Member Info for Scot126

Sat 23:11
Reaper007
Ah, the delicious irony of your lengthy copy’n’paste job on the subject deramping. I’ll let that thought percolate for a few seconds……… :)

Anyhoo, to address the content directly. Despite the whinging and plaintive whimpering from some of the prolific 88E posters, surely by now the vast, vast majority of readers will have realised I am not your bog standard "deramper". Boileroom derampers based in Thailand/Russia/Nigeria do not generally possess >25 years’ experience in investment banking/equity markets. For the record, I am not a "deramper". I am a fundamental investor. No more, no less.

I think it’s a brilliant idea to have someone like flexmw (or another volunteer?) write to the Chairman posing a number of questions. Call it a “DD package” if you like, Reaper007, no worries. flexmw should feel free to place my flow test question inside inverted commas and to include it in his list of questions. I would be delighted to see flexmw then post the reply he receives within inverted commas to indicate he is passing on the exact wording of the reply from the Chairman. Brilliant idea, Reaper007!

The process you describe doesn’t permit me to interfere in the slightest thus I cannot be accused of “taking charge of the bulletin board”. Whatever answer from the 88E BoD is received by flexmw can then form the basis of this DD package referred to in your copied post. I’m fully supportive of this very practical suggestion, Reaper007, great stuff. Now then, are you going to volunteer for the task or is flexmw happy to collate and communicate the questions users of this thread would like answered? Look forward to your response.

Sat 22:00
WY5IWYG – Thanks for another “ostrich” response, a perfect example of the species. I’m not here to do myself or anyone else any favours, WY5IWYG. I’m interested in the facts of the 88E investment case, the market’s understanding of that investment case, the valuations of assets and maths. That’s it. This personal ****ging match that goes on matters not a jot to me. What you think of me isn’t worth a millionth of a penny on the 88E SP. What *does* matter are the facts of the investment case and I can assure you my questions are *perfectly standard* and *perfectly legitimate* when viewed from that angle.

(cont'd from below

- HRZ. As I’ve written in the past, this enduring loyalty to Paul B and his thesis is touching and commendable. However I contend that it is not realistic in the slightest. Firstly, it appears the HRZ sweet spot is located in the NN’s acreage. Secondly, in order for the HRZ to be exploited commercially you are quite right that there would need to be a sustained long term expectation that oil was selling at well north of $100 per barrel. We might very well get there in the upcoming green transition supercycle but we’re not there yet. In addition, for the HRZ to become an efficient proposition, it is highly, highly likely there will need to be an element of shared infrastructure on the surface with local conventional projects. 88E shareholders ought to be amongst the best informed investors when guesstimating how close they are to that eventuality. Imminent HRZ exploitation? No chance.

- Other acquisitions. You’re kidding aren’t you? With what? You're just continuing to pull the wool over other readers’ eyes. Gibberish. /end

11:12
Ddraig – I will take no lessons on courtesy or manners from you. It was only a few weeks ago you encouraged a poster with whom you disagreed to go search for a rope with which to commit suicide. You repulse me and I am appalled the regular contributors to this thread continue to indulge you.

Moving on to the contents of your post timed at 11:12 today.

- Yep, I recognise the natural increase in attention Alaskan E&Ps receive in the run up to the drilling season.

- Merlin 2 (FO or alone). Yes, that’s undoubtedly good news for shareholders to anticipate for the upcoming winter season. More worryingly, shareholders *cannot anticipate* a flow test on Merlin 2 ***even if the logs would support such an activity***!!! How is management going to add value to their shareholders’ investments if they have no plan/budget/capacity to move up the value curve by flow testing what all shareholders will be hoping is a successful well? Who is going to answer this question if not 88E’s BoD and management? Helloooooo???? Anyone out there????

- Harrier 1. Really? Are you being serious here? Where has management confirmed this operation for winter 21/22?

- Umiat (not Uniat). How about stopping the misinformation nonsense and state the truth which is “Umiat - definitely not being drilled this coming season”?

- Charlie 2 FO/commercialisation plans. FO plans, good luck, genuinely offered. That said, as 88E does not possess all the 3D seismic data and the NN has not shared their data with 88E (that I’m aware of, happy to be corrected?) then why would a potential FO partner not wait for the Talitha-A flow test results *and* the results from the well at the crest of Theta West before moving forward with any FO plans on Icewine? It’s not impossible, but it surely cannot be described as anything other than a very, very long shot for this coming winter season 21/22.

- Central lease re-evaluation. Ok.

