Member Info for Scot126

10:13
Ddraig - until you make a public apology for suggesting a poster with whom you disagreed go off and plan to commit suicide, you'll have no engagement from me. You are a wretched shell of a man.

PS Mindbender - note all the company names you kindly provided are producers and revenue generators. Your claims that the PANR Short Term Facility interest rate is expensive are wrong and you have not provided any countering argument IMO.

15:10
Yes, Mindbender, but this Short Term Facility was arranged at short notice (hours and days rather than weeks and months as is the case with corporate bonds). I note you ignore completely any reference to an arrangement fee. Why is that? Listen, I did this kinda stuff for companies over the years. I'm adamant in my avowal that a 10% interest rate for such a short dated loan is absolutely within the standard range for a non-revenue small cap stock. Why you are arguing about this defeats me, but you do you.

I accept entirely your point that the RNS did not confirm the shareholder who provided the Short Term Facility was made inside during the course of the loan being arranged. In fairness, I didn't state that any such confirmation has been made. However, unless the shareholder in question was Jay's twin brother (he doesn't have one) can you really see any shareholder advancing such a sum without receiving a sufficiently detailed briefing that would satisfy him/her the company was just about to be funded and any drawdown made in the meantime immediately paid back in full? C'mon Mindbender, point me towards a HNW who invests in E&P stocks on AIM who has ultra-short term commercial loans as part of their business model??!! Nope, we all know it's an extremely safe assumption to make that the shareholder in question is now an insider.

7) (continued from below) To other readers. Have a look at the CVs of the PANR chairman and CEO, they’re on the company website. When Jay was the boss of ARCO International his annual spending budget was >$1bn. He’s been on both sides of the farm out/farm in negotiating table. Phillip Gobe’s background is possibly even more impressive and his work at Pioneer alone has possibly seen him be part of high level negotiations even more frequently than Jay.

At some point, folks, you’ve got to accept the BoD (all shareholders themselves, remember) are negotiating on our behalf to work towards an outcome which is in the best interests of all shareholders. You’ve each chosen to invest money in a listed E&P company. There will be times in that journey when you simply *must* outsource your trust to the BoD. This is one of those times. If you don’t feel comfy about that, reduce your holding. But in so doing be very clear that if, say, PANR announces a farm in with Hilcorp next week then your relative lack of trust in the BoD *may* see you non-invested/underweight in a stock which *ought* to gap up quite dramatically. In my *imagined* scenario, if PANR was to sign a farm in deal with Conoco, Hilcorp, Eni, Repsol, Exxon, etc. does anyone seriously argue the stock wouldn’t *open* well over 100p that morning?

8) GrumpyScouser, Mon 19:44: A 10% annual interest rate is *not* expensive. I do, however, agree that it may very well be a case of one party’s bluff being called? We’ll find out soon enough.

9) sittingbush, 08:38: Factually incorrect. There have been a number of “sniffs” over the years. To state otherwise on a public forum is to state you do not believe the integrity of management. I see no evidence to support such an attitude so I’m going to continue taking the content of PANR’s webinars, RNSs, interviews and presentations at face value.

I’ll give you a concrete example. During one of the London presentations in PANR’s lawyers’ office Bob Rosenthal described the large number of staff BP Alaska sent to the PANR dataroom. He described how some Oil Search equity analysts had bumped into these BP Alaska staff members in Houston and the BP staff had informed the analysts why they were in Houston. There was something amusing about the story because some of the individuals from each group had met each other in Anchorage a few days earlier, or some such. Speaking to Bob Rosenthal over subsequent meetings, I know that he had separate meetings with BP Alaska bosses and with BP uber bosses in London prior to BP’s BoD deciding to sell out of Alaska altogether. Ok, you could argue PANR’s data in 2019 wasn’t sufficient to reverse BP’s decision to exit Alaska entirely (they sold out to Hilcorp for $5.6bn from memory?) but you surely cannot deny there have been sniffs *plural* and from *proper* candidates too.

