Member Info for Scot126

Sun 10:42

FORD707 – your post is noted and I follow what you write. Firstly, what you do with your investment pounds is no business of mine. That’s your call, not mine. Secondly, let’s break down the final two sentences of your post: “This is because SN are behind Pantheon I believe in terms of real value being proven. I do believe deeply in both.”

I agree it is a statement of empirical fact that PANR is far further along the road of proof of concept. This has been achieved by investing $80m in 1000sq km in 3D seismic, drilling four wells (Alcor, Merak, Alkaid and Talitha), VAS, AVO and a total investment pre-merger with PANR of $200m - $250m. So, as any objective analyst would judge, I completely agree with that sentence. On the other hand, “I do believe deeply in both” is a whole different kettle of fish. That’s placing faith and hope ahead of fundamentals. And once again, that’s cool, it’s your own call and you’re free to back that faith and hope with your own hard earned any time you wish.

However, I contend that if you’re challenged on the fundamentals behind that faith and hope, you hardly have a leg to stand on. My posts challenging the SN investment case are pertinent, fully justified and legitimate. Sadly, you have opted to join a cabal of posters on the other thread who seek to delegitimise my fact-based challenges (and others such as Rabito79, olderwiser and cbaron) to the false narratives disseminated by prolific posters. If you were being honest with yourself and others, you’d cease this unattractive effort to intimidate folk like me from posting and a) engage fully on the journey to establishing the *facts* of the SN investment case and/or b) just come out and say that you admit your investment in SN is based more on fiath and hope v’s your investment in PANR. It would take bravery to admit it, but I note a few posters on the SN thread are now doing so. Up to you?

For the record, I think you are making a grave error in "believing" in the SN.

Sun 13:18
Hi Villa01 – it all depends. Of course it would make complete sense to do away with the man-made boundary on the surface and to produce from the reservoirs in the most efficient manner. That said and using your scenario, if a purchaser owns, eg. 94% of the total (after bidding for PANR in this scenario) then they can give the SN a “take it or leave it offer” or just sit on their hands until the SN is willing to accept their price. What I’m saying is that it might make sense, kinda, but all the power will reside with the 94% volume owner/operator, not the barnacle to the south of the boundary.

Serious question? Here’s a cricketing analogy passed on to me by my first mentor in the stockmarket. “Why invest in the back row of the stands when you can invest in the pitch, the crease and the wicket?”

Sat 13:34 and 13:02

Villa01 – your post does describe the human condition very accurately. And that’s fine. The trouble, for me anyway, comes when some social media/bulletin board posters disseminate the falsehood that the fundamentals, and even the potential as outlined by their own management, is supportive of the current mkt cap when it plainly isn’t by all sector standards. These posters are relying on the hype to hypnotise others (chiefly now US OTC punters) into impossible dreams of 10c/$1 per share in order to execute their own trading strategies. “Peaks and troughs” remind you of anyone?

I note with interest your quote: “It was reported last year that the share had attracted interest in some of the most impoverished parts of the planet, and let's hope those that invested didn't suffer financial loss they could ill afford.” I must admit I had not read any such report but it would grieve me to learn this was true. I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time that I recognise sentiment and human psychology is a factor in equity markets. My problem with the prolific posters is that they know the there’s *at least* £100m of hype in the current mkt cap but they’re continuing to seed the social media forums with content supportive of the fundamentals when no such facts exist. It’s made-up nonsense. They’re hoping to have another trading go-around, profiting off the backs of the very readers of their shameful posts. Shame on them.

FAO Villa01: Your post on Friday @ 22:08. Just making sure that you know that downdip is not necessarily a positive in oil extraction? If not, Google the difference between updip and downdip in the context of oil reservoirs. If it’s a metaphorical message you’re discussing in this post, I “get” it. The trouble is that the maths are out of whack in our case. I’ve calculated PANR should, on any given day using the information currently available, be 7x the mkt cap of the SN. @contrarian8888 calculates the number should be 10x and Rabito79 is >3x (happy to be corrected). In your scenario, you’d normally expect any good news from PANR’s operations to ripple outwards and “downwards” to the SN. The maths suggest that the opposite will happen and that capital will be drawn *from* the SN *towards* PANR because the evidence continues to prove PANR is undervalued and 88E is over-valued.

