Member Info for Scot126

The latest Alaska North Slope ( ANS) crude oil price as of 22/12/21 was $77.06 v's Brent at $75.29. I note Brent is trading at $78.39 at time of writing.

16:05
Blingybird - no worries. FWIW I use roughly $40 for the cost of extraction (capex + opex) plus transportation costs plus local royalties and taxes. I agree with you that it leaves a very attractive profit per barrel based on the current Alaska North Slope price per barrel of $76.38. Industry and market analysts appear to be coalescing around US$65-$70 for the long term POO. Leaves PANR's fundamentals looking to be in good shape v's other Alaskan operators and within a global context too. GLA

16:00
Hi Brom - Holy guacamole! A 3 minute turnaround on a question. That's got to be some kind of record, surely?!

Thanks very much for the information. So it looks like the company has supplied some additional information to the administrator/regulator of the pertinent OTC board? It still looks to be fairly light touch regulation if I'm understanding it correctly? Still, good to know the background details and paperwork, many thanks.

God loves a tryer so here I am! Seeing as Brom is clearly in the mood to answer genuine and legitimate questions in super quick time, let's see if he can also help me with the following?

Why did Dave Wall, APDC and Erik's contractors all sell out of 88E, or in DW's case sold >60% of his holding? What do they know that PIs in 88E don't?

Is it your opinion that Erik Opstad and his contractor associates (ELKO) should be subject to a lock-in period whereby ELKO is not permitted to sell shares in 88E until the Merlin-2 dta has been collected, interpreted and published to all other shareholders? Do you agree that it is manifestly unfair, perhaps even corrupt, that ELKO is permitted to sell shares whilst possessing direct information from the Merlin-2 site? Holding the proceeds in a solicitor's trust account looks to be a sop to cover up trading whilst in possession of price sensitive information.

What activities does the Chairman of 88E consider constitute related party transactions? Has he examined the activities of Erik and his Alaskan colleagues during the 20/21 drilling season?

Do you believe 88E shareholders are entitled to and deserve a comprehensive explanation for Merlin-1 coming in at a cost of US$30m v's a budget of US$12.6m?

Do you believe the fundamentals support an 88E mkt cap of £207m?

Let's see if we receive an equally speedy response from Brom to these equally genuine and legitimate questions? If not, why not?

07:56
chrisev1 - happy to be corrected but I don't think it is a requirement for a listed company in, eg. UK or Oz to even grant their approval for an OTC quote in the US? I knew a CEO of a UK midcap company who had no idea whatsoever that quotes existed in Germany and the US for his UK-listed company.

Again happy to be corrected, but I understand both 88E and its NN have long had US OTC quotes - it's just that there's been hardly any volume traded on the OTC by US investors/punters until this year. Worth remembering that the US OTC units are not fully fungible. Rather, brokers and market makers in the US firstly have to secure liquidity in the UK and Oz prior to making that volume available for trading on the OTC. I remember reading this forum in March/April this year and many posters didn't appreciate the double, even triple, daily counting of volume across the Oz, UK and US OTC markets.

Ref. your criticism about 88E announcing the existence of its US quote? It's not really their responsibility as the quotes are not supported by company or its share registrar, they're backed by local brokers/market makers. That said, I note 88E's historical financials are now available on the OTC website. It *may* be the case that the OTC or one of the relevant market makers/brokers has taken it upon themselves to provide same to facilitate 88E being "promoted" up to a slightly more regulated OTC board? Perhaps the company itself has engaged in this process? I do not know the answer to that. Perhaps prolific poster par excellence Brom can ask the question and get back to the forum?

11:03
Blingybird - a wee correction. Oil Search paid US$3.10 per contingent barrel in the ground to Armstrong in H2 '17 when the POO was $55.

Olderwiser - thanks for the posts. I always appreciate reading your analysis.

00:17
FAO GS, the early hours poster extraordinaire: I'll attempt to go through your points in turn. Having said that, they're littered with conspiracy theories, old and new, so I may not comprehend your gibberish because I don't operate in the same dimension you do.

