Member Info for Scot126

00:40

chrisev1 - if you check historical RNSs, the Longhorn strategy was an Ashley Gilbert decision. As discussed previously, Longhorn has been a disappointment pretty much from the beginning of 88E's investment in Texas v's expectations on acquisition. That said, any loss of value suffered by shareholders due to AG's Longhorn strategy pales into insignificance v's the Dave Wall/Erik Opstad regime.

Here are the plans for Megrez-1 and Alkaid-2.

hTTps://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Document/Download/52A49A3414A04A24AFAF32942FBEAF22/LONS%2022-002%20Great%20Bear%20AKU%20Alkaid%202%20Re-entry%20Project%20Unit%20Plan%20of%20Operations%20Amendment%20-%20Approved.pdf

hTTps://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Document/Download/5C0F1B4CD1C947B9ADC3AE17A43461B7/LONS%2024-002%20Great%20Bear%20TAU%20Megrez%201%20Exploration%20Well%20Unit%20Plan%20of%20Operations%20-%20Approved.pdf

When Geodes states the Flare Stack is not located on the pad, the photo I provided earlier of the Alkaid-2 LTPT and the Alkaid-2 plans *appear* to contradict his assertion about the stack being on a location away from the pad.

Anyhoo, I'm going to defer to a proper expert, olderwiser, whom I trust is reading this interaction. olderwiser - perhaps you can provide more authoritative guidance on this matter? TIA.

As for the original satellite image, please re-read my post. I described an infrared heat source and was *not* definitive about it being a gas flare. It could be heat from a generator perhaps? The fracking horse power revving up?

I repeat the key message from my earlier post. "I haven't a scooby if this means the TS1 flow test is going well/badly/as expected nor what date the first flow test RNS will land."

Forum members - I have written and advised on thousands of RNSs over the decades. Canaccord's NOMAD is perfectly capable of advising PANR on the correct timing to publish an RNS. The *fact* we haven't received an RNS thus far tells us that something calamitous has not occurred otherwise the company would have been obliged to inform the market. Equally, if a flow test had been finalised confirming a figure for TS1 anywhere between 0 bopd and 50,000bopd then we'd have heard about that too....because those are the rules.

I urge forum members to chill out. Think about the phrase "lull in the weather" in the company's tweet of April 3rd. Those involved in PANR since the merger with GB in early 2020 will know bad weather regularly shuts down operations all over the North Slope. I've been monitoring the weather in Deadhorse daily for the last month. Has anyone else bothered to do so? I bet the answer is no.

When the TS1 flow test data is finalised it will be published - fact. Then there will be a further five flow tests moving up the well bore, with permeabilities improving the shallower the horizon.

Final TS1 flow test data available = RNS published

No final TS1 flow test data available = No RNS published

18:06

Hi leesteuk - I can't tell if you're joking or not? In case you're being serious, I suggest you head to the SoA Dept of Nat Resources to access the diagram showing the layout for the Megrez pad. You'll see clearly the presence of a stack for flaring off associated gas.

hTTps://x.com/Scot126126/status/1890160201795531047

Click on the link above. It'll take you to one of my Twitter threads. You'll be able to examine a photo of the gas flaring off during the Alkaid-2 LTPT.

FWIW, I looked at the satellite image posted on Flight's Discord channel. It was an infrared image and it appeared to show a decent-sized heat source located on the Megrez pad at or about the location of the flare stack. I haven't a scooby if this means the TS1 flow test is going well/badly/as expected nor what date the first flow test RNS will land. Just thought I'd describe the image for those forum members who aren't Discord users.

And leesteuk - some calmer posting might be something to think about, eh?

Thanks for the YouTube tip.

I just listened to the ultra-low quality audio presentation on YouTube. My laptop speakers couldn't cope with the audio so I plugged my earphones in and turned it up to 11. Still difficult to hear but I just about got there.

Summary? For any forum member who has listened to the last few webinars and interviews with Proactive/BlytheRay, etc. then you will have learned absolutely nothing new whatsoever. That's the take away!

1) DH specifically said not to look at his face for signs of good or bad news on the first flow test because "we're at the stage in the flow test when we genuinely do not know what the flow rate will be." or words to that effect.

2) Made brief mention of breakeven per barrel of $35 or below (I think, audio was bad at that point for me).

3) I'm quite liking "like the Permian but on steroids" analogy.

Ballpark numbers from DH. "Each Permian well costs around $10m and produces 1.5-2mmbo over its life. Each PANR well will cost $15m and has been modelled to produce between 3mmbo and 5mmbo."

