Member Info for Scot126

00:32
Not gonna happen, scousershares.

Two reasons. Firstly there'll be no flow test activity on the ground until January '24. Secondly, the company will need to raise more cash to finance the flow tests. Depending on how many horizons management assess warrant testing then I estimate c.US$10m of new capital will be required.

No, Jim, he's dead wrong. As are you.

Alkaid-2 was *not* a "duster". Anyone who labels it as such is using dramatic language for nefarious effect. Who should shareholders trust? Schlumberger, whose analysis states Alkaid-2 would have come in *above* pre-drill guidance but for the gas cap, or Old White Walker?

Maybe we should believe you, Jim?

Yep, good old Jim. The guy who shamelessly gees up the credulous punters into stocks like 88E in order to sell his own pa stock to these unsophisticated marks. Let's be crystal clear, Jim. You loathe these unsophisticated marks, don't you Jim? You look down on them as necessary prey to deliver your unethically-derived profits. Proof? The fact Jim publicly posted he doesn't believe in the asset jointly owned by PANR and 88E. In fact he's posted on multiple occasions that PANR directors have lied about the asset.

Jim speaks with forked tongue. Don't be like Jim.

Sat 22:19
Don't be so thick, Turbot. When have I ever described flow rates in percentages? I have a hard enough time remembering passwords for one username never mind multiples. Just plain old scot126 across all platforms - fact.

23:00
Ok, Turbot1610, I'll bite. Is it your contention that any future production wells located on PANR/88E acreage will ever flow anywhere near to 3700bopd?

#factsmatter

88E forum readers need to read, understand and ***accept*** the following. To do otherwise is to insert your head in the sand whilst proclaiming loudly that you don't believe in physics.

88E's and PANR's shared reservoirs will *never* flow at 3700bopd. Bluntly, the physics behind the geology and reservoir properties of these shared assets mean that, even using multi-stage fracks, artificial lift, secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, their production wells will not flow at 3700bopd.

Forum members need to look up "tight conventional reservoirs" and educate yourselves about the implications. For the record, there is strong evidence the Estimated Ultimate Recoveries (EURs) of production wells on PANR's acreage will deliver commerciality. We're yet to see if that's the case for 88E's Project Phoenix. We won't know until next winter season's flow test at Hickory-1 at the earliest. Even then 88E shareholders will likely have to wait for LTPT data in subsequent years. Due to 88E's downdip and depositional properties, there are enhanced risks to commerciality v's that of PANR.

Suggestion. Totally up to you if this carries any weight with forum members. I know Rabito79. His every working day revolves around providing solutions for secondary and tertiary recovery techniques for O&G companies around the world. If he is telling us that any comparisons with Pikka and Horseshoe are pie in the sky then I would 100% believe him. The Next Investors article was poorly written and, IMO, highly unethical.

It's an article jammed full of obfuscation, I'm afraid. My two major criticisms:

1) 88E's reservoirs are conventional but at the tighter end of the spectrum (PANR has admitted this for years - fact). Whilst I note the caveats, an objective observer aware of the geology would think it highly disingenuous to compare Willow and Pikka/Horseshoe with 88E's reservoirs. And electing not to explain the difference in Recovery Factors between all these reservoirs whilst attempting to big up the 88E net pay data is poor form.

2) The article is not intellectually robust. Frankly, it is outrageous for a supposedly professional commentator to attempt to inject Willow and Pikka as comparators in the article's narrative whilst point blank refusing to undertake a single piece of comparative analysis using PANR's data and valuation.

There's a very good reason the author has omitted to mention the listed company which shares ownership of these stacked reservoirs in Alaska. And the reason is that an 88E barrel in the ground is currently valued by the market at 2-3x the value of a higher classification barrel of oil in PANR's acreage. This irrational state of affairs is made all the more stark when you consider PANR's OIP and recoverable resource is many multiples of 88E's; geological properties are superior in PANR's acreage v's 88E's; PANR are literally years ahead of 88E in data collection (4 wells drilled, successful flow tests already conducted in all 4 locations)I; plus PANR's data has been verified by Schlumberger, AHS Baker Hughes, Lee Keeling and 2x IERs are currently being written by Netherland Sewell (on Theta West and then Alkaid).

So imagine my surprise to read a supposed professional article written about 88E which does not mention the company or pertinent data which will have, by miles, the greatest external effect on 88E's investment case than any other.

Objectively, that article was a piece of nonsense. Put it this way, even Brom felt obliged to give this forum the heads up so that members would not swallow the drivel in the article.

Please also read Rabito79's post below. I agree 100% with every word of that post.

