Member Info for taximan57

Rabito, I totally agree, posting only positive can give the wrong impression, however when there are so many non holders on here posting negative, non factual as who knows, I do not see anything wrong with levelling the playing field.

I would rather only deal with facts from releases by 88E, and when you see previous posts you will know that, but I have went of script a few times and was corrected by Older or belittled by Scot. I dont mind being informed with facts that I can check but most of deramper stuff is guesswork, assumptions, estimations, personal thoughts, non of which are factual regardless of ending the sentence with 'fact'.

If the rampers and derampers would just disappear I'm sure the majority on here would be thankful.

One final point, as a LTH I don't want to be told what is wrong with my holdings, I just want to chat with like minded holders who all hope one day to actually make money. No lectures required.

From 2 years ago, thanks Rabito;

'88 Energy advises that it is in ongoing discussions in relation to a potential farm-out of the Project Icewine acreage. Due diligence activities and negotiations are advancing with regard to the potential farm-in by a third party and the related work program terms and structure'

And prior to Icewine being renamed;

'Subsequent and independent comparisons of the zone that was tested and flowed light oil in Alkaid-1 at “80-100 BOPD light oil” (see Pantheon release of 25 March 2019) against the Icewine-1 well, have revealed the porosity and

resistivity of a similar 110 ft net section in Icewine-1 well to be higher. Higher porosity is indicative of better reservoir quality and higher resistivity is an indicator that greater amounts of hydrocarbons are present. Given the favourable petrophysical comparison between Icewine-1 and Alkaid-1, the Company is optimistic that a production test in the Eastern Icewine acreage could yield a similar or better result than seen during the testing of Alkaid-1'.

It all reads excellent for 88E on the strength of good results from PANR, and the company expects more oil in their section of the reservoirs than PANRs. Lets hope so when they get their independent report later this year.

Triumph1, very impressive post, I take my hat off to you ;)

My apologies marlbs, for my simplistic replies to you,I thought you were a newbie. I looked back on your posts and realised that you are a hardened poster. I look forward to reading more ;)

Marlbs, very good point and well spotted. The derampers will try anything to get you to sell 88E and move over to PANR. The opposite is LTHs of 88E, we don't care about PANR. It is true that we share reservoirs and that any good news from either company should be a positive for the other but some on here have blinkers on. For example I wasn't aware that SMD B flowed naturally for a period when tested by PANR so technically it could also have flowed naturally for 88E but imo I think 88E were fully aware that the upper test ran well over time so did not want that to happen with SMD B so used nitrogen lift from the start. That PANR news is a positive for 88E. Because I don't frequent their board I am not as aware as the derampers who cover both boards. That is also the reason I don't bin anyone, unlike many over here who are constantly being harrassed by PANR holders so bin them. I try to glean some knowledge which is why I mentioned Olderwiser earlier who has been very helpful in the past.

Rabito, I wasn't aware of PANR testing other than what was said in 88Ereleases as I have no holding in PANR. If what you are saying is true I see that as a positive for 88E. I am sure that nitrogen lift was used purely due to time restraints as they started SMD B late. Thank you for the update.

What older fails to tell is the GOR on SMD B was minimum to none. Also injecting gas for raising oil is expensive, a cost that will be far less for 88E than PANR as 88E have natural flow in the upper whilst PANR injected all wells during testing. Did I mention the derampers grabbing the 4 barrels for dear life? It is hard to grasp reality when you have an agenda. Nothing they hear is ever positive, there is always spin. You have to decide whether you believe the company who say these are excellent figures or the derampers who say they are poor. Also the fact that they are on this board without holding any shares shouts loudest for me.

Marlbs, Older is knowledgeable and often helpful and says he is on this board to level the playing field with the rampers. He is the level head amongst extremists. You have to decide if he is for or against 88E. He is also on the PANR board.

As for testing each one individually, so did 88E.

Older, we will always differ on the interpretation of flow rate, I cannot agree that it was 4 or 6 bopd and the 50 wasn't based on flow over 16hrs as the majority of the time was spent on cleaning up, it says that in the release. I am happy to take peak rate as over a longer period it was going to improve, again mentioned in the release. Also there are some on here that will not accept any bopd figure as they are calculated. To get a real bopd it would have had to wait on the cleaning to end then run for a full 24hrs. You are well aware that they ran out of time/ ran over time and had to stop to allow the services and rig to leave. If they had continued until after the cleaning then i'm sure the flow rate would have been closer to the peak than the barrels in storage tank. We did not have a day's production so had to be calculated. I'm happy with 50 as the company were happy with the results and that would not have been the case if it was just 4.

Not quite $9M, more like £131,094.65p

58,264,286 share held by DW

Marlbs, natural flow for the upper but nitrogen lift for the SMD B, my understanding of the flow rates are 70bopd for the upper and 50bopd for the SMD B, however the derampers will say that its not 50 for the SMD B, more like 4, but they assume wrong imo. Also if you think of it as having up to 6 inlets, tested only 2 as PANR tested the others next door. All targets on one well with one pad which is much cheaper than having multiple wells and pads.

No joke and apology accepted, it says bopd and that is exactly what I said.

'The SMD-B test produced at a calculated peak flow rate of ~50 bopd'

Marlbs, no natural flow on SMD B but bopd was 50

T*sser, you really take the biscuit with that statement.

He was the founder of Burgundy I believe Brombarb

Older I can't argue with you as neither of us knows the flow rate for BFF, and I cant say 7 fails didn't happen. As for substantial, it says it is there, it flows and it belongs to 88E. Nothing you or I say changes that as we are all guessing, assuming, expectant, hopeful, doubtful, all depending on where your legs are dangling. Good luck regardless.

'The USFS success represents the first time that we have successfully flowed oil to surface in Alaska - and under natural flow - as well as being the first time we have confirmed a light oil discovery of substantial scale in close proximity to the critical Dalton Highway and Trans-Alaskan pipeline system infrastructure. To then achieve a second successful flow of light oil from the SMD-B reservoir, with a low gas/oil ratio, is an outstanding outcome for 88 Energy and its shareholders'.

Did Scot not say that a company cannot lie about its assets? It says above a substantial discovery, successful flow, and the first time, so we are in new territory as a company. Can only get better imo.

Older, I get that and I have said that I may in the future look at PANR, but only after they have arranged funding and any dilution has ended. I also note that 88E have said they will not just accept any partner, they are looking for a quality partner who is prepared to take Phoenix to the next level. This point has been mentioned more than once in previous releases.

Good luck with your position.