1) No offense committed, eh? Lol. You've variously accused me of working for Farallon, GB, PANR, an un-named group of malignant investors intent on a nefarious "hedging" scheme and, of course, the Intergalactic Federation of Wee Green Men. You're a sad joke.

2) GS - do you know what the following phrase means within the context of listed equity markets? "via a recommended corporate or asset sale"? Google the expression "recommended sale" or "recommended bid" and you'll have your answer. Yet another conspiracy theory dashed, eh? Are you not discerning a pattern here after all these months, GS? Not one of your conspiracy theories has stood the test of time....and yet bizarrely you insist on posting more of them?

3) What corporate assets? GS - you do know that it's the stated policy of the BoD to prove up and sell the Alaskan asset, don't you? If not, you are appallingly uninformed for someone who states he's a shareholder. You do know, I hope (???), the PANR management team has no long term intention to operate the assets for the next 30 years? Do you actually read the RNSs and company presentations, or watch the webinars? Doesn't sound like it.

4) "Bent spirit level" - more conspiracy theory g0bbledyg00k. Pathetic.

5) "Wishful thinking for the supermajors interests but why wait a year or two? This will be wrapped up by next autumn, [sic] Surely?" Not IMHO. We know as a statement of fact BP looked very closely at the asset prior to exiting Alaska altogether. I've always suspected the owners of TAPS would wish to be involved in the future ownership/operatorship of the asset as it will, hopefully, become a crucial contributor to the long term future of the pipeline (due to volume and low viscosity). There are two supermajors in the consortium which owns TAPS - look them up.

Wrapped up by next Autumn? Not in my opinion. One more winter season, perhaps employing multiple rigs, would further delineate Theta West and thus advance PANR further up the value curve. *If* the 21/22 season is a success, PANR will either have a well-capitalised farm in partner by the start of the 22/23 season or will have a SP many multiples of 70p at which point fresh equity capital will be easy to source. Either which way, I'm not picking up on any major consensus that the asset simply *must* be sold in 2022. Perhaps just the voices in your head, GS? Or, unsurprisingly, are you just making stuff up as you go along?

6) All the other stuff, salt and powder.....gibberish.

Fri 09:41
Hi cbaron - nope, the GBPO TR-1 to which you refer relates to the 35m shares remaining within CHONS which, now that the intra-party loan has been repaid in full (via the sale of GB's PANR shares held within CHONS), revert back to that entity. Those 35m shares will then, at some point, be distributed out to the individuals/entities which collectively made up the "GB founders'n'funders" I've described previously on this forum.

So that's all fine, pretty much exactly what was expected by anyone not named GS, csw12 or Jofhobbit.

Bit of extra information which is rrrrrrealllyyy interesting IMO. We know the GB founders'n'funders have been diluted to b^ggery since 2016, precipitated by the SoA's reprehensible decision to suspend the repayments connected to the exploration tax rebate scheme. It's not unreasonable to state that next to the PANR technical team and eSeis, the early "GB founders'n'funders" is the cohort of investors who know most about PANR's Alaskan asset. Agreed? I've been informed that a group of those individuals got together and invested a decent sum in the equity component of the recent fundraise. The figure I've been quoted was $5m, give or take. That's a decent slug, no question about it,

Firstly, I'm delighted to see these folks investing at this stage. They've had a rotten time of it since late 2015 (SoA moratorium announced H2 '15) and this investment means they're trying to increase their exposure to the asset *before* PANR enters the crucial data collection and interpretation period of the next few months. Good luck to them, they deserve it.

Secondly, I submit this $5m investment by some GB founders'n'funders is a massive tick in the box for PANR management and consultants *and* for the data collected about the asset since the merger in early '19. I don't know about everyone else but I cannot imagine a scenario whereby these individuals would *not* have consulted with the likes of Bob Rosenthal and Pat Galvin prior to making this investment? This news should be added to the information that three directors invested c.$500k in the fundraise which, and I'm happy to be corrected here, I believe marks the largest sum of money invested by "insiders" since the merger in January '19.