4) Cost of development is 10% or less than other new projects on the North Slope, due chiefly to location close to existing infrastructure.

5) We're NOT a gas company, we are an oil compnay. However, the gasline will see us supply gas at a very attractive price for the SoA, which in turn will allow us to source development capital.

6) Talked at the end about 5Tcf of gas at Kodiak, of which between 0.5% - 2% is thought to be helium. More work to be done to appraise the asset but the gasline will mean the helium is no longer stranded and can be produced commercially.

7) 10 years from now, the development plan would see PANR producing 200k-300k bopd, making PANR one of the largest independents in USA.

Please discard my earlier post where I *speculated* about a reason why the webcast may not be taking place or cancelled, suspended, etc. The reasons I gave were perfectly logical but the actual reasons appear to be far more prosaic, ie. technical issues rather than regulatory!

13:17

I'm getting the same message, Countingthedays.

100% speculation here but it *could* be the NOMAD advising them not to broadcast the webcast as the company is slap bang in the middle of a grouping of days where the market expects hard data. One wrong word or inflection in the voice of either Max or David could see the market move in an uninformed manner?

As I say, 100% speculation on my part. I wouldn't read anything positive or negative about it, though. *If* the well had collapsed (an extremem example!) then the company would have been obliged to RNS any bad news immediately....and we've had nothing. Equally, if the flow test of the deepest TS1 had delivered 10,000 bopd (another extreme example) then the company would be obliged to announce that too. The *fact* we have heard nothing means, quite simply, there's nothing material to report, there's no definitive result from the TS1 flow test yet.....and to be patient until we all read the incoming RNS, whenever it lands.

Hope that makes sense?

Twitter post by Senator Sullivan on Wednesday.

"Today, @SecScottBessent again cited @AlaskaLNG as a prime example of how countries can advance trade negotiations with the U.S. I’ve had great discussions recently with the Secretary, President Trump and other members of his cabinet on this really important idea for our trade relationship and Alaska LNG. Looking forward to further discussions w/ our South Korean and Japanese allies regarding financing and long-term off-take agreements."

He then attached a 47 second excerpt from CNN showing Secretary Bessent answering a press question outside the White House in which he confirmed ongoing negotiations with Asian allies about the Alaska LNG project.

hTTps://x.com/SenDanSullivan/status/1910101218703327328

H/t CONTENT5827

NB NB NB

hTTps://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/08/treasury-secretary-bessent-says-chinas-escalation-was-big-mistake-country-playing-with-losing-hand.html?taid=67f50c2a2263bc0001300bd1&utm_campaign=truean

Forum members should head to this web page and scroll down to the bottom where you'll find the full interview by CNBC of Treasury Secretary Bessent. If you don't have time to listen to the whole interview (15 mins or so) then head to 4:45 - 5:20 where we hear yet another US Cabinet Secretary indicate Japan, South Korean and Taiwan are interested in offtake agreements for Alaskan LNG.

Interestingly, Bessent indicated Japan was considering providing funding for the project itself. The interview was conducted by CNBC in the US earlier today. This means that Bessent is presumably speaking with authority about Japan's latest position on the LNG project having been involved with the Trump/Ishiba phone call yesterday. That's good news and somewhat of a relief (to me anyway).

Note also CNBC is running a chyron with Bessent's quote about a potential deal on Alaskan LNG with Asian countries. Good stuff.

PS for those who prefer YouTube!

hTTps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=adNVYPWu92Y

Deepcut - many thanks indeed for the heads up on Trump's Truth Social post about South Korea. I suspect I'm not the only one who would be tremendously grateful if you would be prepared to monitor Trump's Truth Social posts which may be relevant to Alaska and PANR? TIA

07:15

Hi JackOfDiamonds - thanks for your response.

1) I don't believe AG should be given much, if any, credit for the Burgundy farm in agreement at Project Phoenix. There was only ever one game in town and Project Phoenix, with good reason, didn't attract other external parties. Therefore, IMO, no credit is due.

2) I disagree with your characterisation about Longhorn and whether "time will tell". I'm afraid shareholders must confront the facts on Longhorn which are, despite the initial acquisition and further material investment in workovers, the production from Longhorn is running at around half of the guidance production number issued on acquisition by 88E management (led by AG). In all fairness, we must describe Longhorn as a profound disappointment. Even Brom with his >27k posts on lse has described Longhorn as a disappointment.

