered "fully funded for next 12 months if the capex for 2 new wells in H2'24 came from the current cash at hand.

1/5 @ 09:47

gemstar - the updated IER on the Alkaid ZOI was not trumpeted as "transformative" by anyone on the lse forums except you! The Alkaid ZOI is PANR's smallest and lowest quality reservoir. I would say it has been the consensus understanding for a year that the SMD horizon (now called the "Ahpun topsets" by PANR) will be the primary horizon within the Ahpun/Alkaid production unit. Whilst I was delighted to see an increased contingent resource certified by Lee Keeling (whom 88E has also used remember), of greater note was an independent expert agreeing with PANR management (using the Schlumberger study) that the Alkaid ZOI is considered commercial.

88E's flow test data as published does not suggest *to me* that either 88E management or indeed an Independent Expert will certify commerciality in 88E's downdip location for the shared reservoirs. Those who believe it's a racing certainty that the SFS and SMD at Hickory-1 and southwards are all going to be assessed as commercial are, IMO, being incredibly naïve. I cannot see how 88E's guidance on geological CoS can increase from its current percentages (50% for SFS and 81% for SMD-B). I would be amazed if the guidance on CoS for both reservoirs isn't downgraded substantially following the disappointing flow test results at Hickory-1.

As for PANR's future development, gemstar, please do be aware it is unlikely the Alkaid ZOI will go into full field production until sufficient infrastructure is constructed on the surface due to full field development of the Topsets (SMD formations) such that the economics of the Alkaid ZOI benefit markedly from the benefits of shared infrastructure. So when you hear Ahpun development plan, think Topsets (SMD) first then Alkaid ZOI.

By the way, did the forum notice the PANR BoD has not included a single barrel in their guidance for the SFS horizons(s)? I would strongly recommend 88E shareholders who are optimistic about 88E's SFS numbers to read Monday's RNS from PANR and also read the IER itse

07:55

Fact check for Sharebel - more conspiracy theories about forward selling, Aussie short funds, "crews", short covering, blah, blah blah. Fact check? False.

By far the most important fact check for forum members is to be persistent in challenging Sharebel and others who falsely state that 88E has "2 x massive new commercial oil discoveries." The company has not assessed the Phoenix discoveries to be "commercial" at time of writing. This is what's called a lie by Sharebel. Despite being called out repeatedly for this blatant lie, Sharebel persists in reposting it. That makes Sharebel a fecund liar. [Attn the person/moderator who reported me for the using the word "fecund", please see the following definition of the word, lol!! fecund = "producing many new ideas"....in this case a fruitful source of lies!]

Fact check? ".....JV partner takeover/farm out to be announced soon..." False. No evidence whatsoever to support this statement. Sharebel should use conditional language otherwise he is misrepresenting the truth.

09:03

taximan57 - again with the ad hominem attacks and commentary. When are you proposing to treat this forum and your decision to post actively on it with the seriousness it demands? I challenge you to post a cogent explanation as to why an external party would purchase outright any of 88E's Alaskan assets? It just doesn't make any sense, does it? Why not just wait for 88E to give up the leases because the company, its directors and shareholders no longer wish to commit scarce capital on Alaska because the focus is now elsewhere? Yes, 88E has a diversified portfolio of assets, no question. I contend we are witnessing the company pivoting away from Alaska towards Namibia. Did it not make you smile knowingly when you read that the Namibian acreage is so vast that "it is 70x larger than 88E's Alaskan acreage"??!! So, yes, 88E has *potential* in Namibia (clearly not Texas for the record) but it's going to take years and lots more capital to unveil any value in these African assets. After all, they're only shooting 2D seismic in H2'24.

You keep on drawing attention to PANR's CB and the outstanding balance of US$27m. It gets a tad repetitive to confirm for you once again that PANR may *elect* to repay the CB holder in shares *or* cash, at PANR's discretion. A key feature of this CB structure which you simply do not appear to be able to get your head around is that an analyst can *fully dilute* PANR's SOI by adding circa 70m shares [US$27m divided by (PANR SP minus 10%)] which replaces debt with equity. Do you understand this, taximan57? By using this method, you can compare capital structures fairly and with ease.

Yes, 88E has income. However, and as described many times, the dividends from Longhorn do not yet cover G&A and lease fees never mind contribute a penny to exploration activities.

taximan57 - do you support the Board's idea of a share consolidation?