- Yukon consolidation. 88E does not currently possess the resources to progress the Yukon project further. The location of the acreage means that 88E is *entirely* beholden to the decisions and activities of their neighbours to the west. These wider plans to the east of Prudhoe Bay require huge sums to be invested. I’m not saying this will never happen but that there are currently no concrete signs of forward progress. Therefore 88E shareholders ought not hold their breath?

(to be cont'd above)

22:00
Good evening WY5IWYG - hope you can read this? Thanks for your illuminating "ostrich" response. I have no means of confirming whether or not you're correct about the filter option or not. Regardless, what *remains* logical, whether my posts are filtered or not, is that the questions are pertinent, they are standard for the industry, and they are legitimately applicable to the understanding of the 88E investment case as promulgated on this bulletin board and elsewhere.

Reaper007 - I'm not a deramperr/ramper/paid for responses, blah, blah, blah. I am a full time fundamental investor who is trying to receive an answer to questions to which I do not know the answers. This is a fact no matter how often you, or anyone else, seeks to disparage my posts.

Blackadder2708 works for an E&P company. He told us this. Do you believe him? I see no reason not to believe him. He's happy to attack other posters but elects not to answer a direct question. How come? Cat got his tongue? Or by providing the answer his experience in the sector would support, he risks undermining further the faith of the readers of this bulletin board in the 88E investment case?

To be crystal clear, what people choose to do with their investment dollars or pounds is none of my business. I am interested only in the facts of the 88E investment case, the market's understanding of those facts, the valuation of 88E and maths. Hmmmm, most odd that there's so much anger and resistance to this legitimate endeavour.

22:29
rfarfa - I'd be surprised if you did as much research as I do when investing, but who knows? Regardless, I've been aware for years of the multiple plans to transport Alaskan gas to market, and the interim measure you describe. The fact that those plans have *themselves* been kicked around more far more years than 88E has been active in Alaska ought to be more than enough to support the contention that 88E's gas is currently worth $Nil.

There is a very good reason I included the phrase "fully costed" in my post. I'll repeat my offer to revalue 88E's gas when such a policy or proposal is *fully funded*. Until then, and no matter how frequently you post in order to sow more disinformation seeds, 88E's gas is valued at $Nil by analysts. And rightly so.

10:34

All utterly fascinating, rfarfa, and I wish all the hydrogen-related solutions to climate change every conceivable success. However I continue to insist the value of any gas on 88E's acreage is $Nil. Point me to a fully-costed policy to construct a gas pipeline or an all weather ANS port by either *state* political party or one of the nominees for state governor and I *promise* to give it more thought. Until then, 88E's gas is worth zero, zilch, nada, nil. Fact.

(cont'd from below, final part of post started at 19:51 on 2/10/21)

I note Brom has attempted to deflect readers of this thread by quoting the ASIC rules, post dated 1/10/21 @15:01. Somewhat spookily, Brom omits to mention that under Rule 26 of AIM, 88E is *obliged* to update shareholders on that information “within 6 months”, so by 22/11/21 in this case. Thankfully flexmw has secured a written commitment by management to publish this information “in a couple of days time”: “The share register will be updated along with the website quarterly, next update due 30/09/2021.”

Think what you like of me, it matters not a jot. What matters are the facts of the 88E investment case. And there are active posters on this thread who do not wish 88E shareholders to be informed of the *facts* of that investment case? Don’t believe me? Ask Brom/jefhobbit/blackadder2708 the exact same questions yourselves! Bet you’ll hear crickets…………..prove me wrong? /end

(cont'd from below)

Let me repeat my *opinion* for Brom’s silence, and that of jofhobbit, Reaper007, rfarfa, Ddraig, Blackadder2708 et al. A couple of them don’t know the answer to either of the two questions posed. Fine, but to admit this would weaken their perceived credibility on this bulletin board. To those posters I say, who gives a d@mn? It’s an anonymous bulletin board, what digital ignominy could be worse than to lose your investment pounds? To those like Brom, those who know the answer(s) fine well, I say this. Shame on you. You’re scared witless of answering the questions because it will illuminate that a *massive* amount of the value imputed to 88E by the market currently (approx. £200m) is no more than an uninformed, speculative bubble of social media hype emanating chiefly from US OTC punters. I challenge them to deny it?

These prolific posters are taking the mick. They are relying on the loyalty of the readers of this bulletin board and others (having encouraged that loyalty over many years), so they can trade the peaks and troughs of the SP. I’m calling time on their ability to make, *unchallenged*, posts laden with misinformation and deflection.