(Part 1, continued above)

Relax, it happens all the time. Human or computer error. Dinnae fret.

(Part 3, continued from below)

- The only ppl in a hurry are the NN [wrong, active rather than hurried surely? Alternative is to do nothing? Idiocy.]. Their last big play before riding off into the sunset [aye, for the majority of senior management, that’s true.]. Not a smart thing to advertise imho [makes zero difference. Why? Because NN owns 100% of its acreage and, like 88E, has no intention of being the owner/operator/developer for the next 30 years. That has *always* been the stated aim – fact.]. I do hope it doesn’t affect their ability to sell up for a good price, but not the cleverest move. "[an asset is either up for sale or it’s not. GS – did you listen to a single word Dave Wall said at all of the shindigs at The Globe? If you weren’t present, some other attendees ought to fill you in. Why? Because that’s *exactly* the strategy he outlined too. Dear, dear, dear. What a self-own. Still scrabbling around in the darkness looking for something to hold on to, GS?]

11:18 FORD707: Aha! What do we have here? An actual admission from a semi-prolific poster: “next door is flying on hype and potential”. And that’s pretty much all it is, readers. In other words the *fundamentals* do not support for the current mkt cap and FORD707 is as close as dammit admitting trading the hype is the only way to go. Finally, some honesty. Bravo.

09:59 Ddraig: Yep, Farallon still the largest shareholder of NN.

09:19 csw12: factually incorrect.

09:08 Turnstone: a more honest and open post from Turnstone, which isn’t unusual. What is unusual, in my experience, is his attitude towards the success or failure of his investment. “Is Scott wrong in what he is saying, to be honest I have not got a clue, do I care NO…” As I have posted previously, that’s an approach which doesn’t guarantee you lose all your money but it gives you a bl00dy good chance of it! That’s akin to heading down t’casino to see the big wheel spin round and round. And that’s fine for Turnstone, it’s his money, his choice. Also, he’s not one of the prolific posters filling social media full of fantastical disinformation and misinformation. I accept that 100% Turnstone. It does not mean, however, that my questions about 88E are any less pertinent, justified or legitimate. Attempts to intimidate me off are not going to work. What would work, I hear so many voices cry out? Build a list of questions to put to the BoD/management, send them off with a request they reply in writing, post the full response and if I’m wrong, you won’t see me for dust. Plus you’ll all be able to crack jokes about scot126 for the next few decades. Oh, and I agree about the FOMO trade, Turnstone. Trouble with that is when the music stops, who are the poor folk left holding the parcel? I’ll tell you who won’t be left holding the parcel? Erik Opstad, Dave Wall, Erik’s contractor mates in Alaska and the APDC members (also Erik’s mates in Alaska!).

(Part 2, continued from below)

13:18 Jefhobbit – CHONS’ lowest sale was @29p. Blows your imaginary theory out the water, doesn’t it? Holding the baby? What about the poor folk you and others sucked into 88E on the baseless hype you and others generated which saw some individuals pay >US$0.09 v’s a current price of US$0.022.

12:32 GS – will attempt to answer your points in turn:
- It’s great that you’ve watched the webinar so many times.

- Phasing risk. No-one is saying the horizons come to a complete halt at the boundary. Kindly point out who is disseminating such a narrative? Phasing risk, however, is an extremely pertinent question due to the results from the Charlie-1 well. Happy to be corrected but Charlie-1 is only 2 miles south of the boundary, is that correct? Gas and condensate present there, correct? That sounds like phasing risk to me.

- “Also note the huge thickness of theta west at the boundary of our leases. Same with SMD etc etc.” What webinar were you watching, GS? Kuparuk looks a decent chance, SMD half-decent chance but Theta West “thick” at the boundary? Gimme a break. Nonsense.

- “also note, they have a missing section of 3D seismic, adjacent to 88e acreage [correct, NN technical team have made assumptions for the missing 3D]. Also that 88e have not yet done their own 3D immediately south of The NN.” [correct. Great Bear spent $80m on shooting 3D seismic over the last decade? What’s the 88E figure please? You have no idea, do you?]

