We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
08:46
Hi Redbeardoil2 - I think it's best we leave that to PANR management to answer, don't you. That way. Everyone avoids unnecessary speculation about who listened to who or who didn't listen to who!
08:22
Fact check, Desmond45. Hickory-1 cost approx US$15m to drill and *another* US$14.5m to flow test.
To drill, complete, stimulate and test an horizontal well at the Hickory location will cost $25m - $30m and won't happen until next winter at the earliest.
Where is that capital going to come from? Another 20bn new shares?
To remind folk, until 88E trades at 0.2p the market is valuing 88E's barrels at a premium to a higher classification PANR barrel.
Following the Hickory-1 flow tests this absurd premium which 88E enjoys looks increasingly ludicrous.
07:53
No, cbaron, that is not the way the O&G sector works and nor is it the way the equity markets work. Price discovery is essential in establishing fair value. To have a joint owner of reservoirs obfuscate at best, cruelly spin at worst will only attract opprobrium from wider market analysts/commentators when they see intellectually bankrupt reports that these results have a positive or negative effect on PANR's numbers and investment case.
When are you going to accept that this is not a fight between shareholders, as you so naively describe it. This is about data, truth, risk/return, maths, probability, value, research.
07:40
Chicken Thighs - sadly, 88E has not hit metaphorical gold. Collecting only 4 barrels of oil over the course of 16 hours (see Appendix J) is hardly a success.
I'm afraid forum members would do well to investigate the effects of Dmax on the downdip portions of tight-ish reservoirs.
After these two flow tests, do please ask yourselves if there is *anything* in today's RNS which would justify 88E's barrels in the ground being valued at a 1% premium to an updip, higher classification barrel never mind a 25-100% premium.
If anyone disagrees, point out to the forum what paragraph or sentence in the RNS supports any such premium for an 88E barrel.
07:29
Ayecuramba - this post is a made up lie. You are attempting to draw in unsuspecting newcomers to 88E so that you can sell your shares. Why else would deliberately disseminate false and misleading information about a non-existent flow rate of 800-1000bopd.
To any newcomers, during the 16 hour period when oil was flowing to the surface, precisely 4 barrels of oil were collected in the stk tank. As you can calculate, that's nowhere near 800-1000bopd.
Don't be fooled by the lies being disseminated by disappointed folk on this forum.
01:24
Gman93 - best you head off an investigate the effects of Dmax on the downdip portions of already tight-ish reservoirs.
I repeat for the umpteenth time, it is entirely irrational for a downdip, Dmax affected, lower classification 88E barrel in the ground to be trading at a premium of 25%-100% to an updip, higher classification PANR barrel in the ground.
The market is already waking up to this. Stick tot he science, Gman93.
No, BOBHOPE, I believe in science and facts. You can toddle off and try to ensnare other folk into your web of misinformation. This forum won't be buying what you're selling. Members are too well informed.
00:47
BOBHOPE - don't you find it interesting only 4 barrels of oil were collected in the stk tank over the course of the SMD-B flow test? Add that to the 24.8 barrels collected in the SFS flow test and it's almost 30 barrels! Downdip and Dmax effect are now clear. Pity.
I see at least one liar has posted on the 88E forum that "Pantheon Directors Jay and Bob have said that there is no effective difference in reservoir Quality between Panr wells and Hickory."
Let me be a thousand per cent clear about this matter before it gains any credibility whatsoever. Jay and Bob have said no such thing. The poster was challenged by olderwiser and me to provide a citation or source for this made up fantasy and of course it's now radio silence.
However the market reacts to the second flowtest at Hickory-1, be under no illusion that PANR's base case numbers will not change by one barrel downwards. PANR used the Talitha #A data for their base case numbers and did ***not*** include the acreage south of Talitha #A towards the southern boundary with 88E in its guidance numbers.
As David Hobbs stated correctly, Hickory-1 was a free hit for PANR.
Jay and Bob have described the characteristics of the SMD-B reservoir
00:19
Before OilBcNu's lies are disseminated any further, please be aware PANR has already flow tested the SMD-B successfully.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/validation-of-frac-design-and-fluid-sampling-tcrx4qvdikio0t4.html
Compare the transparency of PANR's RNS with 88E's.
Happy for any forum members to identify a geologist in the world who would prefer to own the downdip, greater Dmax affected portion of a reservoir v's the updip portion.
Now that we've established the actual facts, 88E informs us the gross cost of this year's operations will be US$14.5m. Unless Longhorn has had a record-breaking Q1'24 88Ewill have no other option than to raise new capital. We'll see what the traders do tomorrow but I reckon LTHs should attempt to calculate 88E's cash at hand at the end of April as a matter of some urgency.
