Member Info for Scot126

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

Now, now, Tony. Two people who write using a wider variety of vocabulary than average are permitted to agree on a defined set of facts, lol. If you are suggesting I have more than one username I'll disabuse you of that notion immediately. I can barely keep up with my research across my investments without having to remember usernames, when to use them, remember to be consistent with posting history, etc. I'm aware multiple avatars created by one person is a feature of bulletin boards but scot126 is unique, that I can promise you, lol.

It's no big deal necessarily that you appear to have adopted the "self-righteous" and "tiresome and personal" view of the debate/discussion, but I'd like to answer the claims directly all the same. Kindly specify exactly when I've been "self-righteous" rather than been "right" in correcting something which was factually incorrect? Tiresome and personal? I get it, but what about fair-minded people calling out fellow posters who make public diagnoses of mental health problems or who effectively accuse a plc director of accepting a bribe every month. You're fine with that but accuse the people who challenge such behaviour "self-righteous" or "tiresome" or "personal"?

Tell you what, Tony, if you challenge others' behaviour as you have mine, then I'll happily admit you've been consistent. Or do you not challenge them because they intimidate everyone, shout challengers down, bully other posters? Or is it a case that you're happy for others to do the fact-finding from which you benefit but if it gets personal it's the guy with the. "facts" who is "self-righteous" and "tiresome" rather than the conspiracy theorists who are being exposed as liars. Up to you, of course, but I reckon you've got this the wrong way round, Tony. GLA

Ah GS, you're back for more. First things first, I am categorically *not* inside on any listed company. Ok, now that we've got your cheap shot out of the way, let's move on.

1) Have you listened to every PANR webinar? Every PANR management interview? Have you read every PANR RNS and attended every UK public presentation? Have you read every piece of published research written on the stock? Have you followed the lease strategy of PANR since the GB merger? Have you read every presentation published by PANR and Otto? Have you driven yourself crazy by trying to use the unwieldy Alaskan Dept of Natural Resources to access maps and historical records and SoA submissions filed in ongoing court cases?

2) Have you listened to every 88E management interview? Have you read every 88E ANN/RNS and attended a Dave Wall Globe presentation? Have you read every piece of published research written on the stock? Have you followed the lease strategy of 88E since the PANR/GB merger?

If you can answer yes to all of the above, you will have a pretty good understanding about what's coming down the tracks in terms of newsflow. Hell, 88E's own MD Dave Wall is urging 88E shareholders to open your minds to the "overlap from Talitha" theory!!! When is the penny going to drop???

Oh, and if you answered 'No' to all the questions above and you still think your approach to investing is the one for you, then it's you who is creating an illusion.

Also, this "righteousness" accusation. What are you? 10 years old? A stock's SP couldn't give two hoots about righteousness.......it cares about right and wrong, correct and incorrect, and yes, facts v's wishful thinking and lazy assumptions. You are reading my posts reflexively and defensively when what I'm doing is inserting some facts into the understanding of the investment case of two companies which share an asset. Really, really believe me when I state I couldn't care less about "RIGHTeousness" but I definitely care about being factually RIGHT, you bet I do.

GS - at the very, very least do yourself a massive favour and watch the PANR webinar dated 20/4/21. You'll likely say through gritted teeth, I suspect, but you will thank me.

1) No
2) A debate without facts or a debate where some of the participants are lying is not a "debate". It's not nice nor easy to realise and then accept you've been lied to, but there it is.
3) Expect lots more news about the SHARED ASSET in the next couple of weeks. Just because csw12 doesn't wish to discuss the *facts* will not discourage me one iota.

As it appears you're in the mood this evening to share your historical knowledge, Brom, how about shutting off once and for all the conspiracy theories recently promulgated by Jofhoggit. You and I know fine well the GB founders have been diluted to smithereens and, as a matter of fact, continue to be diluted to this very date. Thus the allegations leveled against Bob Rosenthal, paying of bribes by Farallon, insider trading, etc are complete gibberish.

C'mon Brom. Use your standing on this thread to shut this nonsense off right now. It'll mean less distraction and more focus on the actual portfolio of 88E assets. You know what's coming down the railroad - why permit this outrageous distraction to fester when 88E shareholders should be focussed on the potential upside of the "overlap from Talitha" theory? That just doesn't appear to be logical or in the financial interests of 88E shareholders?

Huh. I felt fairly certain Ddraig must have been a psychiatrist or psychologist due to the fact he was so forthcoming with his medical diagnoses. What a remarkable skillset to be a) more knowledgeable than his company accountant b) an accomplished advisor on tax and derivatives (only "the big stuff" mind, lol) and c) a self-taught psychologist too. We are truly blessed. All of which makes me further confused about his rabidly negative reaction to being confronted with the facts of an investment case. Perhaps these banks and FI's weren't interested in empirical facts either? Hmmm, most curious.

