London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
What I find interesting is that someone who has their own blog covering fundamental analysis, can come on here making factually incorrect statements about the information that's been presented.
The Tarn analogue was used as a depositional analogue to show that they understand the impact on reservoir quality of the different depositional features. Last night’s presentation focused more on porosity and permeability and compared against other commercial tight oil plays. They also provided details behind the modelling including permeability ranges (which you previously implied they were hiding, then implied they were estimating and have now concede they measured) to back up their claims of commerciality, which in the case of Alkaid was reviewed by LKA in their CPR.
Can you confirm which modelling you used in your previous claim ‘With such low flow it’s going to be a struggle to get an economic well even if horizontally fracked.’? My guess is you can’t because unlike Pantheon who have provided data points, industry recognised modelling and third party reviews you have provided nothing.
You are correct that there were no cores at Theta West, this has been discussed previously and would recommend for those wanting more background they read Tele’s post below on Reddit. However there has been VAS analysis and though we are yet to see all the details, confidence can be taken from Mike Smith’s 'World class reservoir' comments.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PantheonResourcesPANR/comments/st1aew/theta_west_updip_appraisal_of_talitha_basin_floor/
Also management have made no secret that there could be thousands of wells drilled to develop the reservoirs. What you fail to recognise is that the advantaged location of the plays make it possible for these wells to be highly commercial and likely better than others on the slope with ‘better’ reservoir quality.
Troughsnout I don't find anything you say of interest as its very obvious what you are up to. You expect me to believe the rubbish you are pushing compared to the reputations of external company experts who are putting their reputations and livelihoods on the line. Come to that Jay and Bob are hardly spring chickens who are trying to make money for themselves to keep putting bread on the table. I expect they are both extremely wealthy so why put your good name and reputation at risk by telling huge lies in public to all and sundry., when you are looking to retire.
Also everyone on here - dont you find it at all interesting that in April the appropriate analogue field was the conventional Tarn field (which required only a few wells to drill out) and now all of the sudden the analogue in this presentation is full scale shale development in the permian Delaware basin (requiring 1000s of wells to drill out, and decades of drilling history and well control)...
Note to others - yes agreed sidewall cores drilled out at Talitha A and previously at Alkaid, with pretty low indicated perm (eg range 0.01-0.1md )... see Aug 21 Webinar. No sidewall cores at Theta West from what i can see.
Ha - so amusing to read someone @Scot126 who writes almost every day on PANR. Very comfortable with my geo knowledge thanks pal. The only ad hominem comments come from yourself not me. I'm sure you can take solace in all the commercial successes drilled in Pantheon's illustrious 16 year history and extremely conservative guidance all along!
That's great Scot, many thanks for taking the time to give your take on it and apologies for misspelling your name before - memory problems!
07:51
Hi slartybartfast - fair question. The strong regulatory structure enforced on exploration activities in the North Slope of Alaska means that flow tests of vertical test wells are limited in duration. My reading suggests an average duration of 3 days, give or take, for flow tests after perf and stimulation has occurred.
In that sense, PANR's flow tests of the BFF Lower and the SFS at Talitha #A looked, to my eyes, to be utterly standard, "run of the mill" type flow tests. Duration and data collection looked to be standard practice.
The adverse weather events meant that the flow test of the SMD at Talitha couldn't be completed this season. The BFF Lower flow test at Theta West was also affected by the bad weather and the duration of the flow test cut short v's the plan. However, in the case of the BFF Lower test at Theta West, *sufficient data was collected* for management to formally assert the BFF Lower reservoir is commercial. Last night's presentation walked shareholders through the mathematical modelling and precedents which management and external independent parties have used to support the assertion of commerciality. So, in this case, although the *duration* of the Flow test of the BFF Lower at Theta West was certainly shorter than planned, the data collected met and surpassed the threshold required to declare commerciality.
I understand the basis for your question. There are occasions investing in small caps when, by necessity, you have to outsource the expertise required and place your faith in management. For me, PANR/GB management have earned my trust. Whether they are proven 100% correct or 100% wrong, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the guidance we heard last night represents the genuine professional opinion of the individuals leading the company.
That leaves me very comfortable with my investment. In fact I added to my holding late yesterday afternoon. Certainly some may prefer to wait until the conclusion of the Long Term Production Test at Alkaid-2. In so doing, such investors will, IMO, have to pay a far, far higher price for PANR's equity. It is my contention that management has relayed sufficient hard data and guidance to allow investors to make a risk-adjusted decision, using industry accepted metrics. The final choice does lie with each individual shareholder, and rightly so. Trust that helps.
Scott, can I ask if the short durations of the flow tests is anything to be concerned about? I have been a long term bull of PANR but have this little niggling feeling of uncertainty. Do flows sometimes start well and then drop off?
Hi Troughsnout,
1) I read your Brevarthan stuff plus content on lse. Hmmmm, I can fairly comfortably follow your narrative on the stocks you cover but, speaking plainly, PANR is nothing like any of them, is it? You're at ease when modelling cashflows but display, at least to my eye, no professional expertise in reservoir engineering or petrophysics, in fact anything pre-revenue. Correct?
2) You have conducted only the most superficial of exercises as it pertains to researching the PANR investment case. The reason I can be pretty confident in that observation is that I recognise some of your vapid blather because it was the sort of facile drivel I, myself, came out with when asked my opinion by the buyside on a stock outside my ken.
