Member Info for Scot126

10:50
Hi guzzler1962 - well, well, well.....that was a very interesting period of time, wasn't it? March running into early April. I agree with you, guzzler1962. I think all 88E shareholders should carefully examine that period running up to 21/5/21, the date of the Capital Structure report prior to today's update.

During that time we witnessed a well go >$18m over budget; we saw contractors subscribe for new shares; we saw the contractors immediately flip those shares at a huge profit into the most extraordinarily coincidental explosion of interest by OTC punters sparked by a spectacularly effective way social media campaign; we saw the farm out partners (I wonder what, if any, overlap of personnel and financial interests exists between ELKO and APDC?) then sell back their 50% in Peregrine ***after*** they had full access to the data from Merlin-1 for $14m which coincidentally was exactly the amount APDC would have had to pay for their 50% of the massively over-budget drill. And who was racking up this massively above budget cost? None other than the same group of contractors who subscribed for shares in March.

Erik Opstad has been a very busy bee in 2021, hasn't he? Is Erik an employee or a consultant to 88E? When does a related party transaction become a related party transaction? Sounds like there may be a few more pertinent questions to ask?

10.14
Hi Brom - are you finally going to confirm that Dave Wall didn't double his stake by buying 120m shares in the market after he left 88E? Are you ready to acknowledge the existence of the performance rights scheme for company officers?

See, here's the thing Turnstone et al. You can't have it both ways. The 88E bulletin boards and social media forums (including this one) were frantic in the days and weeks following news that DW had doubled his stake in the company after his departure. 2+2= 57, saw posters speculating that he *must* know the results from Merlin and he *must* know about an impending bid for the company. Some posters even worked out how much cash he had to pay for 120m shares on the secondary market in the days following his departure!

So, what many of you are telling the rest of us is that when it was thought Dave Wall was *buying* 88E shares in the market commentators were permitted to draw a positive inference.......and yet when it's proven that he *sold* shares, *no inference* is permitted. Yep, got it.

Good to see a couple of posters starting to ask the pertinent questions.

Hi flexmw - that is incredibly odd. Yesterday's updated capital structure stated DW's holding was now 176m shares. A subsequent edit/correction (?) now records a holding of just 88m v's 240m in May when he left the company. Huh? Well, Cenkman and lots of others, I'd say this is pretty bl00dy relevant, wouldn't you?

So rather than *adding* to his holding, or even maintaining it, DW has elected to sell >60% of his shares in the period. This despite posters on this forum and all over social media disseminating news of an imminent takeover and a huge "discovery" at Merlin-1. I'm still to be convinced the data recovered at Merlin-1 amounts to a "discovery". Looks like DW agrees with my scepticism.

I'd suggest it's time to start asking some of those pertinent questions.

As at 21/5/21, Dave Wall owned 240,076,030 ordinary shares. As at 30/9/21, Dave Wall owns 176,436, 190 ordinary shares. Accordingly, it looks like he's sold c.64m shares over the period.

By way of example and using today's price, that's just shy of a cool million quid (sterling) sale. Hardly the actions of a former MD of a company he knew was a) just about to be bid for b) sitting on a massive new commercial discovery at Merlin or c) any of the other fantasy scenarios posted here and on other forums following the false narrative taking hold of "DW doubling his stake by buying stock in the market after departing 88E".

Just ensuring this new piece of technical news wasn't lost in the day's posted content. Largely my fault so I thought I ought to make it right. I'm sure Katie in NJ and Fat Man in Newark will shortly be tweeting /YouTubing this factual update shortly.....just as they and so many others did when the rumour first took hold? Hmmm..........

(continued from below)

So the question ***must*** be posed? Is this a good use of shareholders' limited funds? Why *is* there no plan to flow test Merlin-2? Does the 88E BoD not have sufficient funds to drill *and* flow test this season? Does the political climate mean that shareholders will be left facing a period of another 10 or 11 months before a definitive answer will be available to them? Will that require further funds to be raised? Will the political climate mean that Conoco and other major players will place pressure on the State/88E not to rock the boat until the courts/Biden admin have sorted their stance on Willow? What does this mean for the 88E shareholders? Is it the State regulators who aren't willing to grant a permit to 88E to flow test Merlin-2?