[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

Phoenix: It is here that I observe most forum members harbour unrealistic expectations. I think it's a consensus view that it costs 88E circa US$25-30m to drill and flow test a well during a winter season(s). It takes external parties with deep-ish pockets to commit that type of capital, agreed? I'd suggest 88E shareholders think very hard about the following. Let's say there's an O&G company/wealthy Texas O&G individual/O&G specialist finance firm or fund who fancies having a swing in Alaska and has the capital to do so. Why would that external party opt to invest in the smaller in scale, downdip, lower classification, lower amount of data, questionable flow test result acreage v's the larger in scale, updip, higher classification, greater suite of data, declared commercial by management and Schlumberger acreage?

Being objective, I suppose the price to buy into the respective projects *could* be a key consideration? However, think about this further. In this scenario, a potential partner is looking at a cash investment of, say, US$25m to drill a well on 88E’s acreage. If an entity is looking to invest that kind of cash would they not wish to reduce the risk of failure *and* increase the upside risk if that were at all possible? I submit that an O&G entity would seek to partner with PANR ten times out of ten before thinking about partnering 88E.

Not because the potential partner doesn’t like the number ‘8’ or doesn’t fancy Ashley Gilbert. No, it’s simply because the scale and quality of PANR’s updip portion of the shared reservoirs are demonstrably superior by all geological measures – and the data incontrovertibly backs this up.

I challenge the forum to describe a realistic scenario where a party required to invest a minimum of US$25m would opt to partner 88E as opposed to PANR. I submit that not only is the absolute risk of failure too high for a potential partner to even consider farming in to Phoenix (following the flow test results) but that *any* potential farm in partner would opt to invest in PANR’s updip acreage over 88E’s downdip acreage in every single scenario I can envisage.

Delighted to read any thoughtful responses to the above. /end

26/4 @ 20:05 & 16:50

HandspringGuy and Brom - I found myself in agreement with both these posts. Absent a farm in deal which ushers in a drilling program, I agree with Brom that shooting the 2D seismic in Namibia is unlikely to be seen by the market as a viable catalyst for SP appreciation.

Brom - I note your sentence "Company has forecast net inflow of US$3M at Longbow, which I assume is after workover costs." Would you please point me towards this formal guidance? I don't ever wish to misinform so want to be clear on this matter. Also, is it safe to "assume" this figure of US$3m is *after* taking workover costs into account? Also, how have you accounted for 88E's share of the proposed drilling two new wells in H2'24? TIA.

Let's now examine logically the farm in prospects for 88E's Alaskan assets.

- Umiat: zero chance. It was discovered 70 or 80 years ago and there's a reason it's never been a viable project ever since. Combine that with the hesitance to exploit further the NPRA and the answer is obvious.

- Peregrine: zero chance. It's also stranded and the drill results from Merlin-1 and 2 are sufficiently underwhelming to make it an ultra low priority for anyone apart from Conoco, sometime in the 22nd century.

- Leonis: I've always said it looks interesting. Might Armstrong wish to have a look at acreage west of the Dalton? FWIW I reckon Leonis has the best chance of attracting a farm in partner. Any potential partner will have to provide all the capital, analysis, design work, etc, etc so it'll be more of a case what dilution 88E will face. Looking at the other players in Alaska and their proposed programs of work, I have difficulty seeing a well drilled at Leonis before the 25/26 winter season, at the earliest.

Icewine: mmaaaayyyybe if the gas pipeline is constructed it *might* be of interest to somebody, but not for *many* years if at all, IMHO. If PANR's Kodiak acreage moves into full production then that would perhaps help?

[Part 1, see above for Part 2]

13:41

Sharebel - more conspiracy theories from this prolific poster. To have averaged down such that his average is "around the placing level" defies mathematical probability. *If* we are to believe Sharebel's historical posts contain truthful descriptions of his holdings and seemingly continuous additions then Sharebel would have had to add many multiples of his pre-fundraise shareholding to bring his average anywhere close to these all time lows. Make of that what you will.

13:29

Sharebel posted: "...and trying to conflate 88E just because they have found huge commerical [sic] oil field discoveries like COPL is amateur deramping hour."

