Member Info for Scot126

09:15
Hi sittingbush - I fully appreciate you are simply describing your opinion in this post but I'm going to offer an alternative thought process. The history of PANR webinars/presentation since the merger with GB in January '19 ***strongly*** suggests the audience will be receiving a vast amount of new data and interpretation during the course of the webinar, due to take place at 5.30pm on 26/4/22. I point you to the share price graph in the days and weeks immediately following prior webinars as evidence the market required only a reasonably short period of time in order to absorb the enhanced evidence and interpretation provided by management during webinars..

*Opinion*. I'm guessing there would be a pretty widespread acceptance that had the BFF Lower flowed, say, at a sustained level of >100 bopd over 5 days that the share price would be >200p today? Is that fair? Readers of this forum will know that I think I've identified publicly available information which provides sufficient evidence to discern the direction of travel on this matter and an explanation for same. I fully accept others have not made that assessment. IMO and again judging by history and my own analysis, I am expecting management to give an *extremely detailed* description and interpretation of the data collected during the period between fracking the BFF Lower at Theta West and the moment they decided to suspend the flow test due to the blizzards. If, and I repeat if, management provides evidence to the audience which serves to substantially derisk the BFF Lower which in turn becomes the consensus view, then I believe a SP appreciation above 200p will be swift and decisive. I further contend that the market, at time of writing, will *not* require a CPR in order to discount any such enhanced provision of information and interpretation as described in this scenario..

That being said, we know from the previous webinar management does indeed plan to commission CPR(s) over the various horizons identified. If you haven't done so already, sittingbush, I think it would be a super idea for you to email the company or Darcon (at the other place) to request management gives shareholders an update as to their plans to commission more CPRs in the coming months, ie. which horizons and when?

You appear to believe the SP won't move above 200p without a CPR. I disagree for the reasons listed above. Let's see what happens, eh? Good stuff.

10:25
GS - couple of things. PANR management confirmed the total length of the BFF from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the leased acreage is approx 17 miles in length. That's the figure in my notes but happy to be corrected.

"Just 2.8 miles to the neighbours leases further south, it is said that it peters out to only a few hundred feet (ref Scot126 -5% he said). Not at all sure that sounds right imo. Probably PANR investors don't care as they have the 3D seismic." I don't know who said anything "peters out to only a few hundred feet" but it certainly wasn't me. I challenge GS to provide a quoted source for that allegation and, failing to find one, withdraw your made up accusation. [hint - we could be waiting a few millennia!] I am, however, happy to repeat my assessment that of the combined Alkaid + Talitha + Icewine East + Theta West asset, I assess the proportion by value is in the order of 90:10, PANR:88E. That's the ratio I'm using in my model. FWIW, in the final analysis I think the end ratio will be something like 95:5, but I'm perfectly happy using 90:10 for now. I have certainly written this assessment and posted it on lse on a number of occasions and am not revising that figure in either direction at time of writing.

"I wonder if PANR bod would be happy for 88e to delineate the southern/SE extremities for them on 88e leases? Rather than drill way out west?" - That would be a big fat 'No chance' IMO. What's the upside for PANR to allow an external entity to drill on PANR's acreage? It just doesn't make sense. As GS describes it in his question, it would presumably mean transferring some Alkaid W.I. to 88E? And sharing the data? Why on earth would PANR do that?

I know there a number of 88E shareholders speculating PANR is the party currently negotiating with 88E about farming in to Icewine East. Others have speculated that data should be shared by the two companies. My response to that speculation is as follows: why would PANR do that? What's in it for PANR? PANR/GB has invested $250m - $300m in collecting and interpreting data across its acreage. Why would they then share that IP (unless as demanded by Alaskan law and regulations of course) when they are *unquestionably* years and years ahead of 88E in delineating and understanding the asset. Never say never, but I'll eat my hat....etc, etc.

16:01
cbaron - c'mon, you're better than that. I confirm I am *not* a geologist. That said, geological characteristics vary markedly across a hydrocarbon reservoir. You know that. Depth, depositional location, pressure, temperature, porosity, permeability and loads more factors come in to play which means a reservoir is not one homogenous mass. For goodness sake, 88E's latest ANN/RNS shows one such differential in black and white, being the depth of the interval, at least according to 88E's 2D seismic.

