Member Info for Scot126

12:21
You don't really wish that, jefhobbit, because you and many others associated with 88E have a sneaky feeling that the overlap theory (confirmed by your former and current MDs) with your northern neighbour at the Central Blocks is going to be the very best chance for generating some fundamental value for shareholders. Correct?

If I'm wrong, why not answer my question about the percentage of the current mkt cap you ascribe to each of the three main asset locations? Cat got your tongue? Or are you just angry that someone with the necessary experience is dismantling all the obfuscation and manipulation you and too many others continue to post here?

These questions are perfectly reasonable and you and everyone else on that list knows it. That none of you chooses to answer is a disgrace. Your collective silence is deafening .

Cripes, forgot to add you to the list too, tonynordstrum1/PB. A thousand apologies, you must be feeling left out.

tonynordstrum1 - No reply, or rather a reply but no intention to answer the questions posed. Actually, tony/PB, now that you're here.....from your various articles, I know you don't like the whole financial modelling thing so we'll set the asset valuation thing aside for now. You do profess to know a bit about energy engineering so why don't you let this bulletin board know why it would be that an Alaskan explorer would invest such a large amount of shareholders' cash on a well which can only be reached via an ice road/snow roads in the Alaskan drilling season yet *even if the logs indicated further investigation* the company has no plans to flow test that well? Look forward to your response.

Answering your question directly, and for the umpteenth time. Two companies share an asset. Both BoDs admit this is the case. I research and analyse both companies. I am seeking an answer about the asset valuations in the portfolios of both companies. There appears to be a wide disparity between the way the market is valuing the asset(s) of one company compared to the assets of the other. I am approaching posters who profess to know pretty much all there is to know about 88E to assist me in that perfectly reasonable endeavour. It's called comparative analysis and it has been a feature of stockmarkets since they were created. If you or Brom or the management of 88E can provide the answer then I'll stop asking the question. Good stuff.

09:27 olddad

Contemptible and classless.

And your question refers to which exact part of the 88E investment case?

08:51
Hi Josaop - nope, not that I'm aware of. I've been to Aberdeen many times if that helps?

08:19
Hi olddad - do you have any manners?

Please note no responses to my question concerning the 88E asset base and valuation v's mkt cap. No response either about the absence of an intention to flow test Merlin-2 should the logs suggest it was appropriate to do so.

Brom? No reply.
Ddraig? No reply.
Jefhobbit? No reply.
FORD707? No reply.
Brian1234? No reply.
Reaper? No reply.
And on, and on........

All these posters whose work usernames we recognise from their multiple posts over the years. And nothing, not a squeak. I wonder why, don't you?

15:56
Hi Brom - hope and trust you're keeping well. Are you at all troubled by the company not inserting into their recent announcements on the topic of Merlin-2 the usual phrase, "....and subject to successful log results, we intend to conduct a flow test on the selected targets which will take a further week/10 days/2 weeks, etc, etc"? If you're not troubled, why not? If you, like quite a few other posters, are a tad concerned I wonder if you could use your good offices to contact the company to ascertain what's going on please?

You must admit that for Merlin to advance up the value add curve for shareholders, a flow test of some description is likely going to be required? Especially after the failure, for a variety of reasons, not to flow test Merlin-1? I'll declare that I find it most odd for a decision to have been made to invest a great deal of shareholders' cash to drill Merlin-2 without the intention to flow test it if the logs meet the company's internal threshold for further data collection. Don't you think that's a bit unusual for an Alaskan well not to be flow tested following positive logs, a well which will require ice roads/snow roads to be constructed simply to travel to the Merlin-2 location in future years?

Also, I can't help thinking you're avoiding me, Brom??? It's got to be at least 6 weeks since I first posed the question to you about your analysis of the percentage of 88E's total market cap which you ascribe to each of the three main project locations (Yukon, Umiat/Peregrine and Icewine)?

