Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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.
Still scrabbling around, JofH, desperately hoping to land on a fact rather than one of your made up conspiracy theories, lol.
Farallon is spelt thus.
I said I know Bob and assess that behaving in the manner you allege is just not part of his make up. Happy to stand by that assessment.
"It makes sense......" Aye, to you it does, Mr Conspiracy Theorist, lol. But makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who is interested only in facts and the truth.
Oh, and do keep up the personal abuse. It reflects so well on your upbringing. GLA
Oh dear, Jimbeaux, what do we have here? Posted by JofH on 6/5/21 at 14:25.
âGood one Scott, haha. You talk out of your orifice. What did you say the other day about Farallon selling GB shares and reducing their interests? ***Sounded remarkably like what I had said, albeit without the cheque***. Maybe it's a bank transfer.â
Forget the actual insinuation contained in the original post, you are *factually wrong* when you state JofH wasnât the author of the âcheque every monthâ post. Yes, it was subsequently deleted but heâs admitting to using that phrase or vocabulary in the post above. Thatâs one apology due, agreed?
So we can both now stipulate the original post by JofH was deleted. Iâll attempt to paraphrase here but my recollection (which has proven to be correct thus far â see proof above) was that JofH insinuated that as Farallon proceeded to successfully sell shares in the market it used the proceeds of those sales to âpay a cheque every monthâ to the GB founders for supplying Farallon with information about PANRâs present day activities. Thatâs a second apology due, Jimbeaux. You've been taken in by a conman. It happens, but don't make it worse by doubling down.
Time for all of those who believe JofH is being honest and acting with integrity to wake up. Iâve dismantled his disinformation campaign forensically. If you continue to choose to believe his factless allegations then there truly is no more I can do for you. GLA
Its a shame Ddraig wont be able to read this, he generally has blocked anyone who disagrees with him. However below post from Darcon shows how I believe it is wrong to state that Farallon own all the remaining 112,492,355 shares as he has indicated:
'On 17 Jan 103,362,745 consideration shares, 102,471,055 non-voting shares and 9,607,843 consideration warrants were issued to the Great Bear Vendors (RNSs 14/01/2019 & 21/01/2020). The TR-1 of 9 Aug 2019 confirmed the 103,362,745 voting shares figure. It further noted that GBPO had been granted an option to purchase up to 44,945,239 of the ordinary shares held by Farallon through CHONS LLC.
There have been various equity conversion and TR-1 notifications relating to the conversion of non-voting shares to voting shares and Farallon's sell-down of voting shares in 2021. I assume only Farallon are selling because there has been no notice about the sell-down by the two directors who hold some interests indirectly through GBPO. A sell-down by GBPO would have necessitated a notification.
According to the most recent TR-1 notification of 7 Apr 2021 the Farallon/GBPO concert parties were holding in aggregate 119,070,752 voting shares as at 1 Apr 2021 (equivalent to a 18.92% shareholding)
According to the 4 Mar 2021 RNS CHONS directed GBPO to request conversion of 24,318,628 of the 88,209,106 non-voting shares. Following the conversion 63,890,478 non-voting shares remained.
So it appears that as at 1 April 2021 the Great Bear Vendors were still holding: 119,070,752 voting + 63,890,478 non-voting shares + 9,607,843 warrants.
However, note that in the fund-raising RNS of 20 Nov 2020 it was stated: "GBPO has a beneficial interest in approximately 28 million ordinary shares. 26 million of these ordinary shares are held by CHONS LLC on behalf of GBPO. GBPO also owns approximately 88 million non-voting shares convertible into ordinary shares, 4.8 million warrants exercisable into convertible non-voting shares in the Company with strike price of ÂŁ0.30 per share, and options over approximately 49 million shares in the Company presently owned by CHONS LLC, of which approximately 30.7 million are currently exercisable into ordinary shares and 13.3 million are exercisable into convertible non-voting shares."