Back to facts again. According to the latest Annual Report, Dave Wall departs 88E owning 120m shares and 80m performance rights. I don't know the full terms of the performance rights nor if they are subject to a post-employment holding period. I do know that it would be most irregular for a departing employee to be restricted from selling fully paid ordinary shares, in this case 120m. I also know that because Dave Wall steps down from his position as a director of 88E on 10/5/21, if he does sell some/all his ordinary shares, AIM Rules do not require this be reported. Happy to be corrected but I understand the same is true for the ASX. GLA

A shared asset demands investigation. If it's good enough for 88E's departing MD to discuss, it sure as hell is pertinent for an anonymous bulletin board.

No matter how much csw12 wails and gnashes his teeth, the fact remains that Dave Wall made the idea of a shared asset a central plank of the 88E investment case. To. Be clear, if I were DW I would have done the exact same thing. He then elected to publish two diagrams without any context which gave a quite egregious false impression of the proportion of any future shared asset.

Facts of the investment case - that's all there is to it.

......and you, csw12, need to become more familiar with facts and the truth. I challenge you directly, csw12. Name one statement I have made on either thread where something I labelled as a "fact" has been debunked?

Ask yourself why the 88E's thread most informed poster, Brom, has not debunked one of my statements when labelled as facts. Hmmmm, bit odd that. Not one fact debunked.

So you and JimBeaux don't like reading the facts? I know, here's an easier plan, I'll go on the attack instead. And that's fine, csw12, but those pesky facts can't be made to disappear no matter how hard you huff and puff on an anonymous bulletin board.

Now then.....the same multiple choice question. Did Dave Wall introduce the "overlap from Talitha" theory because a) he thought it would benefit the 88E investment case or b) it would damage the 88E investment case? Tricky call, I realise. Here, let me give you a hand. Dave Wall has 120m shares and 80m performance rights. Still finding it difficult to answer, lol??!!

JimBeaux - I was attempting to forensically dismantle your permissive approach to poster conduct on these threads. You urge me to pipe down, state I have a ton of cheek, and liken me to a French crusader figure. Fine.

In turn, I accuse you of not caring a jot about Jofhoggit's intentional dissemination of lies and factually debunked accusations against Farallon, the GB founders, the AIM team at the LSE, Canaccord, the Farallon internal counsel and the PANR BoD. I list all those parties because there's got to be a big conspiracy going on involving all these firms/regulators/individuals for JofHoggit's allegations to be true, agreed? Otherwise, his theory breaks down, eh?

And the response from frequent flyers on the 88E thread to JofHoggit's conduct? Crickets.

If the cap fits, wear it with pride, JimBeaux. You are indeed a hypocrite and a bully.

Show me one instance where any of the facts I reference in connection to the two neighbours has been debunked? Name. One. Example.

Still deafening silence from Brom. He could shut down JofHoggit's scurrilous allegations in one post if he chose. Brom knows as much as anyone associated with 88E the history of the SoA debt repayment debacle and the historical effects it had on 88E and GB. How can I be so categorical about this, you may ask? Because, JimBeaux, Brom has posted on this very subject on the 88E thread in the past. Fact.

Brom's silence is deafening and truly disappointing. I genuinely thought he was better than that.

Now then, JimBeaux. How are you getting on with explaining why Dave Wall introduced the "overlap from Talitha" theory in the latest RNS? It was a multiple choice question....a) or b). Finding it tricky being forthcoming on a matter you wish to ignore v's happy to be outspoken in attacking me? That, JimBeaux, is the very definition of a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite. Fact.

Righto, csw12. How's about you in that case? You happy for Jofhoggit to allege on a public forum that Farallon were inside when selling stock in the market? In that case you must be ecstatic about JofHoggit's accusation that Farallon pays the GB founders every month by cheque, which would amount fraud, bribery = criminal conduct. And, of course, you must be positively delirious with unbridled joy your fellow posters think it's perfectly reasonable allegations that Bob Rosenthal promoted an investment case one evening and was part of the decision-making process to sell shares the next day......and, get this csw12, even though it directly goes against his own financial interests??!! What a bizarre upsidedown world you and Jofhoggit inhabit.

csw12 - your obvious disinterest in establishing the facts of both companies' investment cases means you're being forced into a corner defending some high level conspiracy theory b/s which defies all logic. Is something not very wrong when you find yourself defending the indefensible?

Now then, back to facts. Why do you think Dave Wall introduced the "overlap from Talitha" theory in 88E's latest ANN/RNS dated 26/4/21? Was it because a) it would cause the 88E share price to go down or b) it would lead to the share price moving higher? I'd suggest that because Dave Wall has exposure to 200m 88E shares, he'd have given this matter quite a bit of thought. Or do you know more than the MD of 88E? Perhaps you also wanted to take a dump on his lawn?! Dear, dear, dear.