(Part 5, /end)

7) SeaHawk, Mon 11:29: There’s a really good reason you expected me to pop up in response to this ridiculous post, SeaHawk, and here’s why. You appear to be an unsophisticated investor which leaves you, rather farcically, “back seat driving” the decisions of management without having access to sufficient information to make such a call. I found myself laughing at your gall as you “shoulda, woulda, coulda’d” your way through this post, all the time reinforcing your lack of knowledge of the sector *and* of the negotiating process. Let’s have a look at your ill-educated yet bizarrely self-confident points, shall we?

(i) “….they should have just got on and done it late summer.” Ok, so they would have needed to raise $50m, agreed? At what price? 40p? 45p? 50p? Your fellow shareholders wouldn’t have thanked you for that extra dilution, would they? I know I wouldn’t have been too chuffed. Or was management’s time better spent preparing for the August webinar and disseminating the PANR investment case in the US and UK? Or perhaps their time was better employed negotiating with interested farm out parties, getting the dataroom full to bursting with top quality data in order to keep those interested parties at the table and to ensure a genuinely competitive process as various potential partners vie to become PANR’s partner?

(ii) “…if anything it puts you in a far stronger position.” Yes, I accept that *could* be the case, but there’s no guarantee of that result. Potential farm in partners *could* argue, with sound mathematical logic, that if PANR’s BoD only values its equity at 45p, then they, as potential farm in partners, need not pay any more than, eg. 40% of PANR’s mkt cap at a 45p SP for 40% of the assets. How come? “Well, in your latest raise, prior to any news of a farm in, your own BoD valued the assets at x pence per share. They know more than we do so why would we not just pay the equivalent price for y% of the assets? Thus it could be argued that a late summer fundraise could have established a ceiling to any potential farm out deal.

(iii) “….should have put an end date to the negotiations…” Really, SeaHawk? And how do *you* know they haven’t done so? How do *you* know if the terms haven’t already been agreed but, say, there’s some regulatory oversight by the US Federal govt and/or the SoA which has to be completed prior to any announcements? Maybe the favoured farm in partner played silly b^ggers at the last minute to sweeten their side of the deal and the Short Term Facility was the BoD’s answer to such a bluff? Who knows???

I’ll tell you something I know is 100% definitely true, SeaHawk. It’s that you do *not* have access to the information required to make the ludicrous, and absurdly self-confident, claims contained within your post on Monday at 11:29. Oh, and another thing. I’m delighted you’re not on the PANR BoD.

(Part 4, continued above)

6) Hi mindbender, Mon 09:26: Your first point is logical and a perfectly reasonable interpretation of recent events. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, eg. “fraught” is a tad dramatic, but it’s reasonable. Your second point is deeply flawed. Firstly, a 10% interest rate is not “very high” for a short term facility. It’s actually within the normal range for a short term shareholder loan. My personal opinion is that it’ll maybe cost the company $15k max. How come? Because it’s an annualised interest rate and I strongly believe the facility will not be required any longer than a month from the date of the RNS. If the company had approached a bank for a similar facility, the arrangement fee alone would have been at least double that amount!

Actually, let’s look at this shareholder loan in a bit more detail. The RNS doesn’t expressly state the following but I don’t think it’s out of order to presume the shareholder concerned would have received a briefing on the ongoing progress (or lack of progress) of the farm out negotiations. Fair? We know this person/entity is an equity investor and, seeing as they’re invested in the E&P sector, I suspect it’s also fair to presume they’re not in the business of offering commercial loans as a regular feature of their investment process. Agreed? So, the lender is likely now inside, has been briefed by management on the progress of the farm out negotiations *and was still happy* to provide the Short Term Facility to the company?
I’m sure I’m not the only one who hasn’t imagined themselves in the place of this shareholder and who thinks that there’s no way we’d advance such a facility if we hadn’t received a pretty detailed briefing from directors about the funding of the anticipated winter operational programme? Correct? Make of that logic what you will.