So let's not gild the lily here and give forum members false information leading to false hope.

3) Ratio of consolidation is a talking point, no more than that IMHO. The fact that the BoD has finally bitten the bullet on this matter is the key point. To be crystal clear, unless 88E sells some or part of Longhorn the company will very likely have to raise fresh funds from its shareholders if it is to fulfil Stage 2 of the Namibian Partnership Agreement. The company does not have sufficient cash at hand to pay the US$7.5m due under the terms of the Namibian agreement.

Many posters have already noted and acknowledged that a share consolidation is often a forerunner of a cash raise. I wouldn't bet against it, would you?

07:15

Hi JackOfDiamonds - thanks for your response.

1) I don't believe AG should be given much, if any, credit for the Burgundy farm in agreement at Project Phoenix. There was only ever one game in town and Project Phoenix, with good reason, didn't attract other external parties. Therefore, IMO, no credit is due.

2) I disagree with your characterisation about Longhorn and whether "time will tell". I'm afraid shareholders must confront the facts on Longhorn which are, despite the initial acquisition and further material investment in workovers, the production from Longhorn is running at around half of the guidance production number issued on acquisition by 88E management (led by AG). In all fairness, we must describe Longhorn as a profound disappointment. Even Brom with his >27k posts on lse has described Longhorn as a disappointment.

So let's not gild the lily here and give forum members false information leading to false hope.

3) Ratio of consolidation is a talking point, no more than that IMHO. The fact that the BoD has finally bitten the bullet on this matter is the key point. To be crystal clear, unless 88E sells some or part of Longhorn the company will very likely have to raise fresh funds from its shareholders if it is to fulfil Stage 2 of the Namibian Partnership Agreement. The company does not have sufficient cash at hand to pay the US$7.5m due under the terms of the Namibian agreement.

Many posters have already noted and acknowledged that a share consolidation is often a forerunner of a cash raise. I wouldn't bet against it, would you?

HTTps://x.com/Scot126126/status/1909194927122022871

A wee correction to my earlier wee correction!

Spud date is indeed middle of July. The gravel pad is due to begin construction in mid-May.

Apologies for my confusion. Lol, but it's still very. Good news!!

Wee correction.

Pad construction in July/August.....spud in early Sept.

Submission mentions directly the incoming flow test results from Megrez-1 will inform the company's decision on which of the three well designs they'll opt for.

Stating the bl00dy obvious, but you'd have to suspect management wouldn't be making such applications to the SoA if they anticipated anything other than success at Megrez. Agreed?

Thanks mlf51.

This pad is a few miles south of the Megrez pad. The plan submitted describes three possible well designs: Ahpun East low permeability interval, Ahpun East high permeability interval or a Talitha top sets interval.

Spud date looks to be the beginning of September.

NB NB NB the plan outlines a Long Term Production Test (LTPT) of 6 months, maybe longer. I *suspect* the company has now reached the stage whereby all gasline stakeholders wish to *guarantee* PANR can deliver the gas required by the gasline to Alaskan domestic customers in the first instance. All of these locations would allow PANR to provide such emphatic data from a LTPT.

This is excellent news. I'm sure it'll be a tough day in the global equity markets but PANR is moving forward on the ground, no doubt about that. Do also remember that PANR's breakeven is c.$30 per barrel which makes it ultraultraultra competitive v's most other new developments around the world. And, of course, PANR has plenty of cash at its disposal.

Stay cool. IMHO.

07:46

chrisev1 - the true villain of the piece, or should I say villains, are Dave Walls and Erik 'ELKO' Opstad. They wasted tens of millions of dollars on Project Peregrine which, even if it had been a mindblowing success geologically, would have been stranded for decades to come. Thankfully, they both enriched themselves at shareholders' expense along the way!

Ashley? He inherited a nightmare. You can make a fair argument that Longhorn has proved to be a bitter disappointment. 88E has invested c.US$18m in Longhorn (happy to be corrected). I dunno, perhaps their share of the Longhorn assets are now worth US$5-8m? Perhaps Ashley is responsible for this $10m "loss" of value? Namibia? Too early to say. Leonis? Too early to say. Let's face it, Ashley's destruction of shareholder value is de minimis compared to the proverbial daylight robbery of the Walls/Opstad era.

Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

The part of your post with which I disagree strongly is the final paragraph. Forum members would do well to remember the very clear guidance given to shareholders by management. There are 6 distinct reservoirs to be tested, repeat 6. In addition, management has gone to great pains to explain that the reservoir properties improve from deepest to shallowest intervals. It is therefore my strong opinion that, all else being equal, the SP will not fall by 50% if a single flow test fails. I also disagree with you that, all else being equal, the SP could weaken towards 40p if we don't receive an update in the w/c 7/4/25. If there's bad weather and the first flow test is delayed, so be it......but it's not heading to 40p IMO.

Lol, you then appear to commit one of the sins which you, quite reasonably, upbraided others for committing. You state, "That's the reality." How can you possibly state this with such unwavering conviction?! That may very well be your opinion, but such a non-caveated statement can hardly be viewed as icily objective, can it?!

I certainly take your point about examining the downside risks as well as the upside ones. You also urge readers not to pretend it's more than it is. Ok, fine. The market is currently ascribing a c.10% CoS for PANR's liquid hydrocarbon project going ahead, and is not acknowledging any value whatsoever for PANR's gas or helium assets. Accordingly, I could argue with some legitimacy that it is the market which is wholly mistaken in not making more of PANR. I look forward to many future posts from you, Abacus1.

Regular readers may recall Ddraig's post about the first flow test (the deepest) being, in his opinion, the most important result to come from the Megrez-1 well. I find myself, not for the first time, in complete disagreement with Ddraig. He is quite wrong, of course. *If* and I repeat *if*, the reservoir characteristics improve as we move up the well bore from deepest to shallowest...and if permeability is looking like it could be an order of magnitude (or two!) better in the shallowest intervals v's the deepest interval then it is clearly nonsense to suggest the first, and deepest, interval to be flow tested in the most important.

Forum members should recall management's guidance. They are anticipating flow rates ranging from 200bopd to 2000bopd. I can't recall if they were explicit or not but we should all accept that management is nudging us to expect the first flow test (of the deepest TS1 interval) is going to be at or around the 200bopd number and that, all else being equal, the data *ought* to improve as the company moves up the well bore to test the other 5 intervals.

Put simply, stay cool about the first flow test. The probability is that it's likely to be the least impressive of the six flow tests. Let management explain to us all, via RNS, their interpretation of the data.

4/4/25 @ 19:19

Hi Abacus1 - thank you for your very well written post. I agree with much of what you say, especiallly when referring to the majority of posts which are genuinely seeking to be educated about the investment case v's some other nefarious motivation. I'd encourage forum members who do indeed wish to be educated on questions of fact to make liberal use of "?????" question marks *and* to make introductory remarks along the lines of "Happy to be corrected but it was my understanding that xyz is the case.......was I wrong in assuming xyz.....I'm no expert and would be happy to be pointed in the right direction to research the following subject matter."

Sadly, Abacus1, and without alarming regularity, bulletin boards such as lse are littered with thousands of posters who, despite being an engineer all their working life, would happily undertake their own root canal treatment if given the dentist's drill! Also, please be aware that PANR has suffered from one of the most organised short attacks I have ever witnessed in my 30 year career in the equity markets. It was a remarkable spectacle and wholly criminal in nature.

Anyhoo, to your post. So stipulated that PANR's helium is a stranded asset until the pipeline and export facilities are contstructed and operational. Also stipulated is the *fact* PANR and the SoA have yet to come to a formal agreement on royalties, state taxes, etc, etc. That said, the value of the helium using the data helpfully relayed by tonynorstrom1 (which in turn came from management during a webinar) could see PANR's helium valued at somewhere between $30bn-$60bn.

For illustrative purposes only, let's say all the costs are loaded on to PANR's liquids production (breakeven $30 per barrel and royaltiies + taxes + corp costs add another $10 per barrel) at $40 per barrel v's a sales price of $70 per barrel. Again for ease, 3 billion barrels of oil x $30 per barrel profit = $90bn profits over the lifetimne of the project on the production and sale of hydrocarbon liquids alone.

Yet here's this potential "bonus" revenue stream of $30-60bn which may see 20% royalty reduction and another 10% pipeline and liquifaction tariff and that's a bl00dy meaningful addition to the financial model for equity holders in the project. Another $25-50bn of pure profit over the course of the project?

Yes, you can certainly (and fairly) argue the pathway to helium sales is further away than the O&G, but the Chance of Success (CoS) of future helium sales is *not* 0% anymore.

Moving on, I agree that tariffs *could* affect PANR massively or hardly at all. Tariffs could see the price of steel rise for US buyers, endangering the economics of the gas pipeline for example? Might these tariffs p^ss the Japanese and Koreans off such that they pull out of the LNG export project altogether? Or could these tariffs force them to the negotiating table asap? I don't have a scooby what's going to happen!

