Member Info for Scot126

20:05
HI GS - thanks for your reply. Going through each of your paragraphs in turn. Delighted to hear you're happy with your recent investments. That said, and as you also state, your investments are none of my concern and neither am I privy to your personal situation. I fail to understand why you think I had made it any of my business except where you asked specific questions in relation to PANR? Admittedly I broadened it out to our southern neighbour but only because, as every reasonable reader would have noted, the questions you posed about PANR were entirely intellectually inconsistent with another holding of yours, being 88E? Anyhoo, paragraphs in turn:
1) View on number and mode of transport of employees duly noted! Incorrect on FO/deal within the last 18 months. In November '20 the company raised c.$30m from memory to fund the winter 20/21 drilling season. The company has not once guaranteed a farm out during that period, repeat not once. Kindly provide the thread with your source for this (erroneous) statement. Hint - you will not be able to provide the thread with any such source or quotation from a company employee. Rest of content of paragraph noted. I repeat that the impatience is a GS problem and none of my business.
2) Perhaps your expectations were ill-advised? Agree that so far there's nothing. Let's say the final Talitha-A data was ready and presentable at the end of May, 6 weeks or so after the cessation of operations at Talitha-A, ok? That's 3 months and 10 days. In your experience of farm out negotiations, does that seem overly lengthy to you? Doesn't to me but that's your call. As to whether a farm out will be concluded prior to Feb/Mar '22, you're 100% correct I do not know. However, what I do understand from management communications and from my experience as a shareholder is that if they say they will examine all funding options to ensure activity in the coming Alaskan drilling season, then I have every confidence they will do exactly that. Last year, with POO at around half current levels, the funding was secured. Logic dictates it *ought* to be achievable over the next period especially as we know Talitha-A provided evidence of a 3700ft column of light oil.
3) Noted and none of my business. Where it is only fair to respond is, prima facie, where you pose questions about an investment which, when applied to another investment we all know you own, appears utterly inconsistent. The answer may very well be contained in your history with 88E, but that was decidedly *not* made clear by the manner in which you constructed your quite, IMHO, unreasonable and illogical line of questioning about PANR alone.
4) Nope, more precisely the news we "need" to hear now is how the proposed operations scheduled to occur this coming drilling season in Alaska are to be funded. Every other question leads off the answer to that one.
5) Yeah, I've read those TR-1s too. It's a legal statement of fact necessary for the purposes of the TR

21:01
Thanks for the reply, rfarfa. I remember doing the same at the time it was being debated on Twitter by a number of mostly American Twitter folk. What I do remember clearly from Twitter is a bunch of commentators trying to look into this alleged connection and the original positer admitting that he got it wrong. Whether he did indeed get it wrong or whether he was correct all along, who knows?! I'll ask around and get back to you if I find out anything more.

Now then, rfarfa, I seem to have yours and redirons' attention - good stuff. You both appear to be polite posters, well capable of putting an intelligible post together. Could either of you please answer the question which I have posed repeatedly on this thread? Of the three main 88E project locations (Umiat/Peregrine, Icewine and Yukon) could you please provide me and the thread with your analysis of the percentage per project you ascribe to the current market cap? To the nearest 5% is fine, actually make it to the nearest 10% per project if you like.

Thanks in advance.

Hi rfarfa - I think, but am not certain, the guy on Twitter who made the original Spanish/Repsol/PI connection has apologised and withdrawn his claim. You may want to fact check me and the original Twitter poster to satisfy yourself you're posting factual content on this public forum?

Hi Redirons - that's exactly what I want you to believe because it's the truth. Kindly fact check me concerning my posts on this thread. It was only *after* the RNS dated 27/4/21 that I became active on this thread. Fact.

