Member Info for Scot126

Unit status.
1) congrats on the award of Unit status.
2) have a look at all the conditions/operational undertakings attached to the DNR decision. More investment in seismic required, flow-testing, re-entering Icewine, another vertical well, a horizontal well for LTPT.

Back of the envelope calcs? $80m minimum and 2-3 more winter seasons.

Compare this to the northern neighbour of the shared asset, PANR. PANR has 3D seismic over its acreage, has done since the mid-2010s. They've drilled six wells, flow-tested 4 of those across multiple horizons and have just recommenced the LTPT of Alkaid-2 on its permanent gravel pad.

Comparative analysis: scale of asset (9:1, PANR:88E); quality of asset (updip and Dmax); and data retrieval (2-3 years ahead costing $80m min).

Lolololololololol......breathe.......lolololol. "Demolished".

The guy doesn't know the difference between reserves and resources, hehehehehehe.

More seriously - this forum needs to straighten up. There have been repeated posts about mental health, mostly directed at me but not solely. Too many of you clearly didn't learn a damn thing from the Caroline Flack stuff and all the other folk who took their own lives after online activity. Belt up.

05:53
WWP - Thanks for copying'n'pasting this whole post once again. It's good to laugh.

1) You either don't know the difference between reserves and contingent resources/recoverable resources OR you haven't done a lick of research on PANR. Which is it?

2) I have answered your question. More reading, less abusers for you WWP.

Oilman Jim - I am not paid by anyone to entice or persuade 88E shareholders to do anything of the sort. Cold and I keep telling you that you have no idea about PANR, which is fine I guess. But what is exceptionally embarrassing for you is that you persist in believing PANR, especially post the GB merger, falls within your trading model when it so very, very, very clearly does not.

chrisev1 - c'mon man, after the abuse and opprobrium you've levelled at me for ages you expect an online tutorial on the E&P risked/unrisked model when a) I presume you know how to use Google and b) Oilman Jim aka Louis10 can tell you not only what it is but for a fee he may even agree to construct one for you on both 88E and PANR....then you're not in reality.

Go ask Cenkos or Hartley for their research.

The lack of desire or capacity by this forum to conduct factual research is woeful. Had you done so as a collective, you wouldn't have permitted Dave Wall and Erik Opstad to make multiple millions of dollars off the back of 88E.

Pity.

Now then, 88E have pulled back on a) flow-testing this season and b) drilling through to the Kuparuk. Wonder what else might not be happening as previously guided? Anyone picking up a similar pattern to Merlin-1 and Merlin-2.......?

The main rollback from 88E management on expectations was, of course, the separation by a year of drilling and flow-testing at Hickory-1. Truly a red flag.

Now look very carefully at the following wording for the second rollback of expectations for Hickory-1:
"The KUP reservoir is a tertiary target and will be drilled
subject to time remaining in the season, borehole conditions and other technical considerations."

Then re-read the language in all the RNSs which describe Hickory-1. Today is the ***first time*** management is watering down expectations to drill down to the deepest Kuparuk target.

I know, I know, you're all probably thinking the same thing as I am. Inevitably, you're all recalling my multiple posts on this forum which expressed strong doubt that the Kuparuk would be drilled at Hickory-1 this season. Fact.

A couple of members of this forum have had the good grace to admit that pretty much everything I predicted at Peregrine turned out exactly as I forecast: the timings, the budgets, the flaky geology, Erik Opstad's ELKO share dealings, Dave Wall's share dealings and much more. I predicted nothing would happen at Umiat or Yukon and that they were worthless.

Suggest you all do some reading. I am flat out warning that the Dmax calculations for Hickory-1 do not look great. There is enhanced phasing risk at the Hickory-1 location.

To anyone silently following this forum. Have a trawl through the rebuttals to my posts, to Olderwiser's posts, to Rabito79's posts. Sure they're mostly abusive, but notice something else? No-one fact-checks us. No-one seeks to debate the fundamentals.

The abusive posters highlight how little they've researched the 88E investment case. Be under no illusion, they're the folk playing pass the parcel. However, in order for it to work in their favour, they NEED the next cohort of naive patsies to bid the stock up so they can sell into the spike. Be careful.

14.44
In case this forum was unaware, Louis10 <+> Oilman Jim. He's been spruiking his substack subscription service for a few weeks on lse, including the PANR forum, fyi.