I contend that all of the above means that the flow test question is both legitimate and extremely relevant to 88E shareholders, and to readers of this bulletin board. You, Blackadder2708, may have no "concerns" that a flow test wasn't mentioned but I bet there are 88e shareholders who will be concerned.

Anyhoo, thanks for replying, Blackadder2708.

16:50
Blackadder2708 - thank you for taking the time to post on the subject of flow testing, or rather the lack of flow testing.

In answer to some of the points you make:

1) Necessary "equipment with the logging crew". Yep, perhaps so. But something we can surely agree on is that there will be plenty of the equipment required for flow testing sitting in Deadhorse right this minute? So lack of available equipment is not the reason. Ok, good.

2) Permits. I take your point here, Blackadder2708. Satellite imagery of a flare in the NPRA this winter, what with the Biden admin's decision in Jan/Feb this year which impacted Merlin-1 together with the Willow court case, such an image could be uncomfortable for all parties on the ANS. Are the permits obtainable ordinarily? Of course they are, providing you have the right plans/budget in place. You ask about the oil being dumped. Bit of a stupid question but the answer is to do what every other operator does and that's to truck the oil off location and arrange to deliver it elsewhere on the Slope to be treated and transported onwards. So a possible answer may be the political backdrop? Ok, I can see that. [PS Any talk of cuttings and general waste, etc.....the State is mega strict about all of that stuff so it would all be dealt with in the ordinary course of applying for a Permit to Drill Merlin-2.]

"If 88e are trying to create an illusion of an oil find wouldn’t you think that they would just say we are conducting a flow test…. for the sake shutting the doubters at least." Yes, 88E management could indeed do that. But that would be incredibly naughty and illegal as it would mean management would be lying to shareholders. Surely it's better and simply "the right thing to do" to tell shareholders and the wider market why it is they're not planning to flow test Merlin-2? This question is not going to go away, no matter how many on this bulletin board would wish it to.

Cost of drilling v's cost of flow test. Yep, take your point.....but it's not an insignificant cost either. What makes it doubly important to explain is that a fairly large proportion of the cost of drilling on the ANS is due to the requirement to drill a snow road or ice road. By all mathematical scenarios, it has simply ***got to be*** cheaper to conduct the flow test when a road has already been constructed and a site prepared for the drilling operations in the 21/22 season than have to go back in the 22/23 season to flow test the well?

So the question ***must*** be posed? Is this a good use of shareholders' limited funds? Why *is* there no plan to flow test Merlin-2? Does the 88E BoD not have sufficient funds to drill *and* flow test this season? Does the political climate mean that shareholders will be left facing a period of another 10 or 11 months before a definitive answer will be available to them? Will that require further funds to be raised? (to be continued above)

(Part 3. Continued from below)

“What relevance is your question r.e. to this thread?” Very relevant. I have a number of questions for the thread, Cenkman, incredibly glad you asked.

1) Why have no plans been announced or costed to flow test Merlin-2 should the logs support such a value add operation to collect the data? The Merlin-2 location is seasonally limited so is this a poor allocation of shareholder funds? What explanation is there for the apparent lack of a plan to flow test Merlin-2 in the 21/22 Alaskan drilling season? Objectively, this is a most unusual plan for a well in Alaska, there’s no getting away from that.

2) The Annual Report provides the receipts but a recognition and widespread acceptance of the “Dave Wall/performance rights/bought stock in the market” narrative would be the honourable thing to do. If the company secretary issues a formal response to a poster’s request on the subject, then surely those who are incorrect will happily withdraw in a post their earlier statements made in error?

