Member Info for Scot126

11.11
Hi Ecuagold - I understand the general point you're making, of course I do, and recognise this widely held view. However, and for the record, I genuinely believe 88E has an asset value, just nowhere near £200m currently.

It's for shareholders to justify the current mkt cap. Not the company, not me, not you.....it's the shareholders' task to do that. The fact that even the most prolific, aggressive and intimidatory posters have gone completely silent on that task should be a gigantic warning sign that there's a whole load of pure speculation wrapped up in the current mkt cap. Furthermore, we all know where the majority of that speculative money came from and that's retail punters on the US OTC market. If folk in the UK and Oz cannot admit that to themselves then they're little more than punters too.

10:49
C'mon DavidWK - that's just silly talk, complete gibberish. Best head off to Twitter or Stockeejits where you'll be greeted as the Messiah if you post a similar comment over there!

Tue 23:45
Hi Reaper007 - most respectfully, point 1) of your post is a bit of a cop out, isn't it? Taken to its natural conclusion, E&P companies should just tell the market they own x, y and z leases and not bother giving any other information, commentary or guidance because 'what would be the point, it would "all be a vacuous exercise and waste of time?"'

Also, Reaper007, a SP *always* gives a sensible indication of mkt cap because it's one of the two figures required which, when multiplied together, arrives at the mkt cap.

Anyhoo, let's just say the mkt cap is £100 because all I'm requesting from the prolific, obfuscating posters is a ***percentage*** by value they ascribe to each project location by asset grouping in order to undertake a *comparative* analysis on the *shared* asset. NB. both companies have confirmed the presence of a shared asset so comparative analysis is a fully justified endeavour.

An example of the structure of an answer would be: Yukon 15%, Icewine 35%, Umiat/Peregrine 50%. Couldn't be simpler, Reaper007. And yet.....and yet these prolific posters who would have readers believe they are incredibly well-informed about all matters 88E, cannot or will not answer the question.

Why will they not answer? Either because they don't know how to arrive at an answer (in which case they're nothing more than anonymous loud voices on a bulletin board and ought not be listened to) or they *do* have a financial model and are scared rigid to post the answer because it would amount to a painful admission on their parts. Any mathematical answer would be a confession they were lying to the readers of this thread in order to take advantage of them financially. Shameful conduct, isn't it Reaper007?

PS please ignore post below, incredibly fat fingers.

Hi reaper007 - most respectfully

Looks like Conoco will have to search behind the sofa cushions for a few more pennies if it is to bid for 88E @ $10 per share this year?! And yes, I have seen members of the 88E cult (OTC Twitter branch) suggest with complete seriousness take out prices of $1 - $10 per 88E share. Haven't we all?!

Does anyone on this bulletin board seriously believe Conoco would even consider looking at 88E, even if it was to prove contingent resources at Peregrine, prior to Willow achieving first commercial production? Willow is years of infrastructure construction and >$4bn of investment away from first production....after the legal process is resolved of course.

https://www.reuters.com/business/shell-nears-deal-sell-texas-shale-assets-conocophillips-95-bln-wsj-2021-09-20/

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/conocophillips-buy-shell-permian-assets-205936392.html

17:29
Not quite, jefhobbit. I have accused him of obfuscation at best and manipulation at worst of those investors who do not possess the experience and expertise that he does.

And c'mon, let's get real here. I have posted the questions a bunch of times. I posted and directed them to individually-named posters and sometimes to a group of prolific posters. Being one of those prolific posters, jefhobbit, you've also been asked those *exact same* "standard, reasonable, polite and courteous" questions. I am perfectly entitled to conclude deliberate evasion and guilt when not one reply has arrived to address my point from the prolific posters, one of whom has posted on this bulletin board >25k times for goodness sake!!! Are you kidding me?????

Instead of engaging with me, not one of the prolific posters has replied except you. Even then, you attempted to deflect me by saying you didn't have the NAV guidance when that's not what I asked. You must think this is my first rodeo, jefhobbit? You are making a profound error if you think that. My first job in the equity markets was in 1994 and although I'm older and fatter, I'm still going strong.

My attempt to arrive at a valuation via comparative analysis is a perfectly reasonable and righteous pursuit. My continuing presence on this thread may bug you but it doesn't make the content I post any less factual, any less honest or any less confronting, especially for those who have taken advantage of their fellow man in order to profit from the peaks and troughs of the SP whilst supporting the insane narrative that the mkt cap at £200m is supported by the fundamentals.