Please see below a direct quote from Oilman Jim's free blog, dated 5/2/23:
"I have no great faith in the actual viability of any of 88E’s projects; it’s just one that’s invariably been good for a pre-spud share price run. This time, though, it’s left little time between funding and spudding."

I fully acknowledge OMJ's trading strategy. As you can see above, OMJ doesn't rate 88E's projects. Thus, his strategy relies on the hype surrounding fully-financed exploratory drills being sufficiently noisy to attract the naïve and credulous punter/gambler looking to play a financial game of pass the parcel prior to the drill results being announced. His strategy breaks down entirely if the hype around imminent drills doesn't draw in the less informed punter/gambler cohort because, as he readily admits, he does not believe fundamentals have much, if any, effect on the SP performance.

And this is all fine. As I've posted repeatedly on this forum, knock yourselves out if you're part of that cohort! I'll repeat a former colleague's wise saying for the newcomers here: "Enjoy the party, but dance close to the fire exit."

Where I find the strategy highly dubious is when the "swing trader community" (whom all follow OMJ fyi) pepper the various platforms with blatant falsehoods to gee up the aforementioned punter cohort. They need the credulous marks to deliver their trading profits.

Think on this for a moment. If OMJ's thesis is so successful, why seek a pitiful income from a paid for subscription service? Or, and even more craftily, does his trading model require OMJ's *own blog* to create the very buying frenzy in the run up to operations that delivers *his own* trading profits?

PS "But what about you and your comparative analysis of 88E and PANR, scot126?" The thing is, on *all* sector-accepted metrics PANR is cheaper than 88E - fact. Also, PANR is running well behind its fundamentals using the industry-accepted risked/unrisked modelling method. 88E is running ahead using that exact same model.

Part 2; continued from below

Latest update

But, as previously reported, the company ran into problems with sand blockages and other things that held up testing operations.

On Feb. 20 Pantheon said that following the successful cleanout of the sand blockage in the wellbore, “flow testing operations have now recommenced.”

Flow test information will be reported after flow rates have been stabilized, so stay tuned.

Note: Pantheon released a video giving a tour of the production facility, which can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW0B10MENzw

Please see below the latest article on PANR by Petroleum News.

"Drill, test, build in a single season on Alaska’s North Slope

Kay Cashman

Petroleum News

In recent releases of information about Alkaid 2 well testing Pantheon Resources has talked about its nearby production facility which took only a year to build.

The modular facility, which is on skids, can handle multiple wells.

It appears to be a balancing act for Pantheon between the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the company’s desire to have a facility in place that will allow its operator Great Bear Pantheon to move quickly into production should the Alkaid 2 exploration well’s long-term production test be successful.

AOGCC approved flaring in association with a long-term production test of the well, but in three-month increments, not the nine months requested by the company.

A Pantheon spokesman told Petroleum News in a Feb. 17 email that “the facility was designed in-house, with the primary components assembled in Ft Nelson Canada and then trucked to the North Slope and reassembled on site.”

“While a huge learning experience for Pantheon, it proves that given our location we can execute in a single season. We both drill and test wells in a single season while others drill one season and test the next. We were confident that we would need a facility for our long term test, thus committed to it before the spud of Alkaid 2 and were able to design, procure and install in a season,” the Pantheon spokesman said.

The production facility “now runs on power completely generated with produced gas without any ancillary equipment,” Pantheon announced on Feb. 14.

Drilled last summer

Great Bear Pantheon drilled the Alkaid 2 from a gravel pad off the Dalton Highway some 20 miles south of Prudhoe in July and August 2022.
In an Oct. 27 AOGCC hearing, Great Bear Pantheon reported that the well encountered the Alkaid production zone, a tight sand, and was “completed horizontally with a multi-stage hydraulically fractured completion similar to completions in tight sand reservoirs in the Permian, Anadarko and Williston basins.”

In its presentation to the commission, Great Bear Pantheon said Alkaid 2 had a pilot hole whose measured depth was 8,950 feet, with a true vertical depth of 8,584 feet. The well has a 5,000-foot lateral, with a bottomhole at 14,300 feet MD and 8,056 feet TVD.

The company told the commission that if the pilot production test was prematurely shortened the estimated production profile would be “highly speculative” and would “lack the certainty to … attract investment.”