Speaking personally, I very much prefer investing in small companies where management's financial interests are aligned utterly with mine. Management has stepped up here. I like that. GLA

08:36
Hi cbaron - the point you make about no other individual holding within the concert parties being >3% ought not to surprise you? Looks like the GB founders'n'funders will be distributing circa 36m shares or so amongst their constituent investors. Between the two Riverstone founders, John Browne, the GB founders and the early GB funders it's no surprise no individual owns 22m shares (holding required to be declarable). Lol, just a simple 50:50 split of the 36m shares between the two billionaire founders of Riverstone wouldn't lead to a 3% holding, agreed?!

Yeah, it would be kinda interesting to see if CHONS, as a whole, had sold any stock in the market since the most recent pre-deal TR-1 published on 2/12/21. But, for me, no more than plain "interesting". It's surely got to be beyond time that shareholders just shrug their shoulders apathetically as they observe Farallon's selling strategy unfold? The days of the big bad wolf Farallon looming large over the stock are at an end, aren't they?

IMO the key risk associated with that 9% holding now is that a major oil corporate swipes it up in a oner, hoping to gain a seat at the table as the future ownership of the asset is decided. Personally I'd be waaaayyyy more comfortable with Farallon's 66m shares being sold to regular institutions although if Shell was to come in and buy the line it would, naturally, have an immediate positive effect. It's my intention, at time of writing, to wait until the BoD advises me to sell (via a recommended corporate or asset sale) so I'd prefer a level playing field when/if the supermajors start to approach PANR in a year or two!! That's the ideal situation for me, fwiw.

With the publication of today's TR-1 heralding the dissolution of CHONS into its constituent holdings, I wonder whether everyone's favourite early hours poster will man up and apologise for the bombardment of abuse towards me? Turns out that once the intra-party debt was paid off, the shareholdings crystallize out with c.66m owned by Farallon outright and the remaining 35-38m going to the GB founders'n'funders.

News that Farallon now owns/controls <10% of PANR v's controlling 206m shares in January this year together with the fantastic news about the Theta West permit approval ought to see a positive market reaction, all else being equal. Great stuff.

Sore head again this morning, GS?

20:37
GS - still waiting for you to explain massive "hedging" conspiracy theory being undertaken by Farallon/GB/PANR/army of wee green men from the planet Zog (pls delete as appropriate).

GS - you are a world class ultracrepidarian. I salute you.

Tue 04:46
Hi Pander - just for the future, you can always see the exact number of shares held by CHONS by reading their latest TR-1. In this specific case, Farallon on behalf of CHONS, updated the company on 1/12/21 and the TR-1 was published the next day. Had you read the TR-1 you would have seen CHONS owned 103,527,926 shares as of 29/11/21. No-one outside of Farallon knows if that holding has changed in the intervening period. I hope that's of some use to you in the future, knowing how to access the shareholdings of declarable parties?

Those of us who have attempted to get "under the bonnet" of the intra-party agreement which governs the conduct of CHONS have suspected for a wee while now that the debt owed by the GB parties is very close to being paid off in full. I cannot be categorical but my strong understanding is that this has now happened. The next question posed is of the remaining 103m shares held by CHONS, what portion is held by Farallon and the GB parties as separate entities? At time of writing I don't possess an exact figure but a ratio of 60:40 or 65:35, Farallon:GB is the steer I received from one of the early GB funders.

I suspect the consensus belief will be that when CHONS is dissolved, the GB parties will wish to hold on to their PANR shares. I also know as a statement of *fact* that some of the original GB funders accounted for a decent slug of the recent equity raise. Such recent investment activity reinforces my belief selling PANR shares is not on the agenda for the GB stakeholders! Nope, after years of painful dilution, this is their opportunity to regain access to the asset. And what a vote of confidence from the investors who have known the asset longest, since late 2010!