3) In an attempt to undertake a comparative analysis of 88E and their Northern Neighbour due to both companies’ admissions they have a shared asset, I’ve asked many prolific posters for their assessment or their model of the percentage of the whole (of 88E) they are ascribing to each of the three main 88E project locations; being Umiat/Peregrine, Yukon and Icewine. You’d have thought the bulletin board would be inundated with different answers from lots of folk with varied opinions, wouldn’t you Cenkman? Crickets. Actually, there was one response but the poster added that he just made the three percentage figures up in order to get rid of me. I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s not a serious analysis of a c.£200m company.

Of course, you may reply that no-one is obliged to answer. Fine. But in that case, folk like me are entitled to question why prolific posters who are, eg. capable of posting >25k times and who describe management’s historical ability to answer his questions as being “excellent” and “quick”, elect not to answer these incredibly pertinent, industry standard and legitimate questions. I’ll admit some of those heaping scorn on me (and others) likely don’t have the capacity to answer the questions, but a few undoubtedly do. It is certainly a logical extension to pose the question - what is it exactly these prolific posters are attempting to hide by their silence? My accusation is that by answering my questions honestly, it will undercut their relentless dissemination of misinformation and will reveal that 88E is waaaayyyyy over-valued using all accepted E&P equity valuation methods.

"Did you read 88Es official rns'?" Yep.

Trust that helps, Cenkman? /ends

(Part 2. Continued from below.)

I follow your “capital structure” response. Well written. As I trust I have explained above, the “DW doubled his holding by buying another 120m in the market after he departed” narrative pre-dates your attempt at, what I consider to be, obfuscation. Thankfully, we have an historical record of DW’s pa holdings from before and after the merger with Xcite; before and after his resignation; and from his departure through to end of May and now until the end of Sept. Taking your explanation to its natural conclusion, DW could have sold every single one of his 240m shares in June and bought 176m back in August. No RNS would have been required because DW is no longer an employee. He is, however, now a retained advisor to 88E via his new advisory firm.

I am happy to refine my “fact check” challenge, Cenkman. I allege that DW, rather than buying 120m shares in the market following his departure from 88E, was awarded those shares as part of the performance rights/options award administered for officers of 88E. These awards were made to DW on his departure. Not a single soul on this bulletin board expressed anything other than derision when I, along with a few other posters, pointed this out. The derision is fine, but it doesn’t make my allegation any less true or any less verifiable.

“smarky” – good to see that you’re already fitting in so smoothly to the culture of this bulletin board. Must feel good to get your first personal attack out of the way? Brilliant.

Here’s the Blackadder2708 history. Another poster posed the same question I did to Blackadder2708 a couple of weeks back. Blackadder2708, rather than answering the question directly, opted to “barry big balls” himself and sought to, metaphorically, stare down the questioner by stating that he, Blackadder2708, was an employee of another E&P company and because the questioner wasn’t (although judging by the questioner’s response, he worked elsewhere in the O&G industry) that the question posed was not worthy of a serious answer. It was cleverly done by Blackadder2708, in fairness, but it still didn’t answer the question, did it?

“No one ever owes you a response or is obliged to respond to you.” Correct. Equally, no-one is permitted to attempt to intimidate or bully a poster, or posters, who seek to challenge the consensus, and I contend false, narrative around parts of the 88E investment case. It must be before your time, Cenkman, but that’s exactly what occurs daily on this bulletin board. I repeat that just because readers don’t *like* the content of certain challenges to the consensus narrative does not make the challenges any less legitimate, pertinent or truthful.

(To be continued above.)

15:13

Hi Cenkman – feel free to butt in, no worries at this end. I’ll try to answer your points in turn. Oh, and welcome to the bulletin board. I feel confident that you’re just the man who would see it as an honourable approach to pose the same questions you pose to me, to other posters. Good stuff.

- I refer to “the cult of 88E” which took off in March/April this year. Within the continuing social media hype, if you follow the various social media platforms, you would have been able to read outlandish claims about AG’s former employer being Woodside and thus Woodside must have planted him to prepare for a takeover. As for Conoco, the highest figure I saw for their impending bid from a “social media influencer” was $10 per share, would you believe? And yet, and yet hardly a word of derision from those prolific posters who occupy this bulletin board. Silence, complicity as they themselves keep the home fires of blind loyalty burning just when they’re at the point of trading the peaks and troughs – and admitted as such, after the fact, natch.