Let's me blunt here. 88E has not assessed their discoveries to be "commercial". Sharebel is lying to the forum. He has repeated this lie on numerous occasions since the flow test results were published, That makes Sharebel a fecund liar. I urge forum members to challenge Sharebel to cite a specific quotation where 88E management has stated the discoveries are "commercial". He will not be able to do so because there has been no such statement from the company. Fact.

I note Sharebel goes on to repeat the conspiracy nonsense about an organised shorting campaign and an Aussie short fund, blah, blah, blah. The fantastical musings of a shareholder who a) doesn't understand that 88E was running miles ahead of its fundamentals when he first invested and b) doesn't understand the fundamentals have been brought into view and a significant cohort of 88E holders have decided enough is enough and sold out.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

27/4 @ 18:26

Miner4 - I have only one username. Fact.

27/4 @ 17:31

Sharebel posted: ".... the SP which fell inexplicably fell back from 0.44p on our not one but two pieces of transformative good news so the massive naked short can cover." Sharebel once again refuses to recognise the huge speculative component which was contained within the mkt cap of the company when he first invested in the stock. Contrary to Sharebel's assertion that the fall in the share price is "inexplicable", I contend the fall is easily explained. The empirical data collected during the flow tests led the market to confront finally the effects of Dmax on these deeper parts of the shared stacked reservoirs. In turn, the speculative component of the mkt cap was punctured quite dramatically. Add in the requirement to raise cash to keep the company going and the SP has behaved perfectly logically.

Sharebel's false refrain that the flow data results are "two pieces of transformative good news" is correct apart from one word. Delete "good" and Sharebel has got it spot on.

Time to update the comparative valuation for an 88E barrel in the ground v's a PANR barrel in the ground, taking into account the new SOI for 88E (fundraise shares plus shares issued to Namibian partner).

Assumptions:

cable = 1.25

PANR CB = US$27m

PANR closing price = 33.6p

88E closing price = 0.165p

88E new total SOI = 28.9bn

88E CoS for SFS = 50%

88E CoS for SMD = 81%

SoTP for 88E: Leonis £1m; Namibia (updated cost of acquisition) £3.136m; Longhorn £6.3m

A downdip, lower classification 88E recoverable barrel in the ground is valued by the market today at 14.5p.

An updip, higher classification PANR recoverable barrel in the ground is valued by the market today at 14.0p.

Frankly, this is a bewildering outcome. *If* you earnestly believe 88E is fairly valued today, or even undervalued, then mathematical logic suggests you should consider PANR is vastly undervalued. This is not only due to the 0.5p disparity in implied value per recoverable barrel in the ground. The market *must* also, whether in the short, medium or long term, recognise the value of PANR's higher classification of barrels, ie. the percentage of contingent barrels and, crucially, the labelling of PANR's two oilfields as commercial by PANR management *and by Schlumberger*.

Regular readers will be aware I have been more generous to 88E in calculating its number of recoverable barrels than others would have done. Reviewing the disappointing flow test data, I will now recalculate the value per barrel in the ground for 88E except this time I will reduce the CoS below that of 88E's management's pre-flow test guidance.

SFS pre-flow test CoS guidance = 50% scot126's post flow test CoS = 35%

SMD pre-flow test CoS guidance = 81% scot126's post flow test CoS = 40%

Revised value per 88E barrel using *downgraded* CoS for SFS (from 50% to 35%) and SMD (from 81% to 40%) due to disappointing flow test results would see each 88E Phoenix recoverable barrel in the ground valued at 19.9p. Note that I am not using olderwiser’s Netherland Sewell “shrinkage of BFF” thesis as a readacross. Had I applied olderwiser’s analysis, an 88E barrel would be valued well in excess of 25p. I have kept the NSAI BFF P50 estimate at 102mmbo (net of W.I. but pre-royalties).

As I made crystal clear previously by using these words, the following is "not advice."

*If* you wish to retain your exposure to the shared stacked reservoirs which make up Phoenix/Ahpun/Kodiak then the market is offering you a truly bizarre (IMO) opportunity. You can sell a higher valued, downdip, lower classification 88E recoverable barrel in the ground for 14.5p and buy an updip, higher classification PANR recoverable barrel in the ground, labelled commercial by management and Schlumberger, and with much more data collected, for 14.0p.

The irrational disparity between the value of the barrels is only enlarged when incorporating the disappointing flow test data. Make of that what you will.