(Part 2)

FWIW, the whole 'two straws, one milkshake' debate is a distraction. As Brom suggests, the SoA and/or the Courts will ensure an equitable share of the spoils is divvied out as per the science. But that process could literally be years and years in the future. Do any of you realise that PANR is talking about needing to drill hundreds and hundreds of production wells to extract the oil on its acreage, over a project life of >30 years? And some of you are worrying about milkshaking??!! Alkaid 2 and 3 aren't located particularly close to the lease border and the next Theta West well (next winter?) will be located miles and miles away from the lease border.

Instead, readers of this forum should be researching and analysing the information and data currently available (from all credible sources) to determine if 88E owns commercially extractable oil at Icewine East. My opinion? It does, but not in the volume (or proportion of the shared horizons) being discussed on the various social media platforms.

It's time for maths again. I have a gold bar which is worth $1000. I melt it down and pour the liquid gold into two different sized moulds in the ratio of 90:10, Mould A: Mould B. It's obvious that Bar A is worth $900 and Bar B is worth $100.

So too with the value of the two owners of the shared asset. This forum is living in a fantasy land if it genuinely believes 88E is cheap v's PANR. IMHO it's not. Forget the whole Twitter nonsense about 88E shares being 1c v's PANR's 191c, QED "my chances of multiplying my investment MUST THEREFORE be greater by investing in those cheap 88E shares v's PANR's expansive shares". Utter tripe as I hope you all agree? Brian1234? You agree, I hope?

Nope, it is beholden on any serious investor to attempt to work out the quantitative *and* qualitative differences between the two owners of this unequally shared but non-homogenous asset. Only that way will any of us begin to make an educated calculation on the fundamental value of each company. Or you can continue doing what you've been doing thus far.....using words like "hope" and "faith" and "real 88E holders" and refusing to do any research and analysis except to laud the pied piper with his history of >26k posts.

Dave Wall has made a fortune from 88E shareholders. Erik Opstad has made an even larger fortune from 88E shareholders. And good ol' Brom has made a trading fortune.

Have you made a fortune?

12.:08
Thanks Floydian.

12:06
*****6364 - maybe so, but I'm not the one sitting on a >60% loss unlike the wider 88E long term shareholder community.

Can the collective on this forum not stop all this personal abuse nonsense and stick to the investment case? I "get" the whole 'shoot the messenger' trope, but it's all getting a bit tired.

If you don't wish to suffer the same absolute losses or comparative underperformance v's the other owner of the joint asset then I suggest the forum *needs* to do the following:

1) Do the calculation on the approximate annual revenue due to 88E from its share of Longhorn. Share the answer and debate it on this forum with fellow interested parties.

2) Follow up the governance concerns I know a number of you share. I have provided the questions which I believe require answers from the Chairman. Contact him and the company's auditing partner with your concerns detailed. Demand a reply within one month otherwise you'll report your concerns to the ASX regulator. If you don't grasp this nettle, how do you expect the future to look any different from the past?

3) Follow closely the posts of this forums most prolific poster. He's admitted in the past the company responds to his communications with alacrity and I 100% believe him. Examine the questions I pose to him and look at the answers he's prepared to provide v's those he ignores. Let me give you an example of his naked partisanship.

10/4/22 @ 19:06: "12:15 whether a he or she, should not be posting as fact that which is patently NOT!"

Now I applaud such sentiments, I'm right behind him there. Which makes it all the more odd that Brom doesn't voluntarily correct recent posts which suggest 88E owns *all* of Icewine when he knows fine well 88E owns 75% of Icewine. Similarly, he knows 88E management long ago gave up on the idea of developing or even delineating the HRZ at Icewine. It might, repeat might, be worth something at some point in the future but it *requires* to piggyback *entirely* infrastructure installed at the surface to produce oil from the conventional horizons stacked above the HRZ shale. Without such installed infrastructure it makes zero sense to go after the HRZ. Do you read Brom gently educating his fellow shareholders on matters which could be construed as being negative for shareholders' understanding of the 88E investment case? Let me answer that question myself? Hardly ever.

Don't be fooled that Brom is disinterested in the questions folk like Rabito79 and I pose. He'll actively choose not to address my questions because he knows the answer will invariably serve to weaken/undermine the collective understanding of the jackanory which is the social media version of the 88E investment case. He's certainly bright enough and extremely well-educated. Look at his recent posts about the laws and regulations surrounding shared assets in Alaska and how potential "border disputes" are resolved.

(Part 1)

10:07
Comparative analysis and valuation is an essential tool for a fundamental investor when examining a non-homogenous asset which is shared by two listed companies in unequal proportions.