- “I don’t really feel a need to estimate how much the NN oil discovery extends onto our acreage. [Naivete of wilful ignorance, GS? How else to you even begin to assess whether your investment is undervalued, fairly valued or over-valued? This is an amateur hour attitude.] It is clearly a subject that our bod will address in time. [true] And, importantly, I believe they are quite happy to let the NN do the donkey work for us. Right now we are exploring Peregrine and will come back to this when funds allow. [Speaking of Peregrine, just seeking your confirmation that Merlin was not declared a “discovery” by the Board of 88E? TIA]

(continued above)

15:26 Post by moda. Link refers to a potential gas pipeline to provide a route to market for North Slope gas. Latest budget for construction of the pipeline is $38.7bn. This plan was first conceived at the turn of the century and an entity incorporated to advance the project in 2010. Progress since then? No funding has been provided by the State govt, Fed govt or private industry. 21 years and not one metre of gas pipeline has been constructed. I 100% agree that analysts will have to re-assess the value of gas on the North Slope as soon as this proposed gas pipeline is a) fully funded and b) fully permitted by all authorities and has gone through any Court challenges. Until then, 88E’s gas is worth zilch. Proof? 88E’s own analysts don’t assign any value to the gas and Conoco/Exxon analysts don’t assign any value to their gas in Alaska. I now directly accuse posters who continue with the “gas has value within the current 88E investment case” of wilfully misleading other readers of this thread.

15:14 Brom’s “us and them” explanation. Brom, downdip from Talitha, Alkaid and Theta West, increased phasing risk, missed by Charlie-1 and yet what do you make of the diagrams released by 88E management when referring to the “overlap theory”? Do you feel it was unwise (or unethical?) of 88E management to include such diagrams which, sadly for subsequent investors, have given the completely false impression (see literally thousands of social media posts) that the “overlap theory” will mean 88E has a *larger* volume resource than the NN over those horizons?

14:18 redirons: Verbose? Aye. Inane? You’re kidding, aren’t you? Apart from the “% of the whole ascribed to each of the three main project locations” question, kindly specify one of my questions which isn’t pertinent, justified or legitimate from a fundamental standpoint? Just one? You can’t, can you?
No attempt to answer my factual questions. Why? Because a large proportion of the prolific posters have grown fat by trading the peaks and troughs of 88E. And that’s all fine and dandy, but the ethics become questionable when they seek to reassure newcomers (the marks, if you will) that the fundamentals support the current valuation never mind when the rev up is signalled and all sorts of fantastical upsides are blasted all over the various social media forums. It’s a giant game of pass the parcel because the fundamentals don’t come anywhere near supporting a valuation of £200m never mind when it reached >$1bn!!

16:58 Hi SaintAnthony – On the face of it, it makes you a great trader. But there’s a proviso IMHO. If you didn’t post falsehoods, misinformation or disinformation to attract or to maintain an inaccurate narrative then more power to your elbow. If, however, you did indulge in that behaviour then I would suggest it is only fair that others point out such conduct. Wouldn’t you say so? Or is it caveat emptor and the rest of the world be d@mned?

(Part 1: continued above)

Cracking video, production values were excellent.

I do have a couple of questions, however.

1) CoS. Is that geological CoS only or the full CoS calculation, i.e. geological CoS *and* CoS of development?

2) The two pipeline options. Firstly, no guidance as to cost of either option. Remember the onus falls on 88E (or the eventual owner of Peregrine/Umiat) to fund construction of these pipelines, which will naturally have a negative effect on NPV per barrel in the ground.

(I) Pipeline to the east. I've seen estimates of 70-100 miles for this eastwards option? Cost of construction? Does any of the proposed pipeline eastwards cross Federal land? Time before first production will be lengthy with negative implications for NPV per barrel.

(ii) Pipeline northwards to Willow. Again, no cost guidance for this option. Onus will still be on 88E to fund this construction. This option, although shorter in length and thus cost, will require Federal permission. That involves legal/political challenges. It also means negotiating a transit tariff with the owners of the pipeline from Willow to Pump Station No.1.....no mention of that or the effect on NPV per barrel in the ground? It is logical to piggyback Willow, I accept that. However that means 88E is entirely beholden to Conoco's timescales/capital allocation with the distinct possibility Umiat/Peregrine will remain a stranded asset for another x years/decades?