I can state quite categorically, using *historically accepted E&P equity valuation methods* and the *information currently and publicly available*, 88E's mkt cap of c.£200m cannot be justified on the fundamentals alone. The major (only?) reason the SP is anywhere approaching the current level is due to the initial frenzy associated with the US OTC retail market, a frenzy which is being maintained by a number of social media influencers/commentators who are spreading downright lies and misinformation. Fact.

Go on, jefhobbit......tell me I'm wrong? Oh, and feel free to back up anything you say by posting your valuation model for 88E.

13:42
Thanks Brom, that's all really interesting. Something else that's really interesting is your continuing evasion of my perfectly standard, polite and courteous questions directed to you. To remind you and everyone else:

1) What percentage of the current 88E mkt cap do you ascribe to each of the three main project locations, being Umiat/Peregrine, Yukon and Icewine?

2) Why does 88E management appear to have no plan to flow test Merlin-2 even if data from the logs would ordinarily support further data collection immediately via a flow test and particularly when the site is accessible to personnel and equipment? Do you agree this is a rather odd situation and goes against the SOP for E&P operations in Alaska? Further, why has a flow test not been planned, even if only provisionally? Does the company not have the required funds? Are the funds raised recently pre-committed elsewhere? What's going on here?

I look forward to your responses to the above questions, Brom.

However, judging by recent history, neither the thread nor I will receive the courtesy of a reply. Therefore, I contend that you are quite deliberately communicating to the readers of this thread, using >25k posts for goodness sake, a message which at best can be described as obfuscation and at worst, manipulation. All the while you are encouraging a tribal loyalty to the company you are relying on that same loyalty to ensure you are able to trade the SP peaks and troughs to your personal benefit. Look above, below and between the lines, eh? Shameful behaviour, truly shameful.

All other readers, don't believe me? No worries, just look through his posting history because on at least one occasion (perhaps he was feeling guilty on that day?) he admitted to doing exactly as I describe above. Brom has the background knowledge, the intelligence and the experience to have calculated the 88E SP at £200m is running waaaayyyyy ahead of the fundamentals due almost entirely to the social media frenzy coming from the US OTC market and social media. Tell me I'm wrong, Brom?

11:35
Nope, jefhobbit, and nor do I have an interest in any of the LLCs or Limited Companies listed. You're massively barking up the wrong tree here, jefhobbit, because I really am just a vanilla PANR shareholder, albeit one who has the necessary professional experience to do a comparative analysis and to confirm valuations are waaaaayyyyyy out of kilter between PANR and its southern neighbour. And you know it, jefhobbit, you absolutely know it and it's eating you up.

I have tremendous sympathy for the founders and funders of Great Bear as I do for all the other Alaskan E&P companies who were treated disgracefully by the SoA when the Governor announced a moratorium on repayments due under the exploration tax credit scheme. My sympathy extends to companies, such as 88E, who also suffered as a result of the State's appalling decision.

Something has just occurred to me. Jefhobbit - is your personal animosity towards Ed Duncan because you also lost money from backing GB early on? Or did he just steal your girl when you were teenagers? Either which way, would it not be wise to let go of your antipathy so that your financial interests are not affected negatively? Sounds like it may be colouring your judgement and conduct?

Meanwhile, back to the fundamentals and questions you keep on evading. It's really you who is the "low life", isn't it, jefhobbit. For weeks you've refused to answer my reasonable and polite query concerning the percentage of the southern neighbour's mkt cap you ascribe to each of the three main project locations, being Umiat/Peregrine, Yukon and Icewine. Also, not a peep from you about the odd information emanating from the southern neighbour which appears to suggest there are no plans to flow test Merlin-2 in the event that the data from the logs suggests it would be recommended ordinarily. What possible reason is there for such a departure from the Alaskan E&P SOP? How else is 88E to add value for its shareholders at Merlin-2 if they don't have a plan to flow test the well? Do they not have sufficient funds? Are funds pre-committed elsewhere? It's all most odd indeed, isn't it jefhobbit? All the while, you rely on that blind loyalty from the shareholders of PANR's southern neighbour so that you can trade the peaks and troughs as you've admitted. You truly are a low life, jefhobbit. Shame on you.

10:51
What on earth are you going on about, jefhobbit???? I am a PANR shareholder and have no interest whatsoever in Great Bear or Farallon. Why on earth would I be happy with the selling from CHONS if it could be avoided???? That's just complete gibberish.