17:43
Hi tony-f^cking-nordstrum1,

1) Many congrats on taking the oyster anecdote nicely out of context. Bravo! It was a simple example to back up the word "tightest" in relation to the overheads and balance sheet point GS. Was seeking to make.
2) The 88E comparison was fully justified in the context of this particular poster's point and posting history on each thread. That you dismiss this as a justifiable debating point *for this specific poster* is your problem, tony, and not mine.
3) I do not measure PANR's performance v's 88E and nor, I am certain, does the BoD. Your knowledge of my posting history with its constant focus on fundamentals would have disabused you of that notion. Your asinine to allegation is wholly rejected. Even your sarcy comments fail to hit the target.
4) I had precisely zero interest in your portfolio *prior* to you replying to my point about PANR trading at the third of the risked fair value. That you opt to compare PANR to producers is *your* choice not mine. I note you have elected not to answer my question about the contingent resources of the companies *you* refer to in your basket of comparable stocks.
5) Until PANR moves into the development phase it will not generate revenue. I repeat for the hard of understanding. This is entirely normal for listed E&Ps. Such companies are financed by selling part of their asset base or via the stockmarket. I'm utterly unfazed by this aspect of PANR's investment case.
6) PANR has raised approx £150m from the market since listing >12 years ago. Current mkt is circa £400m. It's not Tesla but versus most AIM E&Ps it's not too shabby either.....with the next chapter of the Alaskan story yet to unfold this coming winter.

Buh-bye, tonynordstrum2easy.

Corrections
1) "impactful" not "impact"
2) ".....of sports can GS be considering......"
3) fundamentals not fundamental

13:47
Hi Redirons - you asked a straight answer so here's my straight response. I post on this thread on occasion because one of 88E's assets is a shared asset and thus, because comparative analysis is an essential undertaking for a fundamental investor, I'm required to get a handle on the market's assessment and valuation of 88E.

The second reason is that ex-MD Dave Wall, in one of his final RNSs before departing 88E, opted to confirm 88E's view on the shared asset in question and wrongly, IMHO, elected to include diagrams and tables which gave a wholly inaccurate assessment of that asset without being in possession of the full range of facts. I submit this was an error on 88E's management's part, one which they have since repeated. It is absolutely fair and reasonable that a right to reply and the opportunity to further discuss/debate the merits of the 88E investment case in a public forum be available to all affected parties. That's your answer. If you don't believe me, no worries. As evidence I offer up my posting history on this thread. Since I became an lse member, I posted on the 88Ethread on one occasion, repeat one occasion, prior to Dave Wall's insertion of the "overlap theory" into an 88E RNS. This is an absolute statement of fact. Naturally I don't speak for others - you'll have to ask them directly.

It's awesome thanks, tonynordstrum1!

PANR's overheads are two-fifths of b^gger all. They're about the tightest management team I know. Jay refuses to take taxis in London and has an Oyster card. Salaries? You expect them to work for free when they deliver the Talitha-A well, ranked by IHS Market as one of the ten most impact drills globally in 2021. Many of the stocks you're thinking of in that bracket? Nah, thought not. Any of them have a 1.9bn contingent resource right next door to a pipeline crying out for crude? Nah, thought not.

Plus, and this is more subjective, how in the wide, wide world of sports GS can be considering holding our southern neighbour and selling PANR when mentioning the timing, newsflow and patience as key considerations???? Jesus wept. Our southern neighbour has no successful wells, no contingent resource, no newsflow until Feb '22 (?), a management team that pays itself performance rights for not performing, and on fundamental (only) is valued at least 5x too high v's PANR using the same metrics.

......and you wonder why my reply belied an incredulity???? Good to see your inferiority complex and superficial research earning you a crust on bulletin boards and subscription services though, Tony.

Hi rfarfa - thanks for the posts about hydrogen. Don't get me wrong, I'm no climate change denier and have little doubt hydrogen is looking like it's set to become one of the many cleaner solutions to the world's energy conundrum. Rather, what I'm stating in this specific case is that 88E's gas is worthless *right at this point in history*. Maybe that will change in the future, maybe it won't. What is incontestable is that it will literally take billions and billions of dollars of infrastructure spend to enable gas to be transported from the North Slope. That is a statement of fact. 88E shareholders in Oz, UK and US should be under no illusion that 88E will not be constructing the required infrastructure so they are wholly dependent on the actions of many others, including politicians and electorates before a whiff of gas is produced by 88E.

Timeframe? Maybe some time in the 2030s? Maybe never? In the meantime I do not know of one O&G equity analyst who would be prepared to attach any value whatsoever to 88E's gas, not even a nominal sum. Proof of my contention comes from the fact that 88E's own management does not include the gas in its investment case.