(Part 3, continued above)

3) teddybear777, Fri 13:19: yep, I have an explanation. The buy/sell data isn’t fit for purpose. Speaking for myself and colleagues in the institutional desks of 4 brokers/investment banks, we didn’t pay much, if any, attention to that data. Just follow the price over a period, not just a 1 minute snapshot IMHO.

4) scaramouche69, Fri 19:39: waterpolo knows jacksh^^ about PANR. Maybe pick a better poster to guide you through the investment case? Also, if you are not waterpolo, it’s considered poor form to copy’n’paste another poster’s content without attribution. Feels to me that you can “be better” ( - Melania Trump) in your future bulletin board content and conduct.

5) scaramouche69, Fri 19:41: factually inaccurate. There was no rally from 60p to 90p, rather there were at least two stepping stones; from 60p to mid-high 70s and then a further step up from there to consolidate in the low 80s before the short term step up to the 90s, pre the Short Term Facility RNS. In addition, you are factually incorrect in citing only “an article and index inclusion” as reasons for a “50% rally”. The index inclusion move led to the SP moving from 84p to 94p and MSCI only announced PANR’s promotion at 11pm on 11/11/21. The Petroleum News article was dated 14/11/21 and the interview took place on 5/11/21. These events occurred *well after* the rise from 60p had taken place. In summary, your post is factually flawed and inaccurate.

Using the sector-accepted risked/unrisked valuation method (which has been employed for decades by the equity markets) leads both Canaccord and WH Ireland to issue research notes with a fair value for PANR of 170p per share. It is the fact that the market is slowly waking up to the PANR investment case which caused the vast, vast majority of new buying interest in the last 4-5 months or so. Certainly the appreciation in the POO will have helped the E&P sector, no question about that, but further proof of my contention comes in the form of the latest Top Shareholders data which points to a *significant* new tranche of US institutional and HNW buying.

scaramouche69 – your attempts to talk the price down are both obvious and amateurish. You’ll either keep doing it and I’ll fact check you every time or you’ll get bored and move on. I don’t particularly care which option you choose, knock yourself out.

(Part 2, continued above)

Just catching up with a few posts over the last week or so.

1) SeaHawk, 16/11: I note the caveats included. Something for other readers to bear in mind when assessing the risks associated with the green transition (i) strong bipartisan support for the US remaining energy independent into the foreseeable future (ii) breakeven cost of Alaska North Slope crude is *relatively* low v’s other global oil producing regions (iii) *if* PANR’s acreage is developed as hoped, for production to cease at some point in the future will mean, by necessity, that TAPS has shut and crude oil is no longer produced in Alaska.

Points (i) and (ii) are self-explanatory, so let’s examine the logic behind point (iii). Company guidance on a blended cost of production is c.$32 per barrel, which compares favourably with the other oilfields on the North Slope. It’s also a competitive cost v’s the global peer group of oilfields. QED - if PANR’s oil is no longer produced at a competitive price at some point in the future => the other big fields in Alaska will also be uncompetitive => TAPS will no longer be in use => Alaska will no longer be producing or exporting crude oil. Other companies operating on the North Slope which will be affected include, but are not limited to: Conoco, Hilcorp, Exxon, Shell, Eni, Repsol, Santos/Oil Search.

I’m not arguing Alaska will not be affected by the green transition. I’m just trying to place Alaskan oil production, *and PANR’s place within that total Alaskan production*, into some context. Thus, all things being equal, I assess the risk of PANR’s acreage *not* having a long term production life as being incredibly low.