For the record, not a single production well located on PANR/88E land will ever flow at a rate of 3700bopd. Never.

12:08
Dead wrong, chrisev1. You're now getting very close to mis-informing members of this forum. I can only suggest you make yourself familiar with the SoA Dept of Natural Resources policies on O&G development before taking the forum down this rabbit hole any further.

11.37
Chrisev1 - I beseech you to consider deeply the following. The very fact you posed this question reveals, sadly, how little you understand about the 88E investment case.

I'll try to answer. If you're refering to a LTPT then the earliest would be in the summer/autumn of 2024. This will require a new well to be drilled with an extended horizontal component plus multi-stage fracking. The SoA will then allow 88E to flare off associated gas for 3-9 months to complete the flow test. Capital required to drill such a well and install the kit required for a LTPT? Maybe $30m+?

If you're talking continuous production from Phoenix? As a stand alone company.....maybe 5 years and a minimum of $200m - $300m capital investment.

This, I suspect, is one of the many reasons you believe an 88E barrel in the ground should be equal to (or indeed more than) the value of a PANR barrel in the ground. PANR is *at least* 2 years ahead of 88E in data collection and has invested hundreds of millions more in this particular project. *You* may not recognise value in these facts but analysts and the sector do. If nothing else, think of the time value of money within an NPV calculation.

09:24
Paddy - I kinda follow your narrative. I don't think it's realistic but I can follow it.

But there's a big fact check heading your way. The PANR CB terms: there is no such clause relating to "10p convertible loan calls". Made up gibberish. Stop spreading disinformation, that's highly unethical behaviour.

The reaction to today's RNS isn't the anomaly, folks. Rather it was the Dave Wall inspired, organised social media campaign of 20/21 (and the 21/22 season to a lesser extent) which generated the anomalous stockmarket reaction which in turn has lead, sadly, to the recent, hugely unrealistic expectations expressed by many on this forum.

Suggestion? Try to forget the 20/21 and 21/22 social media generated SP spikes. It was all hyped nonsense. Start looking at 88E's fundamentals. There *is* some value there but the 88E shareholder base needs to begin to deal in facts and empirical data if it is to use its impressive social media presence to advance the investment community's understanding of these shared Alaskan assets.

06:55
No, predator7, 88E is not fully funded for the intended Hickory-1 flow test in the 23/24 winter season. Quite understandably, 88E will need to secure further finance for next season's flow test.

C'mon Nora - 88E's reserves are all 90 miles or so to the west in Umiat. Stop the disinformation. It'll take at least 2 years and a LTPT before 88E reports reserves at Phoenix. Stop making stuff up, it's highly unethical.

00:02
Of course I'm pleased, chrisev1. Why wouldn't I be? All this empirical data is mightily useful, no question. But please do be prepared for a huge number of so-called experts like Oilman Jim (Louis10), the Tom Winnifrith crew and some loudmouth US O&G experts who point blank refuse to accept the commerciality of these stacked reservoirs. Be prepared, 88E shareholders, I'm serious. If the parties I listed are prepared to call PANR a fraud despite the fact all horizons apart from the SMD have been successfully flow-tested, what the hell do you think they're going to say about 88E's downdip and not yet flow-tested assets????

Now on to valuation, the reason we're all here. Not one poster, not one, has provided a mathematically-grounded explanation for why the market should now, following this ANN/RNS, be compelled to pay more for an 88E barrel in the ground than a higher classified PANR barrel in the ground.

If a single poster on this forum is suggesting the casual reader buys 88E shares on Tuesday, then applying simple maths and logic that same poster is suggesting that punters/investors pay triple the amount per barrel in ground for their 88E purchase v's an investment in PANR. That is financial lunacy.

But if deliberately spiking the credulous is your thing, taking advantage of those less sophisticated than you, then set about it.

Just like many others, I'll likely be reading an ANN/RNS from 88E in the next few hours. Again like many others, I'll be happy to read net pay data for the various stacked reservoirs. I think it's reasonable to expect such data after the logging suite undertaken over the last few days.

Ok, that's all good stuff. Happy to read the data collected so far.

But here's some context for everyone. The Basin Floor Fan between Talitha and Theta West is at least 10.5 miles in length AND the net pay is around 900ft, give or take. Yep, that's 900ft. In addition, the BFF Lower was successfully flow tested at Theta West. Guidance for the BFF recoverable resource is c.1.7 billion barrels of light, sweet crude.

The market is currently valuing each PANR barrel in the ground at approx 11c.

So, I have a question for all of the posters on this forum who, without showing any mathematical basis, believe the next 88E ANN will usher in a SP of 1, 2, 3p+, etc. Why would the market value a non-flow tested, downdip 88E barrel in the ground at what would be many multiples of PANR's 11c figure? Why? Why?