Any reputable media outlet or official announcement from a company RNS? No, but then I have never made that claim. To turn your perfectly reasonable question on its head, Cenkman, did anyone here question how these social media influencers arrived at their fantasy calculations? Actually, a couple of shareholders/posters did admit to the nonsensical nature of some of the social media hype. However I could likely count those particular posters on one hand.

The “Dave Wall doubled his stake by buying stock in the market when he departed 88E” narrative was widely disseminated on this very bulletin board, Cenkman, and repeated across all the 88E social media forums which have sprung up since March ’21. Indeed, just the other day I was generously advising one such believer to access the relevant section of the latest Annual Report (I think I may even have advised which section of the Notes to the Accounts to examine). I also used my experience to suggest to those who didn’t believe me when I challenged this widely accepted narrative to write to the company secretary who would be happy to explain what “performance rights” are and the breakdown of DW’s exit package. It’ll likely surprise you, Cenkman, that no-one volunteered to do what I suggested because they’d rather a) ignore such opinions (backed up with receipts) because it challenges their faith in the 88E narrative or b) opportunistically, they would rather see the false narrative continue and are delighted to see my posts, and the posts of a few others, pilloried as “de-ramping, paid by the response, trolling”.

(Part 1. To be continued above.)

14:07
Blackadder2708 - Mr Javier Vilches could still have 50m shares or he could have zero shares. I hope that this will bring to a close the social media posts blaring "Repsol are about to make a bid for 88E" and similar guff? I hope so, but am not necessarily *hopeful*!

Now then, Blackadder2708. You've had time to compare'n'contrast the Top 20 shareholders' list from May to Sept. We know your internet connection is good because you've just posted on this bulletin board. How's about that answer about the lack of a flow test being planned for Merlin-2, from your perspective as an employee of another E&P company of course? Crickets?

And, no, it is *not* a question where I already know the answer. I very much *want* to know the answer. To all the shareholders reading this post, if you *don't* wish to know the answer to this highly pertinent question then I accuse *you* of not being a true 88E'er. What long term, loyal, supportive, fundamental shareholder of *any* listed E&P company would *not* wish to know the answer to why management had not planned to flow test a restricted access, seasonal well?????

Folk are free to insult me as much as they wish. 10 insults? 100 insults? It doesn't make the flow test question any less pertinent or any less valid. Fact.

Who is volunteering to contact the company for clarification? It's your right as a shareholders, remember?

Hi Mindbender - I understand the point you're making. External validation v's keeping 100 W.I. for another winter season. Either which way, a nice problem to have!!

I appreciate fully the desire to speculate but, IMHO, the BoD has earned and deserves the trust of shareholders so I'm perfectly comfy just sitting back and letting them secure the winter operational programme by whichever route they decide is optimal.

I 100% accept I don't have access to the full range of facts so this is one of those situations when I must trust the professionalism of the BoD.....which I do. Good stuff.

Edit. Should read "(100% genuine question) " I within the paragraph asking for Blackadder2708's considered professional opinion. Thanks.

11.16am
Hi Blackadder2708 - as at 21/5/21, Dave Wall had 240,076,030 shares to he's sold circa 64m shares (correction v's my earlier post below).

Now that you're here and hopefully still employed by an E&P company as you stated previously, can you please inform me (100% question) and the thread why an Alaskan E&P would plan a seasonal drill and ***even if the logs supported doing so*** no plan was made to flow test the well during that operation? There *MUST* be a reason for this omission, Blackadder2708. Would your employer, the E&P company, not plan a flow test? You *MUST* be curious, Blackadder2708, correct?

10.40am
Thanks Brom. Perhaps confirmation of ex-MD Dave Wall selling c.45m shares in the period between late May and end of September will finally put to bed all the nonsense about an imminent takeover at a dollar per share by Conoco? If there was even a sniff of that happening, an ex-MD (who is now a formal advisor to the company remember), ain't selling 45m shares, no way Jose.