3) Thus far, you appear to be completely uninterested in a wholesome and honest discussion with posters who have attempted to engage, and in Rabito79's case, directly rebut (with sources), your erroneous and clearly made up claims. To the objective observer, you have absolutely no intention of acting in good faith. Quite the opposite in fact. How so? To besmirch the characters of a management team whom you do not know on a personal basis is both lazy and completely unjustified. No proof, no references, no quotations, no testimonials.....nothing but made up and fairly child-like snide barbs. All pretty lazy stuff.
4) If you're not already, I strongly urge you to go short on this name. I am pretty sure, all things being equal, you will get carted out. Knock yourself out.
5) I'll add to Rabito79's excellent rebuttal. I'll tell you just how far back and comprehensive PANR's data is, shall I? PANR/GB possess the ***cores*** taken at Pipeline State No.1. You, Troughsnout, are a charlatan, and a lazy one at that. Nevertheless I'll make this offer to you. You go back and read all the RNSs since Jan '19, listen to all the webinars since the same date, read all the GB/PANR submissions to the DNR (and their replies) and if, once you've done so, you wish to engage with me, I give you my word I will do so.
6) If it's alright with you, rather than follow blindly the words of an anonymous avatar on a bulletin board, I'm going to go with Roger Young (discovered the 1.2bbo [reserves] Alpine field on the ANS, >600mmbo produced thus far) of eSeis, Mike Smith of AHS Baker Hughes who designed every single Volatiles process (and attendant equipment) operating in the sector today and Lee Keeling (Halliburton's recommendation of IER to GB).
Don't forget to increase your short! Pip, pip!
porosity and permeability better than permian basin, which is a fantastic fact and look at the success that has achieved...Alkaid next..
Folks at about 10 minutes of the presentation you can actually here Michael Duncan say the 0.16 number is validated by ‘core measurements’.
Slide 25 of the below literally shows you where a side wall core sample was taken in Talitha
https://www.pantheonresources.com/investors/presentations/659-investor-presentation-april-2021/file
Slides 11 in below presentation shows sidewall core references from Alkaid, tied to the log data which troughsnout will no doubt ignore again.
https://www.pantheonresources.com/investors/presentations/645-investor-presentation-january-2020/file
I am afraid troughsnout posts are the only thing misleading here.
What utter rubbish troughsnout. The permeabilities are not estimated, the company have multiple core samples and have mentioned this at numerous times across previous presentations . On top of the core they have done significant independent analysis on the Cuttings with VAS. I suggest you go back and watch previous presentations before making anymore baseless claims. You could actually see a side wall core sample using some of the advanced imaging tools ran in Talitha. If I recall correctly they even had core from Pipeline State 1.
Again do you think LKA have put there name to a CPR without this data? LKA who were recommended by Haliburton. Unfortunately they have put this data out due to ill informed posts like yours.
If these wells don’t frac, why did Alkaid, SFS and LBFF respond to the fracs. Although you are partly correct in that it has been explained to me that fracs will propagate through the shale layers better and indeed they sometimes target these.
Most Alaskan cost issues are overcome when you can drill all year round, are situated literally on the TAPS/Dalton just 20Km from the the main supply chain centre on the North Slope (Deadhorse).
The company clearly gave the range of permeabilities witnessesed in today’s presentation, but like the issued logs in the last presentation this doesn’t appear to be good enough for you.
Doubters can sit in their recliners and argue porosity/ permeability till the cows come home. This will go only one way for the foreseeable future…..
Well, with respect, I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation. The share price has done extremely well over the last 12 months and need not be “pumped up”. It might be different if a corporate action like a sale / capital raise / farm out was in the offing but it isn’t. So I don’t see any reason why the mgmt would not be perfectly happy with 130p / sh compared with 80p prior to the winter drilling disclosures. I accept of course that ALL companies want their shares to be HIGHER all the time - that is natural. But I cannot identify any aspect to P disclosures which are any more fervent in that regard than a 1000 management teams I have seen before. If they were not giving these webinars people would criticise them for being secretive. And more information can never hurt you even if it isn’t as detailed as you might have liked.
Another question: given the relatively limited amount of drilling on this potentially gigantic accumulation , could the company even know with precision what the perm and porosity is? Surely they could only possibly estimate it.
Another question (sorry not trying to take your leave!). Would you normally expect an e&p junior to put this information in the public domain? Hugely commercially sensitive surely?
The permiabilities they gave were estimated. There can be no actual measured permeability without taking whole-core or at least side wall core. The graphics and numbers they used were from old presentations. You have to ask yourselves why they would rush out a follow up presentation only a few weeks after the last one. Share price, bro.
Is that fair troughsnout? We now know the porosities and permeabilities when before we didn’t. Ditto some elaboration on reason estimates of recovery factors.
It would have been nice if they’d actually given us the figures for the different reservoirs rather than simply state that they lie within the yellow oval. I guess that’s commercially sensitive? They did also state that >50% of the oil at Theta Wesr has a perm of 0.5, which whilst tighter than some is still very attractive and highly indicative of likely successful flow / production tests in my view.
Perhaps you know more than me (I am not an oil specialist). Would you normally expect a junior like this to lay out all its perm and porosity data in a table? Another question: given the relatively limited amount of drilling to date and potentially gigantic field, can they even reasonably estimate what the perm and porosity is across all the reservoirs?
Absolutely exellent webinar by Pantheon, brilliant indeed.
Link to webinar/announcement
https://www.share-talk.com/pantheon-resources-aim-panr-modelling-performance-from-vertical-to-horizontal-wells-may-2022/