So we're maybe looking at 60-65m shares owned by Farallon as equity shares, completely uncoupled from the historical debt arrangement with GB. At time of writing, I cannot confirm @ValueSituations (Conor Maguire on Twitter) market intelligence which suggests Farallon are now "along for the ride" into the operations on the ground in Alaska in 2022. I wish I could, but I can't.

Nonetheless, from a starting position of 206m shares in Jan '19, Farallon are down to circa 60-65m shares. Not quite the big, bad wolf some geniuses were promising us would "destroy all the value for every other PANR shareholder", eh? lol

Despite the above info, I am quivering in anticipation at GS's latest forensic audit of Farallon's holding. Perhaps those aren't Russian troops massing on the border with Ukraine? Perhaps they're the wee green aliens who are allies of Farallon's as they seek to overturn the world order? GS - start your creative conspiracy theory engines!!

PS Conor's latest article on PANR is well worth a read IMO.
https://valuesits.substack.com/p/a-milestone-and-pantheon-resources

15:08
rfarfa - happy to stipulate all the factual investments you list in your post. It doesn't shift by a millimetre the veracity of the rebuttal which is that until a method is found to transport ANS gas to market, any gas reservoirs presents are worth precisely zilch. That's what the 88E BoD believes, it's what 88E's house broker believes and it's what all the existing oil companies currently active in Alaska think.

Personally, I'm a big fan of natural gas. However, until the pipeline issue is funded and permitted, no equity analyst is going to value ANS gas at anything other than zero dollars.

07:31
Hi Pander - not a trick question. How many shares do you think Farallon has left?

16:34
Mindbender - indeed, and of the 2.2bbo recoverable figure, PANR management assesses 1.9bbo is classified as contingent resources.

Yep, the RF of circa 13-14% is ultra low for the Alaska North Slope. This figure is ultra-conservative and deliberately so. Just think if the lower end of the analogue fields' RFs were used, 25-30%, PANR's recoverable resource guidance would instantly double. The BoD has taken the view that the market doesn't even believe the IER supported Alkaid and SMD guidance so what's the point of issuing an upgrade to the RF if the market doesn't believe, by valuing it "fairly", the existing numbers.

There is an incredibly high probability that the secondary and tertiary recovery techniques employed elsewhere on the Slope for decades will apply to PANR's assets too. Just one example, PANR management has already made comments about reinjecting produced gas and also reinjecting the by-products of generating their own electricity on site. The moment management issues more formal guidance on techniques like I describe, the RF simply has to be upgraded too.

FYI - Rabito79 is the acknowledged expert on secondary and tertiary recovery techniques because that's his day job.

Mindbender and all other readers - there are certain lobes of Prudhoe Bay where Recovery Factors are as high as 60% and as high as 50% at Kuparuk River. Jay and Bob Rosenthal have both indicated that they expect PANR's RF to move up into the 25-30% range without too much difficulty. They will need more data from the upcoming programme of operations to deliver that upgraded guidance IMO. Providing one/some/all of the intervals being tested in the next 8 months or so are declared a success, I strongly suspect management will have sufficient data by the end of the summer '22 to issue an upwards revision to their RF guidance.

In the meantime, it is up to us as investors whether we can anticipate upgrades to the RF based on the data from nearby producing fields. *My personal view* is that we can expect the RF to move up to 30% or so in the next 8-18 months. Thus I assess PANR is waaaayyyyy undervalued using the traditional risked/unrisked valuation method for the O&G sector. Make of that what you will.

15:59

I'll have to re-watch the Blytheweigh interview but key takeaways for me were:

a) the Nordic Calista rig is now contracted (they used the temporary loan of a couple of weeks ago to put down the required deposit by the sounds of things).

b) PANR had agreed commercial terms with a potential farm in partner as far back as the summer this year. Financial and technical terms had been agreed (NB NB NB which strongly suggests the asset has passed the potential partner's technical DD, something we can all use as a rebuttal for the superficial "influencers" like Oilman Dim and others who will not accept PANR's data until someone else does). Something appears to have upset the apple cart in the second half of November (structure of operations past 21/22 season? Potential partner squeezing PANR on terms as we faced a funding cliff?) and the twin tracked option of CB + equity went live.

