Member Info for Scot126

Possible explanation for the large sell order in Oz? Could it be the Namibian partners selling the 88E shares granted to them as part of the deal? They need to pay for seismic work in Namibia and the back cash paid by 88E for past work on the acreage will not be nearly sufficient to compete the work required for a full 2D seismic study. Remember the Namibian guys are due another 320m shares after 30-60 days once the deal is recognised by the Namibian regulator.

Ok, just spoke to a former colleague of mine who works at WHI. He looked through the last few weeks of Brendan Long's research and nowhere does it mention PANR and $150m required to deliver first sustainable production at Aphun.

Kever is a liar.

Kever - I challenge you directly to name the exact publication date for the specific WHI research note (either weekly O&G summary or a PANR only note) where the analyst refers directly to $150m being required to deliver first sustainable production from Aphun.

You have until 4.35pm today, being cob for the LSE.

Looking forward to reading the data collected by 88E when flow testing the SFS (primary) and SMD (secondary) reservoirs at Hickory-1 in Q1'24.

Looks like Burgundy has indeed defaulted on their obligations under the JOA. Makes sense that 88E raised the funds necessary to cover the budget shortfall for the flow tests *prior* to the final date for Burgundy to stump up the cash. Had 88E waited until *after* the formal notification from Burgundy of default then the SP would very likely have weakened, thus making the fundraise itself more difficult *and* delivering extra dilution to existing shareholders. So, understandable on timing, well done.

UK/Aussie/US private shareholders would do very well to consider why it is that not one member of the 88E BoD and management has invested a single dollar in this fundraise. Not a single dollar. Looking at Ashley in particular....a fairly decent salary and yet not one dollar invested in this fundraise. Remember also that he elected to take his bonus in cash rather than shares. Why is that? Objectively, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the company's strategy, is it?

There's also a market-wide etiquette in small caps that NEDs invest at least part of their annual director's fee into any fundraise which occurs in that FY. Not a single dollar has been invested by this group of people. Why is that?

Brom - the obvious question. Do you know the folk behind Burgundy on a personal level? Sounds like you might from a recent post? If so, what reason are they giving for deciding not to finance their share of the drilling and flow testing of Hickory-1?

For the traders. Does the options/warrant strike price create a ceiling for your trading strategy?

Ok folks - mass reporting of Kever's post timed at 18:15 please. Tell the moderators that he is disseminating false and misleading information leading to a disorderly market in PANR shares. Get on it.

11:16

Listen chrisev1 - you're dead wrong on this and you've just misinformed the forum once again. There was no fundraise on 13th Nov. The company *paid* a cash sum to Monitor (was is c.$280k?) and *ISSUED* Monitor 316m NEW shares.

There was no fundraise or cash raise. 88E paid the cash element from their cash at hand and CREATED AND ISSUED the 316m now shares.

Listen chrisev1, you're not a bad person, that's clear. But you are totally wrong about this. The last fundraise was the rights issue/follow up placing.

To all other readers of the forum and especially to the people who ticked chrisev1's posts, I implore you to read the "Use of Funds" portions of the Rights Issue RNS and today's RNS. Chrisev1 is mistaken and that's just all there is to say about the matter. Buy/sell/hold but please don't rely on his content on this subject matter today.

10:54

Chrisev1 - that's massively out of order. That whole post is a blatant lie and you know it. Go look at the use of funds for the rights issue and subsequent placing. No mention of Namibia then.

You should apologise and tell the forum to ignore that post.

23.30

Gman93 - key word in "reserves based lending" is "reserves". 88E's only reserves are at Umiat (for which 88E paid $1m to purchase) and their Longhorn reserves (the dividends from which are required to cover the company's G&A). Debt ain't going to be an option here.

23:58

Gman93 - your post presumes the BoD have any choice.

*IF* Burgundy have defaulted on the US$7m owed (for the Hickory-1 drill plus their share of the upcoming flow test costs) AND with the Board's recent decision to invest in the Namibian project (paid for by a combination of CASH plus shares) then how on earth do you think 88E are to pay for the Hickory-1 flow tests?

As a shareholder, you have been informed of the company's cash position by its own public financial disclosures; you have been informed of the possibility/probability of Burgundy defaulting; you have been informed of the Board's decision to invest in Namibia; you have been informed that the dividend from Longhorn is insufficient to cover 88E's G&A never mind contribute to capital costs in Alaska/Namibia; you have been informed the company wouldn't proceed with the flow test of the secondary target, the BFF, at Hickory-1 this season (presumably due to limited cash resources as the data would have been of value); you have been informed of the ballpark costs for this season's flow test(s)......so what did you expect? 88E has got to pay its bills somehow.

