Member Info for Scot126

17:41

Alternatively....."Yeah, because Ayecuramba actually thinks there's a possibility 88E shares will be 3 times as much in a year, lol. Yikes!"

12:16

Hi Alibi - you're free to think as you wish, of course. however, having sat beside sales traders and market makers for 20 years or so, I can assure you that 99% of them couldn't point to Deadhorse on a map if their life depended upon it. Market makers react to volume and price and the intensity or energy behind the various orders. Very, very, very rarely is there any conspiracy.

Less Billions on HBO or Wolf of Wall St, more reading of olderwiser, rabito79 and scot126!! Stick to the fundamentals, Alibi. Analysis of the fundamentals don't *guarantee* success but they'll get you further than conspiracy theories.

17:51

No worries, DUNX. I've never shot in Sussex, too scared of the gulls ;)

19:56

No worries, Sailplane.

17:26

Hi sailplane - I note your comment: "Does anyone else read that as - they hope to get Megrez into long term production in a time frame of around a year?"

My firm answer to that question is no. The scenario the PANR BoD will have had in mind is one where the Megrez-1 flow tests are a success. The value of PANR's equity will reflect some of the value created by the uncovering of a "wholly conventional" oilfield located immediately underneath the Dalton Highway and TAPS, 25 miles south of Deadhorse. At that point, the company is closing in on the tipping point DH described in a webinar where the empirical data makes the probability of the acreage being fully developed "inevitable".

It's at this point, or nearing this point, that US equity investors will be approaching the company to finance the next stage of its journey. Retire the bond so that the full upside value reverts back solely to equity holders? "Yep, no problem, here's $30m to do that and another $100m for 5 drills to ensure PANR can supply gas for the pipeline *and* to appraise the northwest portion of Kodiak."

All fundamental investors (like wot I am) are also obliged to confront the downside of the bond. *If*, and I repeat *if*, Megrez-1 flows Irn Bru from all seven intervals rather than light crude oil then the resultant fall in SP will, without question, be exacerbated by the presence of the new bond on the balance sheet. Those are just plain mathematical facts, folks. The fact that the quarterly interest payments are to be paid in cash, and there's no amortisation of the principal amount during the 3 year term, means the bond will exert less day-to-day pressure on the investment case v's the current Heights CB. But the new bond will still have a negative effect. We are all obliged to accept this mathematical fact in the scenario where Megrez-1 fails on all metrics.

For the record, I anticipate Megrez-1 being a profound success....not only for PANR but for the state of Alaska. The data so far is just too compelling IMHO. Health warning: in support of that assessment, I added to my PANR holding yesterday.

15:58

Hi AlexDD - yeah, but no, but! I agree entirely with some of your post and profoundly disagree with other parts!

Agreed: yeah, even if Mangrove are short 11m, it's a de minimis position v's PANR's mkt cap + average daily volume these days + incoming macro news (pipeline?) + incoming stock specific news (flow tests x7). I also agree there's every chance in the world Mangrove has already closed out their short position entirely. Mangrove does indeed have form for being delinquent in their disclosure obligations. For example, Mangrove had to be prompted in Oct '24 to update their reporting to the FCA. I know this for certain because I was that prompt!! I also agree with you that the FCA Short Rules require self-reporting and the enforcement regime is little more than a paper tiger. Thus, I agree with all of the above points.

Where I disagree is when you state the position can be "transferred to another vehicle or form which happens often on minor exchanges such as AIM". i'm just not certain that's true. Yes, Mangrove did such a thing sometime in 2024 but they failed in their obligation to update the FCA about that transaction. That was on 100% on them. Mangrove broke the rules. It had nothing to do with what exchange the security happened to be listed on. It was Mangrove being deliberately delinquent or being unaware of their obligations. Either way, it was all on them.

Understandably there's been a bit of chatter about Mangrove's overall net price. 20p is just flat out wrong. They started shorting after the exec directors sold stock and the Alkaid-2 operational delays. Another tranche followed the failure to meet pre-drill guidance for the LTPT. I had a go at guesstimating their *net* price and I calculated a range of 50p-75p. Yes, they've shorted stock at prices above and below that range but the net figure is somewhere in that range IMHO.