11:24
Hi GS ,
1) Balance sheet getting "smaller and smaller"? There are less than 10 full time employees, what on earth are you talking about? Junior E&Ps raise money by selling a share in their asset or from the stockmarket. PANR is no different from any other stock in the sector.
2) "expecting something quick on the back of the recent webinar" - that's a GS problem, not a PANR problem.
3) Doing the research and deciding whether you ought to sell? Your call naturally but I'm perplexed you remain patient with our neighbours to the south when we have two Units granted by the SoA v's zero, have a contingent resource v's Umiat reserves which have remained untouched for 70 years, a mkt cap approx 1/3rd of the risked broker model v's a mkt cap which is a multiple of the fair value using the same risked model methodology and which is relying on a demonstrably uneducated OTC retail base in the US to maintain its SP. But hey, you do you.
4) The recent newsflow from PANR referring to *either* Theta West *or* SMD-B more than justifies PANR's mkt cap and would more than justify *all* of our southern neighbour's mkt cap for that matter.
5) The Great Bear founders (and early financial backers such as Riverstone)are most decidedly not working "in concert" with Farallon. You need to head over to the other website and look at some of Mr Darcon and my own posts on this subject. Had you done the required research ("yeah did that" to which my genuine reply is "no you didn't") you'd know Farallon has a charge over the GB founders' stock and they are selling that tranche of stock to repay a debt incurred by the GB founders since Farallon bought their state credit-backed debt in 2016.
6) Let down? Are you kidding us????? *IF* what we heard in the webinar, and I repeat "if", turns out to be correct then PANR will be valued in the billions of dollars at the point of sale. And that's without hearing about higher RFs or even receiving guidance on the resources at SMD-A, SMD-C, Kuparuk and SFS.
7) Nah, not impatient at all, lol. ;)

15:44
Hi rfarfa - it'll be disappointing to read this but right at this precise moment in time it's worth zero dollars. Until 88E works out a method to extract and transport the gas to a market then it's next to worthless. If ever the infrastructure is constructed, perhaps a pipeline similar in scale to TAPS or if an export facility were to be built on the coast (after climate change has opened up the Passage 12 months a year of course) then the gas may be worth a few quid. Until then, it's worth zilch. Read management RNSs and presentations. Like the Central Blocks of Project Icewine, 88E management would certainly include some nice diagrams and tables of mean estimates if they thought the gas formed a plank of the investment case. It's not highlighted so readers of this thread will, quite logically and reasonably, wonder why you keep referring to it with such frequency.

20.55 and 20.59

Yaaaaaawwwwnnnn.

I'll be sure to let the geologists within the Dept of Natural Resources in the State of Alaska that some anonymous genius called "LongTermLover" posted on a UK bulletin board a three year old map of active players on the Slope. Since the map was published, the same dept which drew up the map to which you're refer has awarded PANR Unit status at both Alkaid and Talitha. Ah, but here's the problem, LongTermLover, you don't have the first idea what being granted Unit status by the SoA even means for the Unit holder, do you? You're a bit out of your depth here, aren't you LongTermLover? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Poor wee lamb, flailing about with not a smidgeon of evidence or piece of research to point to. Ok then, share your financial model with the thread which justifies a mkt cap of £140m but not £400m and I'll debate it with you.

Sorry, what's that? You don't know how to analyse E&P companies using NPVs and the risked/unrisked valuation model? You admit you're just a troll flitting around various threads just typing out random words and sentences hoping that some will stick? Jeepers, that's all pretty sad. Better not waste your time any further by coming back here again as you'll just be on the receiving end of some more withering criticism.

Buh-bye again.

So, LongTimeLover, you knew that the SMD-B horizon extended into the Alkaid Unit, did you? You knew that the Basin Floor Fan was Theta West and that management stated they classified it has being a contingent resource of a mere 1.4bn barrels, did you?

Utter codswallop, LongTermLover. You couldn't even point to Anchorage on map never mind Deadhorse. Go troll some other thread and pratice on someone else. By the way, if you think PANR is over-valued, you should give 88E a quick once over. They'd really love you over there, I promise! No contingent resources, just 100m barrels of reserves in a location first discovered in the 1940s that is so completely stranded that it wasn't produced one barrel of commercial oil in 75 years. PANR is a completely different beast. Ask the Dept of Natural Resources in the State of Alaska - they rewarded PANR with two Units such is their assessment of PANR's data.