2) Hi pawnsacrifice, 17/11: I’m not a party to any negotiations so this is simply a view based on my observation of the PANR 2.0 merged management teams and Canaccord acting as their NOMAD. I *suspect* there is a consensus view that the Canaccord NOMAD is ultra-conservative and seeks to run a pretty tight ship, witness their multiple caveats in each RNS. With that in mind, and with the combined decision to announce the US$1.5m short term loan to ensure full transparency for shareholders, I think it is a logical progression to believe that had farm out negotiations broken down or were *not* “quite advanced, I must say” then the NOMAD would have compelled PANR to inform the market. Thus, it is my contention that absent such an RNS, the farm out negotiations are continuing.

FWIW, I reckon a farm out will be agreed but my *personal* preference is for PANR to go it alone for one more winter season. Either which way, I am more than comfortable letting the BoD negotiate the best possible outcome for shareholders. PANR 2.0 management has earned *my* trust due to the value created since the merger with Great Bear in January ‘19.

(Part 1, continued above)

13:49
Hello there, scaramouche69. You wouldn't be related to waterpolo on the other place, would you? I ask only because you and he have posted the exact same content as each other. It's all a bit rum really, because this waterpolo fella told the other place he'd sold out partly/entirely at much lower levels than currently and he's been bleating about it ever since. I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation and it's all just one big coincidence, eh?

Alternatively, you're either short or underweight going into a binary event where the upside is multiples of the current price and, in a particularly ham-fisted and obvious fashion, you're attempting to talk down the SP. Dear oh dear.

14:27
csw12 - I 100% accept that's how *you* view the situation. What *you* don't appear capable of accepting is that not everyone thinks as you do, not everyone shares your sense of morality and your values. Thankfully, if you were telling the truth (?) about your belief that the content of this forum has no effect on the SP, this is all moot, eh?! Or maybe you *do* believe forums such as this do, in fact, affect the market's view of a stock? Hmmm........who knows?

09:01
csw12 - being a disciplined fundamental investor, reading *facts* and applying a risk factor is *exactly* what I must do. The NN's RNS of yesterday offered a perfectly reasonable explanation, in my mind, concerning the extended supply chain due to Covid effects. My logic is that no BoD would be entering into a Short Term Facility for US$1.5m if they weren't *as close as dammit* to being certain the anticipated winter programme will be going ahead as planned. *You* may wish to wait a while for formal confirmation of same but I don't feel the need to do so. As a fundamental investor, I've assessed the risk of no winter activity and come to a decision that the risk is extremely low. I could be wrong or correct but I hope that very simple description of the thought process helps you understand how non-meme, non-hypetastic investors examine an investment case.

The quotation "an angry fellow who recently stated the wise money sold out of PANR at 85p" was a) written when volume was going through in size in the 90s and thus rebutted the "wise money" nonsense and b) I 100% stand by it. You *do* appear to be an angry fellow, you certainly post in that manner. As for the SP, I'm an investor and not a trader. You are 100% welcome to judge my investment performance when I sell my shares in the NN, but not a minute before. Btw, I'm still truly puzzled by the inconsistency of you believing posts on this forum have no effect on the 88E SP and yet you display extreme defensiveness when other posters ask questions of fact concerning the 88E investment case. There is an inconsistency there which simply cannot be reconciled.

09:20
Ddraig - FWIW I have a degree of sympathy with your description of the two management styles/backgrounds/CVs. On a high level view, I agree the NN's management team are not as market savvy or as nimble as 88E's former, MD Dave Wall, or
88E's General Manager of Alaska Operations, Erik Opstad. But then, I'm not a massive fan of management taking advantage of their shareholders to profit financially. Of course I accept that this doesn't bother you or most of the other regular posters on this forum.

When all is said and done, I'm pretty comfortable with the NN's engineers delineating a 1.9bbo contingent resource when compared to 88E's zero contingent barrels.

Ddraig - do you agree with csw12 that 88E is now a "meme stock" and has no connection whatsoever to the fundamentals? As you may be aware, I thanked csw12 for his honesty and bluntness in posting his thoughts on the matter. Do you agree with him?