All the above said and done, I simply cannot imagine any hedge fund I ever dealt with maintaining a short position over a period of heavy stock-specific news where just one flow test ***out of a possible seven*** could blow their short position out of the water. Those odds are just impossible to go up against in my experience. Combine that with the removal of a pre-flow test equity fundraise following yeterday's $30m bond news and I just can't see the positon being active any longer.

Your central message of urging forum members to minimise Mangrove within the overall analysis of the PANR investment case, however, is spot on. Thanks for making that very clear.

10:39

Hi DUNX - Jay is 76 years old and fit as a butcher's dog.

I'll have more to say on the subject once I've had more time for consideration. However, if anyone was thinking that PANR simply *must* organise an equity cash raise to pay for the *SEVEN* distinct flow tests then they have just been dealt a shattering blow.

Any remaining shorts, and for the record I remain far from convinced Mangrove remain short 11m shares, will simply have to close out immediately. No shorter is going to stay short over a news heavy period where just one successful flow test out of a possible seven could blow their trade out the water.

All else being equal, the SP *ought* to move up very smartly as any remaining shorts close out.

21:57

chrisev1 - So rather than spell out the *facts* in plain language for 88E shareholders and forum members alike, you've opted to obfuscate, deflect and cover up the precarious financial state of the company. I'm shocked and saddened, but not overly surprised.

For the avoidance of doubt, 88E cannot fulfil the Stage 2 terms of the Namibain farm in agreement unless it raises fresh capital from: shareholders via a cash raise, sale of assets (Longhorn?), renegotiating with their partners the terms of the Namibian farm in. chrisev1 knows this but does not wish to draw attention to the state of 88E's finances.

Those interested should read the RNS dated 13/11/23, and all subsequent announcements concerning Namibia. To be clear, unless the Namibian partnership is able to access further capital outside of the farm in agreement, it will not be able to execute the Stage 2 and Stage 3 plans of operation as described in the original agreement. At best, that means a delay before any drilling. At worst, 88E is delinquent in fulfilling its side of the agreement and, depending on the contractual terms, *may* be penalised for non-payment of the sum owed. Either which way, there's not going to be any drilling in Namibia until the hole in the finances (88E and the Namibian partnership) is sorted out.

16:54

Aye, most impressive guzzler1962, most impressive.

07:59

chrisev1 - You also wrote: "If Phoenix gets into production we will still have at least 25% income coming in." To be clear to readers of this sentence, *if* further appraisal work at Phoenix justifies commercial development, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get to the stage where 88E will receive "25% of the revenue" due to its W.I. for a sinlge dollar of revenue to accrue to 88E, the company will, at the very least, be compelled to "follow its money" to retain its 25% W.I. Based on 88E's history, I contend it is extremely unlikely 88E will ever receive 25% of the revenue generated by a future O&G development at Project Phoenix.

08:41

Yes, Deepcut, 88E has seen a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to Dave Wall and Erik Opstad. I don't know if any one of us will ever know who initiated the social media frenzy around 88E in 2021 or whether it was pure serendipity. Whatever the genesis of the phenomenon, isn't it gratifying to know that Brom sold into the artificially-generated spike? Just such a shame he forgot to tell this forum until a few months later. Such a shame.......

15:17

Miner4 - tell you what, it's a close call but I've decided to go with the professional assessments of Netherland Sewell, Lee Keeling, eSeis, Ryder Scott, the SoA Dept of Natural Resources, WoodMac, Schlumberger, AHS Baker Hughes, Cawley Gillespie and the NN's Bob Rosenthal and technical team v's the fantstical jibberish posted by Miner4 today. It's for other members of this forum to make their own minds up. However, be under no illusion, for Miner4 to be correct, literally hundreds of O&G professionals have to be wrong. I don't like them odds.