By the way, did anyone ever bother to fact check me and to fact check those disseminating the "Dave Wall bought another 120m shares in the market as soon as he left 88E" narrative? Flexmw - was that one of the questions posed to the company recently by any chance? Any reply from the company yet? What about from Brom, who admits the company is "excellent" at responding to his questions and are very quick to do so too????

C'mon folks, some of you must be itching to fact check me?! Get on with it then. Or too frightened that the gnawing doubt at the back of your mind might prove to be true? Do the work, folks, like proper 88E'ers would.

HI Mindbender - I agree and disagree with you on this one. I agree that a farm out is the more likely method by which the company will secure funding for the anticipated winter programme. That said, my *personal preference* would be for the company to go it alone for one more drilling season and to remain at a 100% W.I. for another 8 months or so.

Btw, I do not think you have accurately assessed the mood of the UK shareholders, Mindbender, because a good number of them are either agnostic or would, like me, favour an equity raise v's farm out. You suggest "disappointment and stock down"? Not IMO, more like "great, the winter programme is now funded, SP moves up due to combination of relief and confirmation that winter drilling will occur."

Hi Pander. Yes, that's true. The company has made it crystal clear that it requires c.$50m to complete its anticipated programme of flow testing Talitha-A, drilling and flow testing Theta West crest and drilling a lateral production well at Alkaid.

If you have a listen to the CEO's interview with Proactive Investors, you'll note that Jay Cheatham confirms negotiations are ongoing and that "some are quite advanced, I must say". (see link below) It's for you to decide if the company is likely to secure funding for its anticipated winter programme. FWIW, my *personal* view is that they will.

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVfYO1DdQD4&t=186s

22:20
GS,

Your continued naivety is child-like.

Your belligerent self-confidence is both awe-inspiring and frightening. You really would back yourself to undertake your own root canal treatment, wouldn't you?

Your failure to recognise someone has gone out of their way to point you in the right direction to enable you to source the FACTS of the investment case is pathetic and wilfully ignorant.

Here's another fact for you, GS. The Farallon fund which purchased the GB debt from BofAM at 96c in the dollar (so a quasi-sovereign rating, with the SoA's exploration rebate repayments supporting the debt) was a credit fund and had *no intention whatsoever* to invest in an AIM-listed UK small cap. They can do whatever they wish with their shares, just as you or I are free to sell them whenever we wish.

You admitted on this thread you didn't understand what financial hedging is. I believed you. Go on then, did you know what an RTO was? Hint - no chance.

Me exiting stage left? Not when folk like you insist they're Gordon Gecko and, whether with nefarious intent or not, opt to post damaging, fact-less nonsense on public forums, thus endangering the consensus understanding of the facts of the PANR investment case => thus damaging my investments.

It's really quite simple. If you, GS, and folk like you didn't give in to the urge to post drivel on a public investment forum, I wouldn't need to be here correcting your nonsense.

(cont'd from below) (part 3)

“Farallon must be laughing because the shares were issued when price was around the 15.25p to 17p range.” The personnel who manage the PANR holding may very well be laughing but the price at which the shares were allotted was ***solely*** a function of the mkt cap (and thus SP) of PANR at the time of the merger. I refer you back to my answer about RTO rules which was the guiding star around which the merger was shaped. You’re correct to observe the Farallon holding has likely led to a position whereby they’re sitting on a net paper profit of circa $100m at time of writing. But please remember, this would *not* be the case if the flow test at Alkaid had been unsuccessful; or if the data retrieved from Talitha-A (specifically the VAS data from Baker Hughes); or if PANR hadn’t bought out Otto Energy’s 10.8% of Talitha; or if PANR hadn’t secured an additional 80k acres during the January state leases auction. It is the quality of the asset which underpins the increase in SP from 15.25p at the time of the merger to its current level around 70p. And to repeat for the record, had it not been for CHONS’ selling throughout 2021, the PANR SP would, IMO, be a great deal higher than 70p (all else being equal).