Taximan57 - you posted the following sentence earlier today: "Derampers, you must be very proud of your achievement, we LTHs have lost out yet again."

You know what, taximan57, I genuinely believe that's how you think. Reading your content over the last period that sentence is entirely consistent with the naïve manner in which you view the stockmarket. How dare you accuse fundamental investors/analysts like me of being "proud of [our] achievement".

taximan57 - when are you going to wake up? Losing an uncomfortable percentage of your investment in 88E doesn't seem to be causing you to reflect. How about you reflect on the amount of research you did about 88E before you hit the "buy" button? How about you reflect on the conduct of 88E management and BoD who are your employees? How about you reflect on the voluminous unscrupulous posters on social media (including a convicted fraudster in the USA) who have waged a campaign of misinformation to hook the less informed, unsophisticated investor into the 88E investment case? How about reflecting on the frankly childish and vulgar behaviour displayed by many prolific posters on this forum who, despite knowing the fundamentals as well as I do, refuse to engage on the ***facts*** of the investment case with those who are seeking the truth?

And specifically for you, taximan57, how about an apology to posters like olderwiser and me? What started as a perfectly polite exchange where you were chiefly seeking to educate yourself about listed companies/E&P terminology/88E investment case deteriorated into multiple posts filled with vitriolic personal abuse ranging from allegations of unethical financial manipulation to comments about another human being's psychological and mental health.

Do you have no shame, man? Where is your introspection, your sense of humility? At first I thought of you as good person, bit over their skis, but fundamentally polite and well-mannered. However, as soon as your financial position was degraded (by the *facts* of the investment case, not by people like me) then you turned into a snarling, hateful character. Had olderwiser and I been liars, making stuff up to feather our own short positions, we would have deserved every single piece of abuse directed at us. That you failed to comprehend it was us who were the truth seekers, solely interested in the facts, should, at the very least, cause a significant amount of introspection about taking responsibility for your own investment decisions.

It is shameful you and others have, once the fundraise was out the way, started filling this forum up once again with made up nonsense about the flow test data, conspiracies about an Aussie short fund, conspiracies about a paid for deramper campaign, conspiracies about market makers getting "tipped off to rip us off".

Have you learned nothing?

02:52

Is that right, taximan57? Speaking of "promoting", what are 88E shareholders going to do about the highly unethical promotion by 88E management of a bunch of dishonest articles the company's Twitter account reposted in the run up to the fundraise? The articles were absolutely riddled with factual errors and yet, by reposting the articles on Twitter, 88E management lent their imprimatur to this blatant misinformation. I contend they knew exactly what they were doing.

88E shareholders should be apoplectic, especially those who "averaged down" in the days between the RNS relaying the results of the SMD flow test and the announcement of the fundraise. An active and informed shareholder base should be demanding answers from the Chairman of 88E. It his responsibility, together with the NEDs, to oversee the conduct of the executive team.

The AGM is coming up shortly, isn't it? How about the UK and Aussie shareholders stop abusing olderwiser, rabito79 and me and instead direct their ire towards the individuals responsible for 88E's travails?

00:03

HandspringGuy - are you referring to Ashley Gilbert, MD of ASX-listed E&P company 88 Energy (not mining company)? The guy who is so confident in the quality of his company's assets that he hasn't invested a single Aussie dollar in the company shares? That guy?

The guy who *elected* to take his first 88E bonus in cash rather than shares? The guy who has sold *all* the performance rights granted to him as soon as practically possible (Jan '23 and Jan '24). You must mean that guy, correct?

The guy who didn't find 0.16p a sufficiently attractive prospect to support yesterday's fundraise with a single dollar of his own cash?

You surely cannot mean that guy, can you HandspringGuy?

To the person or persons thinking Dave Wall may be lining up a triumphant return to executive duties at 88E, why on earth would he do that? At Inyati Capital he's clipping a mighty 6% of funds raised in every fundraise since he departed the company in April '21. If I was a betting man I'd bet Dave Wall departed 88E with a huge database of contact details of investors/traders/punters who had a connection with 88E during his time in charge. I would be mighty surprised if good ol' Dave Wall's Inyati Capital hadn't collected a 6% commission on the *majority* of the AU$100m capital raised by 88E since he departed. Do the maths, folks.

