Member Info for Scot126

(cont'd)
.....was signed.

The initial laziness not doing the background reading about the Pikka deal, the arrogance that his baseline knowledge means his opinion always has value, the descent into ego-driven aggression and defensiveness, the refusal even to acknowledge his factual error, the schoolyard level Mont Blanc jibe revealing the importance of status and ego........it all adds up to an individual who has absolutely no regard for his fellow shareholders ot anyone else reading his content. There's no ambition to uncover the *facts* of the investment case, just a desire to puff up the ego, he doesn't need to do the background research, he already knows enough, the rules don't apply to him.

He cares not one jot about anyone but himself and he posts with no responsibility nor acceptance that posting means being accountable for the content. Shameful.

As for other investments Tony is looking at, none of my business.

1) and 2) were to first oil, not full field development. Re-read your original challenge. Whenever first oil has been debated on this thread or by the company in relation to Alkaid the LTPT was explicitly labelled as "first oil". If *you* had done the bare minimum of background reading before pontificating here you would have known that. First oil, first commercial oil.....so selling into TAPS at Pump Station No 1 isn't a commercial sale? Catch up, Tony. All the hands on experience in the world doesn't beat the minimum of background reading.

3) I'm not saying it's not a risk.....I am directly rebutting your scaremongering and uneducated b/s about Fed v's SoA confering so particular benefit (towards SoA acreage) when it manifestly does in law. Fact. This is where the equivalent of "all the engineering degrees in the world won't educate a person about the nuances and intricacies ofFed v's State law in the US."

4) agreed, relying on company guidance. I note your retreat from the relatively high cost of production nonetheless.

Now then, all of the above and below is very interesting but it still doesn't answer the baseline question about your knowledge of reserves v's resources. Your engineering background strongly suggests you know the technical difference so, for me anyway, we now have an answer. Tony didn't take the handful of minutes required to Google the Armstrong/Repsol/OSH deal to read about the status of the asset when the initial translation occurred. Lazy, but fine, it happens. However, when corrected Tony doesn't man up, thank the poster for informing him of the facts so as to better assess the PANR investment case, acknowledge his error, withdraw his comment. Nope, he completely ignores it and proceeds to take out his embarrassment on the person who corrected him. Conclusion IMO? Tony is one of these self-confidence men who a) think they always have sufficient baseline knowledge that their unresearched views and opinions on pretty much any topic will *always* have a value and b) is part of that generation of men who regard being corrected publicly as a savage blow to their ego and immediately go into attack mode when instead they should be grateful when their factual errors are pointed out so, going forward, their opinions are based on a foundation of facts. Tony wasn't brought up that way and neither was I, particularly. Thankfully, a specific event forced me to confront that serious character flaw. Facts don't give a flying **** about ego or baseline knowledge or anonymous avatars on bulletin boards.....they're just facts, incontrovertible pieces of information. So here's a fact which Tony didn't know but felt the urge, the ego-driven need to show off his smarts to a bulletin board read by his fellow investors. He told us Pikka had reserves when the original OSH deal was done in 2017. Wrong. They had contingent resources. In fact Pikka still doesn't have any reserves in 2021, nearly four years after the original deal wa

I'll give you rude, Tony. You had the gall to accuse Alaric of not listening to the CEO when your own post proved that you either hadn't listened to the CEO or had no comprehension about what you listened to.

Tony doesn't wish a to and fro so for the benefit of all other readers:

1) Next step for Alkaid is a LTPT => allow classification of reserve status. No-one is stating anything different. As for environmental concepts..... be specific and quit scaremongering. There is nothing about Alkaid and the environment which is any different from elsewhere on state land in Alaska *except* the massive benefit that much of the future activity will be located on *already classified disturbed land". A benefit for PANR, not an added risk as you infer.

2) Pikka/data collection/time/money. Results will define the answers. You asked. A question about number of drills and I replied - there was no contest there??? On all metrics, and with the caveat the geological is proven the time and investment required will be shorter in duration and far less in capex. There are no cost/regulatory/logistical factors you can point to which do not show PANR's acreage to be far superior in NAV terms, with geology being a. Fully accepted caveat.

3) Of course there were multiple flow tests at Pikka. You wrongly stated Pikka had reserves which would have required LTPTs. Be a man, show some honour and admit you didn't know the difference between reserves and resources nor the requirement for LTPTs. Hard to take any other human seriously if they believe they never make mistakes in life.

4) First oil/trucking - have some respect for yourself as an adult and for other readers of your public content. At least do some reading/research/webinar listening before thinking your opinion is the equivalent of the established facts of the investment case.