GS – you’re welcome to accept or discard the content above as you see fit. It is a shame I feel I have no choice but to dismantle some of factually incorrect statements you make in your various posts. I take no delight in doing so because I truly do have better things to do with my life. My primary motivation is not to make you feel embarrassed, rather it’s to a) ensure your misinformation does not become part of the consensus understanding of the PANR investment case and b) hopefully, one day it will click and rather than making all these damaging posts due to your lack of knowledge/understanding, you will instead pose ***questions*** to those who have already asked those exact same questions months/years earlier or who have a background in small cap, UK, E&P equity analysis and investing. /end

(cont'd from below) (part 2)

Now then, GS, you "assumed all along that the non-voting shares given to GBPO as part of the $49m price tag when we bought them, which were then packaged into CHONS, were the security for Farallon to get their loan back. If I'm wrong I am wrong I hold my hands up. But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way."

Firstly, I contend that you have not assumed this “all along” because, having re-read your posts on the subject, it is abundantly clear you had *no historical knowledge* of the merger agreement of January ’19. However, I acknowledge you have subsequently done a fair amount of background reading. Good stuff. For example, it has taken you weeks to even entertain the notion that Farallon has a charge (or security) over the shares attributed to Great Bear as a result of the merger with PANR. Then there was the kerfuffle about “hedging” and accusations of unethical or even illegal behaviour on the part of Farallon, Great Bear (and I even got a mention at that point too, lol!).

As it turns out, you may actually have *guessed* the attribution of equity to Farallon/GB founders/GB funders correctly. However, that would just be a *guess*. None of us non-parties to the arrangement have uncovered the legal contract binding the various GB parties to the repayment of the debt to Farallon; uncovered the interest rate Farallon charged on the debt; uncovered the timing of the repayments schedule; or uncovered the penalties or conduct permitted if the non-Farallon parties don’t/didn’t meet that repayment schedule, etc, etc. To be clear, the parties within CHONS have no obligation to share the terms of their intra-party contract so please don’t go down another one of your conspiracy theory rabbit holes seeking an explanation, ok?

(cont'd above)

Thu 16:27 (part 1)

GS - "But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way." Goldstinger, please do me the honour of opening your mind to the following answer. Kindly imagine the answer I'm about to give is written by "niceguy101" or some such username.

niceguy101: "Hi Goldstinger. I understand the reason for the somewhat unusual structure of PANR voting/non-voting classes of shares came about in order to provide a legitimate workaround of the RTO rules. Hope that helps?"

OK, GS, now please ask yourself the following? Did you have to look up what the acronym 'RTO' means within the context of corporate finance? Based on your posting history my assessment is that you did indeed have to do so, correct? It is for this reason that whilst I recognise your investment dollars or pounds are as green as everyone else's (including mine), I reject utterly the contention that everyone's opinion is equal.

I have no idea what your profession was, GS, but let's just say for the purposes of this exchange that you were a dentist. I am not a dentist, in fact I never have been a dentist! Let's say we are both sitting at a table in a pub and are joined by a third person. This third person is clearly in a great deal of pain, clutching their jaw in their hands, tears forming in their eyes as they explain the source of the pain and answer some of your (qualified dentist, remember?) questions. Being a dentist, you caveat your words but still convey your diagnosis and even have a brief stab at describing the likely prognosis, "all subject to you examining the third person's mouth back in your surgery, etc, etc". I'm sitting at the table and feel a bit left out when the other two are discussing the dental pain of the third person. Instead of recognising the formal training of the dentist and his >25 year career, I tell myself “I'm a clever guy, reasonably well-educated, I've got something constructive to add to the conversation too”. I then interject and proceed to inform the third person of my opinion based solely on my own personal history of dental treatment.

In the (intentionally patronising) parable above, the dentist isn't *guaranteed* to have assessed correctly the diagnosis, but he's *far more likely* to have made an accurate and informed diagnosis of the problem than I have. Equally, the venue was a table at a pub so I was as entitled to speak out loud as any other person present in the pub at that time. Just have a think about your recent conduct on here, GS. No need to reply, just think on it for a moment.

(cont'd above)