[Part 1, see above for Part 2]

00:34

chrisev1 - IMHO the BoD didn't have much choice. Happy to be corrected but I *think* 88E has the second highest SOI of companies listed on the ASX? The optics ain't good having 29bn SOI.....it smacks of endless and wealth-destroying dilution, perhaps even a deeply unserious business.

That said, the accepted academic research states that consolidations do not, in the main, benefit existing shareholders in terms of mkt cap accretion. Will a higher SP and potentially improved optics mean that 88E is more likely to attract investment from a completely new cohort of investors in order to keep the company going? Who knows? In the end, for small cap resource stocks It all comes down to the quality of the asset and of the management - it always does. You must make your own assessments of those two vital matters.

If approved, the record date for determining the holdings to be affected by the Consolidation will be 9 May 2025 (Record Date).

The Company currently has a significant number of Shares on issue, being 28,933,811,952 Shares as at 24 March 2025. The large number of Shares currently on issue results in a lower ‘per share’ value, which could lead to a lower demand

for Shares from potential new investors (in particular, institutional investors whose mandates prevent investment in shares with a price below a particular threshold).

Accordingly, the Board believes that the Consolidation is in the best interests of Shareholders as it will result in a more appropriate and effective capital structure for the Company and is intended to result in a Share price that is more appealing to a wider range of strategic partnerships and investments, subject to prevailing market conditions.

31/3/25 @ 08.00

Ayecuramba - you posted, "Just stating facts as I see them..." I have no idea what you're "stating" but they sure ain't "facts".

AU$10m is the equivalent of US$6.3m. That means 88E *cannot* fulfil its Stage 2 obligations under the Farm In Agreement with its Namibian partners. Forum members will surely be wondering how the BoD intends to fund this commitment. Asset sale of Project Longhorn in Texas? A new equity fund raise at the lowest ever SP?

I note Rabito79 had to educate you about the agreement between Burgundy and 88E concerning Project Phoenix. For a poster with such strong opinions your lack of knowledge of standard contractual terms will be an obvious concern for readers of your content. Worse still, it displays your inability to read and comprehend multiple 88E RNSs and slide decks which describe accurately the agreement between the two parties.

Perhaps readers of your content will wonder whether you ignorantly, but honestly, believed Burgundy would pay $US29m in cash to 88E, thus leading to your ludicrous comment about 88E having $30m in cash later in 2025? Or perhaps it was simply another example of you intentionally trying to trick the other members of this forum to further your own financial interests? Either explanation is concerning for readers of your content, no question about that.

31/3/25 @ 10.45

To be crystal clear for readers of this post, 88E does *not* have sufficient capital to "fund potential future exploration in Alaska." More disinformation from Ayecuramba, I fear.

31/3/25 @ 11:46

"....but the possibility is there for me." And that's fine, Ayecuramba, totally fine. If you see sufficient evidence to support your continued investment in 88E then that's just fine'n'dandy. However, your faith or hope does *not* entitle you to disseminate false and misleading information on a public forum. That conduct is illegal, immoral and shameful. Folk like Rabito79, olderwiser and I will continue to call out your flagrant lies if you insist on continuing to post falsehoods dressed up as facts.

31/3/25 @ 16:58

Hiya Brom - you never did get back to the forum on the question of whether Erik Opstad and his family company, ELKO, are still associated with 88E? Has the BoD begun an investigation into the circular invoicing -> cash payment -> share placing -> immediate sale of placing shares not subject to lock in in 2021 and 2022? Has the BoD reported this matter to the regulator in Australia? If not, why not? It's odd you haven't provided the answers to these legitimate questions because it was you who declared that the company was very swift to reply to your questions. Hmmm, most odd indeed.

Still, at least you sold into the spike of 2021 (and 2022?). Such a shame you forgot to inform this forum until many months later. Odd you forgot to mention taking advantage of the SP spike you helped to create and maintain seeing that you've posted on this forum over 27,000 times!!

07:28

Hi BuyMeAnother - why would you expect the 88E SP to rise by 20% in the UK today? The same announcement was made in Australia before the start of trading and the SP closed at AU$0.001 per share. That closing price valued 88E at the equivalent of £14m. Yet the UK closing price on Friday (0.07p) valued the company at £20.3m.

I put it to you that if the Aussies are correct, the SP in the UK should *decrease* from its current level, not increase as you have suggested.