18/2/25 @ 11:15

Hi Salisman - these articles are disingenuous. The only "value" which has been "created" is on paper. Unless and until Burgundy comes up with the cool, hard cash as per the farm in agreement, I'm not sure anyone can reasonably state value has been created at Project Phoenix.

18/2/25 @ 19:19

Redirons - what an outrageous post! You actually had the gall to type out "no more cash raises/share dilutions look necessary"! Lolololololol.....do you expect a single person reading that nonsense to believe you? Even if we stipulate Longhorn covers G&A (and I'm far from certain it does), how on earth is 88E going to pay its Namibian partners the cash due in CY25? You childishly take your usual swing at me. It's not a case of wishing 88E well or not. It's a case of having to correct posters like you who insist on misrepresenting the facts of the 88E investment case on a public forum. i don't know if you do this because you're incapable of comprehending the facts as advised to shareholders via the public documents released by the company? Or perhaps it's an unethical attempt to gee up naïve punters so that the SP rises, or so you can sell out? Either way, the effect is the same. You're disseminating clearly false information.

Direct question for you, redirons. Precisely how much is 88E obliged to pay their Namibian partners in 2025 to fulfil the terms of the farm in agreement?

18/2/25 @ 21:21

chrisev1 - Correction. Burgundy has proposed spending an additional US$39m but this is a future conditional agreement. Forum members *must* educate themselves about the conditions and caveats detailed specifically in the agreement as described in the RNS dated 17/2/25.

18/2/72 @ 21:01

Hi munnietorx - yep, I've noticed that pattern too. It's not *always* the case but I suspect *usually* covers it!

07:59

chrisev1 - I see you keep comforting yourself that the Burgundy deal is welcome. Hey-ho. Direct question for you. You posted the following: "...so that means we just need to pay for Namibia (part of anyway) in 2026." Can you and will you detail for the forum 88E's cash payment obligations to their Namibian partners in order to fulfil the terms of the farm in agreement? If you cannot or will not detail those obligations, and you've refused to do so thus far, why is that? Is it because you have calculated 88E has insufficient cash at hand to fulfil their obligations and thus will be unable to deliver on the terms of the farm in agreement? Are you trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people who read your content?

17/2/25 @ 23:43

Hi muscat - I take your point about Burgundy's increased working interest improving the narrative when it comes to attempting to raise fresh funds from potential "investors". My question to you is as follows: what investor would invest in a proposed Burgundy IPO or private round of finance where the investment case meant that Burgundy leadership was suggesting their downdip, lower classification, lower quality barrels in the ground were worth the same as, or higher than, the updip, higher classification, better quality and larger in scale barrels in the ground owned by the NN? It would be like going to Tesco and being willing to pay more for a Tesco Everyday Value lasagne than a Tesco Finest lasagne which was 10x the weight. Sophisticated investors don't often enter into such transactions when the full facts are presented to them.

I can see why Burgundy have kicked the can down the road until 31/12/25. They've retained their 25% W.I. without paying the remaining US$2.5m owed to 88E. They've also given themselves some time for any potential benefits to emerge via the nearism theory if/when the results from the NN's flow test of Megrez-1 are published. Then there's the macro buzz around the greenlighting of the proposed Alaska gasline and LNG project.

Speaking of the gasline, forum members *must* educate themselves about the following commercial *fact* for operators on the North Slope. Unless liquid hydrocarbons can be produced profitably, billions and billions of low (or high!) CO2 natural gas will have minimal effect on the economic case for developing a project. Thus far, neither 88E nor any of its independent experts have stated they believe Project Phoenix is economically viable. This opinion is based on the, let's face it, disappointing flow test results from Hickory-1. Yes, that *may* change in the future, but any such re-assessment of Project Phoenix won't occur until after the proposed lateral well is drilled and flow tested in CY26, providing funding is forthcoming of course.

A few fact checks and questions.

17/2/25 @ 23:04

chrisev1 - So, 88E will have received "assurances" from Burgundy about providing funding (up to US$39m) for the next lateral drill at Project Phoenix, will they? You mean "assurances" like the ones they've given 88E and its shareholders over the course of the last 24 months? The ones which said they'd pay their share of the drilling costs of Hickory-1 on completion of the operation? Those funds dribbled in over the course of the next 18 months. Or perhaps you're referring to the assurances 88E and its shareholders received from Burgundy which stated they'd pay their share of the flow test operations at Hickory-1? Some money has dribbled in for that activity but US$2.5m remains unpaid.

