Member Info for Scot126

Hi Pander - that's all none of my business. Those decisions are for you to make, and you alone.

15:59
Hi Pander - I "get" what you'd like to happen. The only process which is designed to incorporate such a widespread opportunity for *all* shareholders, large and small, to take part in funding a company's future operations is a rights issue. I can pretty much guarantee you, Pander, that's precisely what will definitely not occur in this case. Rights issues take too long to organise, require a prospectus, are costly v's the alternatives.

This will sound simplistic but it's not meant to be. If you believe the BoD will ensure sufficient funds are raised in order to secure the anticipated operations during the Alaskan winter season then you buy the stock now or wait until the details of the funding are announced. If you don't, then you sell. My view, fwiw? I am struggling to envision a situation where the company is *not* active in Alaska this coming winter season.

Both 88E and SN management teams have formally recognised they likely share an asset on the border of Talitha and Icewine. For those 'proper 88E-ers' intent on educating themselves about the potential of this overlap and thus their investment in 88E, I refer them to the 1hr 10m mark of the recent SN webinar. Please see the link below.

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbnmarRCUcY&t=4396s

If you rewind a tad from the 3D video part of the webinar, there's a slide and accompanying commentary on SN's assessment of the volume present on SN leased acreage as a percentage of the whole, both aerially and by volume.

Correction to my post timed at 16:31 today. Please note below the correction in the second from the bottom paragraph labelled 2):

2) The whole "keeping shares as insurance" theory is pure fantasy from GS, more made up g0bbledyg00k. The parties' conduct within CHONS will be strictly defined by the contractual terms of the intra-party agreement. If Farallon could make up the rules within CHONS as they saw fit, you can be assured the GB guys would have taken legal action to seek an injunction on any such [delete "illicit"] activity not permitted within the terms of the intra-party contract.

Thanks.

Mon 21:15, Mon 23:08, 00:43

Hi olderwiser - I agree with your explanation of the Canaccord model, many thanks. At this moment I am unable to confirm the Farallon/CHON status as you describe. I realise it'll sound like I'm sitting on the fence but it wouldn't surprise me to see more selling from Farallon/CHONS, although it does *appear* to me over the last week to 10 days that either they've suspended their selling for now or have reduced the pace of their selling? As I posted earlier, it's worth monitoring but not worth worrying about IMHO. Make sense?

Happy to confirm olderwiser's response to GS that there's no legal compulsion on Farallon/CHONS to advise the market of their current or future intentions concerning PANR. As for the company, they cannot compel Farallon/CHONS to make such a statement any more than they can compel you or I.

GS - you have, sadly, opted to continue posting nonsense on this thread. That's now completely on you.

You're correct to state people will think you're guessing because that's exactly what you're doing. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the public documents is there confirmation of the intra-party contractual terms describing the intra-party debt, the repayment schedule, any attendant penalty clauses for non-repayment as per agreed schedule, the interest rate charged by Farallon and capitalisation of same, the exact sum realised by PANR share sales throughout 2021, etc, etc.

If the paragraph immediately above is inaccurate, I challenge you to prove me wrong and cite your source document. You cannot and will not because you do not have access to the contract. Fact.

"I've got to be honest I thought some of the voting shares left in CHONS were actually Great Bear shares that were stuffed into CHONS in case the SP went down. So a kind of insurance that Farallon could still recoup their money if all went awry on the exploration front. I did read every bit of literature on the subject that I could find at the time the deal was set up. Not 100% confident I'm right again, but usually my gut feel is not far off the mark." GS on Mon 23:08

1) Yes, please do feel compelled to be "honest". Like others, I suspect your ego has been badly bruised of late and you're flailing around making stuff up in your head to assuage the pain. Stop it please because a) I'm not going to stop fact-checking you and b) your dissemination of these made up fantasies could misinform your fellow shareholders.

2) The whole "keeping shares as insurance" theory is pure fantasy from GS, more made up g0bbledyg00k. The parties' conduct within CHONS will be strictly defined by the contractual terms of the intra-party agreement. If Farallon could make up the rules within CHONS as they saw fit, you can be assured the GB guys would have taken legal action to seek an injunction on any such illicit activity.