00:19
OilBcNu - that is an outright lie. Unless you provide a link to a source for this made up fantasy lse moderators will be approached an informed you have published false and misleading information. In case you were unaware, that is a crime.
I suggest you withdraw that post immediately.
00:05
You're kidding us, right SuperRoty? Best contact OMJ to see if he thinks as you do - bet he doesn't!!
4 stk barrels over the course of a flow test. Cripes.
24 barrels of oil collected in the stk during the USFS flow test, and now only 4 stk barrels in the SMD-B.
Once again it appears time for forum readers to investigate the effects of Dmax on downdip portions of reservoirs.
[Part 3, continued from Part 2 below]
11:25
MysticMeg - Geodes has more knowledge about geology in his little finger than I could hope to learn in a lifetime. However, he self-admittedly no longer strays into commentary on valuations or even comparative valuations of PANR and 88E. He and I used to communicate and I enjoyed reading his geological commentary very much indeed. Sadly he made *many factual errors* about the investment cases of PANR and 88E. Initially he was happy enough to correct his errors when politely pointed out but over time he bristled at the *factual* corrections and then blocked me. I *never* questioned his geological commentary, solely his errors about the investment cases. Thereafter he ceased to comment on the financial implications for each company and constrained his commentary to geological matters. *My* opinion. Geodes has stated he is hugely under water on 88E. It happens. IMHO his commentary is, understandably, tainted by his desire to dig himself out of his 88E financial hole. Why not ask him, ‘knowing what he knows now about the datasets from each company, which of 88E and PANR would he invest in today if only allowed one stock?’ Also, ask him for a data-supported justification for an 88E barrel to be valued at a premium to a PANR barrel.
[Part 2, continued from part 1 below]
08:05
Taximan57 - To arrive at a realisable value of $5-$10 per barrel, PANR will have to invest c.$120m of external capital (planned but not guaranteed to be sourced from external parties). Bearing in mind PANR has spent 14 years and hundreds of millions of dollars proving up their acreage, how much do you assess 88E will require to invest in their acreage to arrive at a similar data threshold? Let’s be generous and say it’ll require only $100m, ok? Where’s that cash going to come from? Will 88E have >100bn shares on issue by then?
Have another look at the Oil Search/Armstrong deal. Armstrong/Repsol had drilled 12 vertical wells and 7 laterals before the Oil Search was signed. The data *has* to be collected to make an asset saleable. You simplistically pluck a figure of the air, “$410m”. 88E is nowhere near achieving such a valuation. It will take years and at least $100m before sufficient data is collected to support a valuation of that order.
This type of content is wholly irresponsible. You state that folk ought not to pay any attention to the content on forums like this one. Why, therefore, do you pepper this forum with such anti-science gibberish? It would sadden me greatly to read you’re here solely to ensnare unsophisticated buyers into 88E having hoodwinked them with tales of imminent riches.
10:44
Gemstar/Midnight7 – as Midnight7 stated correctly, Mangrove’s PANR short is 1.53%. Based on the timing of their declaration to the FCA, I estimate their short is 13.8m shares. Don’t believe me? Click on the link below.
https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-disclosure-net-short-positions
Gemstar – the fact that you foolishly elected to double down later in the day and confirmed to all members of this forum your complete miscomprehension of the FCA short reports is surely a source of profound embarrassment. That you couldn’t interpret an accumulating total belies an infantile understanding of the short position. When are members of this forum going to stop publishing made up nonsense, showing not an ounce of responsibility to their fellow shareholders and forum members? Where is the shame?
[End of Part 2, see above for Part 3]
MysticMeg – see my content above about the investment made by Armstrong and PANR to move towards realisable valuations of $3.10 (Armstrong) and targeting a range of $5-$10 (PANR). I urge you to cease the deliberate misinformation.
00:52
Taximan57 – sadly, you’re entering into the realm of wilful ignorance. You wrote, “I see that you are still stuck on the market valuation of a barrel of oil, please let it go and maybe just maybe some will listen to you without ridiculing or insulting you.”
Do you honestly think I dreamed up this valuation method all by myself? This is *exactly* how industry professionals and equity market analysts value O&G assets. Thankfully you don’t have to take my word for it. Have a read of Oil Search’s official announcement of its investment in Pikka/Horseshoe in Alaska.
https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20171101/pdf/43nvwgl0r48s95.pdf
You also wrote, “My opinion is that LONGHORN will be exactly what 88E wants it to be, a cash cow for future leases and exploration.” There is no evidence to support your belief, exactly the opposite is true, sadly. Perhaps you should have posted, “My ***hope*** is that LONGHORN will be exactly what 88E wants it to be, a cash cow for future leases and exploration.”