I feel sorry for the GB founders and funders because the decision by the SoA to default on the exploration tax credit scheme has had an awful effect on their financial investment just as the fundamentals of the assets are being unveiled and proved up.

How you turn that into some half-witted conspiracy theory is beyond me??? Oh, and "my" group are all City guys on the sellside and none of them have any interests in GB whatsoever. I am a PANR shareholder - fact. That is the full extent of my exposure to PANR, GB, Riverstone, Farallon, SoA, BoAM or anyone else involved in Alaska O&G.

Oh, and by the way......"your" is possessive and "you're" is a contraction of "you are". Hope that helps.

Sun 23:53
To GS and the person who recommended his post. I know one of the GB founders reasonably well and have met some of the GB funders in person.

To all other readers of this bulletin board. The historical description of the relationship between Farallon, the GB founders and funders and the State of Alaska exploration tax credit rebate scheme is accurate and matters of recorded fact. The SoA defaulted on the tax rebate scheme in late 2015. Don't believe me? Google it. The total amount owed to O&G exploration companies under the scheme was circa $750m at its peak,

By the time of the merger with PANR, it is thought that the GB founders and funders debt to Farallon was in the range of $30m- $40m. Farallon swapped debt for equity at the time of the merger so PANR had and continues to have zero debt on the balance sheet. Farallon maintained a charge over the PANR equity allotted to the GB founders and funders and it is from that tranche of stock which has been sold by CHONS throughout 2021. Again, don't believe me? Then read the merger documents and follow the course of the conversion of non-voting shares to voting shares and their subsequent sale.

GS is plain wrong on this matter. He's clearly angry about something and is either unwilling or incapable of fact-checkimg me. What shareholders decide to do with their shares is their business but please do not place any reliance whatsoever on GS's posts of yesterday when considering your investment.

05:36
Hi Adz_K - your warning is noted! Listen, I'm no trader, I'm a fundamental investor. It's also none of my business what you choose to do with your investment pounds or dollars.

You'll have worked out by now that *on the fundamentals alone*, applying *traditionally-accepted equity market valuation methodologies* and *using the information currently available*, the northern neighbour is miles and miles and miles ahead of 88E in scale, data collection, proof of concept and pretty much all other metrics, save for funding for the upcoming winter's proposed operations. If you choose to trade on expected newsflow and timing of same, that's your call. Personally, that's not my thing but good luck, whatever you decide to do.



Historically it's a peak around April may time is it not? March? There is no news now so it's going to lower with people losing interest. Do you not think. Only reason I ask or say is pantheon is still waiting news was thinking to take 50% out of 88e load up on panr and sell the news and buy back into 88e. I'm new to this so go easy on me fellas. ?? Scott you have been warned. Lol ??

(continued from below)
4) Don't worry about Goldstinger and his befuddled reply. The TR-1s are neither 'drivel' nor do they contain legal 'lying'. GS felt chastened and his ego was bruised as I tried, and patently failed, to explain the dynamics within CHONS to him. Instead of thanking me for taking the trouble to attempt to explain it to him, and perhaps opting to admit he had more questions as he still didn't fully comprehend what was going on he opted to show that his feels were hurt and posted some abusive content instead. Of course, it's your call if you choose to read his posts.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do with your investments.

Sat 11:43
Hi Greed4p,

1) the reason you see these TR-1 notifications after Farallon (via the CHONS holding vehicle) has sold circa 1% is that the Rules require a large shareholder to advise the company (and thus the market) every time their holding either falls through a whole number percentage figure, or rises upwards through a whole number percentage (providing the shareholder in question owns >3% of the ordinary shares on issue). In the latest example, Farallon advised the company they'd sold shares such that they moved through the whole number of 19% and finished at close of play on that date at 18.83%. In summary, that's all perfectly normal and Farallon are actually pretty disciplined at getting their paperwork in on good time.

2) Your concern about Farallon selling. After the merger between Great Bear and PANR in January '19 Farallon, via the CHONS holding vehicle, were not permitted to sell stock until a lock in period of two years had expired. They've been selling shares throughout 2021 in a fairly steady and disciplined manner, although lacking somewhat in finesse.