3) GS's question about the future structure of CHONS is a pertinent one. I don't know the answer. I will enquire and revert.

Monday 20:28
HI Pander - I don't know if the market has already priced in future dilution. I would, however, suspect it is fair to say that the market *expects* the company *will* be able to raise the funds necessary (by whichever method) to secure the anticipated winter operational programme. Does that make sense?

IMO, 79-86p isn't too wide a trading range. Not overly unusual for PANR in my experience. Perhaps worth noting the current dramatic headlines surrounding the O&G sector as a backdrop to the current PANR SP range?

Like you, I am also monitoring Farallon/CHONS' activity. I'm not massively focused on it because if they are continuing to sell in a fairly disciplined manner the market appears comfortable absorbing their volume. If they have stopped selling or have reduced the pace of selling then that's fine too. For the record, sometimes I do hear from market contacts if they're active in the stock. However this is one of those times when I truly have no idea what they're doing or planning to do. Not much help, I realise, but that's the truth!

Hope this helps.

15:11
Hi Mindbender - since MiFID II, UK small caps have had to pay brokers to research their company. PANR's retained house broker is Canaccord, who are paid an annual retainer for acting as PANR's NOMAD, corporate broker and for writing research on the company. WH Ireland is paid to write research only.

One of the unintended consequences of MiFID II (although fully anticipated by small cap professionals in the market) has been the emergence of non-house broker "paid for" research. Secondary market commissions paid by institutions are now so low that it is no longer commercially viable for non-house brokers to provide waterfront coverage of specific sectors as standard. As a result, listed small caps feel compelled to commission non-house brokers to write research on their company. PANR is no different in this respect.

So, Mindbender, in response to your fair point I'd simply reply that a) this is now (sadly IMHO) the new norm for small cap research and b) the WH Ireland financial model is sufficiently transparent that you can plug your own assumptions in to arrive at your own end valuations. GLA

Dear All - not sure if the link below will work? If not, head over to T.w.i.t.t.e.r. , look for @contrarian8888 and it's on his timeline too.

hTTps://www.dropbox.com/s/7tdp3xkrc1j1wgy/WHI%20PANR%20121021.pdf?dl=0

I've got the WH Ireland note. The title is "Elephants in close quarters". The new fair value is based on Alkaid, SMD-B and Theta West *only*, to which the analyst applies risk factors of 25%, 20% and 20% respectively. From the webinar we know Bob Rosenthal assesses PANR has met the required threshold for the first part of the full CoS equation, being the geological CoS. He assesses the commercial CoS to be 60%-70%.

The WH Ireland analyst has used *extremely conservative* risk factors. Had he not applied such conservative risk factors, he would have been going out to the market with a fair value of >5x today's mkt cap.

Unrisked NPV10 value is £6.2bn, equates to 838p per share.

The risk factors the analyst has elected to use look kinda contrived to me. I can sympathise with the analyst's conundrum. If he goes out with a higher (more accurate?) CoS, the sheer scale of the assets lead to a mathematical result which could lead the casual reader to doubt the credibility of the analyst's work v's a current mkt cap of circa $800m. Still, for those who target potential 10+ baggers, it's all laid out for you!

At time of writing, the SP is off a penny. Can confirm there's nothing in the full note which would provide a "new or fresh" basis to sell stock this morning. If anything, the exact opposite applies IMHO. Make of that what you will.

12:26

Hi rfarfa - I hate to disappoint so here's a question about 88E's gas. Does 88E's house broker value the gas at a) zilch, based on the fact there's no route to market for the gas or b) gazillions of dollars, it's fair dinkum gaseous gold?

This continued dissemination of false hope does the 88E investment case no favours whatsoever. What's the fair value of Umiat/Peregine, Yukon and Icewine? Shareholders should, IMHO, be focusing on that question, not gaseous castles in the sky.

GS - I have no idea whether you're telling the truth about your mental health or not. You see, I know you only as a fellow anonymous avatar on a bulletin board. If your mental health is genuinely deteriorating as a result of your interactions on lse then you really must take a decent-sized break from it please.