Here's the thing, Brom. It's a matter of record you've admitted on this very thread that you have in the past and continue to trade the peaks and troughs of the 88E share price. I put it to you directly, Brom, you are taking advantage of those readers and fellow 88E shareholders who consume your >25.25k posts. I further put it to you that you have both the intelligence and experience to recognise full well the 88E SP is running far, far, far ahead of its fundamentals due almost entirely to the frenzy of US OTC retail interest generated, either by luck or design, on various social media platforms in March/April of this year?

Those are my profound suspicions, Brom. If you were to hand over your 88E trading records (not necessarily the volume of shares, just the prices at which you bought and sold) from 2021 I'm willing to bet more than a few of your fellow shareholders would feel that you had hoodwinked them into believing 88E had a viable asset base where the fundamentals supported the mkt cap. I don't doubt you'll be able to point to "reading above, below and between the lines" as your caveat emptor clause to exclude you from responsibility. And from a legal standpoint, we both know that's fine and you've never held yourself out as a financial advisor, etc, etc. However, your obfuscation has led to a cult-like level of loyalty and your prolific posting record has given the impression the 88E garden is rosey. Response plea

14:19
'fraid you're miles off, Brian1234. Being a Scot it's short arms, deep pockets. Thanks for taking the time to type out a personal insult though. Huge value add, massive.

4) “….therefore all you can say in this case is the market attributes a larger PV valuation of the perpetual future value of 88E”. So, wait a minute, let me get this straight. 88E’s mkt cap is circa £210m and let’s just pick an imaginary figure of, I dunno, £400m for NN. Very roughly, 88E is valued at around half of NN. Ok, let’s look at that. Using Ddraig’s explanation of NPVs and how the market adds speculation on top of that to arrive at a market value then logic would dictate 88E ought to have half the contingent resource of NN and identical speculative upside potential? Nope, 88E has 5.3% reserves of NN’s contingent resource. For simplicity and because they’re reserves, let’s say 88E has 10% of NN’s contingent resource + $30m (being the real present value for Umiat and Peregrine as decided by the 88E BoD).

Huh. The speculative upside potential of 88E must therefore by many multiples of NN’s OIP figure? No, not true. NN’s guidance is 14bn OIP (16bn OIP minus 1.9bn contingent resource) of upside potential to delineate. What’s 88E’s equivalent figure? 1.6bn resource at Peregrine (with <1% chance it’s as high as 1.6bn remember?) plus a non-guided upside at Icewine and Yukon?

Hmmm, surely this is not what Ddraig had in mind when he posted his explanation of comparable valuations? If we follow the logic from Ddraig’s post to its ultimate conclusion he’s telling us the maths suggests 88E is hugely over-valued v’s NN *or* NN is hugely under-valued v’s 88E. Using Ddraig’s very own explanation, they both can’t be right!

5) “and right, wrong or spot on, are merely personal opinion that will in itself be right or wrong at each and every point in the future...." Yeah, fair enough. This bit can be summed up by a) DYOR b) the data or variables inserted into an NPV calculation can vary greatly over time and thus the NPV figure can vary greatly as a result and c) when new facts concerning an investment case emerge, then the market ought to recalculate the NPVs and compare the updated models and valuations. All wise advice, I like it, I like it very much. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”. Entirely sensible idea attributed to Keynes.

All in all, a thoughtful, logical and most useful post for Ddraig’s fellow 88E shareholders and all those interested in researching listed E&P stocks in Alaska. Many thanks indeed, Ddriag. Keep up the good work!