Some won't like it, I accept that, but wait 'til you see the confidence oozing out of Jay and Bob about the upcoming programme. Oh, and Bob repeats his statement that he is not aware of anyone else targeting a resource of 17bbo OIP anywhere else in the world next year. Great stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG1fhM09oK4&t=31s

Blytheweigh/Core Finance interview with Jay and Bob, dated 10/12/21.

13:30
chrisev1 - not sure that's strictly true, is it? The well was located sub-optimally which *perhaps* indicates the weakness of pressing ahead with a well without the advantage of possessing 3D seismic? The horizons targeted by Merlin-1 were found to be 600ft deeper than expected. That's not really an "operational issue", is it?

In addition, the well came in a full US$17m over budget. That's not an "operational issue" either, is it chrisev1? That's a management and Erik Opstad issue.

12:36
chrisev1 - I "get" it fine and dandy. I'm suggesting to you and other readers of my content that the market is massively over-valuing 88E right now, at time of writing. I also back up my contentions with fact, evidence, comparative analysis and direct questions about matters which ought to be discussed openly but which those in the know do not wish to see the light of day. I can see how you may *think* that means I want people to lose money, but that's a rather immature way of viewing the situation, isn't it chrisev1?

Here's what you're trying to say: "You're unveiling facts about my asset, an asset I want to sell some day soon. I'm relying on pulling the wool over some numpties' eyes in America in order to maximise my profits. I *know* my asset isn't even worth the mkt cap today never mind what it may rise to when the social media hype gets under way again. Therefore I'm going to attack you personally and say you're not a nice person when what I really want is for you to shut up about valuations so I can profit from other people's ignorance in Q1 2022."

Remind me again, chrisev1, just who is the "nice person"?

Thu 23:25
chrisev1 and the 14 people who appear to agree with him.

Take a step back, forget scot126 ever existed. Think about being delighted for your fellow man who made money, great money in March/April this year. And then be brutally honest with yourself and think of your fellow men and women who bought the 88E shares at 4p because they were hoodwinked by a social media campaign which was crammed full of disinformation. And who was selling to these misinformed investors? None other than Erik Opstad and ELKO.

It was a huge game of 'pass the parcel' and those left holding the stock when the music stopped will, I put it to you, not be "delighted" their fellow man had profited from an organised social media disinformation campaign.

Think on that for a moment please.

Far less importantly, please provide a quotation from one of my posts where I state that I take pleasure in people losing money. You won't find such a quote because I don't that's not representative of my values. Oh, and contrary to your belief I am a "nice person". People who point out the King is not wearing any clothes are *not* bad people, they're just being honest and not kidding themselves or anyone else.

Read Rabito79's reply to your post, chrisev1. He's an 88E shareholder and he's addressing the truth head on. Sounds like it's time for you and the 14 supporters to do the same.

21:51
Redirons - I post here because 88E and its NN share an asset. As they're both listed companies, it is a standard valuation technique to undertake comparative analysis on two companies which share an asset. I am sorry you don't see it that way but that's the way fundamental investors work all over the world.

I don't think I've ever posted that I would never invest in 88E - happy to be corrected. It's hard for me to invest in a company where I don't believe the activities of your Alaskan General Manager are fully understood or supervised, least of all by anyone on this forum. Asking your BoD how a well originally budgeted to cost US$12.6m and coming in at US$30m would seem to me to be only the first of many, many questions which 88E shareholders ought to be asking of the directors.

I appreciate and accept the vast majority of posters on this forum believe, like csw12, that 88E is a hype and meme stock now. This majority of users is hoping for at least one more "go around", seeking to profit off the backs of another social media disinformation campaign and naive/ill-educated American OTC mugs. Knock yourself out if that's description fits.

None of that makes any of my fundamental questions any less pertinent or any less valid. I have lots of unanswered questions. They're fair, they're written politely and if any fundamental investors remain active on this forum, are exactly the questions you should be asking of yourself and your BoD. AIMHO.