5) Fed v's SoA land rights. Yeah, I am saying exactly that. As part of my law degree I elected to study US Constitutional law. Happy for you to inform me of the Amendment number which permits the Fed govt to legislate on state's reserved powers/ownership of land. Tip? There isn't one.

6) You should re-read my Keystone paragraph. I specifically mentioned Fed and Native American land for a reason. Domestic sovereign law trumps international treaty law....always has, always will. Even if Canada has a valid claim, shy of invasion enforcement will be impossible.

7) More research required, Tony. PANR's model indicated sector standout *low cost of production* and I already provided the source to rebut your 6 - 7 year nonsense. I don't know what broker research note you're reading but it's massively misinform you. If you're solely responsible for your own research and sourcing then your efforts are objectively pathetic and factually wrong.

8) The market is almost entirely focused on Farallon and the SP. Fundamentals will out eventually, they always do.

Do better, Tony. Facts are your friends, not your enemy.

No worries, tonynorstrum1. You may very well think my reply was OTT but to remind you and all other readers, I'm not the guy who despite not knowing the difference between reserves and recoverable resources still had the entirely misplaced self-confidence to spout even more factually incorrect content on a public forum.

Serious question. When you post content that you know you haven't fact-checked, does even 1% of your conscience stir with that mature acceptance that generally comes from adulthood that you have a responsibility to your fellow man/woman/investor not to misinform them?

I refuse to believe we as a society think so little of each other's welfare that we don't give a sh** about misinforming each other. C'mon Tony, we gotta be better than that, don't we?

(cont'd from post below)

Tony – you may feel I’m being unnecessarily cruel to you. In truth, I couldn’t give a monkey. I’d far rather all readers of public forums read and go on to assess the *facts* of an investment case prior to making, or not making, an investment than worry for one millisecond about some poster who flat out refuses to be corrected on his errors thus displaying no regard whatsoever for the consumers of his content. The selfishness of this attitude astounds me. Do better, Tony, or just quit posting here because, and please believe this in the serious manner in which it’s written, you are providing zero value add here. You *think* you are, I’ll grant you, but you’re not.

Tony – jumping in on your chat with Alaric on Saturday @ 21.08

I am now going to declare an opinion. You, tonynorstrom1, are an exceptionally rude man and I promise you that your understanding of even the basic foundations of the PANR investment case is sub-par. My eyes nearly popped out of my head when you replied to Alaric, “Have you not being paying attention to what the CEO has been saying?”

In that one sentence you have set off a blaring “Warning, Warning!!” klaxon to all readers with even a passing knowledge of PANR and/or E&P listed companies. Why TF would PANR have wanted to sell off Alkaid (NB your choice of past tense)? What on earth are you on about? It is *you*, tonynorstrum1, who hasn’t been listening to management. Did your ears have a sudden malfunction when management has been guiding on the steps required to drill a lateral production well by the roadside at Alkaid and to then truck the oil approx 15 miles north to Deadhorse? And you honestly thought it was an appropriate thing to do to ridicule Alaric for not listening to the CEO??? That is an imbecilic point you tried to make and you fell flat on your face. [Plus we now know there is the possibility the Kuparuk, SMD and SFS are *also* present at various locations within the Alkaid Unit. Why TF would PANR wish to sell Alkaid without first establishing the quantum of upgrade to TRR never mind the LKA approved contingent resource? Madness, complete madness.]

Tony – if, and it is still an if, PANR/eSeis’ geological model is correct then, quite literally, hundreds of wells will indeed be required to fully exploit the acreage. You are quite correct that PANR is *highly unlikely* to be the main operator when such development occurs – totally agree with you there. But that does *not* mean that E&P companies the world over don’t attempt to move as far up the value curve as they possibly can before securing an exit for shareholders. You say you’re an 88E shareholder, or you were a shareholder. In that case you’ll have heard Dave Wall use the following phrase repeatedly: “cream the curve”. It’s no different for PANR. If you were happy with DW “creaming the curve” then why not PANR? Your inconsistency makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, PANR requires funding for its next operational activity. The webinar dated 20/4/21 was quite explicit on that matter. How else do E&P companies the world over pay for their drilling activities? Have you, tonynorstrum1, discovered the mystical money tree??? My personal opinion is that the likelihood of proceeding with a farm out as the source of those funds, as opposed to an equity raise, has increased markedly due in no small part to the equity market’s unwillingness/inability to properly value PANR’s equity. For me, that would be a shame because I would prefer another 12 months of 100% asset ownership but it is what it is.