3) "A share price prices in all future asset value partially in todays [sic] terms not just what is known and/or realised today..." Bit jumbled but we can probably discern the underlying message. He's stating, IMO, that the market assesses the present day value of future cashflows generated from a company’s asset(s) and the market may further choose to add in a degree of speculative value to the mkt cap because there is an as yet unspecified potential upside to the stock's investment case.
In our scenario, company NN has published NPV10 guidance for Alkaid and the Shelf Margin Deltaic (updip only) following Independent Expert Reports supporting an NPV of $2.8bn. And that’s just for two of the reservoirs of a possible 6 or 7. 88E, on the other hand, has not published any guidance on NPVs for its assets. How come? Either because they haven’t yet got sufficient data for the calculation or because they have an idea that the NPVs would not look to attractive to the market and therefore not in their interest to publish? Wait a sec, we do know that the sector has recently priced Umiat and Pergrine at $30m (Umiat purchase for $1m and the sale back of 50% of Pergrine for $14m => $29m). Woah, woah, woah. NN NPV guidance of $2.8bn for just a small part of their asset base and 88E’s NPV for (what %?) pert of its asset base is $30m???? Jeepers, those market caps must be worlds apart surely? The maths alone point to that fact, surely?
Ah, but Ddraig has an answer for that too. 88E must have the market all fired up by the gargantuan, non-delineated (as yet) upside potential of its assets…..remember his point about “not just what is known and/or realised today”. Excellent, 88E must have a truly ‘eyes out of their sockets’, klaxon-blaring OIP to go for that’s getting the market all energised, and certainly must be multiples of NN’s 1.9bn of contingent resource and 16bn barrels of Oil In Place. Hmmmm, what’s this? No real guidance on 88E’s Oil in Place figure across the portfolio of assets? But what about the headlines on Twitter about a 1.6bn barrel discovery? Oh, what’s that you say? The percentage likelihood of a 1.6bn barrel discovery USING 88e’S OWN CHANCE OF SUCCESS (CoS) GUIDANCE IS LESS THAN 1%. Oooops. I’m beginning to fear Ddraig has just written out a post explaining why NN should be trading at a significant multiple of 88E’s mkt cap, aren’t you? Let’s keep going anyway.

4) (continued above)

Dear All - please see below a quite remarkable post by Ddraig. I take it all back, Ddraig is a fair dinkum, verified genius. I can no longer find on the thread the post quoted below but I copied'n'pasted it for posterity, on Saturday I think? i accept it's long but I reckon it's worth a read. It should be self-explanatory. Tell you what, I won't have a negative word posted against Ddraig for the rest of this century if he keeps up posting these words of wisdom!

"20.35 - I think that’s [sic] half the story...If one company has proven reserves (company A), and one hasn't gotten to that stage of delineation yet Company B) then that doesn't necessarily describe where their market caps should affiliate. If the potential of B is far greater, then it can easily have a larger [mkt] cap even where there is still development of its asset portfolio over A. A share price prices in all future asset value partially in todays [sic] terms not just what is known and/or realised today...therefore all you can say in this case is the market attributes a larger PV valuation of the perpetual future value of 88E...and right, wrong or spot on, are merely personal opinion that will in itself be right or wrong at each and every point in the future...."

Let's go through this highly informative post from start to finish, shall we?
1) "If one company has proven reserves (company A), and one hasn't gotten to that stage of delineation yet Company B) then that doesn't necessarily describe where their market caps should affiliate." Let's say, for the purpose of this exercise, that "company A" is 88E. 88E has 100m barrels of reserves at Umiat but the location is completely isolated currently and not one barrel of commercial oil has been extracted since its discovery in the 1940s. Let's also say Company B is called "NN", Northern something or other. With me so far? Super.

2) "If the potential of B is far greater, then it can easily have a larger cap even where there is still development of its asset portfolio over A." Yes, this sentence is fair also. In our example we have NN (Company B) where the empirical data points to an Oil In Place figure >16billion barrels of oil and a contingent resource of 1.9billion barrels. Thus, as Ddraig describes, NN's potential is "far greater" than 88E (Company A) and it can therefore "easily have a larger [mkt] cap". Yep, all perfectly logical so far.

3) (continued above)

3:30
Hi Kagiso - thank you for the prompt reply. Thank you also for the explanation of your monikers which all make sense now!

Totally agree with you when you state "there are always going to be differences of opinion and judgement." The problem I appear to be wrestling with is a failure, IMHO, for stakeholders to agree on even the most basic of fundamental facts before then layering their own opinions and judgements on top of the cornerstones of the investment case.