It feels like you're on a personal crusade against me. I kinda 'get' that. Would it help if I assured you I'm going nowhere and I'll still be around on lse until at least the end of the coming winter season 21/22? Pretty happy to make that commitment to you so you know I'll be around to be fact-checked for the next 6 months minimum? An hiatus until winter operations begin (likely in January?) might be an idea for you, safe in the knowledge I'm not intending on disappearing?

In addition, there are enough people who are LTHs of PANR who know my full identity so if, in the future, you wish to fact check or challenge me on the *facts* of the investment case, or if the compulsion to destroy the "scot126" avatar becomes overwhelming, eg. if Theta West is found to be a reservoir full of Irn Bru rather than oil, then call me out on this thread and I'm sure I'll be told of your reappearance? Also, do you not think that if I was working for Farallon, at least one of the original GB founders'n'funders would straight up have called me out massively for attempting to diminish their CoS on their initial investments? Quite the opposite has occurred. I've repeatedly stated I have huge, gigantic sympathy for the original GB funders. I think the SoA Governor wronged GB appallingly. Do you not think one of the GB funders or one of the LTHs of PANR would have called me out by now if they suspected I had any arrangement with Farallon? Think about it, GS, please?

GS - I don't work for Farallon. I'm not a hedge fund super agent. I'm just a guy who has been working in the global equity markets since 1994. Let's say you're a builder or a civil engineer or a vet? Think of the experience, if not expertise, someone picks up over such an extended period. It's clear you're working yourself up into a tizz about the history and facts of the PANR investment case. Right now you don't have the open mind necessary to comprehend the facts being shared with you. Big deal! It happens. All of us find certain things in our professional lives that need to be filed in the "too hard" basket for a while, or the file which admits "my brain just doesn't think that way". It happens to me regularly. Let it go, GS. What you choose to do with your investments in PANR and the SN is none of my business but they're not worth losing your health over. Up to you, GS, but think on it please. Be under no illusion however, I'm going nowhere.

00:42
Holy guacamole! That's some post by GS. A lot to unpack there but it's got to be done to set the record straight, I'm afraid.

1) I don't "protect and promote" Farallon.
2) Farallon has not "ploughed money into PANR". Since the merger in Jan '19, Farallon has *not* taken part in any fundraise. This is a matter of record. GS is conflating Farallon's purchase of the GB debt from BoAM 6 years ago with " ploughing money into PANR". This is a repeated refrain from GS. No matter how many posters attempt to explain the *factually recorded history* of Farallon and GB, and its present day implications, GS does not appear capable of comprehending these facts.
3) How on earth can Farallon possibly be attempting to "squeeze out private investors if Farallon are SELLING shares and thus reducing their holding from 38% at the time of the merger to c.18% today???? GS is talking gibberish and he doesn't realise it! The percentage of shares held by PIs has, of course, *increased* due to Farallon's selling. This is called a fact.
4) I 100% agree the SP would be far higher if it wasn't for Farallon's selling throughout 2021. I have said so repeatedly. It's allowed me to buy more shares at a price I assess to be a bargain but it's also held back the unveiling of the true fundamental value of PANR, post the Talitha-A results and subsequent upgrades and announcement of a 1.9bbo contingent resource.
5) I have no overlords. This is entering the realm of unhinged conspiracy theories now. FWIW, I don't live in Area 51 and I believe Man landed on the Moon in 1969, lol.
6) I have zero helpers. Fact. There may be other investors whose research has led them to make similar observations but I'm not working with anyone.
7) GS advises readers to DYOR. Good stuff, so do I. I'll go a step further, unlike GS. I welcome fact checks. I regularly state, " Don't believe me? Look it up yourself/fact check the original statement/contact the company for confirmation." Hardly the conduct of someone seeking to spread a false narrative?
8) Health. GS was meant to be taking a few weeks off from the bulletin boards, or so he claimed. He also advises other readers not to engage with posters like me. And yet he spends time writing out these continuous attack pieces which are certainly full of wild and extremely creative conspiracy theories but never address the *facts* of the investment case or replies to *fact checks* levelled by folk like me.
9) I'm supposedly filtered and sent to Coventry and yet GS posts this stream of continuous, conspiracy-laden g0bbledyg00k? Which is it?
10) The sc*m stuff. Unwilling or incapable of comprehending the *facts* of two investment cases and researching historical facts? Bright idea! I'll call someone who highlights my incomprehension every time I elect to post falsehoods and wild conspiracy theories on a public forum, "sc*m". Brilliant strategy. And how's that working for you, GS? All going swimmingly apparently.
11) GS - quit this persona

(cont'd from below)

......are massively out of whack by all recognised measures. I challenge you, GS, to name one fundamental measure where the SN is tracking ahead of PANR. Just one?