The ONLY answer which retains any logic is 88E's large social media driven following of retail punters. If you cannot provide an answer to the fundamental questions I raised in the paragraph above, and are relying solely on social media ramptastic punters to deliver you a trading profit then please be careful tomorrow.

NB NB NB. 88E will not be flow testing Hickory-1 until January '24 at the earliest. And it's a statement of fact that there's far less energy (social media and share price) surrounding the stock v's the last two winter seasons. Punters will not, IMO, sustain the 88E SP for 9 days never mind the 9 months until Hickory-1 is flow tested. Be careful.

Gregpeck7 v's Schlumberger, AHS Baker Hughes, Lee Keeling, WoodMac, eSeis

12:11
1) Just block me, Investor111. Alternatively get off your high horse and join me in ensuring the wilful misinformation/disinformation/distraction/obfuscation is met head on with factual rebuttals and corrections. Be warned, get ready to be called all manner of filth and have your integrity or mental health questioned by posters *such as* chrisev1 et al.

11:58
2) You see, everybody, this is a perfect example of chrisev1's distraction and obfuscation. For months (years) he and others have refused to acknowledge the *facts* of the two investment cases. He's a bad actor who is attempting to take advantage of the naive and credulous in order to deliver himself a profit. Facts be damned, chrisev1 will distract/misinform/obfuscate because he deserves to make a profit off the backs of those he gees up with made up nonsense.

Thankfully this forum is largely fact-based. The contributors to this forum aren't seeking to take advantage of a non-factual organised social media campaign to deliver their return. Nope, the fundamentals and empirical data does the job?

11:04
No matter how many times you attempt to frame our interactions as a "difference in opinion" or a "different point of view" you display a deeply unserious, highly irresponsible attitude towards the readers of your public posts.

You point blank refuse to acknowledge facts, even when published by 88E management, if it doesn't serve your interests. You're impossible to debate with precisely because you refuse to acknowledge accepted facts and empirical data.

You may believe taking advantage of less sophisticated investors to deliver you a profit by posting disinformation or distractions is acceptable. I do not.

10:38
Your post is noted, Investor111, but not gonna happen. Feel free to block me, I won't be offended in the slightest.

I accept there's a cohort of private investors who couldn't give a t0ss about the *facts* of an investment case but I am not one of them. I come with >25 years of professional markets experience and, whilst it doesn't guarantee success, establishing a consensus understanding of the *facts* of an investment case lead to the. Highest probability of successful outcomes in my experience.

That's what you get from me. If you want made up gibberish, head over to other forums. If you think it's acceptable for social media posters to intentionally sow misinformation and disinformation to take advantage of the naive and unsophisticated in furtherance of their own profit generation then you and I have different values.

Facts, facts, facts.

09:48
Incorrect again, chrisev1. I don't have to "prove" that PANR's portion of the shared asset is larger because the management of 88E and PANR have both confirmed this is the case in repeated RNSs and presentations. That you either lack the capacity to understand the data or, worse, wilfully attempt to obfuscate and distract others as you attempt to take advantage of the naivety of others is a truly dreadful way to behave towards your fellow man/woman.

And before you do the usual whataboutism g0bbledyg00k, for the umpteenth time....using the publicly available information 88E is currently valued miles ahead of its fundamentals and PANR is currently valued miles below its fundamentals using the industry-accepted risked/unrisked metric for E&P assets.

You are quite wrong about people not caring about which company has the larger and higher quality portion of the asset. You repeatedly appear to contend that the underlying asset has zero relevance to the value the market gives to a listed company, i.e. it's mkt cap. You are dead wrong. The stockmarket is not a random number generator. Your attitude to distract readers of your posts away from *facts*is anathema to all who seek the truth concerning the asset. It's pathetic, wholly irresponsible and, IMHO, highly unethical.

08:19
Let me fix that for you, chrisev1.
Keep up the good work on the comparative analysis of 88E and PANR. These two companies have unequal (in scale and quality) shares in a number of stacked reservoirs in Alaska. For centuries, markets have used comparative valuation techniques to assess value in the case of unequally shared assets. This is no different for E&P assets. Like you, I find it astonishing that the market is *currently* opting to value a lower classified barrel in the ground at >25c on the 88E acreage v's a higher classified barrel in the ground at 11c on PANR's acreage. However history is definitive on the following: such mathematical absurdities do not continue into perpetuity.

Not so much organised internet froth from social media for 88E this time around. How come? No flow testing until Jan '24 or has the punter cohort moved on?