No mention of flow testing Merlin-2. Why not? Being objective, who is going to purchase any time soon acreage on which no flow testing has taken place?

Uh-uh, redirons. That's a direct lie.

My reason for asking the questions is to undertake a comprehensive comparative analysis of two listed companies which share an asset. If they didn't share an asset, I wouldn't be here. Fact.

Now dry your eyes, stop lying about me and stop trying to shut these 100% legitimate questions from being posed. Your intimidation of me will not work. That must be becoming clear to you by now, surely?

You're dead wrong, Dorsetpotter. What conman or professional troll writes the type of content I do? Sounds like you've read lots of bulletin boards by the content of your post, correct? Point me to a "conman" or a "troll" who posts content like I do. Just one? Also, point out one of my questions which isn't entirely justified to pose to a £200m listed E&P? Again, just one? As usual...................crickets.

There are two reasons I don't engage with the BoD of 88E.

a) I suspect this will shock precisely nobody but I am not an 88E shareholder. (FWIW I am not short 88E either)

b) If I came back with the answers, not one of you would believe I hadn't written them myself!

Just think of the collective fun you'll all have after the questions have been fully addressed by the 88E BoD/management! It'll give great cheer to loads of you for years to come. And yet, and yet...........heads in the sand or cowardice. Which is it?

22:44

I was the first person to hit the "Recommended" button on Villa01's post. Fact.

Ask yourselves.......what garden variety "troll" actively supports a bunch of shareholders get together and ask questions of the management of *their own company*? Have you ever known it?

NB I have not once said "Sell, sell, I heard from a friend of a friend they're all professional landscape gardeners in the 88E Perth HQ rather than oilmen" or some other such "trolling" nonsense. I am fully supporting anyone to pick up and run with these questions. I know a bunch of you don't believe me but have you asked yourself, what on earth do you have to lose to put together a bunch of questions from the "88E British shareholders on lse" and pose them to management in the General Meeting?

Eileen13 - that's just juvenile, isn't it? Poster writes a series of posts asking fact-based questions to which prolific shareholders, who "always receive a very prompt response from management when I email them", absolutely refuse to address them. I've been in the equity markets since 1994 and I challenge any reader to pick out one of my questions which is not 100% appropriate to ask of an E&P company management? Just one?

19:41
Villa01 and Turnstone - I *hope* Villa01 is correct in this matter. On an individual level, it's none of my business what someone chooses to do, or not to do, with their investment pounds/dollars. I don't recall ever advising anyone to buy/sell/hold any 88E shares. I'm pretty conscientious about that so please do highlight if I have erred.

It is certainly fair to say I ask many questions of fact, of valuation, of comparative valuation and fundamentals v's uneducated social media hype. That is definitely true.

Readers will note I have once more today posed a few clear, concise and legitimate questions. It cannot have escaped the attention of some that amongst the prolific posters there is, without any debate, a reticence to address these questions posed by me, by olderwiser, by cbaron and by olderwiser. It is for readers to decide for themselves if the prolific posters are deliberately ducking these crucial questions (hint - they are) in the hope of once more trading the peaks and troughs (and buying themselves more FTSE100 stocks with the profits) of social media generated hype and relying on the naivete and loyalty of other shareholders.

You know what, folks? The conduct I describe above would be all well and good if these infernal posters weren't the very same posters encouraging that blind loyalty and inferring 88E is making strong forward progress. It's a bit tough on Katie on Twitter (@Thoughts_NJ) but have a look at her pinned tweet for a second? "Oh baby, did they deliver" when talking about Merlin-1. 88E did *not* deliver in Merlin-1. The *overspend itself* was 130% of the initial budget!!!!! The results were wafer thin, and I'm being exceptionally generous there. How could "Oh baby, did they deliver" possibly be the correct interpretation of the Merlin-1 results if the grizzled old Alaskan oilhands (otherwise known as Erik Opstad and his mates) sold their 50% of Peregrine back for a mere $14m. If Conoco was lining up a bid at 10c/$1 per share (take your pick) there's no way on god's green earth those characters would have sold 50% of Peregrine for $14m.