I applaud the efforts of flexmw who got off his behind to contact the company. Unlike too many others, he has recognised management works for the shareholders of a company, that they have a fiduciary duty and are therefore accountable to those shareholders. Let me remind you of flexmw’s recent post, dated 28/9/21 @ 11.04am:

“Just for a little info, after emailing A.Gilbert directly regards the share register & website update, along with a couple of other questions, I today received a reply from the CFO, totally different style of response from the previous MD which was bullet point answers, this new guy (D.Wann) has taken time to answer my questions & back it up with info. The share register will be updated along with the website quarterly, next update due 30/09/2021 .. so we will see in a couple of days time…”

Turns out we *didn’t* “see in a couple of days time”, did we? It’s for shareholders like flexmw to ensure management follows through with their express commitments to provide shareholders and the market with pertinent factual information like the updated capital structure…and also why management has made no plan to flow test Merlin-2 this winter season if the logs support that activity.

(cont'd above)

I note with great interest and appreciation the various glowing testimonials for Brombarb posted on this bulletin board. There’s no doubting his prodigious work rate, his in-depth research skills, his access to management (which, please recall, he’s always found are excellent at replying to shareholders’ questions) and his intelligence.

I do note, however, the absence of a few details from these inspiring testimonials. No mention that Brombard admitted *on this very bulletin board* he trades the peaks and troughs of the 88E SP. No disappointment expressed about Brom’s unattractive volte face in the discourteous manner he now treats olderwiser, a fellow long term commentator on 88E and, objectively, someone who is more prepared and/or capable (?) than Brom at getting into the weeds of 88E’s fundamentals, ie. the geological model and the financial model.

Still, there’s always the eye-watering number of posts published by Brom to support the warm words contained within the various testimonials. Great stuff!

Which makes it all the more curious that the bulletin board’s most prolific contributor, the board’s hardest working and diligent contributor, the poster with a self-evident open communication channel to management, refuses to engage on a couple of key questions posed to him directly? Why has 88E management committed to drill Merlin-2 this coming winter season and, *even if the logs support it*, not committed or budgeted to flow test the well?

Also, why has there been no attempt by Brom to answer standard questions concerning a listed stock with a portfolio of tangible assets? No recognition of the question or its legitimacy, just complete silence. The question posed? Kindly provide the thread with the percentage value of the whole ascribed to each of the three 88E project locations? For a listed company with tangible assets, I can hardly think of a more standard question to be posed?

It’s human nature to behave like an ostrich when confronted with uncomfortable news or when challenges are made to an accepted understanding that underpins our belief in someone or something. *Whatever* any reader thinks of the questions posed by the likes of Rabito79, cbaron, olderwiser and me, the silence and refusal to engage on these matters is incredibly disturbing. No ifs, no buts. For a poster with Brom’s output, intelligence and instant access to management it is downright alarming and shareholders should be hearing klaxons of warning as they witness this situation unfolding.

....cont'd above

Dear All - please find below a) the link to YouTube where the Proactive Investors channel published an interview with Jay Cheatham (CEO of PANR) just before lunch time today and.......

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVfYO1DdQD4&t=183s

b) a link to an excellent and fascinating article by Conor Maguire (@ValueSituations on Twitter) which has a well-observed macro element as well as providing his view on the PANR investment case.

hTTps://valuesits.substack.com/p/the-real-asset-ownership-complex

Any questions, I'm sure folk will be happy to assist. FWIW, my personal view is that the PANR thread on Alpha Delta Victor Foxtrot November is the best source of info for UK investor looking for info or PANR.

17:26
Hi Crude Trader - yep, the TR-1 confirms they've sold approx 5.85m shares from 15/9/21 until 24/9/21. Perhaps have a read of cbaron's post today timed at 10:41 which explains concisely the motivation behind Farallon's selling since January this year. I'm happy to confirm the veracity of his description because, together with two others, we tried (unsuccessfully) to buy a significant chunk directly from Farallon earlier in the year.

If you wish a further potted history: Farallon bought Great Bear's debt from BofAM in 2015 when all parties understood the debt was supported by a State of Alaska exploration rebate scheme. All was fine until the Governor of Alaska issued an appalling moratorium which effectively saw the State cease the scheme repayments to lots of exploration companies in Alaska. Farallon kept GB solvent until the merger with PANR in January '19 at which point Farallon swapped debt for equity, handed over the unencumbered leases to PANR and received $5m in cash and +40% or so of the shares in the combined entity. Within that c.40% of the shares in the combined entity sits an agreement between Farallon and the original GB shareholders which allows Farallon to sell the GB allotment of PANR shares if GB cannot come up with the cash to replay the original loan by the contracted dates. We understand the GB founders'n'funders have not been able to repay the $35-40m debt in cash and thus we have witnessed the fairly steady but disciplined sale of CHONS' PANR shares (the investment vehicle which holds the Farallon and GB shares in PANR) after the lock in period expired in January this year.