If the Board doesn't raise cash from the market then what do you think the reaction would be if they announced they had decided to cancel all the operations planned at Hickory-1 this season? It would be a bloodbath. It sounds like they have had no option but to raise cash.

Best guess, and it is a *guess*, I reckon the company will attempt to sell 2 - 2.5bn new shares at 0.25p. Shareholders would do well to examine *very closely* the willingness of 88E management to invest in this issue.

To repeat and to be crystal clear, I wish 88E every success with their cash raise and with the flow tests of Hickory-1 this upcoming season.

Dear All - please also mass report Kevin's post at 15:33.

We must make a stand against this criminal behaviour.

Moderators have removed the insider disinformation posted by Kever. That was quick. Many thanks if you're reading this.

11:27

Hi sittingbush - this is solely from memory so I'm happy to be corrected. PH's TPs have been 50p then 20p then 0p. It's been 0p for the last two, maybe three notes???

The initiation of coverage note had 28 factual errors in the first two pages. I made sure the Guild on the other place knew of that.

Yep, you could say the analyst was right and he's called it beautifully. As is often the case in life (!), he was right (on the SP) but for all the wrong reasons. He misunderstood both the geology and the development model - and refused to be educated or corrected on both counts.

Despite wholly misunderstanding those two cornerstones of the investment case, the co-ordinated bear campaign + director sales + Alkaid-2's failure to meet guidance delivered the SP performance he had forecast!

Personally, I can't help wondering about the PH analyst's involvement in the bear raid because a couple of the highest profile bears publicly admitted to being clients of PH and in regular touch with the PH O&G team. We'll likely never know. [These are some of the same bears who said I was a convicted criminal in Alaska, hacked my computer, said there was no oil, said there was no regional seal present at Talitha, etc, etc]

Sadly, PANR didn't have the share register to withstand the factless bear attack plus the Alkaid-2 failure to meet guidance. But let's be crystal clear, the PH analyst did not forecast any of the technical problems with Alkaid-2. He was right (SP) but for the wrong reasons.

Ref. webinar. It should be obvious to all who viewed the webinar that there are serious ongoing discussions with

oil service vendors about finance. 6 NDAs, with each spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct due diligence. If a deal is announced I guarantee you 99% of the bears and trolls will simply disappear, never to be seen again. A couple of honourable ones might hold their hands up and say they got it wrong. So they're right.....until the split second they're wrong. And that's it in a nutshell.

The directors are not fraudsters or scammers. They're professionals going about their chosen profession. I have seen zero evidence of unethical or illegal activity connected to PANR in all the time I've known them (>10 years). If I had seen anything like that, I would have sold up and moved on. Make of that what you will.

10:50

Brom - happy to be corrected. The US$3.4m to which you refer below relates to the sum due from Burgundy for their share of the *drilling* of Hickory-1 last season, correct? A broadly similar and additional sum will also be due from Burgundy to pay for their share of the flow test(s) at Hickory-1 this coming season, correct?

So the funding hole is more like US$7m v's historical budget? I'm sure the forum understands Burgundy will effectively have to "give up" their 25% share of Phoenix if they default, moving 88E to 100% ownership. With the recent investment in Namibia and the possibility (probability?) of Burgandy defaulting, do you still expect 88E to conduct flow tests on both the SFS (primary target) and SMD (secondary target) this winter? Thanks.

Ok, bit more info on the Peel Hunt coverage. DarrthVader was spot on (thanks for the prod to investigate, Darrth). Peel Hunt withdrew their latest PANR note and it is no longer available on their client portal website, I'm told. I don't *think* there has been a retraction issued but there *may* be a revised note to follow.

I've been around when brokers have retracted/corrected/withdrawn research notes. It is nearly always due to errors of fact. Naturally an analyst is free to communicate their opinion or to arrive at a valuation using their declared methodology. However, making factual errors, and even worse relying on those errors to arrive at a non-guided and non-consensus conclusion is viewed rather dimly, very poor form.

I know for a fact that some of the loud-mouthed bears have pointed to the PH "research" as supportive of their trading stance. If ever we see such comments expressed on public forums again, we can all now confidently rebut such posts by stating with certainty that PH has withdrawn their latest note on the company. Good stuff.

As for the SP weakness.....it is what it is. It's b*gger all volume, even less when you measure it in sterling and take account of double counting! Listen to the webinar and read the latest RNS. Six NDAs signed ("and growing") with "all the usual suspects". I appreciate there are clowns out there saying the company is going around the City right now to raise money. I can categorically state that is NOT the case. The NOMAD would not have permitted Hobbs to buy $250k of stock last week or to have recorded a webinar on Tuesday if that was the case. Plus, I spoke with the company.