88E shareholders have treated Dave like a king, or perhaps cult leader is more accurate? 88E bought XCD (in which Dave was the largest or second largest shareholder, remember) at a premium, and then bumped the bid further! They also paid him a decent salary along the way, naturally. Then he and Erik budgeted for and overspent on the stranded folly which was Peregrine, soaking up the benefits of an organised social media campaign as they went on their merry way.

Yep, you must mean that Dave Wall? He's some guy.

By the way, Brom, you never did get back to the forum with an answer to the question posed about Erik Opstad. Is he still retained by 88E? If not, why not? You stated you had excellent communication links with the company....what's going on?

......but that's odd.....I can't see any details of directors supporting the fundraise at this all time low price? Huh, no mention of management supporting the fundraise either?

Tells you all you need to know. Pathetic.

Shareholders should be furious.

21:27

Sharebel - you wrote the following: "[88E has] cash in the bank US$11.35m, and a further US$6.36m on its way [providing the fundraise is supported to the maximum extent permitted]. I am sure we can do something with that over the next 12 months!"

To assist you with the maths, I have expressed the sums to which you referred in US dollars. I also caveated the total amount of funds being raised currently. Presumably we'll find that out in the next few hours. I'm not nit-picking, just adding in a caveat until the formal results of the fundraise are announced.

The reason I expressed the sums in US dollars is because 88E told us a balance of US$11.6m remains to be paid to contractors for the work carried out this season at Hickory-1. The company informed us that they intend to settle all those bills "by the end of June."

Because 88E is the operator at Hickory-1 it is their responsibility to settle the bills in full. There is a possibility Burgundy will, at some point in the future, contribute some or all of their 25% of the costs (US$3.625m). However I assess the likelihood of Burgundy contributing anything before June 30th as nil. I base this on the disappointing flow test results *and* Burgundy's patent difficulty in sourcing funds and/or hesitation to pay their share of last year's drilling costs.

Either which way, 88E are on the hook to pay US$11.6m by the end of June, with or without Burgundy's contribution. So when Sharebel is "sure we can do something with that over the next 12 months" he's not wrong. Net of fees, let's say the fundraise brings in US$6m....plus the US$11.35m cash at hand. By the end of June cash at hand will be US$5.75m.

Please don't be taken in by the likes of Sharebel that 88E has a US$17.7m war chest to conduct operations over the next 12 months. They don't. After paying for the Hickory-1 operations the balance of cash at hand will be keeping the lights on for the company: paying salaries, listing fees, advisor retainers, office rent, annual lease payments for acreage, travel, dataroom management.

The only actual activity in the field is likely to be shooting the 2D seismic in Namibia. Speaking of Namibia, please be aware that the Australian term sheet for the fundraise states that 88E intends to pay the balance of US$920k due by 1/6/24 to its Namibian partner in 88E shares. SOI currently is 25.12bn....add the fundraise shares, say, 3.27bn....add the new shares for Namibia, say, 473m and that's a grand total of 28.863bn SOI. No wonder the BoD is considering a share consolidation.

Oh, and finally, don't be fooled by the narrative about "88E buying out Burgundy so 88E will retain a 100% W.I. in Phoenix." This is intellectually moribund thinking. If the flow test results were spectacular, Burgundy would pay their share with ease.

Let's see if the directors and management of 88E support the fundraise this time, shall we? Yes/no??!!

09:07

Sharebel - Wow! Just wow!

Instead of a healthy dose of introspection I see you've opted instead to take the 'spew further disinformation' route!

To the forum. Sharebel can't read or do maths....or he's straight up lying to you. 88E will not be sitting on tonnes of cash after this fundraise. The AU$17.5m cash at hand pre-fundraise will be used *in its entirety* to pay for the remaining costs of the flow tests at Hickory-1, as per company guidance. Notice how Burgundy wasn't mentioned with its named partnership status up in lights? 88E management more than suspects Burgundy will default and walk away.

The rest of sharebel's post is fantastical gibberish.

Buy/sell/hold 88E but please don't attach any weight to sharebel's content.

08:45

Ilovesushi - 88E has drilled its last well in Alaska. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a future vertical, horizontal or trapezoid well.

The pivot has already happened in management's mind. The primary focus is now on Namibia. Didn't you know that the Namibian acreage is "over 70 times larger" than the Alaskan acreage??!!

I suppose there's a possibility 88E *may* find a farm in partner for Leonis, perhaps leaving 88E with a small W.I.?