Any warning bells clanging away inside the mathematical side of your brain? Anyone? Surely no-one still believes the fundamentals of the 88E investment case support a mkt cap of £200m??????

More questions to follow. What date is the General Meeting?

08:12
Hiya Brom - couple of questions for you. Oh, and I'm not questioning the stats you supplied in the post timed @ 08:12. If that's the maths, that's the maths.

a) Were it not for the social media hype which sprang to life in March '21, in your vast experience of 88E (and it is vast, >25k posts no less) what SP do you assess is justified by the *fundamentals of the 88E investment case alone*? Put another way, do you believe the *fundamentals* of the 88E investment case support a mkt cap of circa £200m?

b) Do you agree that the management of 88E has not labelled Merlin a "discovery"?

c) Despite 88E diagrams which seek to obfuscate the facts as currently understood, do you agree the volume of oil located north of the 88E boundary at Icewine dwarves, by an order of magnitude, any volume of oil attributed to 88E due to an overlap of an asset or assets at that location?

As ever, look forward to your comprehensive response!

(continued from below)

6) Blackadder2708 08:35: after the *personal* abuse you’ve aimed at me in the past, I’m shocked you appear to believe you deserve any response from me. Tell you what, Blackadder2708, I’ll answer your question timed at 08:35 if you contact the company, ask why there’s been no flow test planned for Merlin-2, ask for a written reply and then publish the full reply on this website. I recognise you offered your *own* suggestions for the flow test omission after getting frustrated by the question being posed so frequently. However, all users of this thread know fine well the true answer lies within the decision-making of the 88E BoD. All true 88E-ers must surely believe it’s past time for a formal answer from your company?

7) Brombarb 09:06:

“Posting history does not necessarily correlate with investment profile, 88E represents only a small part of my shares the majority being FTSE100 shares (many bought from profits here). That I chose to post here pretty well 100% is my choice, I find it interesting and enjoyable most of the time, when I do not, I take a break.”
“(many bought from profits here)” – you know what, I 100% believe this. Brom has already admitted to actively trading the peaks and troughs of 88E in the past. Let this second confirmation of his *trading* activities not be as easily forgotten as his previous admission. “Read above, below and between the lines.” Never a truer word written.

8) Sadly, a large proportion of regular users of this thread appear to think I am waging some type of personal vendetta or some such against them. If you fit that description, please take a minute to consider this, I beseech you. All I see on this thread is fellow anonymous usernames and avatars. I could walk past any of you in the street and not have a clue.

Yes, I question the current mkt cap of 88E. The specific questions I am asking are no different from the types of questions I've witnessed being posed to hundreds of companies during the course of a career in the equity markets which began in 1994. I would have these questions if Blackadder2709 or FORD747 or Villa02 were posters here rather than Blackadder2708, FORD707 or Villa01. This is not personal, folks. Facts don't give two figs about your personal emotions......they're just facts. *Ignoring the facts* of an investment case does not guarantee failure or ensure a complete loss of your investment, but experience suggests it surely helps!

a) What is the value in $ of each of the three main 88E projects?
b) Why is there no plan for a flow test at Merlin-2?
c) What was Dave Wall's exit package and why the 24 hour revision of his shareholding as published on the company webiste?
4) What constitutes a related party transaction as it applies to the entities in Alaska controlled/part owned/owned by Erik Opstad?
5) Where is the full, detailed, line-by-line accounting for the massive overspend at Merlin-1? Budgeted at $12.6m and coming in at $29m?
6

A few replies, a few questions:

1) Thanks to the lse moderators and to anyone who reported Goldstinger’s disgraceful obscenity-laced tirade of yesterday.