For example, I note that you (and Keshla?) have chosen not to engage with me on providing the thread with a POO estimate at which point you and Keshla understand the HRZ shale at Icewine could become commercial to extract. Now that could just be because you haven't had a chance to communicate with Keshla, lol, or it could be because you don't know (at which point it becomes an article of faith related to PB and his legacy which is laudable for its loyalty but not a *fact* of the investment case, is it?) or you know the answer and have chosen not to share it for your own reasons (in this scenario, that would be your choice of course). Maybe there's another reason not described above but my central point remains. An opinion has been expressed without any evidence being offered to those who consume the content of your post, and hundreds more like it, from a multitude of authors.

I come from the institutional side of investment banking and I can assure readers of this thread that the professionals on the sellside and buyside would be laughed out of a meeting room or dealing desk if they displayed such a low regard for the *facts* of an investment case. And some commentators wonder why the City people always seem to have "the inside word". Nope, it's because they do the hard work and research required to give them that extra advantage!

That said, thank you very much for the suggestion to look at IVZ in South Africa/Australia and for the amusing anecdotes about the Macallan. On IVZ, I lack the necessary background knowledge to even begin to comment so I'll leave that to you and Keshla if I may.

FWIW it's my *opinion* that 88E will find it extremely difficult to attract a farm in partner for Merlin-2 or to sell an asset. My logic would be that if the group of experienced Alaskan contractors with all the data in front of them walked away from Merlin then it looks like 88E will be going it alone using the cash raised a few days ago. Something is still troubling me on that front, by the way. Why has the company not communicated their intention to flow test Merlin-2 should the logs justify it? I just don't understand this, do you?

Good luck to you and Keshla in your endeavours, especially as it appears Keshla is tidying up his financial affairs for his children. They are lucky to have such a thoughtful parent.

21:32
Hi Kagiso - I enjoyed reading your post.

1) In your view, does the HRZ work *without* the benefit of shared infrastructure on the surface from producing the shallower conventional reservoirs concurrently? Also, as a stand alone, exactly how much over $100 per barrel does oil have to be before production from the HRZ becomes commercial?

2) "Country club management on a short term cycle." Fair enough. And yet DW walked away with 120m performance rights. And I bet he made a healthy 6 figure AUD sum by being granted an advisory role in the fund raise last week? Was his advisory firm paid in cash or in shares for their portion of the commission and/or fees? If shares, any lock in period or are they being sold immediately like those granted to the contractors at Merlin-1?

I don't know the new management but let's accept you're assessment is correct. Spend an hour or two reading the anti-science, anti-fact, anti-empirical data cultish content posted by so many on this bulletin board. What do you say to them? And what do you say to the US OTC ramptastic twitteratti who think 88E is about to be bought out by Conoco for $10 per share?

14:58
Because, rfarfa, I'm not the person who is posting and disseminating the false information. In the grown up world in which most adults inhabit, it's for the person actually ***making*** the claim or presenting an opinion as fact to back up *their* claim with evidence. This protocol or understanding with our fellow humans gores all the way back to Greek philosophy. It's pretty easy and forms the basis for all Roman *and* Common Law modern day legal systems.

Here's how it works, it's dead easy.
1) Someone makes a claim or present a contention.
2) The recipient of this claim or contention doubts its accuracy or authenticity.
3) The recipient requests the originator of the claim or a person disseminating the claim to provide evidence for their statement or contention.
4) The originator or disseminator double checks their sources and either comes back with the evidence in hand or, on not finding any evidence to support the original claim, generally apologises and withdraws the claim or contention.

As I said, dead easy. As a recipient of false information, I have extremely politely requested you provide us all with the evidence for your claim about Dave Wall buying 120m 88E shares in the market using his own cash following his departure from the company. I've even taken the time to spell out for you, in the clearest and most courteous of terms, the mechanism to uncover the necessary evidence.

Go on then. You're an adult. You're an investor. You chose to publish content on a public forum and with that comes accepting a degree of adult responsibility. Let us know how you get on please? Thanks in advance.