That's it, that's my answer.

09:25
Ah, that's the problem, is it? An anonymous poster's "attitude" led to a >60% drop in the market cap of a listed E&P company? Tsk, tsk, silly me!

Or perhaps it dropped, sadly causing genuine financial pain and distress to thousands of shareholders, because they were suckered in by social media influencers, prolific posters, dreams of a one dollar party and a wilful refusal to conduct even the most superficial of research and comparative analysis?

Let me tell you why I don't do the calculation for you, chrisev1, shall I? Because regular posters like you will immediately pounce on my final answer and accuse me of bias. If you or another rgular poster (Brom for instance....he's got the knowledge and intellect for the calculation, surely?) does the necessary maths then it will carry far greater weight and perhaps lead to some folk waking up to reality.

Or perhaps it's simpler than that and folk are scared of the answer because the house of cards will fall in, unveiling an emperor with no clothes and 27k posts?

C'mon 88E forum, surely you've got to be better than this? There's already a petition with >400 shareholders' names being sent to the Aussie regulator asking questions about 88E's governance. Are some of you not finally starting to wonder whether doing some research and comparative analysis might not be a good idea? You never know, it may lead to further losses being avoided and/or to profits being made from a better understanding of a non-homogenous asset which is shared by two listed companies in unequal proportions.

07:03
Wee correction. For the purposes of the exercise, happy to stipulate Henry Hub gas remains at a constant $5 v's $4 throughout 2022.

Anyone got an approximate final figure yet? Not one person, be they trader or investor by nature, can argue that this calculation isn't now central to the 88E investment case. This is a legitimate and essential calculation. No ifs, no buts.

I've already seen the first of the OTC punters' brain melt as he tried to "do the math" on 88E's annual revenue from Longhorn. Perhaps naively, I have faith the UK/Aussie shareholders will take into account a) % ownership b) royalties c) state taxes d) operator's fee e) oil:gas ratio f) opex/capex.

So, I have a question. Let's stipulate a) the price of oil remains at $100 and gas is fixed at $4 b) 88E purchased its share of Longhorn on 1/1/22 c) production remains at an even, say, 500BOE for all 365 days of 2022 d) the operator's fee is $5 per boe e) royalties plus taxes in Texas equals 30% f) opex is $28 per boe g) oil:gas ratio remains constant as does the project ownership structure. Ok?

I recognise the closing 'production per day' number for 2022 may increase following the workover programme but let's just use the figures stipulated above as if the factors were all constant. In such a scenario, what would the approx revenue be to 88E, net net net? To the nearest million dollars is fine.

Once the approx annual revenue from Texas is calculated, deduct, say, US$2m for 88E G&A, and is the remaining cash sufficient to fund A) 100% of 88E's 75% share of a vertical test well at Icewine East B) 50% of 88E's 75% share of a vertical test well at Icewine East or C) less than 25% of 88E's 75% share of a vertical test well at Icewine East, where to total well cost is $20m?

Follow up bonus question. At that annual revenue figure from Longhorn net to 88E, will it take A) 2 years B) 3 years or C) 5 years for 88E to finance its share of one vertical test well at Icewine East solely from internally generated cash?

Final final question, I'm sorry. For 88E to be active operationally at Icewine East in the future, will it require A) another highly dilutive cash raise B) a farm out leaving 88E with a disappointingly low W.I. in Icewine East or C) both?

Answers on a postcard please, and don't forget to show your working!! Then explain to me again why 88E isn't, at a minimum, three years behind PANR in its data collection and understanding of the geology and commerciality of this shared, non-homogenous asset.

16:42
Yet another reference, more accurately a snide remark, about a fellow poster's mental health, eh Ddraig? When are you going to desist from this appalling and completely inappropriate behaviour?

Or are you projecting?

Either which way, stop it.

This post was part of an exchange between @StevenStocks5 (one of the most prolific and misinformed of the 88E social media influencers) and a foot soldier in the self-styled 88E Army. They were discussing the, ahem, merits of 88E farming out a portion of Project Icewine v's agreeing a deal with an external party to farm in to Project Icewine. Jesus wept.

"Hey Steve, so what’s better for the share price…farm-in or out? I hope you keep sharing your dd on $eeenf with us btw. "

Deal.

10:19
Ha! No chance. Ok, metalbasher, gentleman's agreement that when the identity of the farminee is published, the 'loser" of this argument agrees to send a £200 donation to the Ukrainian DEC fund? Agreed?