But why is the largest shareholder selling? Since the State of Alaska defaulted on its exploration tax credit repayment obligations in late 2015, Farallon provided the cash required to keep Great Bear solvent. At the time of the PANR/GB merger, Farallon swapped its debt (secured on the GB leases) for equity in the listed, post-merger PANR. (NB PANR has zero debt on its balance sheet) The GB founders/funders and Farallon were allotted shares in PANR as part of the merger and they're held by a vehicle called CHONS. Within CHONS exist contractual agreements by the GB founders/funders to repay their debt to Farallon in cash by a certain date(s). If they are unable to repay that debt in cash, Farallon holds a charge over the GB founders/funders PANR shares. Sadly for the GB founders, they have not been able to repay the debt owed to Farallon within the required timeframe. Accordingly, Farallon has exercised its right to sell the shares originally allotted to the GB founders in lieu of the cash repayment.

3) Of course I can understand why this can be viewed with concern by newcomers to the PANR investment case. "Does the largest shareholder not know exactly what's going on under the bonnet? If the largest shareholder still wants to sell stock despite the vast majority of market analysts/commentators waxing lyrical about the progress made by PANR in 2021 then what does this say?" I get it. The thing is, the Farallon selling of 2021 is, sadly for the GB founders and funders, an inevitable consequence of events which occurred in 2015 and 2016 when the State of Alaska and its voters behaved atrociously, IMHO, opting to maintain the Residents' Annual Dividend which in turn led to the State defaulting on its exploration credit repayments.

15:16

Hi Adz-K,

Where you choose to invest your money is no concern of mine. However, and to address your question directly, it does appear to be a logical view that the permission to drill, and subsequently to produce, on Federal Land is going to be far more onerous, costly and uncertain than will be the case on Alaskan State land. As proof of this contention, the vast majority of Alaskan residents support continued O&G exploitation and show no sign whatsoever of voting for national representatives (2 Senators and 1 House member) or state governors who do not share that majority view. With the Dems in charge of the White House, Senate and House at present, it is difficult to envision the approach from the Feds changing in a hurry. You'll perhaps have noted the recent political and legal manoeuvring around Conoco's Willow project? Would commercial production at Umiat/Peregrine be any easier? Any objective analysis would suggest not.

Speaking of Umiat/Peregrine: just ensuring you are aware oil was first discovered at Umiat in the 1940s? There is a very good reason why Umiat has not produced 1 barrel of commercial oil in 70 years. Unfortunately Umiat (and Peregrine) are incredibly isolated and far away from the infrastructure required to export the oil to market. Should 88E prove that commercial oil does indeed exist at Peregrine, it will then likely rely on "piggy-backing" the infrastructure required to be installed at Willow. Even in that case, it will be the owner of Umiat/Peregrine who will be responsible for the funding of the pipeline connecting Umiat to Peregrine and from Peregrine northwards to Willow. Thereafter, a toll per barrel would have to be negotiated and paid to the owners of the pipeline connecting Willow to Deadhorse.

Looking realistically, there would be no point in the owner of Umiat/Peregrine (post geological proof of commercial oil) beginning construction of the infrastructure described above until Willow itself was fully up and running. That a few years and a few billion dollars down the track, Federal permissions dependent. Mathematically, whatever NPV per barrel calculation is made for Umiat/Peregrine will be *obliged* to take into account the cost of installing that pipeline. Either by accident or design, the northern neighbour is located immediately adjacent to the Dalton Highway and the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Most fortuitously, the northern neighbour's location means that the capex and time required before first production is going to be an order of magnitude less than that required for commercial production to begin at Umiat/Peregrine.

Just making sure you know that, using the information currently available, it is a fact the northern neighbour's projects are larger in scale than 88E's three main project locations and their data collection and evidentiary proof of concept is years ahead of 88E. These are the incontrovertible facts of the two investment cases using the publicly available inform

Fri 10:31

Hi lvlal2k – yep, you’re correct. Using the current conversion rate, AUD2.8c is the equivalent of 1.5 pence. Trust that helps.

Thu 14:39

Blackadder2708 - *you* may very well be able to “think for yourself”. But in that case, you’re either coming up with a very odd conclusion to a mathematical calculation (well? are you? you don’t genuinely believe 88E ought to be valued at £200m, do you?) or you lack the values and sense of ethics which would see you try your hardest not to harm your fellow man.

Not from you the honest challenges to bulletin board/social media posts which, to an experienced eye, are nothing more than lies, obfuscations and a campaign to manipulate private investors by those who know exactly what they’re doing. No challenge directed either at the fantastical dreams from those who don’t have a nefarious intent but who, eg. keep repeating the “1.6bbo discovery at Merlin” and “Conoco’s gonna buy us out soon, especially now that we have no debt”. Complete gibberish and you know it.

