London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Hi Slackbladder - been a while. *Happy to be corrected* but re-injection strategy may apply only with full field development.....or at least when there are a few more production wells? In the meantime, use some/all of the gas for energy generation?

I dunno....worth keeping an eye on the progress of this matter, I'd have thought.

Dear All - ok, here's the Farallon explanation. Since the dissolution of CHONS in Dec '21, Farallon has been relying on a specific exception clause in the FCA Handbook, quoted below:

"Certain voting rights to be disregarded (except at 5% 10% and higher thresholds)
DTR 5.1.5 R 01/01/2021
RP
(1) The following are to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a person has a notification obligation in accordance with the thresholds in DTR 5.1.2 R except at the thresholds of 5% and 10% and above:

(a) voting rights attaching to shares forming part of property belonging to another which that person lawfully manages under an agreement in, or evidenced in, writing;"

Prior to the dissolution of CHONS, Farallon understood they were in a concert party arrangement with Great Bear and so didn't qualify for the "investment manager" exception.

Now that Farallon is acting *solely* as the fund manager of "equity shares only" (ie. not now including the GB shares which acted as security for the inter-party loan) on behalf of their underlying client(s) then the DTR exception applies.

What does that mean right now, today? Well, it means that the TR-1 issued on 28/6/22 where Farallon had 4.95% (38m shares) is the final TR-1 we will read from Farallon (unless in the unlikely scenario where Farallon starts buying instead of selling!). I have been monitoring the daily volume since 23/6/22 and based on a selling instruction of 25%-33% of the daily volume, which is roughly the instruction I understand the selling since the April webinar has been done at, then I find it difficult to assess Farallon now has a holding any greater than 10m shares.

So from having control over 206m shares in January '19 at 15.25p, I reckon Farallon have less than 10m shares left, *and perhaps none at all*. This is big technical news IMHO. Any instos or prop desks or hedge funds looking to buy "the last tranche of Farallon stock" have either missed their opportunity or better act quickly because the Farallon liquidity we've all "suffered" since Jan '21 is about to evaporate, or already has. Hoorah!

Other stuff. Yep, like I note other people are already commenting, the decision to increase the capacity of storage and treatment equipment indicates a management team brimming with realistic optimism from the data they're seeing from Alkaid-2 thus far.

00:15
Yep, all very interesting and I look forward to the results from the Hickory-1 drill when they're published.

In the meantime, how much is this proposed H1 '23 vertical Hickory-1 well going to cost? How will the well be funded? Cash raise and/or farm out? Either way, a massive dilution is heading 88E shareholders' way.

Guesstimate of the cost a roadside vertical well? US$20m minimum?

Delighted to read 88E is making good use of its recently acquired 3D seismic data. I completely agree that it was the correct dataset for management to obtain. The trouble is, they still haven't informed the market of the ***total*** cost of licensing the 3D data. I simply do not believe the ***total*** cost of licensing the 3D seismic data is US$1m in shares and $2m in cash. But once again you don't need to believe me and my opinion. Simply read 88E's various announcements since they licensed the 3D seismic from SAE. Plenty of "partial", "upfront" and "initial" adjectives prior to the word "payments" but nothing close to guiding shareholders about the ***total*** cost. For context, PANR/GB invested c.$80m on shooting 3D seismic in the 2010s.

Motive for 88E management's obfuscation? The most obvious is that it's costing 88E a small fortune and by revealing the true cost it will enable members of this forum and other 88E shareholders to work out that there's going to be precious little of the $14m left by the time it comes to pay for Hickory-1 => enabling interested shareholders to calculate the potential dilution required to fund Hickory-1. Perhaps the 88E BoD has agreed to give away some W.I. to the seismic licensor? Either which way it is a gross dereliction of the BoD's duty to continue to keep their shareholders and the market uninformed as to the ***total*** cost of licensing the 3D seismic from SAE.

Perhaps this post will prompt some 88E shareholders to communicate with the management of ***their*** company to request the company improves its governance and is more transparent with its shareholders and the wider market? I'm an optimist at heart.

12:28 & 13:45
Hi Villa01 and OilBcNu - thanks for these interesting posts. For any newcomers, and just to be clear, the Alaska North Slope doesn't have an all year round port/deep water port. Climate change may see one built in the future but not for now! Thus, when Villa01 talks about, eg. trucking Helium to Valdez then he's referring to the c.800 mile Dalton Highway connecting the North Slope of Alaska with the commercial port of Valdez in the south.