(cont'd)
6) State v Federal land. You’re factually wrong again because it *does* bring certain specific guarantees in law. At the core of the US Constitution is the concept of states rights. Unless you believe the rule of law is under threat in the US then the SoA will remain the landowner, regulator and royalty beneficiary of any and all oil production from PANR’s acreage. The US Federal govt cannot legislate on matters reserved for the states, with land ownership being one of those key constitutionally guaranteed rights. Constitutional amendment? Aye, maybe. The last one attempted was in the 1920’s and, from memory, only just over 30 states have signed up to it as of this year. If you are to speak publicly with such certainty on a subject, it surely behoves you to do a minimum amount of background research.

7) You need to re-read your sources on first production at Pikka. You state “30k bopd only a year or two away”. This is complete poppy****. Kindly go to the OSH website and access the latest corporate presentation which updates shareholders on timeframes to first oil in Alaska. Here’s a genuine challenge for you, Tony. Show the readers you’re a gentleman with some honour and that you’ve learnt a lesson about guessing/opinion v’s facts. Come back on here, withdraw your original statement, correct it, admit you erred and apologise to the readers of your post.

8) If, and I repeat if, a production well is drilled at Alkaid in the Summer/Autumn then the oil produced will be trucked daily to Deadhorse and sold into TAPS at Pump Station No 1. PANR’s first oil production will therefore be years ahead of OSH/Repsol’s at Pikka.

9) I note your Keystone comparison. The pipeline was to run through Federal and/or Native American land - fact. The Democrats ran on an explicit “cancel Keystone” election pledge – fact. The Canadian PM accepted the cancellation on that basis with no legal challenge. PANR’s acreage is located on SoA land, TAPS is located on SoA land, the Dalton Highway is located on SoA land. Now what’s your point?

10) Politics and the green agenda can indeed move swiftly, and I hope they do as it pertains to global carbon emissions. Developing low cost acreage adjacent to legacy infrastructure in a US state which relies on natural resources for >90% of state revenue and a stable legal system in a country where both main political parties are determined to remain energy independent is exactly where I want to be investing. If politics changes so swiftly in the next 1 – 5 years then the most immediate impact will, logically, immediately be reflected in the global POO. My analysis suggests Alaskan oil will be a net beneficiary of any such unexpectedly rapid move in politics. If I’m wrong, the POO will, thankfully, give me good warning.

11) I note your comments on risk. That is your personal call and no business of mine.

tonynorstrom1 – replying to your post on Friday @ 10.15am.

1) Nope, my post prior to yours was all pretty much “fact”.

2) Serious question. With your surname of “norstrom”, English may not be your mother tongue. Is English your primary language? If English is indeed your mother tongue then perhaps you’re just ignorant or genuinely rude? I corrected you about OSH not having any reserves, rather contingent resources at Pikka/Horseshoe. Not a word of acknowledgement, not an apology, not a withdrawal of your previous assertion. Is there any other explanation for this omission other than non-comprehension of written English, ignorance or rudeness? Maybe you’re just a simple troll? I’m being deadly serious here.....I do not know any market professional who would not immediately acknowledge a factual correction, no matter what a p**** they were in the office. Kindly try to do better.

3) Time to equivalent data capture? Hmmmm, my *personal* opinion is 4 or 5 more drills. I am, however, very confident that PANR will have reserves years (4 years minimum IMHO) before OSH/Repsol at Pikka.

4) I have a factual answer for you on the LTPTs at Pikka. Zero. Zero is the answer to your question about LTPTs at Pikka. Due to the location and lack of infrastructure, flow tests thus far at Pikka have been measured in hours and minutes rather than days and hours. Educate yourself, Tony.

5) PANR has successfully flow-tested Alkaid, and sadly achieved only a partial result at Talitha (Kuparuk). You conveniently forget the Alkaid flow test in March/April 2019. Why is that? Ignorance of the facts or wilful omission? Being unaware of the facts of an investment case is nothing to be embarrassed about because a curious mind and serious questioning of fellow shareholders will soon address that deficiency. What is completely unacceptable and pathetic is misinforming the other readers of a public forum with no regard to uncovering the facts. The facts could not give two hoots about your opinions, Tony, the facts are the facts.

Tonynorstrom1 - you're trying to be balanced and objective, which is good, but you've got the facts wrong I'm afraid.
1) Horseshoe/Pikka has no reserves, all contingent resources. Chiefly due to absence of Long Term Production Tests as lack of infrastructure means they're unable to facilitate the LTPT.
2) Where Pikka unquestionably is ahead on data collection is the number of wells drilled (12 verticals plus 7 laterals from memory). PANR could make an argument for 3 - 5 verticals. Fully accept there's a data differential there.
3) Commerciality. OSH are devoting a huge amount of energy and human resource at reducing the capex required to produce first oil. The company is guiding towards reasonable progress on that front but their cost per barrel and NPV per barrel in the ground look to be notably higher and lower respectively v's PANR's. How come? Lots of factors but the main factor by a country mile is PANR's proximity to the two major pieces of legacy infrastructure on the North Slope: TAPS and the Dalton Highway, both of which *literally* intersecting PANR's leases.
4) Environmental. The corridor stretching outwards for 2.5 miles in each direction from the Dalton is classed as historically disturbed land due to the presence of TAPS/Highway. Thus the environmental impact of the development of PANR's assets v's OSH's Pikka asset is far, far, far lower because Pikka is all virgin territory. ESG assessment will see PANR score many, many more plus points than OSH's Pikka due to the proximity of this vital legacy infrastructure. Luck or design by management (mostly luck IMHO) but it doesn't matter, net effect is the same in favour of PANR.
5) Demand. Think you're refering to political macro trends here. POO and the strip price (forward price curve) will be sole determinant on that front when PANR comes to sell the asset. The political stuff won't affect an asset sale in the next 1 - 5 years minimum, price will be main (only?) factor once commercial viability empirically established.

Trust that helps readers.

Finally, we're getting somewhere. No arguments here, just establishing the facts.

Ok, JofHobbit, what are the best TRR numbers for a) Yukon b) combined Umiat/Peregrine c) combined Central Blocks? We can work backwards to get to OIP when we attach Recovery Factors to those recoverable figures. May we please have the RF figures for the three projects? As ever, ballpark is fine. If you'd prefer to break it down by horizon, that would be fine too (even better).

Totally agree with you about proving up and selling on, no question. Natural buyer would be one of the parties to the north of Umiat/Peregrine, agreed? Unless a long term commercial tariff is agreed by the infrastructure owners to the north, the only way to force any of them to bid either singly or as part of a consortium is to cost up the construction of a >70 mile pipeline eastwards, agreed?Umiat/Peregrine is *currently* a stranded asset, Umiat reserves have been stranded since the 1940s. Unless the opex per barrel (which of course feeds in to the NPV per barrel) is earth-shatteringly low then where's the impetus to develop it going to come from? Why buy an asset when even if geology supports development, first production won't be possible until 2029/30 because its very feasibility is reliant on infrastructure being installed elsewhere on the ANS.

So we can work out OIP if you post the TRRs. and RFs. Good stuff. What about NPVs? Presumably you've got NPVs in your model to arrive at a valuation figure? What are your NPVs per barrel for each of the three main projects?

Final question.....sum of the parts breakdown by percentage by the three main projects.

I'm not answering questions on any other stocks because previous posts were deleted. I must learn my lesson so no comparative valuation debate from me. No can do. It's a fair question....I'd love to answer....blame the folk on this thread who requested some previous posts of mine be removed. I'm just interested in factual questions about 88E in this post therefore there is zero basis or justification for removal. Good stuff.

* US govt's

Hello JimBeaux,

Take your point on supply and certainly on US goat's determination to remain energy independent. I certainly agree with your TAPS/Dalton proximity point as it pertains to the Central Blocks but I profoundly reject that argument ref. Umiat/Peregrine. Not one poster here has ever, as far as I recall, attempted to answer questions posed about the capex required to a) build a pipeline >70 miles eastwards towards TAPS b) build the infrastructure required to move oil northwards c) or to arrive at a tariff cost per barrel to transport oil through other companies' infrastructure to Pump Station No 1 d) to estimates the date of first oil production at Umiat/Peregrine.

These are not trick questions, folks. These are legitimate and frequently asked questions posed to all other E&P stocks and projects.

Delighted to take you up on the suggestion to ask all other posters the questions I posed earlier to Brom/Ddraig/Jofhobbit about OIP and percentage by value on a sum of the parts basis for all three headline projects. Again, these are not trick questions, folks.

Are any of you curious about why prolific posters like Ddraig and JofHobbit either cannot or will not answer these simple questions about OIP and sum of the parts percentages by project? What about Brom? Twenty five thousand posts and he doesn't even acknowledge these extremely basic questions? Does that strike anyone as being a bit unexpected, a bit odd?

I look forward to hearing some answers to these fair and genuine questions. TIA

Hi beetlesblue and Baxi44 - I'm not for one second calling into question the veracity of your reporting from other sources but, from *my* position, I don't recognise the number you quote. Nor, fwiw, does such a number *necessarily* have an impact on the Farallon strategy. I 100% appreciate this answer doesn't advance the collective understanding much, if at all, but that's my personal understanding. Happy to be corrected of course.

Hi Brom - it sounds like you've played an absolute blinder here. Many congratulations and h/t. It is clear you are a man of unquestionable capability and your 25k posts indicate your comprehensive understanding of all matters to do with 88E.

All of which makes me even more confident that you're the right person to provide this thread with some answers to some really simple questions. On a sum of the parts basis, approximately what percentage of the whole do you ascribe to the Central Blocks? To Umiat/Peregrine? To Yukon?

Also, Ddraig reminded me recently of the importance many investors attach to the Oil in Place figure for E&P companies. In your model, what OIP figures do you have for Umiat/Peregrine? What OIP number do you have for Yukon? Same question for the Central Blocks?

Looking forward to reading your answers. Ballpark figures more than sufficient. TIA

Hi Brom - I wonder if you can assist with a couple of questions which Ddraig and JofHobbit don't wish to answer or perhaps don't have the capacity to answer. On the question of capacity, I'm sure all long term readers will agree you're more than capable.

In your model what ballpark percentage figure do you ascribe for valuation purposes to each of the three headline projects, being Yukon, Umiat/Peregrine and the Central Blocks? I'm sure you'll agree this is a very normal and frequently asked question of any stock with multiple assets or projects so I'll be interested in your analysis.

The second question I have, prompted by Ddraig in all fairness, is to enquire what OIP figures you have in your model for each of the three headline projects? Once again, all readers of this bulletin board will recognise this most basic of questions when they read about other listed E&P stocks.

I look forward with interest to your answers. TIA

10.22
Question to Mollaka and JofHobbit - in your models, what percentage value to you attribute to Yukon v's Umiat/Peregrine v's Central Blocks? I'm presuming you each have a model for 88E? If yes, not asking you to share your workings, simply asking for approx percentage weighting. Very normal and reasonable request. I'm sure I cannot be the only poster to be interested in the answer.

Ddraig - 1) I never predict SPs, I attempt to assign value to a company. I am not a trader so do not rely on SP predictions for my investing activities. You reveal your continued miscomprehension of fundamental analysis whenever you erroneously accuse me of predicting SPs. I often state what I believe the *value* is v's the current SP but that's not a prediction. You have struggled with this nuance for months now....are you ever going to "get it" I wonder?
2) "My" lot bid Farallon on 15th and 16th April but they replied "No thanks." Fact. You appear to be questioning my word here.
3) I gave *my* view on OIP across whole of XXXX plc acreage. I stand by *my* assessment and believe it will prove to be an underestimation of the final figure. I did *not* predict 26b OIP would be contained in any upcoming RNS. The 26b OIP (of which I assigned 20b to Theta West - another factual error you made and subsequently had to correct I note) is arrived at by adding my assessment of OIP for Alkaid, Leonis, Talitha and Theta West. You keep on repeating I expected to hear 26bn OIP in an RNS and you're just plain wrong. FWIW, using the same methodology would see me at a figure of 18bn OIP across all projects.
Out of interest, what OIP figure do you have for 88E in your model? Look forward to hearing back from you on this very reasonable and normal question for an E&P stock.

What are you on about, JofHobbit? It was clear to Ddraig that in referring to the January '21 auction, we both understood it was in relation to Regenerate Alaska's winning bid. In quotation marks, show all readers where I stated the Yukon leases were secured in January '21. You cannot because I have written no such thing. Debate the facts, not your delusions.

Fact check: the indigenous groups are supporting the Biden policy as it pertains to the ANWR. The legal appeal chiefly revolves around the accelerated (rushed?) 24 hour approval process adopted by the outgoing Trump admin v's the standard months long review period. It *appears* corners were cut and the legal appeal centres around the process itself as much as the facts surrounding the environmental impact.

Take your point about relative size of Yukon within the 88E investment case. What did you have for Yukon value in your model? 10%? More? Less? What about Umiat/Peregrine percentage and Central Blocks percentage? What do folk have in their models? Ballpark percentages of value per project? Three broad projects being: Yukon, Umiat/Peregrine, Central Blocks.

Noted and agreed that this was stated by DW. Trouble is, the boundary becoming effectively "definitive" means that the commercial justifications for development of the Yukon leases must stand and fall on their own merits without the support of shared infrastructure investments to the east of the SoA/ANWR boundary. At the very least, this is an unquestionable new layer of uncertainty on the potential commercialisation of Yukon.

Agreed on map and your reasoning for relative disinterest from industry in ANWR lease auction in January. Very telling that the SoA itself was by far the largest bidder in the Federal auction.