And Brom knows the history of GB and the SoA and Farallon. You must have missed those posts when he was more than happy to describe what happened in the past? or are you just telling fibs? Naughty, naughty, csw12.

Hi cbaron - thoughtful post. Read with interest at this end. Thank you. FWIW I agree with your interpretation of the motivations discussed in your post and, of course, events in real life have superseded much of JofHoggit's scaremongering. GLA

No, Jimbeaux. If positions were reversed there's no way I let those types of allegations go unchallenged. That you think it's fair for them to go uncontested illustrates your moral code far more clearly than it does mine. No wonder AIM is thought of as akin to The Wild West when folk like you exist who describe someone seeking to challenge a baseless conspiracy theory as "Joan of Arc"?

I'll tell you who is talking humbug? Folk like you who cannot or are incapable of researching the facts of an investment case and who appear to ignore completely a fellow poster's continual reference to another person's mental health.

I'll take Joan of Arc over your permissive attitude any day. Now then, how's about those facts? And for the record, and unlike a sizeable plurality of the posters on 88E, I think Dave Wall has done a praiseworthy job as MD of 88E. Odd how the 88E bullies pop up when challenged on issues of *fact* when they appeared amused by repeated threats to take a dump on your MD's front lawn.

You're a hypocrite, JimBeaux. Fact.

Hi Olderwiser - spot on with regard to thresholds. The main threshold concern was to ensure a Reverse Takeover (RTO) wasn't triggered as part of the merger, thus the creation of the two classes of shares. I apologise for my repeated requests for you to debunk the conspiracy theories being disseminated elsewhere.

Hi Tony - some answers. 1) 25 years investment banking 2) shareholder 3) acting on behalf of myself and other interested parties including various UK institutions 4) for as long as the original Farallon investment underperforms in the context of a supposed quasi-sovereign debt investment within a debt fund, as the dominant party within CHONS and holding security over the GB founders' shares, every PANR share sold by Farallon reduces the GB founders' exposure to the asset they first identified. Shows you can be bang on with the science of geology but macro timing can massively disrupt and nearly destroy the financial model. I feel for the GB founders. GLA

By the way, Brombard over on 88E knows all this but doesn't appear to possess the spine or sense of honour to shut this conspiracy theorist down. Like me, Brom follows the court cases about the SoA's attempts to launch a bond scheme and to start repaying the Tax Rebate scheme debts. He's also written extensively in the past about the negative effect the SoA's moratorium had on both 88E and GB.

I find it sad that such a prolific (is it around 24-25k posts now????) and seemingly well-informed 88E poster doesn't wish to "do the right thing" and shut down this nonsense. Yet once the Theta West maiden guidance is published he'll be front'n'centre PRing the bejesus out of the implications of the shared asset for 88E shareholders. Intellectually cynical and morally disappointing conduct on his part. GLA

Hi Tony - kindly read my posts on this matter by clicking on my username and going through the explanation.

Very quick summary. Bob Rosenthal was one of the Great Bear founders -> Riverstone principals plus Lord Browne invest pa -> SoA moratorium on Exploration Tax Rebate repayments -> Farallon purchases the GB/SoA debt from BofA for 96c in the dollar -> Farallon stuck with a non-performing debt asset agrees to merger with PANR having diluted the GB and Riverstone ownership of GB to b^ggery as hedge funds are wont to do -> Farallon uses CHONS vehicle to hold Farallon/Riverstone/GB founders shares in PANR -> Bob R joins PANR as Technical Director at time of merger -> all fine until conspiracy theorist Jofhoggit comes up with fantasy that Bob and other GB founders are a) briefing (and being paid no less!!!!!) Farallon on the hush hush and b) have been urging Farallon to sell PANR shares since mid-January when PRECISELY the GB founders would prefer the exact opposite and for Farallon not to sell one share. How come? Because it further damages the GB founders' financial interests by increasing the dilution they've been enduring over the last 5 years or so even further.

Jofhoggit has zero, repeat, zero clue what's going on.

Corrected version - previous one full of auto-correct, sorry.

Hi Monty888 - I don't know your background or history with 88E or any other company currently operating on the North Slope of Alaska. You are factually incorrect that the per barrel cost of extraction "is $50 to $60". This is easily debunked by researching any of the multitude of public companies active on the ANS such as Conoco, Exxon, Oil Search, Repsol et al.

88E has not, and delighted to be corrected here, issued guidance on the cost of extraction per barrel for each of their projects located in truly quite disparate locations. I can point you to 88E's northern neighbour at its Central and Eastern Blocks which has guided a breakeven per barrel of "mid $20's up to $40" depending on which horizon they're describing.

*If* the "overlap from Talitha" thesis is proven, I would imagine numbers in that range would also apply to 88E's part of the shared asset. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me?