NB NB NB PANR has zero debt on its balance sheet. The debt referred to above is an intra-party debt within CHONS only. PANR has zero debt.

Dear All - please find below a) the link to YouTube where the Proactive Investors channel published an interview with Jay Cheatham (CEO of PANR) just before lunch time today and.......

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVfYO1DdQD4&t=183s

b) a link to an excellent and fascinating article by Conor Maguire (@ValueSituations on Twitter) which has a well-observed macro element as well as providing his view on the PANR investment case.

Any questions, I'm sure folk will be happy to assist. FWIW, my personal view is that the PANR thread on Alpha Delta Victor Foxtrot November is the best source of info for UK investor looking for info or PANR.

18:31
GS - I roundly disagree with your explanation for today's rise. I offer as an alternative explanation a) the publication of Conor Maguire's excellent article published on substack yesterday and b) Jay's interview by Proactive Investors published today on YouTube, minutes after which the stock moved up smartly from 66p. I may have been at least partly responsible for the buying in the minutes after the interview was published......because I noted I was only the 7th or 8th person to start watching it!

The TR-1 was received after the market shut this afternoon. In addition there is absolutely no consensus across any of the shareholder forums about Farallon having a set percentage at which all selling activity automatically stops. Mathematically I have not yet seen sufficient proof for this contention and I note many posters have pointed out these supposed percentage thresholds v's absolute number of ordinary voting shares in issue v's the intra-party debt are still far too opaque to make an accurate prediction with any confidence.

For any newcomers, I'll repost the substack article and will provide a link to the CEO's interview of today.

Proactive interview with Jay Cheatham just posted on YouTube.

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVfYO1DdQD4

"Farm out negotiations are under way and some of them are quite far advanced, I must say."

"Dual listing in North America after winter drilling programme"

Well, well, well.... :)

Whatever you say, FORD707, whatever you say.

Oh, and by the way, you *do* still need to re-read the valuation section again. You especially need to look up what "risk-adjusted NAV" means. Pretend someone other than scot126 helpfully pointed this out to you, adopt an open mind to the suggestion and the fog will clear, I promise.

Plus, it's not "fictitious", it's a model based on the probability of assessed risk.

You're welcome.

FORD707 - suspect you need to read the Thesis & Valuation section another time?

Thanks, andmillsy, for bringing this to the thread's attention.

I encourage all PANR shareholders and those considering investing in PANR to read the article by "Value Situations" on substack entitled "The Real Asset Ownership Complex". The macro commentary is well-observed and compelling. The author's research and summary of the PANR investment case is excellent. Good stuff.

PS Worth noting the US OTC quote saw decent volume traded today (c.1.5m at time of writing) and that the price was at or close to recent highs in this session.

Blackadder2708,

I recall a to and fro with Rabito79 when you stated you worked for an exploration company. Is that correct? If so, I wonder if you could answer the following question please? And before anyone jumps on me, I actively *want* to understand from someone who says he works for an E&P company why no flow test is being planned for Merlin-2?

Other than a) lack of funds or b) lack of available equipment/personnel, what other reason would you suggest for an Alaskan E&P company to drill a *seasonally-dependent* appraisal well but to make no plans whatsoever to flow test that well? Would you agree the standard operating procedure for an Alaskan exploration company would be to immediately flow test the well if data from the logs supported that activity?

Some have accused me of asking trick questions. I do *not* know the answer so the question is 100% sincere and 100% genuine.

All of 88E's acreage is located on seasonally-dependent parts of Alaska (for operational purposes) so is it the case that even if logs supported conducting a flow test, it will be another 11-12 months before shareholders will see the well flow-tested? Is it not a rather questionable use of shareholders' funds if it'll require a whole new access road to be built (whether snow road or ice road) in winter season 22/23 v's making use of the road to be built this coming 21/22 season? I don't get it.

GS - unless new facts arise which I am not aware of at time of writing, no. I believe at c.£200m, 88E is overvalued in absolute terms. I assess 88E is also vastly over-valued v's its immediate peer and northern neighbour. I think that whatever statistical method is applied, a Chance of (complete) Failure at Merlin-2 of 43% is waaaayyyyyy too high for an E&P appraisal well in Alaska.