16:14
Hi dazzle1000 - as a fellow Globe attendee, you're making me feel all warm'n'fuzzy.....a "true 88Er" if you will.

Quite handily, you refer to "facts" in your post. Here are a few facts for you and I'll be interested in your reaction?

- ELKO contractors (Erik and his Alaskan service company mates): sold out of 88E.

- APDC (Erik and his Alaskan service company mates and former 50% owner of Peregrine): sold out of 88E.

- Dave Wall (former MD of 88E): sold >60% of his 88E holding.

- Erik Opstad stated his assessment that the acreage adjacent to 88E's Yukon project had an NPV of less than zero dollars. QED, Yukon is currently valued at nil in the view of the 88E General Manager of Alaska Operations.

- APDC and 88E value Peregrine at $28m.

- 88E management values Umiat at $1m.

So, dazzle1000, my question to you and all the other Globe regulars is as follows: if the market is imputing a value of circa US$250m for Project Icewine, and Icewine has <10% by volume of oil v's the NN's acreage.......is 88E massively over-valued, is the NN massively under-valued or a bit of both?

Second direct question is this: if Alaskan veterans (who made up the APDC group of investors) value Peregrine at $28m, what on earth is the 88E Board's logic in drilling Merlin-2 this upcoming season with *no plans* to flow test the well? How does the Board expect to add concrete, empirical value add data to the 88E investment case if they don't plan to flow test Merlin-2?

Any answers from the prolific posters? What about the ones like Reaper007 who profess loyalty and a belief in the fundamentals? Or are you all now pretty much admitting you're in csw12's camp? Forget the facts of the investment case, it's nearly social media hype-tastic time come January/February '22 when we'll be concentrating on fleecing those crazy US OTC punters who believe any old nonsense providing it's got a picture of a rocket or diamond hands next to the text?

“I don't care! 88e is no longer a fundamentals stock. It's a meme stock.” - csw12 on 15/11/21 @ 09:11.

14:28
Hi RHKChippy - please see my responses within [.....]

It seems the more I learn the less I know. It would appear that the huge sells from Farallon are holding back our SP somewhat [agreed, but therein lies an opportunity for those whose research has led them to believe in the PANR investment case]. They have the same information at their disposal as everyone else [correct], They must see that PANR are grossly undervalued - so why are they selling off now. [are you aware of the history of Farallon's involvement with Great Bear? In essence, Farallon bought GB's debt from BoAML for 94c in the $, believing the SoA's exploration tax credit scheme would ensure a steady stream of cash flowing back to GB and thus to Farallon to repay the capital plus interest on the loan. The SoA issued a moratorium on repaying these credits which kicked off a number of bankruptcies with the Alaskan E&P community. Fast forward to January 2019. Farallon has kept GB on life support in the intervening 3 years or so, Farallon swaps debt for equity, retains a charge or security over the GB founders'n'funders' PANR shares in lieu of the debt being repaid by those GB parties. The GB parties couldn't replay the debt by Jan '21 so Farallon proceed to sell the GB shares within the CHONS structure. All of us PANR investors *must* accept the original investment by Farallon was by a credit fund managed by a credit desk within Farallon. They are *not* your bog standard small cap equity investors! They're a credit fund who went from investing in what they considered at the time was quasi-sovereign backed debt (a US State government) and ended up with 38% of the equity (at the peak) of a UK small cap E&P company listed on AIM. I have often likened it to Wittgenstein's famous saying, "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him." On the face of it, Farallon owns shares in the same listed company that you and I do. It's just that we view the investment through completely different lenses. Hope that helps.] when the future seems to be so bright. To coin a phrase - "isn't it a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas"?. [What you're describing here is completely logical if Farallon's conduct is viewed through *your* lens and *my* lens as *equity* investors in an AIM-listed E&P company. But it's not how the *credit* fund managers inside Farallon view this investment which, in so many ways, has been an intellectual disaster for them but which through luck and good fortune (and a good dollop of bravery to be fair) has gone from a potential loss of $40m+ to a profit of $100m+!!!! For a low risk credit fund, this is once in a career stuff!!]