20:27
Ok rfarfa, you're not listening to anyone about your completely irrational fixation on gas *as it pertains to 88E*. FWIW, I agree that there will likely be a global push to exploit gas, certainly v's coal....and likely v's oil thereafter. No worries on that score.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: 88E could have lavender-scented gas in the gazillions of units and without the infrastructure to transport it to a market then it is worthless. If tomorrow, Governor Dunleavy announced plans with a Saudi prince to ***fund*** and build a gas export line running parallel with TAPS and to invest in the Port of Valdez so that it could handle, store and treat the gas in readiness for export by ship then, ***and only then*** would an equity analyst start thinking about the value of 88E's gas for shareholders.

It is rfarfa who is being wilfully naive, folks, not those attempting to rebut his repeated pie in the sky claims.

11:55
Aye, rfarfa, some of them do. Lol, and I'm not convinced taking on the ESG/Global Warming community by building a port in the Artic for gas export is in any of those major's plans right now, be it 5 months, 5 years or 50 years away!!! Ok, let's say the gas becomes of value to the world in 20 years time. how do you value it today, right this minute? there are soooooo many variables for an analyst to go through and incorporate into his risk considerations that the answer is always going to be zero value for the gas. I know this makes hard reading but listen to the 88E management for goodness sake!! Unless you're willing to wait around with your investment tied up in 88E for the next 20 years *and* unless you earnestly believe you know more than the 88E BoD then maybe have a think about focussing on more tangible items? Up to you, needless to say, but the other readers of this thread should be in no doubt about the supreme difficulty of commercial exploitation of any gas on 88E's acreage.

11:38
Hi redirons - I know you believe Dave Wall bought stock in the market *after* his departure from 88E. This is not true. On departure, DW was entitled to "performance rights" as detailed in the 88E Annual Reports over a number of years. Again, if you don't believe me then at least do the following:
1) Download the Annual Report. Read the Director's remuneration/bonus awards/performance rights section in the notes and it's all laid out for you there.
2) Write to the company yourself. Explain you're a shareholder and wish a question of historical fact to be confirmed or rejected. Ask for a full breakdown of the former MD of 88E's remuneration awards, featuring specifically on all options and performance rights granted to him throughout his tenure and at the point of departure. Please also ask for the terms of any severance package to be made available to shareholders, including the exercise of options and delivery of performance rights. Ask the Chairman and Company Secretary for this information. Please also ask the Chairman to confirm in writing that the performance targets were met by departing management and to outline what those thresholds were.
3) If you don't receive any joy from the company, then write to their auditor, the ASX and ASIC highlighting that you have posed various factual and historical questions to the company and you have not received an appropriate response.
4) Look at the latest register of Top 20 shareholders and keep monitoring it. We know the contractors who were paid in shares for their work on Merlin-1 have already sold into the spike from earlier this year. Has DW maintained his personal holding at 240m shares, approx half of which were performance rights granted on departure from his role as MD of 88E?
5) redirons - I don't know if you're a good person or not, although from reading your posts I don't perceive any ill intent. Objectively, you must surely realise that by repeating on a public forum a factual error which can be easily rebutted by reading an item from the Annual Report is not an honourable or ethical way to behave? You'd surely feel guilty if folk who read your post acted on your statement? You surely owe it to yourself and anyone who reads this thread to fact check yourself, even if you don't wish to fact check me?
6) To all other readers. Remember the huge, massive, ginormous song'n'dance about contractors being paid in shares, how they knew best because they were on the front line with the best access to the data, etc, etc? They've sold up. Look at the register. Also, DW did not buy 120m shares in the market with his own cash after he departed. Nope, he's now retained in a corporate advisory capacity and, IMH*O*, just earned a multiple six figure sum from the recent fund raise.

11:55 (cont)
Guys - please don't go down the cul-de-sac of gas and the HRZ shale/unconventional. You don't have to believe me. Listen to your own BoD for goodness sake. They're not touting the unconventional narrative any longer and neither have they *ever* included the potential of commercial gas as a key plank in the 88E investment case. C'mon folks, 88E are, objectively, extremely effective at pushing a narrative out into the market. Do you really think that if either gas or shale looked like a multi-billion dollar win for the company they'd be mute over both strategies???????

