Member Info for Scot126

08:32

Breathe, Taximan57, breathe. For goodness sake man, you just posted content which confirms you thought a contingent resource of 1.28bbo was gas rather than liquids. What on earth do you think the 'o' stands for in bbo? Billions of barrels of oil. You then didn't understand what the >5Tcf was referring to.

You're clearly not a bad guy, Taximan57. I "get" being defensive when things haven't gone as hoped for but c'mon......start asking factual questions so you don't (unintentionally in your case) posting nonsensical content.

08:19

Stas20 - hmmm.....I'm not entirely convinced you're up to speed on this subject matter. Tell you what, I'll give you a helping hand. Go to YouTube and have a listen to PANR's two most recent webinars. You'll become informed about PANR's "live negotiations" with a "large" OFS firm.

You'll also learn about PANR's Exec Chairman's negotiations with the AGDC (Google it, Stas20) and the State of Alaska. *If* the gas pipeline is given the go-ahead that would see PANR parlay its long term (20 years?) take or pay gas contract into a govt/AGDC backed loan facility with a financial institution. PANR's Exec Chairman confirmed that the *potential* size of the facility could mean there would be little or no further requirement for equity finance to get the project to a self-financing stage.

Lots more research required by you, Stas20. Enjoy the webinars. Oh, and be sure to read PANR's RNSs too. You'll like them.....loaded with data, very transparent.

07:57

Taximan57 - embarrassingly, that's not quite the knock out post you think it is. I'll give you a helping hand.

1.28bbo is the total contingent resource of saleable (or marketable) liquids awarded to PANR by NSAI and Lee Keeling.

>5Tcf is the contingent resource of gas in PANR's Kodiak (BFF Lower) awarded by NSAI.

PANR has never described their saleable liquids (oil/condensate/NGLs) as a liability. You're trying to be smart but you've completely misunderstood PANR's business model.

PANR's development plan would require 1 injection well to be drilled per three production wells. *If*, and I repeat if, the proposed gas pipeline goes ahead, then the requirement for c.500 injection wells within PANR's development plan disappears.

This will save PANR up to US$7bn of capex, which instantly improves the NPV of their project. Vitally it also improves massively the IRR of the project, which in turn makes it a more attractive option for external investment.

When the PANR Exec Chairman said "a liability can be turned into an asset" he was describing a scenario where PANR's associated ***gas*** would be sold into a new gas pipeline (thus becoming an asset) rather than being re-injected into the formation (at a cost, thus a liability).

Really, Taximan57?

PS Saleable liquids/marketable liquids is the term used for the combination of light oil/condensates/NGLs.

07:34

Hi GrumpyScouser - I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Which party has "insufficient gas" and which party "has incredible amounts of it"?

PANR has 1.28bbo contingent resource of saleable liquids and >5Tcf of gas. 88E has plenty of gas but the producability of liquids and thus commerciality of their downdip location is under serious doubt.

I fully appreciate you're trying to be be constructive but I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here? Can you be more explicit please? TIA

23:14

The digital police didn't like the word p-a-r-s-e in my post timed at 23:14.

p**** = p-a-r-s-e

21:04

taximan57 - that is indeed a direct quote from the rns, no issue there. sadly, and in a pattern which has been established by 88e since charlie-1, readers of 88e anns/rnss need to p**** each sentence with a forensic eye for detail, a healthy sprinkling of cynicism and the codebreaking skills of alan turing.

note that "commercialisation options" is *not* the same as declaring the data from the two flow tests has met the threshold required to declare one or both reservoirs commercial. elsewhere in the rns they describe how the data has to be analysed further prior to making such a declaration.

anyone wishing a tough lesson in 88e rns authorship, head back to the merlin-1 and merlin-2 rnss and marvel in the obfuscation and misdirection.

21:49

Hi ZBB - it's great news, isn't it? The Biden administration appears to be limiting the search for new O&G fields on the NPRA and ANWR in Alaska. This, in turn, increases the value of O&G assets located on State of Alaska land such as PANR's acreage and 88E's Project Phoenix (providing it's deemed commercial).

In case you're also referring to the Biden administration's moratorium on constructing new LNG export infrastructure, the proposed Alaskan LNG export terminal has already been approved, license granted.

Thanks for playing.

21:57

Hi ZBB - it's great news, isn't it? The Biden administration appears to be limiting the search for new O&G fields on the NPRA and ANWR in Alaska. This, in turn, increases the value of O&G assets located on State of Alaska land such as PANR's acreage and 88E's Project Phoenix (providing it's deemed commercial).