Trust the above helps? As an aside, I suspect you would benefit from accessing the main UK forum for PANR which is to be found on Alpha Delta Victor Foxtrot November. GLA

14:39
csw12 - "nasty piece of work", you say? And not even a whisper, a squeak, the most gentle of admonishments about Ddraig's past conduct on this forum? Whether you're right or wrong about me, you are unquestionably being utterly hypocritical in attempting to label me and not saying *one word* against Ddraig. It saddens me greatly but is there any other explanation for that than the following? You're happy not to call out Ddraig's conduct, or GS's horrible drunken posts for that matter, simply because both posters are supportive of 88E and thus acting in your financial best interests. Therefore they deserve a pass. End of story. Tragic.

This whole emotional thing, Texas, spiked, etc. I already answered you. I cannot reduce my NN exposure "at a loss" because that is mathematically impossible. It's not a case of being "small-minded", it's a case of a mathematical impossibility. You're effectively calling me a liar on an anonymous bulletin board. I reply that I'm not a liar. Also end of story.

No worries about me accepting your correction. Please note the good grace with which I accepted the correction, the speed in accepting my error and the thanks I posted for you taking the time to correct the record. Would that you had such manners, csw12. And you know what, when you decide investing is not about personal attacks and *only* about uncovering the facts of an investment case and maths then it's dead easy to admit errors. Try it some time.

14:21
csw12 - feels like we've reached an impasse. You keep asking the same question, I keep providing you with the same answer which you refuse to accept. I'll give it another go, shall I?

"csw12 - I'm not entirely sure you know what a fundamental investor is, or what a "fundamentals investor [sic}" is for that matter. It means identifying the *facts* of an investment case and attempting to price the upside/downside risks associated with those facts. In this case, no-one that I know is stating PANR has secured funding for its anticipated winter programme. Can you point to anyone making that assertion? Nope, didn't think so.

"What a fundamental investor will do in this specific case is attach a probability to whether the management will secure funding in order to proceed with that winter programme. Personally, I assess the risk of zero funding as extremely low. "Yes, farm out negotiations are under way and some of them are quite advanced, I must say." - Jay Cheatham. Plus there's the recent Petroleum News article where the journalist has, I presume, used quotation marks deliberately and exactly as he would have learned in his journalism training. So endeth a quick lesson in fundamental analysis which may assist you in the future, who knows?

"So, I'll repeat my answer. I'm not a party to the farm out negotiations (plural) so my answer is that I don't know. Good stuff."

Tell you what, folks, for a meme trader, for someone who admits he's relying on the US OTC punters to hype the SN's SP in Q1 '22 so he can make his trading profit, he sure does appear to be hot under the collar about all my factual questions. Odd, most odd indeed......and, needless to say, entirely inconsistent on csw12's part. Hey-ho.

09:11
csw12 - I acknowledge your correction to my earlier post and happily stand corrected. You did indeed state your belief that comments posted "here" would not affect the 88E SP. See how easy that was? To be corrected on a matter of *fact*, to accept your error and to thank the corrector for putting me right? You should try it some time, it's not as painful as many users of this forum must imagine it to be.

"I don't care! 88e is no longer a fundamentals stock. It's a meme stock." I *believe* that describes your approach. However I'm unaware of any rules which would allow you to bully or intimidate other posters who *are* interested in the fundamentals and wish to nail down the *facts* of the investment case. Just because *you* are no longer interested in them surely does not mean that *nobody else* is interested.

