Member Info for taximan57

Richer, if you have followed Chicken Thighs posts you will have noted that he was waiting on a pay day to buy a car. I wasn't insulting him.

Scot, 'with a calculated total volume during the flow back period following establishment of oil cut of ~4 stk bbls.

No measurable gas or NGL’s were recovered from the SMD-B test.

They are quite precise in saying that the measure of 4 stk bbls were during the period 'following establishment of oil' not the full 16hrs. Who is lying?

Car on it's way Chicken Thighs?

Delboy dealer, no need for it.

Richer, you have no idea which time zone I am in so to make that kind of statement is ludicrous. Even if you thought I was in the UK why should I not comment at your night and sleep during your day? Is there a rule I am not aware of?

(J) on page 6 Bean

Ayecuramba, you have me smiling :) Not trying to encourage them, just trying not to be rude to anyone and Older has been informative.

Still a LTH looking for a payday on my 0.69p average ;)

Older, trying very hard not to believe you :(

I will let the market decide, hopefully a better show in London than AUS.

Obviously two ;)

Thank you Older.

I don't get the 4 barrels over 16hrs though as again they mention it was measured when the cut was right so not over the full 16hrs. Similar to the first test not being over the full period.

I can see what you mean regarding gas pushing out the oil naturally but no gas in 2nd test. Your thoughts this time round with no to little gas for a low OG ratio?

I was not aware that the depth of drilling related to the head pressure so it makes sense that it would be lower, but a 1000ft difference this time just under 2000psi must be a positive?

As for spin, I guess it is to be expected, but you surely can't blame them after flowing to reservoirs when many on here said they were dusters?

I think overall this has to be a positive for 88E, and for others a confirmation for next door. I just hope it reflects on the sp this time.

Older, now that we have the 2nd flow test results I note that the company emphasised the natural flow with regard to the first test. Is this more of an asset than first thought on reflection? Also noted on 2nd test that the OG ratio was showing little to no gas, again how does that reflect to the first test point made about a ratio too high? My last observation was the well head pressure, during first test it was 2000psi but 2nd under 2000psi and your thoughts were that 2000psi was rather low. Does this suggest yet another low test outcome for you? I hope the above shows that I have been listening and learning ;)

It appears that 88E have taken offence at something PANR said regarding Phoenix else why mention ' positively differentiating Hickory-1 from results on adjacent acreage' and 'flow test results can be rightly characterised as in-line with those observed from equivalent reservoirs on adjacent acreage. Importantly, the performance of the

USFS reservoir exceeded expectations, with the well flowing naturally with increasing oil cut' ?

I also thought we would have had further analysis of the reservoir(s) now rather than wait until 2Q end when they hope to establish 2 more discoveries.

My thoughts are mainly positive and I look forward to evaluating coming posts from the knowledgeable.

Scot, it was not my intention to insult you or refer to you in any way with regard to the price of a barrel of oil and Iran attacking Israel. The intention was to point out that the price of oil, which I think will be affected by the attack, does in no way reflect my thoughts on the many who will lose their life in this new hostility and should not by others as it would make them look mercenary. The fact that you are obsessed with the market valuing PANR oil at a lesser rate than 88E and therefor looked like a legitimate is not my fault. That said, if I offended you in any way then I of course apologise.

Scot, I see that even after this said offence you are still posting about the oil value difference. I have not even read the rns but I assume that it is good news or you would not be here. Just woke up zzzzz

110 x 10 = 1100 not 11000, will put it down to finger twitch ;)

Adnauseam, another bit of homework for me, Scot in his repetition of $ per barrel is a phrase he repeated ad nauseam ;)

Wow Adnauseam, that was some read. It has been many years since I had to worry about sin and cos. Obviously way beyond my capabilities to follow that article, especially as I have no experience regarding oil industry. Always liked maths but that was just too much ;) Good luck anyone attempting to create a model for 88E with this.

Rabito, we are all using assumptions, estimates, guesswork, as until we know facts we are all looking at the black ball. PANR are no better, further down the development route but still guestimating. Even with assumed reservoir size and $ per barrel no oil has left the ground for commercial use. I have never compared both companies like for like as it has always been stated that PANR had bigger reserves, but 88E are in a good position for farm out, subject to good 2nd test results etc. Whether PANR are heading for development or not is irrelevant to 88E success as I'm sure we are on different paths.

MMO, I see the anger in your posts and it can't be healthy for you. You do not come across as someone who suffers fools lightly, and it's difficult to argue with someone who can use estimates to create a reasonable argument. That said, I also have had issues with that type of post and in trying to combat it I just look ignorant or as Scot says just lying. I never intentionally lie but interpretation is a fine line. Unless you are 100% sure of facts you can never win. Best to agree or disagree and move on. It is all a learning curve for me.

11.00

Older, I appreciate that PANR are further in development and use that to achieve $5-10 figure. My using that figure was for best case as I do not expect 88E to be developing, it will be moved on to someone capable who has deeper pockets. I noted that 88E are not prepared for agreements with anyone who is not in a position to move the lease forward. I think that says much thought has gone into the farm out process for Phoenix.

As usual I thank anyone who is prepared to educate and as long as the information is not taken at face value no harm. MMO does appear in the most to question such posts and that is a positive as to outsiders we get to see both sides. I don't always understand the language of oil but I have gained by being on this board.

Chrisev1, even if Older's figures are correct and assuming PANR's own figures of recoverable oil being $5-10 per barrel that still leaves $410M in the ground. Add the other flowable reservoirs and 88E are sitting on a very large payday.

It may be time to reflect on what we have not what we want. Roll on the 2nd result and analysis.

Wasn't aware of PANR figures so appreciate that. It also explains why no tests expected by 88E in those reservoirs. It makes me more invested in the awaiting results as that would be the catalyst for share movement not the potential from the other drilled targets.

On the note of WW111 post, a very busy night by Iran and depending on the response it may push the price of oil. It also may be too late for millions of people. Very sad reflection on those only concerned with the price of a barrel.

Good luck all here and abroad.