13:51
darientaylor - it's fine to have a negative view on a company but probably best to be accurate in the criticism. PANR's east Texas assets were located, surprisingly enough, in east Texas. Not Louisiana. I have corrected you on this matter in the past, darientaylor. So are you someone who just made a mistake about a location twice? Or are you someone who made a mistake about a location *and* doesn't like to be corrected?

Folk will hopefully be aware Vision LLC was the operator of the east Texas assets. Yes, Jay would doubtless wish he had elected to enforce tighter oversight but *all* PANR shareholders at the time were fully aware we were *not the operator*. There's a risk inherent in not being the operator. I have admitted on multiple occasions that I certainly underestimated that risk. You've also effectively called Jay a liar. I have seen zero evidence to support your allegation. If I had, I would be long gone.

Moving on to the Alaskan assets. You must be unaware that until Alkaid-2 PANR/GB were limited to drilling and testing within the heavily regulated confines of the Alaskan winter season. Management has always been perfectly clear that long lateral wells would be required to ensure commercial production. Equally, multi-staged fracks have *always* been part of the development plan. Until Alkaid-2, it was a physical and regulatory impossibility to produce the data to which you refer.

Are you even aware of the comparatively small intervals which were fracked and tested at Alkaid-1, Talitha #A or Theta West-1? Do you know the flow rates at which the *frack fluids* were recovered? Are you aware that management has labelled the flow tests, when they were able to be conducted, as successes?

You're perfectly within your rights to state you haven't yet seen sufficient empirical evidence to be convinced of the PANR investment case. Nothing wrong with that, it's a perfectly honourable position. But to say the CEO is a liar without presenting evidence of same is, IMO, out of order. Jay was a successful oil man prior to PANR. When he was in charge of ARCO Int'l (which included the GoM assets at the time) he managed a capital budget in excess of $1bn per annum. He is no charlatan.

Part 3 (continued from below)

3) Has the 88E BoD instructed their lawyers to release the funds from the ELKO share sales in 2022? If so, when were the shares sold, at what price and what was the total sum realised? Did ELKO sell all of the shares allotted to them for the 2022 season, just as they did in 2021? Why is the 88E BoD not being transparent with its shareholders? What are they hiding?

4) Is 88E management gilding the lily when describing to 88E shareholders their understanding that the common reservoirs will possess even better characteristics south of the border than in PANR's acreage.....especially when Dmax calculations appear to have been completely ignored by 88E? Are 88E management misrepresenting the relative properties of the acreage north and south of the boundary line between PANR and 88E? Why does 88E insist on highlighting and including in headlines the average of Low, Best probability (P50) and Upper cases for recoverable resource when it goes against industry standard practice and which skews the figure to the upside. Can Brom provide any explanation for this other than attempting to gild the lily with investors?

5) The 25% owner of Icewine East (Burgundy Exploration, correct?), what's the contractual agreement between the two parties? Is Burgundy in a financial position to follow their money? I don’t know the answer to this question but perhaps some posters/Brom will have an answer?

6) 88E has c.$14m on the b/s currently. Approximately how much will Icewine-3 cost to drill in 2023? Why is the company not planning to flow test all four horizons they have previously informed shareholders “could have even better properties” than reported by PANR in their acreage? Seems odd for such confidence not to be backed up by plans to flow test? Anyone else seeing parallels with Merlin-1 and Merlin-2?

This are all fair questions. They're all standard questions which any equity analyst or fund manager around the world would ask about 88E. I look forward to this forum finally engaging on the facts of the investment case.

Of course Brom isn’t *obliged* to enter into the recent debate between Redirons/Rabito79 and me. However, doesn’t everyone think it odd that he hasn’t posted to factually correct Rabito79 and me? Why hasn’t he popped up to correct our (independently calculated) maths? Do you think for an instance that if our maths was suspect, Brom wouldn’t step up and correct us? Where’s *Brom’s* integrity? Where’s his *honesty* with the forum? Instead of politely and gently letting down Redirons and any others who think Rabito79 and I are seeding the forum with disinformation, there’s Brom’s classic silence again.

Part 4, see above

Part 2 (continued from below)

Do other members of the forum not recognise the pattern here? Brom doesn’t debate or engage with olderwiser/me/Rabito79/ecugold on questions of fact. But here’s the thing, he hasn’t once stated that the questions being posed are themselves illegitimate. The reason for that? Because Brom knows that each and every one of those ***factual*** questions are necessary to properly understand the 88E investment case.

Those with even a passing interest to investing v’s playing a high stakes game of pass the parcel should hear an internal alarm going off whenever repeated ***factual questions*** go unrecognised by Brom. If this endeavour is anything more for members of this forum than a substitute for a trip to play the pokies down the local casino then distinguishing facts from pie-in-the-sky hope, plus the criminal urgings of convicted fraudster Alex Delarge, are crucial.