AOGCC agreed, saying in a Nov. 23 order that “long-term production tests provide more accurate results, especially in poorer quality reservoir rocks, than short-term tests when evaluating the feasibility of a project. Short-term tests may not be able to differentiate between an economically viable development and an uneconomic one.”

Latest update

But,

09.59
We have a different set of values, Horult. You appear perfectly comfortable to attempt to energise the 88E "herd" without offering a scintilla of factual research or analysis in support of your urgings. All this in order to deliver trading profits you apparently believe you deserve, built on the backs of those who come in later than you do and are spiked.

I, on the other hand, don't think that is ethical.

09.39
Hi Horult - your honesty is refreshing and for that, I am truly grateful. I note your full-throated denunciation of shorters as "scum" who should be "banned". I'd be interested in your equally blunt judgement about those "swing traders" who deliberately gee-up the naive and credulous by *knowingly disseminating complete falsehoods* in order to deliver themselves an unethical profit. You don't often read contrition from the likes of convicted fraudster Alex Delarge as they read through the sad'n'sorry tales of those who were spiked into stocks having read the swing traders' fantastical musings. Hmmm....doesn't sound like you care too much either? All's fair in love and spiking others into over-valued stocks?!

09.43
Really easy answer to that question, ShareGuru22. 88E is trading miles *ahead* of its fundamentals and PANR is trading miles *behind* its fundamentals. Thus 88E is currently a massive game of pass the parcel and PANR isn't. Let me repeat, *even if* 88E proves every single barrel targeted by Hickory-1 (which it won't, look at company guidance on CoS) it will still be more expensive than PANR.

08.38
Thank you Horult. That's the perfect post for this forum.

Bravo!

After reading Horult's profound analysis on the 88E investment case, anyone still willing to argue publicly that, for the vast majority of those involved, 88E is nothing more than an annual game of pass the parcel?

03:50
Hi chrisev1 & maestro1 - notice how neither of you has fact-checked a single point or subject matter contained in my post? Funny that. Why not? Concerned that in so doing it would simply reinforce the argument?

Read the recent RNSs and presentations from both companies. They both reference each other with increasing regularity. The whole market now accepts the established *fact* that 88E and PANR share unequal portions of the same assets in Alaska. Therefore comparative analysis is a *necessity* in working towards fair value assessments. Don't believe me? Ask any equity analyst anywhere in the world.

When I say unequal portions of the same asset, I'm refering to scale (90:10, PANR:88E), quality (PANR's portion is updip, shallower, less at risk from phasing and Dmax risk) and classification (PANR's 3D data since mid-2010s plus Schlumberger, AHS Baker Hughes and eSeis external validation).

Ok, anyone fancy posting a comparative valuation exercise which suggests 88E is the better investment by advocating paying more per barrel in the ground, with less upside risk and more geological and commercial risk? Anyone? Or is the whole forum effectively admitting they're here to build a fantasy wave of excitement around Hickory-1 that has no attachment to underlying value?

Fact check: the rig did not leave the Alkaid-2 gravel pad 10 days ago. 88E's pad wasn't ready at that point.

Stick to the facts. Stop embellishing and making things up. If you continue to do so, you're effectively admitting you're just fluffing the market to sell your shares to the next naive patsy who's been hoodwinked by all the baseless blather on social media platforms.

To all the posters excitably doing the whole random number generation thing...."I can see 1.5p pre-spud" and "on success it's sure to go to 8-9p this time", etc, etc. I realise some of you earnestly believe this. But you must accept you're just spewing out numbers with no attachment whatsoever to the underlying asset. It's like me going to a mid-terrace house in Blackburn and saying, "In a week's time, there'll be buyers paying £3m for this."

Forget 1.5p or 8p or 9p. Why not be more ambitious? The SP is surely going to 47p on success, actually make that 178p! None of you, I repeat, none of you, are doing any valuation work whatsoever. You do realize that E&P stocks are asset plays, right? It's fine to speculate but you're all *literally* going miles ahead of the guidance of 88E's own management. It's utter nonsense, for goodness sake.

The question is, why invest in 88E when PANR is cheaper on a per barrel basis, has better reservoir characteristics (updip + Dmax) and is years ahead of 88E in data retrieval?