Maybe change this sentence too? “I also think Phoenix will not be developed by 88E but will ***hopefully*** be farmed out with a non working % retained and a lump sum. IMO.”
07:53
Taximan57 – the remark aimed at me about the value of barrels of oil and the overnight attack on Israel is contemptible. I admit to being surprised you elected to post this outrageous remark on a public forum. I invite you to apologise and withdraw the remark. You have no idea about my links to Israel, or Iran for that matter. I had thought better of you. Was I wrong?
FWIW, if I used olderwiser’s more conservative threshold for collating data-supported volumes for 88E’s recoverable resources, an 88E barrel in the ground would be valued by the equity markets closer to 30p v’s PANR’s 15.3p.
It appears you understood olderwiser’s points about the requirement to flow test individual reservoirs to definitively establish commerciality? The maths suggests you, therefore, ought to acknowledge that a downdip, lower classification 88E barrel in the ground is valued around double that of an updip, higher classification barrel in the ground. This is, IMO, an unsustainable disparity in valuation and wholly irrational.
[Part 1, see above for Part 2]
23:09
Serious question, Taximan57. Do you not feel *any* responsibility to your fellow shareholders to ensure you post accurate data and facts. Do you not think about those who read your content, who perhaps even adopt some of your content as they come to make financial decisions?
Should we not all aim to be better than this?
[Part B3, continued from Part B2 below]
Let’s be blunt. Longhorn is nowhere near to covering G&A, never mind the annual lease payments too. And that’s after investing 50% more into Texas than originally budgeted, soon to be 80% more in H2’24. Indeed, Longhorn has performed so poorly that 88E’s COO is leaving the company (29/4/24) to reduce G&A. To correct yet another error, Taziman57, I did not state “Texas is losing money”. Like Brom, I have said it is massively underperforming.
A few more corrections to finish off and to ensure your content doesn’t mislead the other members of this forum.
- When writing down a PE ratio, the accepted format is, eg. 10x or 15x. The ratio is numerical only, it’s not based on a currency as you have written.
- PANR’s CB repayments can be paid in cash or shares, at PANR’s election. Your post implies repayments must be paid in cash, which is not the case.
- I note you have correctly relayed PANR's cash at hand. What cash at hand do you anticipate 88E will possess once the operations at Hickory-1 are all paid for?
[End of Part B3]
[Part B2, continued from Part B1 below]
10:07
MysticMeg - correction. Instead of "When we announce commercial oil" you should have written "If we announce commercial oil". Aren't you the same prolific poster who reminds everyone that they don't know the results of 88E management's analysis? the same rule surely applies to you too?!
Ok, you suggest 88E will sell Project Phoenix and apply the sale proceeds to advancing Texas and Namibia. Unlike olderwiser, I am prepared to be more generous when looking at the recoverable liquids at Phoenix. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say 88E management does indeed prove up the 371,300,000 recoverable barrels as noted in their P50 best estimates. In such a scenario, what value would you place on 88E's Project Phoenix? I "get" you'd look to apply those funds to Texas and Namibia, but approximately how much are you calculating will be realised by the sale of Phoenix? You're a very prolific and forceful poster on this forum. You must surely have some sort of an estimate of the cash 88E would realise if it is to follow your strategy? We look forward to reading your valuation of Phoenix.
13:10
Hi Taximan57 - I had another listen to the Q&A video you posted. Interestingly, MD Ashley Gilbert addressed head on one of the points you often repeat about Longhorn concerning its purpose within 88E's portfolio of assets. He states that Longhorn "helps fund the G&A and leases" which "means that when we raise money all of that goes into the drillbit." I completely accept that was the intention behind diversifying into Longhorn. The trouble is that the execution of this strategy has failed thus far, and failed really quite badly.
When 88E initially bought into Longhorn, production was guided to “double from 300boepd to 600boepd by the end of '22”. Then after further investment in July'23, guidance on production by the end of ’23 was reduced to 500boepd. Longhorn exited 2023 producing 355boepd. New acreage was acquired in Dec'23 and, once 88E invests a further US$3m on two new wells after the workover program, guidance is for Longhorn to exit ‘24 producing 600-675boepd. Total investment in Longhorn by 88E up to the end of 2024? US$18.56m ($7.1m payable in shares, $11.46m in cash).
What dividends has 88E received from Longhorn since its first investment in Texas, Taximan? Previously you refused to accept the figures I quoted. I note you haven't acted on my suggestion to ask Brom this same question if you're not prepared to trust me? Why haven’t you ask Brom or looked up the answer yourself? Don't want to learn the facts? That's not the behaviour of an informed investor surely?