Let’s go through some of those factual questions again, shall we? Remember facts => more transparent investment case => speedier and more accurate price discovery.

1) What is the ***full*** payment to SAE for the 3D seismic data? 88E shareholders will have noted the $1m payment in shares in the initial RNS but, as described, that was only a “part payment”. The Q2 financial report confirmed a *further cash payment of $2m* to SAE, the seismic data provider. Is the cash license fee $2m a month, $2m a quarter, $2m every 6 months, $2m per annum or what? Bear in mind PANR/GB invested $80m in shooting 3D seismic, resulting in the largest 3D seismic data package in Alaska. Surely c.$3m to license the data from SAE seems, on the face of it, an incredibly low price to pay? Also note the language: "Upfront license fee ***includes***, as ***part*** of the ***initial*** payment, US$1.0M in new 88E shares."

Are 88E shareholders not permitted to know the full payment terms? Seems odd, doesn't it? The way the full facts of the licensing cost are dripped out over multiple announcements? Hmmm. Any ORRI attached to the license payments? Is Erik Opstad or associates or family a party/parties to this transaction?

2) I think Merlin-1 cost c.A$39m? What was final tally be for Merlin-2? How does the cost of Merlin-2 compare with Merlin-1? And in case there's any mix up or misunderstanding, I'm talking the *total* cost of each drill which *includes* the cost to construct and maintain the snow roads. Of the circa US$63m cost of Merlin-1 & Merlin-2, what percentage or absolute amount was paid in cash to ELKO or any other company where the Opstad family has a financial interest? What is the total of all share-based payments to ELKO/Opstad family?

For Part 3, see above

Friday 09:29
Brom - you’ve outdone yourself on this occasion! I salute you.

“Think you have to question why so much effort expended in researching, spinning and ultimately "winding up" on this board. Pretty confident you can rule out altruism.”

Readers of this forum may not be aware that of the, literally, thousands of posts Brom has made about 88E since 2018, you have admitted to trading the social media-generated spikes in only two posts. Just twice!

The audacity, the temerity of this man to comment on another’s motivation when he point blank refuses to answer ***factual*** questions to which he knows the answers. All because he ***never*** posts anything which would cast 88E in a negative light.

There is zero doubt in my mind that Brom knows at least as much about 88E as I do, as olderwiser does, as Rabito79 does….and probably more. Yet his rapacious cynicism and partisan hackery has served to boost the cult of 88E, leading the gullible, credulous, naïve, unsophisticated members of this forum down a path of heartless innuendo and an unwillingness to confront anything close to the facts of the investment case.

Brom knows fine well that as soon as Dave Wall formally confirmed 88E and PANR shared a common asset, comparative valuation techniques were not an added extra for professionals in the markets, they were now absolutely ***essential***. That he now equates building a consensus understanding of the ***facts*** of the investment cases of both companies in order to pursue true price discovery with “spinning” and winding up” is outrageous, and intellectually bankrupt.

Where was the clarion call, with the volume turned up to 11, by Brom when the 88E SP spiked to US9c? Did he flood this forum with pleas to all of his loyal readers to understand that the SP had gone way, way, way ahead of even the topmost estimates for Peregrine? Where was his fire alarm to get out asap? Silence until 3 months later. He was busy selling all his shares to the buyers getting spiked, that’s what was happening. Is that the definition of “altruism” in Brom’s dictionary?! Lol.

What of Brom’s outright refusal to engage on debates of factual importance to the 88E investment case? He’s now gone from radio silence to pillorying a person’s “effort in researching”. You have *got* to be kidding me.

Brom – I know you don’t mean everything you post on this forum and you’re a master at obfuscation and distraction, but do you really have such a low opinion of the members of this forum that you expect them to now ignore standard equity analysis employed for decades the world over?

Part 1 - continued above

22:46
Hi Redirons - this isn't some board game, where you make up the rules as you like. You're living in a fantasy world which bears no relation to the facts on the ground *and* 88E's corporate facts.

Let's start with some cast iron facts. 88E has 18.26 BILLION shares (soon to be) on issue, with a mkt cap of £105m. Peregrine, Umiat and Yukon look to be dead in the water, maybe the Central Blocks will look ok if a gas pipeline is constructed in the future....which leaves Icewine East.

88E has c.US$14m, nowhere near enough to fund Icewine-3 in 2023. 88E owns 75% of Icewine East. The BoD has elected not to inform its shareholders of the *total* cost of licensing the 3D seismic data from SAE. I do not know the reason for this but I *suspect* it's because of the large expense, which would likely shock and disappoint shareholders.