Even if Hickory-1 proves up every single barrel targeted
(which it won't, see CoS guidance plus no flow test for 10 months) it still means you're paying 22p per barrel in the ground v's 18p for PANR. And remember, a PANR barrel is updip, shallower, has been flow tested successfully and has been validated by Schlumberger, AHS Baker Hughes and eSeis.

Play pass the parcel by all means, but this forum is becoming *more* distant from the empirical facts of the 88E investment case when it should be narrowing the parameters of probability and value. Delusional nonsense.

12.17
What a numpty you are gregpeck7. If you think for a millisecond there is much if any flow after the well being killed during the CTU clean out and production liner being re-inserted then you're a numpty squared.

There'll be plenty of non-hydrocarbon fluids to recover first of all before any flow rate is published. We've just been told they've just recommenced the flow test ffs.

Take your ignorance and/or disinformation and go practise on some other forum. Nobody will listen to your pish on here.

07.38
Think I'll nip that particular conspiracy theory in the bud right there. The timing of the flow test recommencing after the blockage was cleaned out at Alkaid-2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chairman receiving the RSUs.

The rules pertaining to the RSUs are clearly laid out in Annual Reports and have zero influence or bearing on the timing of the flow test recommencing or vice versa.

07.25
Bridge - suspect you'd be well-advised to re-read the RNS. Oh, and have a listen to the January webinar too. Deary me!

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

1) Identify blockage - tick
2) Clear frack sand blockage and re-insert production liner - tick
3) Recommence Long Term Production Test - tick

Message to shorters: tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock.....

A former client of mine gave me the heads up last week on some PANR volume going through the dark pools, not being marked on the LSE (see my A[D]V[F]N post last week to prove I'm not making it up, plus I used exact volumes). That led me to call a couple of other chums; on e at a hedge fund and another at a PB (prime broker). I know contrarian8888 has asked his contact at IBKR to relay to him the total short position in PANR, the borrow costs and utilisation rate.

Like contrarian888, both my guys came back to me saying the short position was between 35-40m shares. I was given two borrowing costs: 14% and 18%. That's pretty pricey in my experience.

Louis10 <=> Oilman Jim knows b^gger all about PANR and 88E. If possible he knows even less about the behaviour and thoughts of the shorters, including one of the so-called "Big Shorts". On the other hand, I do. Fact.

21:40
In case this forum was unaware, Louis10 <+> Oilman Jim. He's been spruiking his substack subscription service for a few weeks on lse, including the PANR forum, fyi.

Please see below a direct quote from Oilman Jim's free blog, dated 5/2/23:
"I have no great faith in the actual viability of any of 88E’s projects; it’s just one that’s invariably been good for a pre-spud share price run. This time, though, it’s left little time between funding and spudding."

I fully acknowledge OMJ's trading strategy. As you can see above, OMJ doesn't rate 88E's projects. Thus, his strategy relies on the hype surrounding fully-financed exploratory drills being sufficiently noisy to attract the naïve and credulous punter/gambler looking to play a financial game of pass the parcel prior to the drill results being announced. His strategy breaks down entirely if the hype around imminent drills doesn't draw in the less informed punter/gambler cohort because, as he readily admits, he does not believe fundamentals have much, if any, effect on the SP performance.

And this is all fine. As I've posted repeatedly on this forum, knock yourselves out if you're part of that cohort! I'll repeat a former colleague's wise saying for the newcomers here: "Enjoy the party, but dance close to the fire exit." Where I find the strategy dubious is when the "swing trader community" (whom all follow OMJ fyi) pepper the various platforms with blatant falsehoods to gee up the aforementioned punter cohort. They need the credulous marks to deliver their trading profits.

Think on this for a moment. If OMJ's thesis is so successful, why seek a pitiful income from a paid for subscription service? Or, and even more craftily, does his trading model *require OMJ himself to create* the very buying frenzy in the run up to operations that delivers *his own* trading profits?

I'm sure 99% of the members of this forum couldn't give two hoots, but if anyone wishes to see OMJ's business model challenged, head over to the PANR forum and have a read of my posts dated 31/1/23 and this evening @ 22:57.

OMJ? OMG!

PS "But what about you and your comparative analysis of 88E and PANR, scot126?" The thing is, on *all* sector-accepted metrics PANR is cheaper than 88E - fact. Also, PANR is running well behind its fundamentals using the industry-accepted risked/unrisked modelling method. 88E is running ahead using that exact same model.