2) Villa01 replied directly to the question below:

“Ok, a few regular posters have now started commenting on the shared asset. Good stuff. Addressing such posters directly; Brom, Goldstinger, Villa01, rfarfa, Blackadder2708, GrumpyScouser, Brian1234……as you’re all “true 88E-ers”, you’ll have watched all the pertinent parts of the recent NN webinar in order to more fully understand the shared asset and thus the equity value of 88E <=> your investment in 88E. Based on the information from the webinar, do you expect the volume of oil attributed to 88E from shared reservoirs primarily located in the Talitha/Alkaid Units to be:
a) 0% - 3% of the NN’s total resource volume?
b) 4% - 6% of the NN’s total resource volume?
c) 7% - 9% of the NN’s total resource volume?”

His response was that he simply didn’t know that answer. And that’s fine, no worries whatsoever. I invite the other posters listed to have a go at answering the question. Why it should be that my questions are ignored and yet personal questions are asked of me on a regular basis seems very odd, non?

On reflection, FORD707 gave an half-answer, perhaps hoping to kick this uncomfortable question into the long grass? Here’s the thing, FORD707, as soon as the 88E technical team published its assessment of the question posed, it will *immediately undermine* the 88E narrative because it will either a) show 88E to be wildly and irrationally over-valued or b) support the thesis that the NN ought to be trading at a *multiple* of 88E’s mkt cap.

Readers would do well to ponder the question even if they don’t wish to post their answer publicly.

3) “Speaking of questions being posed to management, anyone heard from Flexmw recently? S/he was the only poster who volunteered to get off the proverbial sofa to ask questions of management.”

Anyone?

Reaper007 – Ha! Your response timed at 22:29 is all too true, I fear.

4) Care to reply, FORD707?

“If it wasn’t for the social media hype associated with 88E, crammed full of factual errors and “influencers” repeatedly referring to Conoco buying the company for anywhere between 10c and $1 per share, where do you calculate the SP would be? What about the continued and factually incorrect use of the word “discovery” in relation to Peregrine *when 88E’s own management* has not declared it to be a discovery?”

5) Turnstone 08:21: your post is noted but I’m going to have to refrain from offering a full reply. To do so would go against the T&Cs.

(continued above)

21:54
FORD707 - is this the same person you're describing? "Terry and I look forward to catching new investors up to speed on 88 Energy while also......." - @Thoughts_NJ

Sure sounds to me like they’re holding themselves out, at a minimum, as being reliable sources of information on 88E when they patently do not have the education or experience to even *begin* to relay the *facts* of the 88E investment case.

I'm not your "m8". Although I am starting to understand your approach now. Have anything critical to say about 88E, or pose legitimate questions and that's "abuse" according to you, is it? What about the filth directed at me earlier in the day? Or do you “Have to agree with everyone in some way shape or form”? Get off the fence, FORD707 and condemn without qualification Goldstinger’s behaviour. There is no excuse for that conduct. None.

You asked for my latest thoughts, FORD707. I provided them. No post of thanks, no recognition, no factual questions posed in response, no requests to explain anything I wrote…..just silence. When is this thread going to get real? 88E has a market cap of approx. £200m. Companies with mkt caps of £200m are not magically immune to questions - fact.

Go on then, FORD707. If it wasn’t for the social media hype associated with 88E, crammed full of factual errors and “influencers” repeatedly referring to Conoco buying the company for anywhere between 10c and $1 per share, where do you calculate the SP would be? What about the continued and factually incorrect use of the word “discovery” in relation to Peregrine *when 88E’s own management* has not declared it to be a discovery?

Do facts mean absolutely nothing to you, m8?

I’m perfectly content with my “decisions”, although it appears you’re the one constantly having to defend yours? Wonder why?

There’s nothing unethical or illegal or untoward about challenging posts made on a public forum.

10:30
Hi Turnstone - yes, I recognise you have posed this question previously. I realise this may surprise you (and perhaps others) but I genuinely am interested in using comparative valuation to arrive at a more accurate assessment of the equity value of 88E and the NN. Such an exercise is wholly justified, especially now that both Boards have confirmed the two listed E&Ps share an asset. I note your invitation to disseminate my views on other investments. However, for me to broadcast my views on other investments would go against the T&Cs of this website.