08:42
GS - interesting post. Going to have to challenge you on a few points though.

1) You may have have "full respect" for Olderwiser's post timed at 08:17 but do you actually respect Olderwiser? This fellow has, for years, been the main source of fundamental info on 88E in Australia on their main bulletin board. For reason or reasons unknown he has identified some concerns and posted them on the 88E lse thread. Rather than discuss the facts, or even fact check Olderwiser, the prolific posters piled on to Olderwiser too. Forget his history of research, best undermine him because he's no longer on message? There's just no excuse for that conduct, GS.

2) Just letting folk who only read this thread know that you've tried for a second time to have me banned from lse. I have written to lse and understand fully their rules, which I stick to assiduously. It's time to quit that authoritarian nonsense, GS. For the umpteenth time, just because you don't like the content I post does not make it any less legitimate or pertinent. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll let the fog of rage fall from your eyes and perhaps start to engage on the *facts* of the investment cases.

3) I am unaware of any attempt(s) to "invite social media pump squads" to any PANR thread. I would be extremely grateful if you would inform me about any such attempts because they're not welcome. As far as I'm aware, I know the moderators/founders/account administrators of each of the PANR social media forums. They are all, to a man, long term investors in PANR. In addition, open debate is 100% encouraged providing it is fact-based. Not fact-based and the poster will be rightly challenged.

4) "And they have very nice equally clued up neighbours in case there's anyone not aware." This is a quote from your post timed at Thu 22:19. Hmmm, "equally clued up neighbours".....nope, not for me. Firstly, the standard of fundamental research and analysis by the investors and promoters of our southern neighbour (SN) is, by any objective measure, appalling. Nor, let's be honest, is there any apparent interest in improving that state of affairs.

5) Both enterprises to be successful and deliver riches to GS? Both? Decent chance with one, far less likely with the other. Why?
- PANR/GB had invested >$200m in Alaska drilling 3 wells and building the largest 3D seismic library in the whole of northern Alaska. The SN has not.
- PANR has 1.9bn barrel contingent resource; an OIP of 16bn; a successful flow test at Alkaid; 2 IERs by Lee Keeling; a partner who requested PANR shares in lieu of a $2.7m cash fee; award by the SoA of 2 Units at Alkaid and Talitha; an intact well at Talitha-A which has been subject to the full logging suite and full VAS technique; acreage where the phasing risk has been substantially de-risked; TAPS and the Dalton Highway literally intersect the acreage; plus much more.
The SN has none of the above. Until it does, the comparative valuations are massivel

8:28 and 8:12
Hi Brom and Turnstone - a quick fact-check please? Apart from Petroleum News, can you point us to another source which formally classifies Merlin as a discovery? TIA

21:03
Hello again GS - did you notice when this organisation was incorporated? 2009/10. Has the pipeline been built in the last 10 years? Has it been funded? Has it been costed? Has it been permitted?

Any such pipeline will cost, literally, billions of dollars. The other hope for gas transportation is an all year round port on the North Slope. Global warming might yet allow for that eventuality, but not anytime soon.

I think building a gas pipeline is a cracking idea for Alaska. Trouble is, no-one wants to pay for it, least of all the Alaskan electorate. When a plan is fully costed, permitted and *****funded****** get back to us and I pinky promise to revalue the gas 88E may have. Until then, the gas is worth zilch. Fact.

20:36
Hello again, Mr Cenkman.

About your thread policing to idea. You see, the thing is.....earlier, on a thread far, far away you had dismissed each and every one of my questions as "irrelevant". This is called a fact.