21:36 Louis10 <=> Oilman Jim

No they didn't.

But the good news is that we now have Oilman Jim's (OMJ) attention. We are truly honoured. Please find below my post on lse dated 31/1/23. How spooky! Now that 88E has raised A$17.5m gross, exactly as I predicted up Oilman Jim pops! Please (re-)read the content below and do as I urge. Challenge OMJ to prove he knows what he's talking about. Please ask him all the questions on the facts and fundamentals listed below. Please also ask him to correct the record in relation to 88E - Geological CoS guidance has been published.

Spelling out the bleedin' obvious, Louis10 <=> Oilman Jim.

Jim - I'm not sure advertising your substack complies with the lse T&Cs? I don't *think* it does, do you?

Actually now that OMJ has alighted on this specific forum, it'll be a excellent opportunity to see his trading thesis in action. Once our southern neighbour completes the inevitable cash raise (to pay for their 75% share of the costs of Hickory-1, plus necessary working capital thereafter) good ol' Jim will urge his followers to get on board for the annual game of pass the parcel. And that's all fine, it is what it is.

However, will we be reading Jim's analysis of 88E's extra phasing risk? What about a well-researched article on Dmax? Will he volunteer his comparative analysis on the two neighbours' investment cases? Will we read an admission that 88E is already valued *on the fundamentals* far in excess of PANR? Will he reinforce to his followers the crucial message that his trading strategy concerning 88E relies almost entirely on the naïve and credulous character of the US OTC punters? Note his intention to stick around to witness "the inevitable descent to zero." Let's all ask him directly the following fiercely logical question: if he genuinely believes PANR will descend to zero pence (he doesn't), does he accept the mathematical certainty (based on geology alone) that 88E will arrive at zero pence well before PANR?

We shall see what unfolds. In the meantime, let's all request he shares his risked/unrisked model on PANR and 88E with either the readers of this forum or his other social media followers. He may or may not be capable of building such models (personally I doubt it, though I'll be happy to acknowledge his efforts if he proves me wrong) but this decades-accepted, globally-recognised sector financial model is pooh-poohed by OMJ as unworthy of his time.

Thousands of O&G experts over the last century v's OMJ? I'm going with the sector experts. NB The sector experts do not guarantee success but it's a damn sight better than playing a financial game of pass the parcel.

Final thought for now. If OMJ's thesis is so successful, why seek a pitiful income from a paid for subscription service? Or, and even more craftily, does his trading model *require OMJ himself to create* the very buying frenzy in the run up to operations that delivers *his own* trading profits?

07:09
Totally agree with Marmaris. I don't know how the shorters will react but this news ought to cause them to, at the very least, reconsider their positions. The frack sand blockage has cost time, money and led to market-wide doubts. Showing PANR is capable of executing a successful clean out prior to recommencing flow-testing is a noteworthy event. Maybe PANR know what they're doing after all?!

Stock moves up on this news IMO.

04:32
You're new to this forum, WWP, so are likely unaware this has all been litigated many times before. Whether you like it or not, here are the facts. Prior to Dave Wall formally acknowledging in an RNS in April/May 2021 (I think?) that 88E and PANR shared assets in Alaska I had written the sum total of one post on this forum since joining lse many years previously. As soon as Dave Wall confirmed the shared assets it became imperative for me as a fundamental investor to research both companies and to carry out a comparative valuation of these two listed companies.

This I have done ever since. Longer term members of this forum will confirm to you that I clearly label facts as facts and opinion as opinion. That's it, that's the history. I am not paid by anyone to analyse or research 88E. I do so because it informs my personal investment activities.

Back to the fundamentals, WWP. Why do you think it is a good idea to buy 88E at 22p per recoverable barrel in the ground v's PANR at 18p? Remember, the 88E value of 22p per barrel requires Hickory-1 to prove every single barrel it's targetting. 88E management are guiding that this is highly, highly unlikely to happen - see their Chance of Success guidance. So, I repeat, unless you admit to playing a financial game of pass the parcel, why would the rational investor or gambler buy 88E over PANR based on the published comparative facts at time of writing?

Hint? We won't hear a chirp back from you because the maths is crystal clear. There is not one single metric in the sector-accepted risk/unrisked model where 88E offers a better risk/return than PANR. Not one. Fact.