It's worth noting the wording in the latest RNS/ANN. "88 Energy and Burgundy have agreed on a payment arrangement for the remaining balance of outstanding cash calls...to be settled in conjunction with Burgundy's funding activities." So Burgundy may very well have reduced the US$3.5m owed to 88E by $1m, but the remaining $2.5m doesn't appear to have a hard stop until the same date as the full funding for Phase 1, ie. 31/12/25. That's $2.5m + $22m = US$24.5m (minimum) to be raised by Burgundy in calendar 2025.

I'm not saying Burgundy cannot or will not raise the necessary capital. However a realistic investor will surely wish to examine Burgundy's track record on meeting its obligations. Yes, they've invested US$29m in Project Phoenix thus far (correct?) but the majority of that was early in the drilling program. Their rate of payment has slowed rather than quickened despite the hard data being collected by the various drills on Project Phoenix acreage. Profound funding uncertainty combined with zero operations on the ground in Alaska or Namibia in 2025 makes the 88E investment case a very tough sell.

Let's face it, 88E had no choice but to take the Burgundy deal. Anyone with experience looking at Project Phoenix will immediately have compared and contrasted 88E's data with its NN's. I need to do more work on it, but on *first examination*, the Burgundy deal preposterously values a Phoenix barrel in the ground at a higher figure than a more highly classified barrel in the NN's updip location. Any external party *except Burgundy* would have delved into that calculation and moved on. In fact, there is an intellectual argument to be made that Burgundy's US$39m (if raised) would be best directed, on a risk v's return basis, towards buying PANR's vanilla equity v's the farm in deal at Phoenix as detailed in the RNS.

Of course it's up to 88E shareholders to do what they wish. However, it is simply no longer appropriate or fair to post warm'n'fuzzy content on public forums which do not caveat *very, very heavily* Burgundy's capacity to source the funding required as per the farm in agreement.

07:02

Before anyone begins to think a word of this is true, some facts.

1) Before the gasline came into focus, PANR's development plan saw them drilling 1 gas re-injection well for every 3 production wells. Indeed, the amended development plan will still likely see re-injection wells being necessary, but the ratio will be different leading to capex savings v's the original plan. This is what's called a fact. The senator in question is therefore talking gibberish.

2) Pantheon merged with Great Bear in early 2020. Pantheon's two O&G fields are named Kodiak and Ahpun. Speaking of which, one of the seemingly simple but actually quite important tasks for the BoD to sort out prior to the US IPO is to ensure the company is known by one consistent name on a corporate level. I suggest Pantheon Resources is that name. "Pantheon Great Bear" or "Great Bear Pantheon" is too long and people will mix them up. And whilst I 100% appreciate Great Bear was named after a constellation, let's drop all the "bear" links please. Why on earth having anything associated with (polar) bears in a company's name which is operating in the Arctic Circle in the fossil fuels industry where said polar bears are the focus of attention by the powerful environmental lobby, I just can't figure it. I know it wasn't intended that way, but the US IPO allows for consistent new communications to be formed, so let's keep bears out of it and stick with Pantheon Resources. We could do with re-naming Ahpun also, for similar reasons. Again I now appreciate Ahpun was the name of a much-loved polar bear in an Alaskan zoo but for heaven's sake, let's not deliberately stick two fingers up at the environmentalist lobby, eh?

3) The senator has half understood why PANR's gas is essential to Phase 1 of the project. PANR's low CO2 gas does not require pre-treatment = non-corrosive and is therefore termed "pipeline ready". Prudhoe Bay's gas will require pre-treatment and that facility will be completed *after* the pipeline is completed and at a cost of $4bn, I understand. Happy to be corrected.