Buh-bye.

18.44

No, GS, it was a 100% genuine question.

If the answer is they'll flow test subject to positive logs,etc, etc. that's cool, just got to make sure there's sufficient cash to pay for these "extra" operations, and sufficient time in the Alaskan winter season to complete the task of course. The cash question looks to be fine following the fund raise, just a question of timing if spud date isn't scheduled until February?

If the answer is that there is no intention to flow test *no matter what the logs indicate* then I'm a tad puzzled. Isn't everyone else puzzled also? That's got to be worth posing a question to management for an explanation surely? So a company proposes to build an ice road or snow road at considerable expense, then drill a well at considerable expense, log the well at considerable expense and *even if the data looks great* there's no intention to flow test the well, thus giving shareholders the best possible opportunity to see their resource achieve a higher classification, perhaps to contingent status? It just seems odd, doesn't it? I cannot be the only one who thinks this is odd?

Keeping it classy as ever, Jefhobbit. I'll take the 5 points though, fair enough that I wasn't able to correctly name the individual.

Now then, as you're definitely reading posts currently:
1) where's your breakdown by % of the mkt cap for the three main project locations? You either have no clue (possible) or you do have a rough idea but you're fearful that by being honest with your fellow shareholders, it would mean you admitting (as you've kinda done already with your post about the annual trading opportunity for 88E traders) 88E is trading miles and miles and miles ahead of fundamentals and you're only interested in trading the US retail OTC sentiment swings. Which is it, Jefhobbit? To all other readers, does this repeated radio silence by all the prolific posters not concern you at all? Or are you all happy to admit you're not fundamental investors but sentiment traders in a smoke'n'mirrors company where you're all playing a gigantic game of Pass the Parcel. Good luck to any UK or Aussie shareholders who got one over the US OTC frenzy a couple of months ago, fair do's. But be honest with yourself and the readers of this thread and stop trying to justify the 88E mkt cap on the industry-accepted fundamental metrics because it simply cannot be done. The maths don't make sense, the computer says no.
2) are you happy to admit that Dave Wall didn't buy 120m shares on the market when he left 88E's employment and that the "extra" shares were as a result of "performance rights" as published in the Annual Reports?
3) What's the toll per barrel the owners of the pipeline east of Willow will charge to transport any Umiat/Peregrine crude to Pump Station No.1?
4) What the price per mile to construct a pipeline in northern Alaska.

Easy questions, folks. Why the silence? Don't believe me? Fact-check me or DYOR. Do any of the prolific posters who are pulling the wool over your eyes as they trade (incredibly profitably by relying on your loyalty to do so) offer similar transparency? Think on it, folks.

Not how it works, FORD707. Not every barrel of oil is equal, you see. The oil itself could have the same API characteristics but based on the location in the planet where it's being extracted makes a *huge* difference in its value.

I appreciate you admitted you didn't know the O&G or E&P sector very well but it's just plain out of order that you're posting this nonsense content about the methodology the O&G sector has used for decades to price barrels of oil in the ground ahead of transactions. Forget about 88E specifically, this is industry practice you're misinforming readers about.

FORD707 - 16.25

It's still a ludicrous figure (your claim of $4 per barrel in the ground) when compared to OSH's $3.10 purchase price per barrel in the ground for contingent resources at Pikka/Horseshoe, isn't it FORD707? Firstly, Pikka/Horseshoe is more favourably located for infrastructure than Peregrine/Umiat, Yukon and the Western Blocks. Secondly, readers of this thread have still not received an answer from the company (or any of the prolific posters on this bulletin board for that matter) about a) the cost to build a suitable pipeline north to Willow from Peregrine/Umiat and b) the toll Conoco and all the other pipeline infrastructure owners will charge per barrel to ship the crude from Peregrine/Umiat to Pump Station No. 1.

Commentators on 88E are being wilfully naïve if they think these costs won't result in a marked reduction in value of each barrel of oil in the ground located at Peregrine/Umiat v's the price achieved by Armstrong at Pikka.