Hi chrissev1 & rfarfa - No, no it doesn't. Keshla1295's post was wonderfully written and he sounds like a lovely fella. However, a massive gas find is utterly worthless until the infrastructure required to transport the gas to a market, any market is installed. Let's look at just some of the steps required to get there so we can all agree we're being realistic here, ok?
1) 88E to delineate and flow test the gas reservoir. How to fund that? How many winter seasons will that take? Will 88E shareholders accept this strategy because it will mean massive dilution to the asset or massive dilution in equity terms to fund such a drilling and testing operation.
2) I don't think anyone here genuinely believes 88E will ever have the financial muscle to install a gas pipeline to run parallel with TAPS. All agreed? Same goes for constructing a port on the coast and a facility to convert the gas into a ship transportable product. Agreed?
3) For either a pipeline or port to be constructed, it will require overwhelming political support from politicians in Alaska (which I believe is certainly achievable) but it will also require the State and its residents to make a substantial investment in their own infrastructure. It's going to be exceedingly difficult to access the huge capital required (and let's be clear a pipeline or port is going to cost billions and billions of dollars) because the SoA has demonstrated a devastating and foolish attitude to the O&G industry by failing to repay the tax credits from its exploration rebate scheme to the tune of $750m approx. Uh-uh. This time, it's going to require the politicians *and the electorate* to smell the coffee and accept that they might have to put up with a reduced annual dividend for a few years to facilitate a new resource industry, natural gas. How many years do you think it will take for that to coalesce around a practical solution?
4) Then there's the world wide attention in the infrastructure. The port solution is going to be the most visible. It'll rely on icebreakers or global warming to open up the Passage all year round and that becomes a Federal issue. I put it to all readers that with a Democrat in the White House, the port plan won't even move 1 millimetre forward for the next 3 years. A pipeline parallel to TAPS would appear to be easier politically but the port at Valdes will require gas treatment plants and the port itself will require massive investment. Billions and at least 10-15 years?
5) With all the steps above, and hundreds more I haven't thought of, there is no equity analyst in the world nor sector actor who will value 88E's gas above zero *currently*.
6) Where Keshla will *hopefully* be correct is 88E's acreage at the Central Blocks. If, and I repeat if, there's a commercial overlap from the nothern neighbour and *if* the northern neighbour delineates and proves up a new oilfield at Alkaid/Talitha/Theta West then 88E could very well have an asset which fits Keshla's description.

20:46
Again with the inappropriate reference to another poster's private life, Blackadder2708. Bit odd, bit weird, and nothing to do with oil exploration in Alaska.

Hi Blackadder2708 - how's about you not passing comment on my private life and I'll promise not to comment on yours, eh? Also, delighted to hear it's sunny where you are. Wasn't where I am.

I'm not "warning", that's *not* my motivation. This is not a battle of wills, intellect, volume or communications skills. For a fundamental investor like wot I am it *always* comes down to a question of the *facts* (as best as they can be established) and maths. That's it, no more, no less. I fully appreciate this is not your investment style but it is the style of many investors around the world., perhaps even the majority of investors globally and certainly the majority of the professionals on the buyside. Whatever an investor's preferred methodology, I'm yet to meet a successful investor/trader for whom a wilful refusal to even be mildly curious about the empirical facts of a listed company are of no interest to them whatsoever. It's totally up to you whether you wish to be in that camp but shutting down those who *do* examine the facts and use valuation methods which have been employed for, literally, decades is not an appropriate nor ethical response.

It's not me who needs to "grow up" or "get a life". No, it's time for this bulletin board to get serious about a company which is valued currently at circa £217m, I repeat £217m. That is not a microcap valuation. That is a serious valuation requiring serious attention. You, Blackadder2708, may not be prepared or even interested in undertaking the serious research and analysis required to inform yourself about the facts of the 88E investment case....and that's fine. But attempting to bully or intimidate posters who *are* prepared to do the work is a truly horrible way to behave. Me headmasterly? Fact check me, I challenge you. But before you do so, maybe get off your *** and fact check the prolific posters on here who are playing you for a mug. And your response is to castigate one of the people bringing this dishonest and highly unethical behaviour into the light. The world's upside down!