4) PANR's gas is indeed being sold at a comparatively low price when compared with Lower 48 gas prices. A reminder - gas has thus far been an expensive by-product of North Slope liquids production so the ability to sell it creates a revenue stream *and* reduces capex for PANR. I'd happily give away the first year or two of gas production for free if the SoA or the Alaskan utilities (who will use PANR's gas) would somehow support the drilling of another couple of appraisal wells....repayable grant, guarantor on a debt facility, etc. I don't much care the financial structure of same. Happy to swap future gas sales for appraisal drills because PANR's model is by far based on liquids production.

Poor job by the local Alaskan Senator (not in the US Senate to be clear, it's the Alaskan Senate in this case) but happy to clear up their errors!

19:20

You may think that, chrisev1, but the majority of posters on this forum would suggest it is you who is missing the point.

That 88E cannot afford to advance the 3 projects is something we can all agree on. But what you're omitting to inform the forum is that 88E's current cash position does not allow *any* of their projects to move forward without complete reliance on external parties.

Let's stipulate Longhorn just about keeps 88E's lights on (and even that is looking increasingly uncertain), pays the wages, G&A, listing fees, etc. At Phoenix, Burgundy has now paid $1m out of the $3.5m owed to 88E to kick the can down the road until 31/12/25. What happens if Burgundy waits until 30/12/25 and informs 88E they don't intend to invest another dollar in Phoenix? The acreage just sits there on 88E's balance sheet, with annual lease fees mounting up.

Project Leonis? 88E has nowhere near the capital required to drill a discovery well there. If you're an entity looking at a farm in, you'll be all too aware of that fact. Unless 88E can attract sufficient interest at Leonis such that a competitive process breaks out, 88E shareholders are looking at dilution in excess of that which they read about today at Phoenix.

Speaking of which, 88E management would have been wilfully negligent had they not shopped Project Phoenix around the globe. We know they were doing exactly that because they posted on X a photograph of their stall at an O&G conference last year. Forum members should be under no illusion that the Burgundy deal was the best on offer. I'll be blunt. I thought 88E would end up with less than 25% at the end of the process. Some readers may recall I suspected 10-20%. With Leonis' underwhelming CoS calculations, 88E are surely looking at 20% W.I. maximum.

Namibia. chrisev1 - what sum is due to be paid by 88E to their Namibian partners in CY25? Adding in the US$1m received from Burgundy and subtracting the payment due to the SoA for the recent Leonis leases won at auction, can you confirm for the forum if 88E today has sufficient funds to make the CY25 payment to their Namibian partners, or not?

If not, do you wish the BoD to a) sell some/all of Longhorn to raise the necessary cash b) undertake a highly dilutive fundraise seeking support once again from shareholders or c) fail to deliver on the terms of their Namibian deal and accept the penalties and/or delays in activity on the ground which would almost certainly follow as a consequence of not having sufficient cash?

It's past time for you to level with forum members instead of suggesting that they, and the wider market, are "missing the point".

18:58

Hey Brom - just checking you know the US markets are shut for Presidents Day?

So, Burgundy pays another $1m (of the $3m outstanding) to kick the can down the road until 31/12/25. Quelle surprise!

Whatever happened Burgundy's "North American IPO" which was due to have occurred by now?

Leaves 88E awfully short of cash to meet its own obligations to its Namibian partner. How are Ashley and the BoD going to square that circle? Sell Longhorn to raise the cash? Another highly dilutive fundraise from shareholders? Reduce 88E's working interest in Namibia? Are there any penalties to 88E for breaking the Namibian agreement? Will 88E's failure to meet its Namibian payment obligations delay operations on the ground past CY 2026?

I'll no doubt do the maths to work out whether Burgundy would be better investing the US$39m in the NN's equity v's Project Phoenix, based on the current guidance published by both companies. An interesting exercise.

13:57

Or bear with me, chrisev1, Recon's shares went down because the results were disappointing.

The latest deadline expired on 15/2/25. No sign of a Burgundy Xploration IPO. No SP uplift in sympathy with Recon Africa's recent well. The NN's flow tests at Megrez-1 haven't started yet. Tough business.