[End of Part B2, see above for Part B3]
12/4/24 @ 14:52
BigBear2 - couple of points. I follow your logic about repaying the CB. The thing is there's a contract between PANR and Heights Capital which means it would require both parties to agree to an early repayment. Why would Heights do that? They'd effectively be giving up for little or no consideration the upside optionality inherent in the CB structure.
I agree with you that PANR is further down the line than 88E in proving up the joint reservoirs in Alaska. You describe 88E's portion of the asset as "simpler". I disagree with that description. If you mean that 88E has invested less time and capital in appraising their portion of the shared reservoirs then that's correct. It's also correct to say 88E is miles behind PANR in data collection. So "simpler" isn't accurate, perhaps a "much less advanced stage of appraisal"?
Either which way, we agree 88E is some way behind in the journey to fully proving up the asset, agreed? Does it not therefore worry you greatly that the market is currently valuing a downdip, lower classification 88E barrel in the ground at 19p v's an updip, higher classification PANR barrel in the ground at 15.3p? How can it possibly be mathematically rational for the lower quality (Dmax and classification) barrel to be valued at a 25% premium to the one that you, yourself, describe as being "further down the line"?
12/4/24 @ 16:49
JohnWick1 - nope, no conspiracy theories....the market is made up of buyers, sellers and holders. all 25.12bn shares are free to be traded as far as I'm aware. I'm not aware any of the shares are subject to a lock up period, are you?
12/4/24 @ 18:35
Hi dorfman - happy to be corrected but I *think* Dave Wall owned c.220m shares when he exited 88E in 2021. The latest Top 20 list shows him owning 58.26m. Reduced his total exposure by c.70%? Hmmm.....
10:05
Kpasa - to address this infantile conspiracy theory, olderwiser and munnietorx could bump into me on the street and I wouldn't know them. More research, less conspiracy theories please, Kpasa.
[Part B1, see above for B2]
15:43
[Part 3, continued from Part 2 below timed at 15:43]
Ok, I had a look at the Lonestar I LLC shareholding. You'll recall this was prompted by Taximan57 drawing the forum's attention to the Top 20 88E shareholders as at 22/3/24. Along with 88E's Namibian partner (which has sold 80% of the 88E shares it was originally issued) he noted the presence of Lonestar I LLC in the Top 20 shareholders list as at 22/3/24.
Taximan57 stated that it was, "Nice to know they [MEL and Lonestar] are supporting the company and not just selling off." It turns out that since 88E announced the Texas acquisition, 700m 88E shares have been issued to Lonestar. Yet Lonestar's current holding is only 336m shares. So Lonestar has sold >50% of its 88E shareholding. Better than the Namibian partners who have sold 80% of their original holding, I suppose, but it's certainly not what Taximan57 would have had us believe.
As I say, just happy to correct the record.
It surely won't come as a surprise to anyone reading my posts of today that I'm able to highlight two other entities which were issued millions of 88E shares but which no longer appear to own any shares. The first example is SAE Exploration which received 181m 88E shares as part of 88E's acquisition/licensing of SAE's 3D seismic data. No sign of SAE in the Top 20 list.
Of course the largest recipient of 88E vendor shares has been ELKO, Erik Opstad's oil services firm. This particular holding has previously been litigated on this forum. Speaking of Erik Opstad, Brombarb still hasn't informed the forum what's happened to Erik? Mr Opstad is/was (?) General Manager of 88E's Alaskan Operations but no-one associated with 88E seems to know where he is? Maybe they felt he had assisted the company enough by a) setting the budgets for Merlin-1 and Merlin-2, b) appointing his own family oil services company (ELKO) as the prime contractor, c) operational costs coming in at over twice the budgeted amount for the drills, d) arranged for 88E to place vendor shares to ELKO as soon as ELKO's work invoices were paid by 88E, e) immediately sold all of the vendor *and* placing shares in 88E without any lock-in arrangement for Merlin -1, despite being continuously inside during every single second of operations at Merlin-1.
Perhaps he's too busy counting his money? Out of interest, have any 88E LTHs received a thank you card from Erik?
I'd forgotten about this, but just reminding the forum that Ashley Gilbert sold 33.75m performance rights/shares on or around 9/2/23. That's a nice little £200k in Ashley's pocket. What is it about 88E that means its own Managing Director cannot be persuaded to become a shareholder? Even when the company raised fresh capital at 0.23p in November '23, he opted not to support the fundraise despite his hefty salary, his bonus taken in cash and his sale of £200k worth of performance rights earlier in the year. Jeepers.....what on earth is he trying to tell us?
[End of Part 3]