If you believe in the BoD, the asset and the fundamentals you buy/hold. If you don't, you sell.

Wed 22:04

Ok, DarrthVader. I'll have a sniff around, see what I can come up with and revert back to the forum.

23:15

Hi DarrthVader - I was not aware of this. I would be extremely grateful if you could provide me/the forum with a reference for this statement. Has it been formerly retracted by PH by issuing a supplementary note? Has it been removed from Bloomie? Is it no longer available on the PH client portal? If you can try to give me any pointers on this issue I'll then be able to ask around some of my buyside contacts to investigate further.

To the forum - IMHO, a retraction by PH on this name would be meaningful. When PH published their first note on PANR a couple of years ago, I pointed out 28 factual errors in the first two pages of the note. I've been an analyst and think that, on the whole, they're hard-working and try their best. In my professional opinion, PH has done a truly shocking job with their PANR coverage and they should be ashamed at their conduct.

Let's see what DarrthVader comes up with and then I'll do some digging of my own.

Exec Chairman buys a further 1m shares. Private placement to raise $4.15m @ 20.8p to pay Dec and Mar qtrly bond in cash. Lord (Michael) Spencer's IPGL once again involved. Hmmm....pattern of VERY supportive (An) rich billionaire) shareholders seems to be forming ref. bond.

Webinar scheduled for 21st November @5pm London time.

"This gives [$PANR] the breathing space to mature potential vendor and offtaker financing options during the coming weeks and months in order to meet our strategic objective of achieving cashflow self-sufficiency and to seek to minimize possible dilution of value for existing investors. My own commitment to purchase nearly 1 million more shares demonstrates my confidence in the Company and its ability to achieve its goals." - David Hobbs, Exec Chairman.

NB "...to MATURE potential vendor and offtaker financing options..."

So, discussions are clearly under way and the Exec Chairman buys another 1m shares, taking his holding to 3.7m. All shares paid in cash, no gifts.

That is as clear a signal of. Insider confidence as you're going to get on AIM. Stock goes up.

Perhaps worth heading to the ASX website to read through the various announcements and presentations 88E released overnight.

Included in the filings is notification of another >300m new shares being issued as part payment for the first tranche of W.I. in Namibia.

We are told the operator needs the investment to conduct an extensive 2D survey plus back costs, etc. I also note that these new shares are ***not subject to any lock up or escrow arrangements*** once issued. It is therefore surely logical to expect Monitor will sell these shares to fund the operations of the Namibian project.

Remember there will be another few hundred million shares issued to Monitor in 30-60 days depending on Namibian govt paperwork timing.

Looks like the new shares were priced at 0.6 Aussie cents. Happy to be corrected.

Brom - you still haven't informed the forum why Erik Opstad no longer appears to be involved with 88E in Alaska? Also, once 88E pays for this winter's operations at Hickory-1, do you calculate they will be running very low on cash? Do you expect Burgundy to default on their funding obligations? Were you surprised the BFF flow test has been shelved? If you weren't surprised, why didn't you give a heads up to the forum?

07:25

There won't be a trading halt in London. The ASX allows for trading halts in such scenarios, London doesn't except in extremis. I've worked in both markets, the Aussie system is far better IMHO.

Mixture of cash and shares. Shareholders would do well to investigate if the shares allocated to the vendor are subject to any lock up arrangements. I doubt many will wish to see the circular loop of Dave Wall and Erik Opstad's most excellent adventure which saw ELKO issuing invoices -> being paid in cash -> cash then used for placing -> placing shares sold IMMEDIATELY into the market, where ELKO was the PRIME CONTRACTOR of the ONGOING operations at that precise time. Remarkable.

I know many here are anticipating a fund raise before the Hickory-1 winter ops begin. I would have thought this Namibia announcement makes that inevitable, wouldn't you?

06:35

Chrisev1 - "new country"?????

Ok, 88E management are farming in to a project in a new country. With what? Asset swap? Scrip? At time of writing they don't have sufficient cash to pay for all the flow tests originally planned for Hickory-1 this winter so what are they using to fund this farm in opportunity? Will this opportunity require an additional fundraise?

Sooooo, management has decided to apply capital and or resources to a new project, as yet unknown. With the exception of Phoenix, does that mean all the other non-funded projects in Alaska (Leonis, Peregrine, Umiat, etc) are being de-emphasised/de-prioritised? What about the capital which was/is due to be allocated to Longhorn in Texas?

On a lfl basis (grossed up W.I., pre-royalty, no vale for gas, valuing liquids only, P50/Best estimate) 88E's contingent resource of 136m barrels is approx 14% of PANR's 963m barrels of saleable liquids for the Basin Floor Fan. 88E mkt cap = £77m, PANR = £240m. Maths?