There's also the matter of the ginormous hole in your stance. In fact, your stance is surely the very definition of inconsistency. You state categorically that it's your belief nothing written on this forum will affect the 88E SP. Ok, fine.....I believe you believe that. Why then the ultra-defensive attitude, the belligerent stance, the personal attacks? Is it a meme stock or not? Do words typed out on this forum affect the SP or not? You clearly state they don't so why even bother with the attack dog attitude? You've got to admit, any objective viewer could only describe your behaviour as being wholly inconsistent with what you profess to believe.

And again with this motivation accusation. You've read my explanation a multitude of times. I'll try a different approach, maybe this'll work, who knows? If my purpose was to attract 88E shareholders to the NN, how come I ***only started posting on this forum*** (with one historical exception as admitted previously) on the ***very same day*** that 88E's former MD, Dave "sold >60% of my 88E shares" Wall confirmed the two companies shared an asset?

Many of you still don't get it, do you? For sector analysts and fundamental investors, Dave Wall's RNS was the officially-confirmed starting pistol shot to begin the entirely legitimate and time-honoured technique of comparative analysis. 88E's own MD fired that starting pistol shot. Fact. Not me, not olderwiser, not Rabito79, not cbaron....it was Dave Wall.

I repeat for those who may have missed this previously. If anyone reading this forum believes the stockmarket analysts who cover the two stocks at issue (88E and NN) don't have a working model and understanding of the investment case of the "other stock" then you're either being incredibly naïve or are not truly conversant with the mechanics of the equity markets.

So, csw12, I concede that because you're a self-confessed meme trader as far as 88E is concerned then my list of factual questions is not your cup of tea. I'll address them to other investors who have shown, historically, that they're interested in facts. Good stuff.

13:13
csw12 - I'm not entirely sure you know what a fundamental investor is, or what a "fundamentals investor [sic}" is for that matter. It means identifying the *facts* of an investment case and attempting to price the upside/downside risks associated with those facts. In this case, no-one that I know is stating PANR has secured funding for its anticipated winter programme. Can you point to anyone making that assertion? Nope, didn't think so.

What a fundamental investor will do in this specific case is attach a probability to whether the management will secure funding in order to proceed with that winter programme. Personally, I assess the risk of zero funding as extremely low. "Yes, farm out negotiations are under way and some of them are quite advanced, I must say." - Jay Cheatham. Plus there's the recent Petroleum News article where the journalist has, I presume, used quotation marks deliberately and exactly as he would have learned in his journalism training. A quick lesson in fundamental analysis which may assist you in the future, who knows?

Actually, here's another wee example of the type of questions fundamental investors will be asking themselves today. Why don't you have a go at answering it? PANR has a declared 1.9bbo contingent resource and is valued at c.£630m and 88E has zero contingent barrels of oil and is valued at c.£200m. What's going on there? look forward to receiving your well thought out response........or not? Bet it'll be crickets, as usual...............

PS It's generally described as "fundamental investor" not "fundamentals investor". Hope that helps for the future.

12:59
csw12 - complete gibberish. Don't know what more to say, really. Tell you what, I'll give it another go. Perhaps he didn't have his reading specs on earlier?

"So, I'll repeat my answer. I'm not a party to the farm out negotiations (plural) so my answer is that I don't know. Good stuff."

11.42 and 12.38
Hello there, chuckle brothers. Let me introduce this forum to Ddraig. This horrendous human being urged someone with whom he disagreed (on the SN forum, and not me fwiw) to go off and commit suicide. I somehow doubt this forum will adopt the same permissive attitude towards him as, sadly, exists on the other forum.

csw12 - an angry fellow who recently stated the wise money sold out of PANR at 85p.

I have, naturally, answered csw12's question on a number of occasions. It would be entirely inconsistent of me if I refused to answer him. After all, I regularly lament the refusal of the SN prolific posters from even acknowledging my questions, never mind answering them.

So, I'll repeat my answer. I'm not a party to the farm out negotiations (plural) so my answer is that I don't know. Good stuff.