Many thanks to Turnstone for his comments. My method was the one I felt offered the best fit with the variables as I understand them to be. I "get" folk aren't comfortable with all the conclusions and they're possibly right to be. However, what is hopefully now crystal clear is that there is a 43% chance that *not one of the three horizons at Merlin-2 will meet the threshold of geological success*. For those not placing their fingers in their ears and who understand it's not about the SP it's about the mkt cap (*always, OTC punters!), then I hope you're all ware that the northern neighbour's 1.9bn barrels of contingent resource has been assessed as meeting the threshold for geological success, ie. 100% CoS for Basin Floor Fan, SMD-B and Alkaid.

So that's NN: 1.9bn contingent x 100% geological CoS x commercial CoS (assessed as "60% to 70%" by BoD) and there's
88E: 600mmbo recoverable resource x 57% geological CoS x 60% commercial CoS...........and no-one else thinks that 88E isn't hugely over-valued in absolute terms and v's its immediate peer? Can you not see now why establishing the value of the shared asset at Icewine is so crucial to 88E shareholders and NN shareholders bot

Hi Turnstone - understand.

Are the reservoirs distinct geologically? Yes. However, does the 2D seismic mean that whatever volume is calculated (for forecast purposes alone) in the 2U column is liable to downward revision even if there is success in either/both of the other horizons? Does achieving a "success" in one reservoir not mean that the volume targeted for the other one or two horizons has to decrease? I was attempting to take that into account and saw that method as the best fit? Perhaps it was too simplistic a method? Or wrongly applied if the downward volume revisions are not quantified?

Hmmmm, let me ask you a more clear cut question, if I may? Is the statistical probability of *all three* targeted horizons at Merlin-2 failing circa 44%? No matter which method is used, the probability or yield method, that answer remains 44%. correct? Again, happy to be corrected.

16:34 & 15:13 & 14:25 & 14:05 & 13:46 & 12:21 & 06:46

CoS metrics.

We know Merlin-2 is targeting three horizons: N20, N19 and N18. The company has guided to geological CoS of 24%, 19% and 28% (for each horizon) respectively. I suspect many shareholders have trouble working with the statistics behind the guidance (I know I did when I first started analysing E&P stocks way back when!) so I thought this might help folk if I laid it out more simply. Happy to be corrected.

(a) The CoS of *all three* reservoirs attaining the geological success threshold is 1.3% (0.24x0.19x0.28)

(b) The CoS of N20 & N19 reservoirs attaining the geological success threshold is 3.3% (0.24x0.19x0.72)

(c) The CoS of N20 and N18 reservoirs attaining the geological success threshold is 5.4% (0.24x0.81x0.28)

(d) The CoS of N19 and N18 reservoirs attaining the geological success threshold is 4% (0.19x0.28x0.76)

(e) The CoS of N20 alone attaining the geological success threshold is 14% (0.24x0.81x0.72)

(f) The CoS of N19 alone attaining the geological success threshold is 10.4% (0.19x0.76x0.72)

(g) The CoS of N18 alone attaining the geological success threshold is 17.2% (0.28x0.81x0.76)

(h) The Chance of Failure, ie. where *all three* reservoirs do not attain the geological success threshold is 44.3% (0.76x0.81x0.72)

Points (a) – (h) list *all* the possible outcomes (presuming a definitive decision is reached on each horizon of course).
Then head to page 18 of the 88E presentation slide deck dated 15/8/21. Look for the column “unrisked net entitlement to 88E prospective oil resources (MMstb) 2U” and you’ll find the best guidance (the unrisked figure which the *company* considers has the highest probability of being correct) on the volume of oil attributed to each horizon at Merlin-2. That is N20 = 254mmbo, N19 = 223mmbo and N18 = 252mmbo.

If we overlay those volumes on the percentage CoS in each of the scenarios (a) to (h) above, we arrive at the following figures:

(a) Chance of confirming 729mmbo meets geological success threshold is 4%

(b) Chance of confirming 477mmbo meets geological success threshold is 3.3%

(c) Chance of confirming 506mmbo meets geological success threshold is 5.4%

(d) Chance of confirming 475mmbo meets geological success threshold is 4%

(e) Chance of confirming 254mmbo meets geological success threshold is 14%

(f) Chance of confirming 223mmbo meets geological success threshold is 10.4%

(g) Chance of confirming 252mmbo meets geological success threshold is 17.2%

(h) Chance of confirming 0mmbo meets geological success threshold is 44.3%

Something to ponder?

*and that’s before we examine the 729mmbo figure for all three reservoirs succeeding because these is some uncertainty when it comes to the success of x horizon subtracting from the volume(s) applicable in y or z horizons.