09:35
Fair do's, Villa01. Please note that cbaron's post wasn't clear to at least two other readers of this forum along with me. But I salute your reading aptitude, whatever your age.

09:27
Metalbasher - APDC? ELKO? Time for the good ol' boys to gouge out another big chunk of risk-free cash from 88E shareholders?

Perhaps start thinking in the following, admittedly cynical, manner? Whenever you read from 88E about ongoing discussions/negotiations with neighbouring leaseholders of Project Yukon, just picture Ashley Gilbert on the phone to Erik Opstad, perhaps with the conversation going something like this:

AG - "Why did you go on the record to Kay at Petroleum News admitting that your personally-owned adjoining acreage at Yukon has a negative NPV currently? FFS, I'm trying to reassure 88E shareholders all over the world that Yukon has value within 88E's portfolio of assets.

EO - " Ah, good point, I didn't think of that at the time. You see, I was thinking only about my personal financial well-being and forgot all about the thousands of shareholders around the world who employ me as the MD of Alaskan Operations for 88E. To be fair, I never do think about them until it comes to dumping all of ELKO's 88E shares at a tasty profit during every drilling season. Nice one, Ashley! Tell you what, tell the shareholders you're in discussions with neighbouring leaseholders at Yukon, that'll sound like you're making forward progress. Just don't tell them that it's me you're in discussion with!

So, metalbasher, if you're alluding to PANR I suspect you might be barking up the wrong tree. Actually, make that the wrong forest.

08:20
Brian1234 - just checking you know what updip/downdip means within an O&G context? Also, phasing risk?

08:43
Hi moneyhawk - thoughtful post. As for the bitumen and condensate issues which have bedevilled the two Icewine wells and Charlie-1, I can only suggest you do some poking around about phasing risk. It's crystal clear to me where the sweet spot is. Perhaps you'll see it too?

08:01
What on earth are you on about, cbaron? The Ugnu and West Sak decision not to flow test and reasons for same were published in an RNS in March or April '19. Is this some sort of joke I'm missing? I don't get it.

07:12
I accept this is what you genuinely believe but c'mon man!! Dave Wall and ELKO have picked your collective pockets for two years in a row and have each walked away with multiple millions of dollars. You're applauding the actions of the guys who have just taken you for a ride for goodness sake. I "get" the whole Stockholm Syndrome effect and the emotion you've invested in 88E but I strongly suggest it's more than time to take off those rose-tinted specs for your own financial well-being.

Not entirely sure you're correct, Dreamer67 and Handspringguy. Look at the map again. The overlap is located in the eastern blocks of Project Icewine.

It's the ANN/RNS I expected, for now. A holding pattern until after the NN's webinar on 26/4/22 at 5.30pm, UK time. There'll be no "new news" before that date from 88E. Why would they go out on a limb when the best data they have is 2D seismic plus logs (where all these horizons were either missed or discarded at Icewine 1 + Icewine 2) v's the NN's 3D seismic (an $80m investment) and multiple logs and flow tests and VAS have been conducted.

I totally accept the whole "piggy-backing" off the NN's data, that's exactly what I would say and do too. The trouble is that the shared asset is what it is. You can't reach down 8000 ft below the surface and tip the axis of the geology so all the extractable oil and sand characteristics move southwards on to 88E leases. The horizons are where they are, at the depths where they are, in the phases of the hydrocarbon spectrum that they are and contained within the sands they are. I suggest this forum does some reading around these subjects and don't get sand-bagged again gold-plated words and indications v's cool, hard facts.

Regular readers will know my views on the proportion of Alkaid + Talitha + Icewine + Theta West shared by 88E and the NN. In my model I use a ratio by value of 90:10, PANR:88E. I suspect it'll end up being closer to 95:5 in the final analysis but I'm happy enough to use 90:10 for now.

I ask again.....why buy a seat in the gods when a seat in the front row of the stalls is the same price?

Tue 22:29
Ugnu and West Sak were full of water with some oil. The other way round is generally considered more desirable.

Interesting RNS from the SN overnight. Personal view? Why buy a seat in the gods when front row seats in the stalls are the same price. Across the shared asset of Talitha, Alkaid, Theta West and Icewine East I use a working ratio in my model of 90:10 by value, PANR:SN. FWIW I reckon it'll be closer to 95:5 in the final analysis but I'm happy to use 90:10 for now.