In case you're also referring to the Biden administration's moratorium on constructing new LNG export infrastructure, the proposed Alaskan LNG export terminal has already been approved, license granted.

Thanks for playing.

19:31 & 19:19

Redirons - yet another poster spreading false and misleading information. Do you have no shame?

To be crystal clear, the 88E BoD has not, repeat not, stated that the data collected in the flow tests of the USFS or SMD-B has met the threshold required to declare the flow commercial.

Please stop misinforming members of this forum. It is highly unethical and dishonest.

19:03

You're kidding, aren't you, Madjedi??!! There is not a serious O&G analyst in the world who wouldn't compare the fundamentals and comparative valuations of 88E and PANR. Why? Because as Dave Wall, former MD of 88E, stated in H1'21 88E and PANR share unequal (in scale and quality) portions of the same stacked reservoirs in Alaska, about 20-30 miles south of Deadhorse. For goodness sake, have you not noticed how many times 88E management has referred to PANR in recent RNSs? If you don't believe me, have a read of the 88E RNSs and presentations over the last 12 months and compare them to RNSs/presentations in prior years. Big difference, huge!

I'll go further. It would be a dereliction of duty *not* to compare and contrast these two companies. The fact that you don't like how the comparison stacks up and unveils 88E's fundamental weaknesses is not the fault of those who research the subject matter. This was all decided hundreds of millions of years ago and then again when lease boundaries were drawn on the surface in the 20th/21st centuries.

18:44

For the record, this is a blatant lie. I am not employed by anyone or any entity. I am an individual investor seeking price discovery - no more, no less.

18:39

Stas20 - for the record I have zero respect for Carson Block. I have no philosophical problem with shorting. I opened my first short in 1997 or 1998, can't remember exactly. What I do have a problem with is shorters who make stuff up and question the honesty of company directors without providing any evidence for same. They then disseminate their made up nonsense to their mates in the financial media and other high profile shorters on social media. Before you know it, a completely fabricated and damaging truism has developed around a stock due to the dishonesty of individuals like Carson Block.

I've met him. He is nothing to look up to as a human being.

I have *never* relied on disseminating made up nonsense to further a short position. I view such behaviour as dishonourable and unethical.

All of which begs the question, who is disseminating the false or misleading information on this forum? The posters who declare with the utmost certainty that "50bopd was not the peak rate" or "there are two drills"? Or the individuals solely interested in the fundamentals, facts, data, research, analysis, maths, truth?

15:39

Ok, I see this type of post from retail investors quite regularly. Sharebel laments "An extract from the fantastic RNS - this is our SECOND OIL DISCOVERY to add to the FIRST and we are being forced to trade below the price before we even discovered both!"

"...we are being forced to trade below the price before we even discovered both."

Sharebel and anyone else who thinks this way. Whether you go on to accept today's RNS is positive or negative, you must must must consider whether the historical share price which Sharebel is using as his starting point, eg 0.45p for 88E was an "informed price based on the fundamentals."

I contend that 88E has, literally for years and years, traded well in excess of its fundamentals. On some occasions, it has traded 10x, 20x, 30x ahead of its fundamentals. If it has indeed been the case that 88E has traded with a very significant speculative premium built into its market persona then when the hard data does eventually arrive it often sees the speculative part of the SP being wiped out altogether.

I am not 100% certain but I suspect that is what's happening right now. Another clue which I've shared with this forum is the non-arrival of the US OTC WFH punters of 2021 and 2022.

I contend the reason the 88E SP fell today and will stay at or below this level is because a) the empirical data from the flow tests was disappointing and b) the market is acknowledging the company will be required to recapitalise itself if it is to proceed with Namibia, never mind Namibia *and* Alaska. Personally, I assess that 88E has drilled its final well in Alaska as an operator.

18:04

For goodness sake, Skippysb01, this is a direct quote from today's RNS. It's the second line of the RNS!!!!!!!!!

"Peak flow rate of ~50 barrels of oil per day (bopd) of light oil"

Stop posting misinformation. It is not fair or ethical to do so. Be better.

17:51

VisitTimor - fact check? False. The "donkey work" has most certainly not been done. 88E management doesn't even know whether the USFS and SMD-B reservoirs are commercial at the downdip Hickory-1 location. How in the wide, wide world of sport do you expect anyone, never mind a major with hundreds of geologists/reservoir engineers/ seismic engineers/geophysicists/civil engineers, etc, to buy the asset without this essential threshold being surpassed?