Turnstone – I not the following statement: “See you still asking lots of questions that know one can answer.” I reject this categorically. I contend with high confidence that there are posters on this thread who have both the knowledge and capacity to answer *all* of my questions. I also contend that there is a large cohort of users of this thread who are either a) too lazy to pose these legitimate questions to the BoD/management of 88E or b) too fearful that receiving an accurate answer from the company will undermine the 88E narrative which has been promulgated relentlessly throughout the social media landscape.

Speaking of questions being posed to management, anyone heard from Flexmw recently? S/he was the only poster who volunteered to got off the proverbial sofa to ask questions of management.

FAO all users of this thread. With the exception of Ecuagold and Villa01, none of you have challenged Goldstinger for his cruel and obscenity-laced tirade. Your collective hypocrisy is laid bare for any objective observer to see. If you find yourself admitting internally that you’re complicit in maintaining that hypocrisy in order to “See no evil, hear no evil”, I invite you to reconsider whether scot126, olderwiser, Rabito79, etc. might be on to something ref. 88E?

FORD707 - I keep up with the Twitter contributions of the two hosts to whom you referred earlier today. I have genuine respect for their hard work and enthusiasm but in my experienced assessment, neither of them possess the background knowledge or education to be considered reliable sources of information or for interpretations of the facts of the 88E investment case. Just a heads up for those who follow them. Of course, it's up to you........

17.27
Villa01 - yes, the "to even be talking about a column of oil half a mile thick...." quote is by Roger Young of eSeis. He and his co-founder of eSeis are credited with discovering the Alpine oilfield earlier in their careers. eSeis received a 1% ORRI for Talitha and Theta West in lieu of a $2.7m fee due to them from PANR a couple of years ago. Certainly food for thought if Roger Young said that, a guy who has already found a >1.2bbo oilfield in Alaska.

Villa01 - answer me this please? You've done me the honour of reading some of my work, which is appreciated at this end. You'll now be aware of PANR's view of the percentage of the whole (by volume) they understand is located within their acreage. If you've watched the August webinar, you'll also know PANR correctly anticipated the phasing risk (gas rather than oil) increases as the anomaly extends to the south on to 88E's acreage. You also know Erik Opstad and his contractor colleagues value Peregrine at $28m, the sector values Umiat at $1m and Yukon might (?) be worth a few bucks one day......why on earth is there this empirically unsound support of 88E v's PANR when all the data (and I do mean "all") supports PANR being worth an order of magnitude larger than 88E using the information currently available? And yet PANR's mkt cap is roughly only twice that of 88E's. Blind hope like that is cultish in nature rather than intellectual, agreed? What fact-based argument is there to support that comparative valuation imbalance? I've been searching for months now and I cannot find an argument for it and nor can anyone provide me one on the other thread???

10:59
FORD707 - I thought you'd never ask! Here are my latest thoughts. You're welcome.

https://twitter.com/GeodesRock49/status/1448676827573014528

11:39
FORD707 - you asked what I was thinking. Here you go.

hTTps://twitter.com/GeodesRock49/status/1448676827573014528

Wed 11:21

Hi cbaron – Google “oil and gas milkshaking” and “Rule of Capture USA” and I expect it’ll be eye-opening for you? In practice, my *understanding* is there are industry protocols which allow parties who share an asset subsurface to ascribe approximate volumes to each party based on various calculations and technical data analysis. I don’t know how developed Alaskan State Law is on the subject when discussing legal precedent but I would *imagine* it would be reasonably sophisticated and quite technical bearing in mind the oil industry has only been operating on the North Slope since the 60s/70s? ie. in the age of technology, not in the “There Will be Blood” times!

Ok, a few regular posters have now started commenting on the shared asset. Good stuff. Addressing such posters directly; Brom, Goldstinger, Villa01, rfarfa, Blackadder2708, GrumpyScouser, Brian1234……as you’re all “true 88E-ers”, you’ll have watched all the pertinent parts of the recent NN webinar in order to more fully understand the shared asset and thus the equity value of 88E <=> your investment in 88E. Based on the information from the webinar, do you expect the volume of oil attributed to 88E from shared reservoirs primarily located in the Talitha/Alkaid Units to be:
a) 0% - 3% of the NN’s total resource volume?
b) 4% - 6% of the NN’s total resource volume?
c) 7% - 9% of the NN’s total resource volume?