Your macro call on oil is none of my business.

See what sharing factual information can lead to??? GLA

Hi Monty888 - I don't know your background or history with 88E or anyone else operating on the North Slope of Alaska. You are factually incorrect that the per barrel cost of extraction of a barrel of oil "is $50 to $60". This is. Easily debunked by researching any of the multitude of public companies active on the ANS such as Conoco, Exxon, Oil Search, Repsol et al.

88E has not, and delighted to be corrected here, issued guidance on a cost of extraction per barrel for each of their projects located in really quite disparate locations. I can point you to 88E northern neighbour at its. Central and Eastern Blocks who have guided a breakeven fire per barrel of "mid $20's up to $40" depending on which horizon they're describing.

If the "overlap from Talitha" thesis is proven, I would speculate numbers in that range would also apply to 88E's part of the shared asset.

See what sharing factual information can ???? GLA

Hi Olderwiser and anyone else wishing to look into the PANR voting and non-voting shares, Farallon history, etc - click on my username to read my various responses to this "Aha! Gotcha!" cut'n'paste conspiracy theorist.

He's gone full QAnon and alleges that a) Farallon pays the GB founders monthly by cheque on the quiet and b) that Bob Rosenthal promoted the PANR investment case during the recent webinar and then the next morning was part of Farallon's decision-making process to sell shares in the market.

This preposterous and financially irrational narrative was easily debunked in its entirety and I did so. Anyone who knows the history of GB/SoA/BofA/Farallon/PANR knows that the GB founders have been diluted to smithereens and Farallon selling shares is precisely the opposite of acting in the GB founders' best financial interests! Furthermore, the NOMAD, the AIM team at the LSE and Farallon's internal counsel are all aware of the conversion process and were satisfied that Farallon were not and are not inside for a period of many, many months. Oh, I forgot....this Jofhoggit fella also alleged Farallon were in possession of inside info when they started selling shares in mid-January this year. The poor wee soul didn't know about the 1 year hard and 1 year soft lock in agreement following the merger.

Olderwiser - knowing the 88E history as you do, and the dramatic effect the moratorium on the Tax Rebate repayments had on a number of companies operating in Alaska at the time, are you not able to make it clear to the 88E community that what Jofhoggit alleges is not factually correct? Forgive me if I have misunderstood your knowledge of the 88E history, Tax Rebate scheme, etc.

I make this request of anyone else who is aware of the histories of 88E/GB as it would be incredibly sad and likely damaging if this conspiracy theorist's claptrap was to be believed by innocent readers doing their research. Besides which, his cut'n'paste job is miles out of date and he hasn't bothered or doesn't understand the changes to the voting/non-voting numbers, lol.

TIA

Jofhoggit - your ill-informed refusal to accept additional information I have obtained together with my logical explanation of the dynamic between the three groups present under the CHONS banner is not surprising particularly, but is nonetheless shocking when confronted by it. If you're not interested in historical facts nor logical progression then there's not much more I can do for you. What I can do, however, is continue to challenge your libellous and false statements dressed up as facts when they're complete gibberish.

Please answer the following questions directly and I'd now urge you to take really good care in writing your responses.

1) As you wrote previously on this public forum, do you continue to allege the GB founders are paid monthly by cheque by Farallon? If your answer is "No", kindly withdraw your allegation explicitly so that all may read your retraction.

2) As you wrote previously on this public forum, do you continue to allege Bob Rosenthal was promoting an investment case one evening and then was part of the decision-making process to sell shares the very next day? If your answer is "No", kindly withdraw your allegation explicitly so that all may read your retraction.

Ok, your latest conspiracy theories. Farallon's selling began at when a soft lock in period expired following the merger with GB. How that date arrived at and any internal mechanisms within CHONS around that date remain unknown to me so they sure as hell aren't known by you.

Your "closed period" conspiracy theory. See my response above PLUS my earlier post whereby Canaccord, the AIM team inside the LSE and Farallon's counsel approved the structure such that Farallon were never aware of any inside information at least as far back as last summer and, I understand, even further back than that.

Nothing wrong with asking why Farallon are selling. I'm wonder why too. I suspect the answer is a mix of de-risking, the fund in which the investment is held is a debt fund, the SoA's moratorium on debt repayments remains in place (also bad for 88E of course) and seeking liquidity after such an extended period of non-cash realisation (5 years or so).

Jofhoggit - I would urge you to really think about this. I am consistently debunking your conspiracy theories. Just stop. I suspect you realise you're way out of your depth here but you don't wish to lose face. I get it. Here's the thing, unless Jofhoggit is your real name then no-one on the planet is going to care about you losing face apart from one person - you.

Withdraw your nonsensical and harmful allegations. Read up on Talitha and Theta West and then start to work out the positive implications for your investment in 88E. The increase in value will likely be noteworthy IMHO.