I think it highly, highly unlikely 88E will find a farm in partner for Project Phoenix. Take any residual emotion out of it.....why would a farm in partner invest in the downdip, lower classification, 'less data collected' portion of the shared asset v's the updip, higher classification, rated commercial by management and Schlumberger portion? And get this....according to the equity market, that potential farm in partner would be paying the same buy in price for a higher CoS project (PANR's) v's a lower CoS project (88E's Phoenix).

Yes, I've done a very quick calculation based on the 0.16p placing price. Using 88E's pre-flow test guidance on recoverable resources for Phoenix (which I assess will have to be downgraded once the analysis is completed fwiw) an 88E barrel in the ground is valued by the market at 13.5p v's an updip, higher classification commercial PANR barrel at 13.6p.

This is *not* advice. *If* you wish to retain your exposure to the shared asset north of 88E's Phoenix then, bizarrely, the market is still offering you a chance to do so without paying the logical premium which a PANR barrel *ought* to attract. Make of that what you will.

Just saw the Aussie term sheet. 88E is paying the US$920k due to their Namibian partner (by 1/6/24) in shares. I *think* that's another 450m shares to be issued on top of the 2.6bn in the fundraise but I am happy to be corrected. I couldn't see this detail in the UK RNS? Did I miss it when I skimmed through it? Happy to be directed towards it.

If this share based payment to the Namibian partner wasn't mentioned in the UK RNS, that would be a bit odd? Either which way, if the Namibian Project needs cash to shoot the 2D seismic in 2024 then those shares will be sold too.

The most immediate and simplest question to ask is if the 88E BoD and management are investing their own cash at 0.16p (AU0.3c) in this fundraise? If you're trying to work out whether there's fundamental value at this all time low fundraise price then listen to what the insiders are telling you. I suggest their non-involvement in this fundraise is deafening.

06:11

Look at page 2, taximan57. Right there in black and white.

21:52

Hi olderwiser - lazy journalism or cynical PR placement? Who knows?

What is beyond outrageous is that 88E has tweeted out the Vox, Next investors and Frontiersman articles, thereby granting the articles an entirely undeserved credibility.

Shareholders should be disappointed in management's conduct. 88E's UK NOMAD should be concerned.

As I've posted previously, buy/sell/hold 88E but please do not rely on the accuracy of these articles when making any decisions.

10:27

gemstar - I do not know if Geodes currently hold 88E or PANR shares. What I am clear about is that he has posted on socal media that he initially invested in 88E. Subsequent to his investment in 88E he posted he was unaware of PANR's existence when making that initial investment. He also posted that he has invested in PANR shares.

For your statement about Geodes not owning 88E or PANR shares to be accurate then he must have divested entirely from both investments. Can you please provide a source for that contention?

All that said, I think we can all agree Geodes is certainly not to be considered independent.

Happy to stipulate I don't have a crystal ball.

11:33

Brom posted the following:

"In my opinion it would not have mattered what results were achieved at Hickory-1, we would still have had that same posters on here either ex "investors" who lost money and are bitter and twisted, those who are just bitter and twisted and those apparently terrified that 88E may actually gain some traction, its a shame but a fact of life on anonymous boards. I see very little altruism rather self interest."

Brom - you must mean the "self interest" of someone who has published a mere 27k posts on this forum? Is it *that* self interest to which you refer? What about the self interest which saw admissions being made a number of months *after* the event that LTHs had taken advantage of the US OTC social media-inspired spike and traded out of most or all of the position? *That* self interest?

Absolute nonsense that good data from the flow tests would have been greeted with universal negativity, no matter what. Absolute bunkum. When are you going to admit to the forum that there exists a cohort of honest fundamental investors and analysts whom are interested *solely* in the data, the facts, the truth? And if the flow test results were good then that would have had a massively positive readacross to the entire shared asset base?

Jeepers, Brom. Know thyself.

17:26

I agree with 88E's most prolific poster, Brom. It can actually be argued logically that the Biden admin's attitude to federal land in Alaska *should* lead to productive state land becoming *more* attractive.

FYI - depending on how you look at it, the SoA relies on the extractive industries for a minimum of 80% of the state's revenue. These North Slope royalties are vital to Alaska's future and could be further bolstered by the proposed gas pipeline deal.