FORD707 - If you have those budgeted figures for the construction of the pipeline plus the toll charges for use of the existing spur pipeline eastwards once the crude gets to Willow on the way to TAPS I promise you I would be extremely interested, as I'm sure would be all 88E shareholders. Thanks in advance, FORD707.

14.57
Most likely either Paul Basinski or one of the GB founders?

To other readers of the thread. this is a pathetic attempt at provocation by Jefhobbit. Both 88E and Great Bear started out with the ambition of identifying and discovering the source rock for the massive reservoirs of Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River to the north and north west of both companies' acreage. Great Bear was the first of the two companies to amend their strategy by instead targeting a variety of seismic anomalies which were conventional in character and adjacent to the Dalton Highway and TAPS. Over the last decade, GB/PANR has spent $80m on obtaining what is understood to be the largest 3D seismic database in Alaska. I now have a question for Jefhobbit: How much has 88E invested in the last decade on shooting or obtaining 3D seismic? I'm willing to bet pretty good money that Jefhobbit doesn't have the first idea of the answer. Prove me wrong Jefhobbit, but I'm pretty sure it'll be crickets.

The GB strategy to go after these conventional targets has proved to be the correct decision as PANR management has declared a contingent resource of 1.9bn barrels across their Alkaid, Talitha and Theta West projects. It is PANR management's belief that for any shale development to be justified economically on either companies' acreage a) the POO would consistently have to be well north of $100 and b) any shale projects in those locations would have to piggy back extensively on the back of the large amount of infrastructure already constructed (by that point) to support production from the PANR discoveries of multiple conventional reservoirs.

By the time I met Dave Wall during one of his trips to London, 88E had also shifted their attention primarily to conventional projects. I realise a few 88E LTHs still believe in Paul's vision for shale production on the ANS. It's a lovely thought, to see Paul's vision turn into what wold be a fabulous legacy for all his hard work but, IMHO, it's highly unlikely to ever happen. In the current environment, I'd have thought finding a method to commercially extract the gas in Alaska would take precedence over any shale production - personal view only.

I have a question of fact about 88E please? Hopefully the Merlin-2 drill will go well and the logs will prove to be both illuminating and positive. The next step for most ANS exploration wells would be to flow test the specific sections which logging suggested pointed to the possibility of flowing commercial oil. However in all of 88E's RNSs and the presentation released today there's no mention of "the intention to flow test should results from the logs of Merlin-2 warrant it" or words to that effect. My question is as follows: is this simply a human error in forgetting to add the possibility of a flow test or does 88E have no intention of conducting a flow test at Merlin-2 no matter what the logs show? Thanks in advance for the answer.

Hi ZoomRader - your post timed at 12.25 is complete poppy****. Please do read and research the answer provided to you by cbaron timed at 12.45 because he is spot on. You may not like reading the facts of the sector but the facts don't care about your feelings, I'm afraid.

Don't believe cbaron or me? Fine. But you don't have the right to spread such flagrant disinformation without you being called out for your ridiculous conduct. Other readers of this thread don't have to believe me either. Up to you if you ignore this rebuttal of ZoomRader but the wiser amongst you will fact-check cbaron and me.

Hi Brian1234 - that's some fact-checking technique you've got there. Too good for me, I'm afraid.

Now then, what's your financial model suggesting the fair value of 88E ought to be, based on the currently available information. take it you're using the traditional risked/unrisked NAV equity valuation model employed by O&G analysts for decades all over the world? Or are you just feeling a bit overwhelmed because you're incapable of debating the facts v's posting personal put downs? Just the facts, Brian1234, that's all I'm here for. Fact-check me.

16:35
Hi Hippy-76,
You "hope" correctly, I give you my anonymous username word I am being honest. But here's the thing, Hippy-76. I genuinely don't assess that 88E's news from Merlin-1 is "encouraging". In fact I assess it as disappointing and I believe there are present on this bulletin board experienced O&G investors/workers who know fine well the results are not as positive as the tone of the RNSs and US social media influencers would suggest.

I am indeed more than happy to confirm that I am "looking forward to the next 88E drill with very keen eyes". Hope that helps, Hippy-76?