Did you learn anything from the way 88E management present resource estimations to the market? I'm talking about the deliberate highlighting and headline grabbing "mean" estimates v's the industry standard P50 or Best estimate. Let's look at the "best" estimate for 88E's 75% of Icewine East....621mmbo, correct? Personally I doubt the BFF will work for 88E due to depth and Dmax calculations, phasing, etc but let's go with 621mmbo, ok?

What will 88E have to give away in a farm out to fund Icewine-3? 30%? 40%? Or does the company raise money to self fund the drill and you'll end up with another 3 or 4 billion shares on issue, so 21-22 billion shares?

Ref the Santos/Repsol/Armstrong deal where each barrel of oil in the ground was valued at $3.10. (621mmbo x $3.10)/21 billion = US9c. Do you seriously believe it will only take Icewine-3 to prove up, unequivocally, 88E's Icewine East acreage?

My *personal* view? SMD + SFS + Kuparuk is viable in Icewine East, so 280mmbo. I think 88E will opt to self fund and there'll be a minimum of 25 billion shares on issue by the time Icewine-3 and Icewine-4 are drilled. Happy to use the Santos figure of $3.10 per barrel in the ground => 3.5c per share, or 2.9p.

That's the maximum I reckon 88E shareholders are looking at over the next three years. Anything more than that and it means Icewine-3 discovered liquid platinum, or the US OTC hype-athon is back in action.

I strongly suggest you start living in the real world. What if I said to you that I own 1 million Rolls-Royce shares. They're 84p each. I don't like that SP. I'm going to add fantasy assets into my understanding of the assets and products and services Rolls Royce delivers to customers. Furthermore, if RR tell me each engine they make sells for $10m...I'm going to dismiss that as unacceptable and pick a number like $30m out of thin air because it's higher than $10m and it'll make my shares appreciate in price.

Do you realise just how childish and unconnected with the real world you have revealed yourself to be this evening? Unbelievable. And you honestly think Rabito79 is the one without ethics or integrit

18:27
Ok, CharlotteB, your considered reply is noted with thanks.

Answering your points in turn:

- under my specific ***hypothetical*** scenario, you reckon a hesitant rise into the 140s. Fair opinion. I agree, but see 150p-175p as the range it would settle into. So we agree on direction of travel, just not the scale of reaction.

- second paragraph....your personal position is noted but it's none of my business so I won't comment. Whilst I certainly agree with you about the Nabors rig and crew being experienced in Alaska and capable of executing the horizontal drilling job, this was the ***first lateral*** drilled in this area, c.30 miles south of Prudhoe Bay. That's just a fact. As such, there *was* unknown engineering and operational risk which may not have been massive, but it wasn't zero either. FWIW I don't think you have correctly assessed the de-risked effect of today's RNS. [I'll talk about the wider market reaction later.]

- you're factually incorrect in your third paragraph. Lee Keeling & Assoc has authored two IERs for PANR.....one for the Alkaid anomaly in the Alkaid Unit and the other for the SMD in the Talitha Unit.

- your other bullet points are directionally logical. I disagree with you on scale again, but that's fine, just our personal opinions. FWIW, I'll be genuinely disappointed if 500p per share is the take out price in the scenario where *all* the reservoirs are proven to be "commercial". The BFF Lower alone could be worth more than 500p per share.

Ok, where I strongly diverge from your rationale is the effect Farallon's persistent and, IMO, unusually clumsy sell down since the April webinar has had on a) the psychology of the existing UK private shareholder base and b) the associated jeopardy of being out of the stock on potentially game-changing news. The whole market thinks of Farallon as the boogie man ref. PANR investment case and SP.

I admit it's contrived but let's say Farallon sold out entirely by the beginning of March, ok? Does anyone not believe the 21/22 winter programme's news, as communicated by the April webinar, would have delivered a SP at or around 200p after today's RNS?

IMO, the worst selling done by Farallon was on the morning after the April webinar. The SP wanted to go through 150p, and it did for a while, until a veritable tsunami of Farallon selling arrived mid-morning and wiped out *all* the positive sentiment created by the winter programme + webinar. Whomever was giving the instructions that day, either the Farallon pm or dealers, they did a staggeringly inept job IMO.

As I posted today on the other place, I'm working on establishing one more fact at which point I'll share the results of my efforts. I'm not sounding off here, but regular readers will know I gave an objectively spot on heads up to fellow shareholders weeks ahead of the TR-1 publication on 28/6/22. Watch this space!

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Scot126

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Scot126

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending