Member Info for Scot126

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.

Hi BenEng - are you aware that Regenerate Alaska is a subsidiary of 88E? Perhaps have a read of the lease auction results from January '21? I suspect your assumption requires revision. Hope that helps.

PS Alkaid and Theta West are nowhere near Federal land. I think you are mixing up PANR and 88E? Or you need to re-examine the map you looked at?

No effect on PANR whatsoever. 100% of PANR's land is located on State of Alaska land. This is a statement of fact and can be confirmed by accessing the Bureau of Land Management website for the state of Alaska. Delighted to report that you're completely wrong!

Not convinced on that score, Blackadder2708. Certainly I accept the point about the SoA v's Federal boundary at Yukon. Yet the Fed govt's stance on the ANWR must, logically, add another layer of uncertainty (legal, funding, logistical) and thus decrease the likelihood of eventual commercial exploitation of the asset. If it's "no big deal", why did DW bid for the block at auction? He must surely have discerned a value-added strategy in bidding for the ANWR leases?

Delighted with the Willow news and noted. Unfortunately it still doesn't answer the long-standing and objectively pertinent question about Umiat/Peregrine's pathway to commerciality. Sadly there continues to be 88E shareholders active on social media/bulletin boards who don't appreciate the logistics and capex required to bring Umiat/Peregrine into production. These digital influencers don't appear to understand there's a really good reason Umiat hasn't produced a barrel of commercial oil since the 1940's due to its geographical isolation. Some even appear to believe 88E will become a producer in 2022.

It is entirely reasonable to contend that even if either Harrier or Merlin is proven to contain sufficient volumes of commercially-producable oil, and this is at least one maybe two winter seasons away in terms of data required, there is no appreciation that the logistics required to produce and move the oil will take years to build and hundreds of millions, if not more, to finance. Even if the opex per barrel at Umiat/Peregrine was exceptionally low v's other North Slope projects, it will rely on the construction of a >70 mile pipeline due east or to "piggyback" on projects to the north which by their own admission won't be in production until 2026/7 at the earliest.

So, I'm not convinced about the value of the Umiat/Peregrine Project being affected by the ANWR Biden decision. However, where I do have sympathy with your logic is in the case of 88E's Central Blocks. State land, state leases, close to TAPS and the Dalton Highway, reduced time to first oil, reduced capex required to deliver first oil.

Like others, I look forward to 88E's internal analysis on what percentage, if any, of the Kuparuk/Slope Fan System/Shelf Margin Deltaic formations are located on 88E leases. 5%? 10%? As high as 15%? Fascinating times.

hTTps://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/01/biden-anwr-alaska-oil-491498

Still scrabbling around, JofH, desperately hoping to land on a fact rather than one of your made up conspiracy theories, lol.

Farallon is spelt thus.

I said I know Bob and assess that behaving in the manner you allege is just not part of his make up. Happy to stand by that assessment.

"It makes sense......" Aye, to you it does, Mr Conspiracy Theorist, lol. But makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who is interested only in facts and the truth.

Oh, and do keep up the personal abuse. It reflects so well on your upbringing. GLA

Oh dear, Jimbeaux, what do we have here? Posted by JofH on 6/5/21 at 14:25.

“Good one Scott, haha. You talk out of your orifice. What did you say the other day about Farallon selling GB shares and reducing their interests? ***Sounded remarkably like what I had said, albeit without the cheque***. Maybe it's a bank transfer.”

Forget the actual insinuation contained in the original post, you are *factually wrong* when you state JofH wasn’t the author of the “cheque every month” post. Yes, it was subsequently deleted but he’s admitting to using that phrase or vocabulary in the post above. That’s one apology due, agreed?

So we can both now stipulate the original post by JofH was deleted. I’ll attempt to paraphrase here but my recollection (which has proven to be correct thus far – see proof above) was that JofH insinuated that as Farallon proceeded to successfully sell shares in the market it used the proceeds of those sales to “pay a cheque every month” to the GB founders for supplying Farallon with information about PANR’s present day activities. That’s a second apology due, Jimbeaux. You've been taken in by a conman. It happens, but don't make it worse by doubling down.

Time for all of those who believe JofH is being honest and acting with integrity to wake up. I’ve dismantled his disinformation campaign forensically. If you continue to choose to believe his factless allegations then there truly is no more I can do for you. GLA

9) GB selling stake to fund future drill or to farm in. Wooshka!! I don’t know what to say about this particular conspiracy theory. That’s the best of the bunch, but not in a good way. What it does serve to highlight is JofH’s complete ignorance of corporate law, corporate finance, the AIM Rules, directors’ fiduciary duties, the laws governing fraud and plenty more beside. If readers cannot see for themselves JofH’s obvious ignorance and lack of experience/expertise then there’s really not much more I can do for them.

Ah Jimbeaux - it's rare for JofH to be "out-conspiracy theoried" but you have excelled yourself in your post timed at 21:50. Hearty congratulations.

I'm not certain, but I think there will more than a few readers of the 88E thread who will recall the since deleted JofH posts concerning the GB founders being paid "by cheque every month". The fact the posts have been deleted does not mean that JofH wasn't the author, lol. I'm not going to make any attempt at context so am not making any assertions but I challenge JofH directly to admit that he was indeed the author of the "paid by cheque every month". I'll expect your public apology, Jimbeaux!!

"Got too complicated." There we have it in a nutshell. When the brain hurts, it becomes all too difficult. But in the heady days of the anonymous bulletin board, "My opinions are as valid as your facts". Think I'll leave it there. GLA

4) (continued)....Not looking good for JofH.

5) JofH then quotes correctly two paragraphs I wrote and I stand by every word. That JofH elects not to apologise and withdraw the allegations discussed above and/or the 88E thread (including its most prolific poster who knows at least as much as I do about the histories of 88E and GB in Alaska, probably more) completely fails to disassociate itself from JofH’s disgusting allegations means that I’m happy to leave those paragraphs in place without any further comment. I’ve given my word I will explain further once JofH and/or the 88E thread “do the right thing” and I repeat the promise again now.

6) “Until the selling stops the brakes....” Stock has traded @ 47-48p since Farallon started selling in mid-Jan ’21. Looking through JofH’s historical posts he informs a fellow poster that he traded PANR from 21 -> 29p and then expresses regret he didn’t buy back in at 25p. Huh, isn’t that interesting? Motivation for egregious conduct? Who knows. As for Farallon, I don’t know if they’ve stopped selling today, will stop selling tomorrow or plan to sell 100 shares per day from now until eternity! I do know that at least two groups of people are currently attempting to bid Farallon for all/part of their holding. I know this to be a fact because I am part of one of those two groups. ‘Fraid you‘re just going to have to take my word on that one, lol. No links available, lol. If that stock were to be placed, for example, tomorrow, what’s going to happen to the SP? Exactly.

7) This subject is indeed a “worthy of discussion”. The trouble is that only one side of this discussion is in possession of the facts and the other side has made up his mind that a vast conspiracy surrounds the activities of Farallon/GB and thus PANR.

8) GB founders are beneficiaries “in JofH’s opinion” of the sale of shares by Farallon and “selling now doesn’t make sense”. If JofH had the intellect he thinks he possesses he would see the dichotomy contained in the first sentence of my paragraph 8). He needs to investigate the history of GB since the SoA moratorium on its debt repayments; he needs to look up the definition of “dominant” and “security” (in a debt arrangement sense); he needs to look up the definition of “dilution” and what generally happens in the period leading up to a debt for equity swap when, eg. a hedge fund moves into a position of control of an entity when that entity got in financial trouble through no particular fault of its own. Who, in general, gets diluted? The debt holder and day-to-day financier of the company or the original owners of the business?

‘Fraid I have to reply to rebut JofH’s various allegations. I’ll try to answer his points in the order of the paragraphs in his post timed at 19.25. I had to wade through JofH’s historical posts to look for direct quotes but I note a large number have been deleted. Lesson learned for me to keep copies of offending posts but good for the lse moderators I guess!

1) See Rabito79’s response timed at 19.41 for OIP answer.

2) Farallon being inside accusation. I remember the “closed period argument” partly because cbaron (I think?) and I had to inform JofH about the soft lock in arrangement. JofH patently had no clue about the soft lock in otherwise he wouldn’t even have gone down the “closed period” cul-de-sac. What I also remember prior to this is having to explain why Farallon were NOT inside at any point since at least Sept ’20 and certainly not since they were sellers in the market from mid-Jan ’21. JofH made a series of, since deleted, accusations that because CHONS is a vehicle for the holdings of Farallon, the GB founders and the Riverstone guys that Farallon will know from their relationship and communications with former GB employees (now employed by PANR) of non-public information. JofH most definitely did accuse Farallon of being inside whilst active in the market. I remember the accusation. I reacted to it. lse deleted the post which is damning in itself. JofH keeps repeating his closed period argument because he knows he made a dreadful error in publicly accusing a $35bn US hedge fund of being inside whilst active in the market.

3) Payments every month. JofH described a pattern of activity which saw Bob Rosenthal and other GB founders “paid by cheque every month” by Farallon and I seem to recall something about “quietly” or “on the quiet” which I went on to re-use in subsequent posts. JofH didn’t use the word “bribe”, I did. JofH didn’t use the word “criminality”, I did. However the conduct he described happening behind the scenes would indeed amount to a bribe, would amount to fraudulently deceiving shareholders and therefore would easily meet the threshold of criminality.

4) Bob Rosenthal promoting then selling. I remember this accusation particularly well because I know Bob and he’s physically incapable of behaving in such a manner because he’s just not made that way. Plus, I know the sale of shares by Farallon is having a direct negative effect on the GB founders. JofH described conduct, since deleted, where Bob R had been part of a webinar promoting the PANR investment case and then been part of the decision-making the following morning which saw Farallon actively selling stock in the market. JofH voiced strong personal disapproval of such behaviour and made clear his thoughts on that alleged conduct. The “arms length” admission only arrived when I challenged him about his accusation that Bob R had “promoted in the evening and sold in the morning”. JofH is starting to show all the classic signs of revisionism. Not lookin

GS - I'll happily add you to that list if you publicly AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE accuse a PANR director of accepting payments by cheque every month from a $35bn hedge fund, accuse multiple parties of a conspiracy to trade while being in possession of inside information and attempt persistently to sow disinformation ("deza") by the use of partial cut'n'pastes of paragraphs of legal text.

To hell with your arrogance label, GS. That you lack the spine or moral fibre where it becomes acceptable for you to back up the person who is literally imperilling your investment, literally taking money from your pocket v's the guy who is challenging his lies is completely bewildering. Can you not see that?????? I hate myself for even thinking this but you deserve to lose money for attacking the truth teller v's the thief who is undermining your investment.

Point to one matter of fact where I have lied, misled, misdirected. You can't because I don't conduct myself in that manner. And you throw pejorative terms around like confetti like a toddler, lol. Knowing more than the next person does not make one arrogant, GS.

Keepin' it classy........brilliant.

.....and what about all the readers of JofHoggit's factless allegations which has introduced the idea into 10s, 100s of reader's heads that the GB founders accept bribes from a US hedge fund and that they're all part of an insiders conspiracy?

You may have settled that matter in your head but what of every other reader? I get that it's annoying, this search for truth, but it's a million times more effective than being carried along on a web of lies. Don't like it? Block me.

You've got to be kidding me, Jofhoggit????? Publicly withdraw on the 88E thread your factless and outrageous allegations about:
A) Farallon being inside whilst selling shares in the market
B) Farallon paying bribes to GB founders 'by cheque every month"
C) Bob Rosenthal promoting the PANR investment case one evening and then being part of a decision-making process to sell shares in the market the next day.

That you even thought it was appropriate to ask those questions of me without withdrawing your historical, baseless allegations amazes me, and I suspect all fair-minded people. You retract the allegations, no caveats, apologise to shareholders of both 88E and PANR for questioning on a public forum the integrity of men you've never met and I give you my word I'll answer your questions.

FWIW, you're finally asking the right questions. But you and everyone else on the threads are getting nothing from me on those issues until you do the right thing by your own volition or if the thread as a collective steps up and demands you withdraw your lies. Your conduct is unacceptable to me, and it ought to be unacceptable to all honest posters too.

That, Seahawk, is behaving with honour. You may think it's ok for people to lie and imperil your personal investments by posting damaging allegations on a public forum. I don't. I suggest you and those who believe as you do, need to wake up and realise folk like Jofhoggit couldn't give a monkeys about truth and the investment case....and they certainly don't care about your financial well-being. GLA

Hi Tony - righto, no worries.

I still find it inconsistent and, yes, saddening that you and others have opted to have a minor pop at the challenger(s) for refusing to back down to the bullying liars. Where is your genuine outrage that posters continually refer to someone else's mental health?

You kindly state you feel I've made my point about the GB founders. Thanks for that. Where, then, is the genuine outrage that some of your fellow posters continue to post lies, to double down on their conspiracy theories? In one specific case there's been complete silence from the thread's most prolific poster whom I believe knows just as much as I do about the history of 88E/GB and how they were both damaged terribly by the SoA's moratorium on repaying their debt. Where's the clamour for him to "do the right thing"?

And are you truly accusing me. of getting personal???? Really? Show me one instance where I've got personal? Calling Jofhoggit a liar when it's patently clear he is an actual liar? Calling out Ddraig as a bully when he pilliories those who suffer mental illness?

C'mon Tony - it's surely time for folk such as you to step up? How's about some consistency and face down the posters who are lying to you and then have a swing at the challenger if you've still got energy after that?! GLA