Thu 16:10

FORD707 – I disagree. What plans on which lease blocks are you waiting to hear about from the company?

Thu 13:16 (continued from post below , addressed to jefhobbit)

FWIW, I stand by my forecast figure for the northern neighbour’s OIP of 28bn barrels. When Prudhoe Bay was first discovered and delineated, it was assessed it had 10b barrels OIP of which 3bbo was recoverable. Fifty years later, the Prudhoe Bay OIP figure is 35bn barrels and 16bbo recoverable. The northern neighbour has announced an *initial* guidance figure of 16bn barrels OIP and 1.9bbo contingent resource…..but patience, jefhobbit. Let’s both diarise to reconvene on this precise subject when/if guidance is revised *after* the crest of the Basin Floor Fan is drilled updip at Theta West during the upcoming winter season. At no point did I ever put a date on my total OIP figure and not did I ever state “it was the next Prudhoe Bay”. I did, however, certainly relay that the northern neighbour’s management believed their acreage had a higher OIP then Kuparuk River and may even rival Prudhoe Bay in scale.” I stand by that sentence too.

Now that you’ve raised the subject of Oil in Place and EURs, why hasn’t 88E ever issued guidance on either number to its shareholders? Crickets………

Does no-one reading this exchange have even the faintest of stirrings of concern that something appears awry here????

Thu 13:16

Jefhobbit – you’re 100% correct. You can’t answer any questions about the NPV of 88E’s projects because the company hasn’t issued *any* guidance on that front. Why not? Either because they haven’t been able to collect sufficient data to make the required calculations or they *do* know the NPVs and have chosen not to share them with shareholders and the market. Accordingly, jefhobbit, I put it to you that it is incontrovertible that the neighbour to the north is, quite literally, years ahead of 88E in data collection, years ahead in delineating their acreage and, vitally, years ahead in understanding the “overlap theory” at the Central Blocks. Which is one reason why I was astonished at Dave Wall’s decision to include diagrammatical slides which gave the (false) impression the “overlap to the south”, *downdip* of Talitha-A, was larger south of the border v’s north of the border. This was, IMHO, a crucial error on DW’s part.

Ok, let’s move to a somewhat easier follow-on question. Let’s park the numerical NPV guidance for now. Jefhobbit – do you agree with the following statement? The current NPV assessment of 88E’s assets will, mathematically, be below that of its northern neighbour due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to:

a) assessed *scale* of projects is smaller for 88E. Analysts can be categorical about the respective volumetrics at time of writing because one company has invested $80m to build the largest 3D seismic dataset in the Alaska North Slope and the other hasn’t.
b) the geographical isolation of the majority of 88E’s assets will have a strongly negative effect on the NPV because any such calculation of future cashflows must take account of the capex (infrastructure) + opex required to produce the oil (if present) => lower margin per barrel, or lower netback figure => lower NPV per barrel in the ground.
c) The geological features present at Talitha and Theta West *appear* to have better reservoir characteristics, especially when it comes to the phase behaviour of the hydrocarbons.
d) 88E’s data collection is years behind that of its northern neighbour. Thus it is further behind in the CoS, which in turn affects hugely the NPV calculations.

Net, net, net and acknowledging the above facts, jefhobbit, you will agree that any reasonable and objective analyst using historically accepted E&P equity valuation methods, will assess 88E ought to be trading at a substantial discount to its northern neighbour far in excess of 50%. Or putting it another way, the northern neighbour ought to be valued and trading at a mid/high single digit multiple of 88E’s mkt cap. Fact.

Thu 12:51
rfarfa – to answer your question directly, it’s for shareholders, posters on social media who justify 88E’s *current* mkt cap and influencers who are urging people to buy 88E at the current SP to answer the question about the percentage valuation of the mkt cap they ascribe to each 88E project asset. The *company* does not set the mkt cap, the market does. You, the shareholders, those who comment on bulletin boards are all part of “the market”.

It is my direct contention the prolific posters on this bulletin board know fine well the mkt cap is running waaaaayyyyy ahead of the fundamentals and they chuckle to themselves when they read see some of the outlandish claims made on social media about “a discovery of 1.6bbo at Merlin” and “Conoco is about to launch a takeover bid at $1 per share (and all the way up to $10 per share)”. All the while, they’re encouraging a belief in the fundamentals of the asset; they’re encouraging a loyalty to the company which is *not* supported by traditionally-accepted market valuation techniques; and they’re taking advantage of that loyalty to trade the peaks and troughs of the SP. Shameful conduct.