With new confirmation arriving from Oz overnight that Dave Wall has apparently sold >60% of his 240m shares, and in light of the huge fuss made when parts of the market erroneously believed DW had bought 120m shares after departing 88E, I was rebutting *your* claim that my question (on the subject of DW's share sales) was irrelevant. I was arguing, again using your precise term, that questions around DW's shareholding are anything but irrelevant. Indeed, such questions are the very definition of "relevant".

It seems cbaron has already identified some inconsistencies in your approach to this bulletin board? Seems to me that if you label some of my content "irrelevant" then the only equitable response is to permit me a right to reply. Which I did.

Good stuff. I feel we're making some progress here as some of the facts of the 88E investment case are being examined more, how can I put it, forensically.

GS - I'm only interested in the facts of the investment case and the market's understanding of same. I have been a market professional for >20 years, never been reported to the regulators at any time in my career and I know exactly how to conduct myself. Just because you do not *enjoy* or *welcome* the content of my contributions does not, I repeat, does not make that content any less legitimate.

Dry your eyes, GS, and engage me on the facts of the 88E investment case. You have no basis to report me, none whatsoever. As soon as 88E formally acknowledged in an RNS the presence of a shared asset at Talitha, and with both 88E and the NN being *publicly listed* companies, comparative analysis became not only possible but essential. This is how the market assesses value, GS. Fact.

19:12
Try not to be amazed, Brom. Forensic examination is exactly what happens when a company's mkt cap gets to c.£200m on the back of OTC hype sparked by a fantasy social media frenzy. This has left the 88E SP detached from all sense of fundamentals and, I would argue, reality.

In addition, as soon as there's a shared asset owned by two listed resource companies that draws out the investors who are capable of comparative analysis to see if there's evidence of mispricing of either security by the market. I earnestly believe I have identified a massive mispricing which sees 88E, today, valued by the market well in excess of its fundamentals *and* v's its northern neighbour's value.

Oh, and if anyone reading this post thinks the various 88E and NN analysts who cover either of the stocks *don't* have a model and working knowledge of the other stock, then they're kidding themselves. Investors like me are only discussing publicly what the broking analysts will be modelling internally. I know this because I worked inside investment banks and broking firms doing exactly this for >20 years.

FWIW, Brom, I wouldn't expect the added attention and forensic examination to diminish. Good stuff.

14:14 (correction with apologies)

Hi Mr Cenkman - thanks for your reply.

About not being other posters' keepers. Yeah, I get that, but that's not really how these *public* forums work, I'm afraid. Positive posts and inferences aren't entitled to be challenged or corrected or fact checked but negative ones do? Gotcha, Mr Cenkman........and no, I'm not playing by those rules.

Couldn't help noticing you didn't address any of the questions of fact or matters of substance in your reply. I accept you assess them to be "irrelevant". That's cool. The thing is, I don't. And it's clear quite a few others, including some former long term holders, believe the questions are indeed relevant.

That's all I have to say in reply, Mr Cenkman. I read your "How to Use an Investment Bulletin Board 1.01" instruction sheet with keen interest but it's not for me, thanks all the same.

Oh, and Mr Cenkman, I'm not in sunny southern Europe right now. Just letting you know because it appears a person's location is worth mentioning on a public investment bulletin board. Good stuff.

PS If you're counting, 4 again.

Hi Mr Cenkman - thanks for your reply.

About not being other posters' keepers. Yeah, I get that, but that's not really how these *public* forums work, I'm afraid. Positive posts and inferences don't require to be challenged/corrected/fact checked but negative ones don't? Gotcha, Mr Cenkman........and no, I'm not playing by those rules.

Couldn't help noticing you didn't address any of the questions of fact or matters of substance. I accept you deem them as "irrelevant". That's cool. The thing is, I don't. And it's clear quite a few others, including some former long term holders, believe the questions are indeed relevant.

That's all I have to say in reply, Mr Cenkman. I read your "How to Use an Investment Bulletin Board 1.01" reply with keen interest but it's not for me, thanks all the same.

Oh, and Mr Cenkman, I'm not in sunny southern Europe right now. Just letting you know because it appears a person's location is worth mentioning on a public investment bulletin board. Good stuff.