Member Info for Skippysb01

I find that my long division skills that I picked up a school are more than enough top cope with the high number of shares in issue.

99- Because they have an interest in getting a lower entry point. They are in fact very interested in trading 88e.

That's a rubbish analogy though. If you played well for the 10 mins I might give you another go next time. I also don't hear anyone using basketball as a good analogy for how well flow testing works. Needs to work both ways.

Better analogy is go turn your tap on and time how long it takes to fill a 1 litre bottle. Turn it off and record how long it took. Now go work out how many bottles you could fill in a day? That's a better analogy but far from perfect. You seem to think that it isnt allowed to use data and modelling to explain results. It absolutely is.

Taximan. Exactly. The flow testing over recent weeks has de risked this prospect. It is more investable now that it ever has been. Investors will have an eye on forward plans and funding arrangements. If they get a JV it's going to move the sp.

Ssccss. Nope. They have that over the 2 tests in the same well. Not interested in your assessment of what the flow rates mean. They have to extrapolate based on the data they have. Everyone does this and it's absolutely appropriate. I recognise the risk to investors for the next stage but as I say - it's de risked compared to before these well tests. That's an objective view because I don't have a short open and I don't have childish tribal allegiances to another company in the area.

The idea that you can't look forwards because you don't like what you see in the past is for the birds.

This opportunity looks better today than it did a few months ago - simple. If you don't believe they can get the c. 100 bpd from this single vertical well - that would provide the impetus to move forwards then that's your investment decision made for you. But I see that they have. So I can start to base my investment risk case on assumptions that they can do better with a horizontal well and then more wells.

Sscccss - they have been more than prepared to move on from failure previously. So it's nonsense to now suggest they are lying to keep shareholders happy. It is what it is. The RNS makes it clear that they have a commercial opportunity. This is different.

They changed a word:

'PEAK flow rate of ~50 barrels of oil per day'

the Monday RNS stated 'INSTANTANEOUS' flow rate of ~50 barrels of oil per day'.

Semantics? Well they thought it was worth changing. Still very much need an interview to provide confidence in the headline numbers.

Wow. It's amazing that anyone ever managed to drill and get oil out of Alaska ever!!! Sounds impossible!!!!

Except it isnt is it.

What do we think the cost of this appraisal well will be?

LOL. It is. Strangely enough, if you ignore the references to Icewine it could be what is happening now at Hickory.

They need to do an interview like this now to explain what they found at Hickory.

It's worth having a listen to this interview that Dave Wall did with Shares Magazine just 5 days ago. In the absence of an interview update covering yesterday's RNS, it does provide a lot of context.

He does seem to explain that the flow test would require time to get going and hence that is reflected in the actual time the peak rates were experienced for the second test.

I note that he was saying that 100 bpd from these test would indicate a commercial level move forward to a horizontal well. They now have 50 + 70 from the 2 tests.

Also breaks down some of the likely funding options.

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/video/shares-spotlight-dave-wall-md-of-88-energy-88e

Success. Don't think it means nothing but agree you would ideally want them to run with it for longer. It could drop off after 2 days or 2 years so there are limits to what this well test can demonstrate - as with all well tests we are left with an amount of ambiguity. Question is does it provide enough confidence to attract investment/partners.

Olderwiser. No the likely explanation is that they achieved a flow rate of 50 for a period of time. Which is enough. One of your mates tried to draw an analogy about taps and plumbing yesterday which was a load of nonsense. It's more like they turned a tap on that is millions of years old, cleared the tap of what you would rightly expect needed to be clear (OK a lot of that is what they introduce during the test), it spluttered for a while but once it got going - 50bpd flow rate. You dont' have to keep it going to know what flow was being achieved and whether it contained oil.

Neversatisfied. I think you have it. It's why they should come out and do an interview and answer this question. Those stating they can only produce 4 barrels a day are just saying it because it's what they want the message to be.

It was likely 4 barrels at a rate of 50 a day for the duration the flow test was effective.

No olderwiser. You might be right but actually you might not be. Interpretation on an RNS is often ambiguous - it shouldn't be. But the headlines and next steps yesterday do not align to a failed well test. So something isnt right. I'll wait and see.

Your objective is very clear and there is one of you on every LSE message board. If you spend as much time as you do pulling out every negative you possibly can, you cry wolf I'm afraid, so you and the other obvious suspects (probably also you) are widely ignored. You might well be right but your reputation makes you meaningless.

They need to explain it. An interview would do the job on Practive or anything really. Even the 'experts' are stumped.

Ultimately the RNS tells a story that ends with the a view on the path to commercialisation. Using the word 'discovery' in the RNS headline if it's just dripping oil doesn't stack up. As usual if the language isn't tight and they don't second guess the response from all sides when writing the RNS, this will happen.

No Scot, they are not 'peak flow rates'. This is part of the current data set based on flow testing on initial artificial lift over 20ft sections of well. It is not true that the company can only generate 4 barrels of oil a day.

There is currently insufficient data to support your assumptions. I'm not trying to state whether or not the project will reach a commercial level. I'm pointing out that it isnt true that the end product will be just 4 barrels a day.

But you just revealed yourself in thus statement 'Its over. And only going to get worse as folk realise that 4 barrels of oil wont keep any candles burning.'

4 barrels just isnt true is it! They have 50 & 70 across the tested zones as confirmed in the RNS's.

Whether or not the discovery is commercial is something that needs to be established but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you back up your point with an absolutely ridiculous statement like that.

Or is the post ironic?

It's certainly not a duster and he certainly can't spell.