Please stop misinforming other forum members. Do better.

17:41

On to substantive matters. Yes, 88E's Phoenix project has identified plenty of Oil in Place plus NGLs, condensate and gas. Happy to stipulate that. The trouble is, Sharebel, and something you resolutely refuse to understand is that such assets are only of value if you can extract that oil in a commercial manner. There is not a major on the planet (or semi-major as someone posted earlier today, lol) who would seek to buy 88E's Phoenix asset at this point in time.

88E will need to drill a horizontal well and place it on a LTPT and drill further appraisal wells to collect sufficient data to derisk the asset such that any potential acquiror would come forward with a bid.

So, Sharebel, are you going to provide the c.US$100m required fora LTPT and two or three other wells? Perhaps you're hoping the unsophisticated newcomers you're trying to attract today will come up with the dough?

Time to come clean, Sharebel. The company has already trailed a consolidation. A consolidation, recapitalisation and re-crafted narrative towards Namibia is heading your way....and you know it.

17:47

Funny. That raised a smile, Ssccss.

17:41

Lololololololol, I look forward to the FCA contacting me in that case. For the record, I am not employed by anyone or any entity. I see you're another forum member who doesn't know 88E is listed on the ASX, AIM and US OTC. Presuming you're not a flat earther (?), are you aware of time zones???!!! Dear o dear.

17:21

No, no, no, no, no, Skippysb01. Please stop posting misinformation. These are ***peak*** oil flow rates.

Let me see if I can explain this better. Ok, you're in your house and the workmen are up the road replacing the water mains pipes. The contractors have dropped a note in your letterbox saying the water is going to be turned off all day and won't be switched back on until 6pm that evening. During the day you forget about the work going on outside and you turn on the tap in the kitchen sink. Nothing, no water.

6pm rolls around and you stand in front of the tap in the kitchen again. You turn on the tap and out splutters some water. Big, explosive splash at first and then it stops, gurgles for a bit and then spurts out again and again and again, has another burp and then the water starts to flow as you would normally expect it to.

These peak flow rates which 88E, IMO, seeks to highlight without placing the data in its proper context, were measured in the "spurts again and again and again" phase. Today's SMD-B c.50bopd peak flow rate figure was measured in a moment of time....I don't know if it was a minute or 10 minutes or 20 mins. But the ***fact*** that only 4 barrels of oil was collected in the stk tank means that the ***average*** flow of oil over those 16 hours was nowhere near to 50bopd equivalent. Expressed on a daily basis, olderwiser is correct when he states it is, mathematically, the equivalent of 6bopd.

My *opinion*. It is not impossible, but clearly it is now a high risk that one or both of the reservoirs at the Hickory-1 location are not going to meet the threshold to declare commerciality.

Once again, I beseech forum members to Google Dmax and updip/downdip. Go to 88E's drilling RNSs about Hickory-1 and look at the depths at which 88E intersected the BFF, the SFS and the SMD. Then look up the depths for those same reservoirs at Talitha, Theta West and Alkaid-2. See the difference?

I contend the reason the 88E SP fell today and will stay at or below this level is because a) the data from the flow tests was disappointing and b) the market is acknowledging the company will be required to recapitalise itself if it is to proceed with Namibia, never mind Namibia *and* Alaska. Personally, I assess that 88E has drilled its last well in Alaska as operator.

17:12

Hi Brom - could you please give the forum an idea of the cost of drilling, completing, perforating, fracking and stimulating a 5000ft lateral and then place it on a Long Term Production Test (LTPT)?

My estimate is a minimum of US$25m. Naturally the figure will be higher if a permanent pad at Hickory-1 has to be constructed.

Of course, such a well would only be given the go-ahead if the data collected in the last month or so surpassed the threshold required to be considered "commercial".

Let's say the data is labelled "commercial" and a LTPT would cost US$25m. How do you anticipate 88E and its shareholders will fund that operation? Please also bear in mind 88E's commitments in Namibia (US$15m in next two years, correct?) and its various annual lease fees and G&A. I note you have previously acknowledged Texas does not cover salaries and listing fees, office rent, travel, etc. never mind contribute a single dollar to exploration activities.

The forum listens to you, Brom. How is 88E going to fund a US$25m horizontal well in Alaska?