So if we subtract the 28m + 88m + 49m option + 4.8m warrants from the aggregate figures for GBPO/Farallon then it appears to me that Farallon still have available to sell as at 1 April 2021 only 17,961,230 voting shares + 4.8 warrants convertible into ordinary shares. Of course this figure could increase by 49 million if GBPO's option over the shares held by CHONS LLC expires and we don't know when may be the date of such expiry or the terms of the option's exercise'
07.11 - Drama queen
wow! seems like wyatt earp and doc holiday rode into town last night, judging by the amount of blood out in the street (all of it the bad guys', i should add). sorry SeaHawk but as you see sometimes gunlaw is the only way. nice work guys - thanks
Nope don't agree with you and certainly wouldn't trust you you on the North Slope without some Dragonglass.
9) GB selling stake to fund future drill or to farm in. Wooshka!! I donât know what to say about this particular conspiracy theory. Thatâs the best of the bunch, but not in a good way. What it does serve to highlight is JofHâs complete ignorance of corporate law, corporate finance, the AIM Rules, directorsâ fiduciary duties, the laws governing fraud and plenty more beside. If readers cannot see for themselves JofHâs obvious ignorance and lack of experience/expertise then thereâs really not much more I can do for them.
Ah Jimbeaux - it's rare for JofH to be "out-conspiracy theoried" but you have excelled yourself in your post timed at 21:50. Hearty congratulations.
I'm not certain, but I think there will more than a few readers of the 88E thread who will recall the since deleted JofH posts concerning the GB founders being paid "by cheque every month". The fact the posts have been deleted does not mean that JofH wasn't the author, lol. I'm not going to make any attempt at context so am not making any assertions but I challenge JofH directly to admit that he was indeed the author of the "paid by cheque every month". I'll expect your public apology, Jimbeaux!!
"Got too complicated." There we have it in a nutshell. When the brain hurts, it becomes all too difficult. But in the heady days of the anonymous bulletin board, "My opinions are as valid as your facts". Think I'll leave it there. GLA
4) (continued)....Not looking good for JofH.
5) JofH then quotes correctly two paragraphs I wrote and I stand by every word. That JofH elects not to apologise and withdraw the allegations discussed above and/or the 88E thread (including its most prolific poster who knows at least as much as I do about the histories of 88E and GB in Alaska, probably more) completely fails to disassociate itself from JofHâs disgusting allegations means that Iâm happy to leave those paragraphs in place without any further comment. Iâve given my word I will explain further once JofH and/or the 88E thread âdo the right thingâ and I repeat the promise again now.
6) âUntil the selling stops the brakes....â Stock has traded @ 47-48p since Farallon started selling in mid-Jan â21. Looking through JofHâs historical posts he informs a fellow poster that he traded PANR from 21 -> 29p and then expresses regret he didnât buy back in at 25p. Huh, isnât that interesting? Motivation for egregious conduct? Who knows. As for Farallon, I donât know if theyâve stopped selling today, will stop selling tomorrow or plan to sell 100 shares per day from now until eternity! I do know that at least two groups of people are currently attempting to bid Farallon for all/part of their holding. I know this to be a fact because I am part of one of those two groups. âFraid youâre just going to have to take my word on that one, lol. No links available, lol. If that stock were to be placed, for example, tomorrow, whatâs going to happen to the SP? Exactly.
7) This subject is indeed a âworthy of discussionâ. The trouble is that only one side of this discussion is in possession of the facts and the other side has made up his mind that a vast conspiracy surrounds the activities of Farallon/GB and thus PANR.
8) GB founders are beneficiaries âin JofHâs opinionâ of the sale of shares by Farallon and âselling now doesnât make senseâ. If JofH had the intellect he thinks he possesses he would see the dichotomy contained in the first sentence of my paragraph 8). He needs to investigate the history of GB since the SoA moratorium on its debt repayments; he needs to look up the definition of âdominantâ and âsecurityâ (in a debt arrangement sense); he needs to look up the definition of âdilutionâ and what generally happens in the period leading up to a debt for equity swap when, eg. a hedge fund moves into a position of control of an entity when that entity got in financial trouble through no particular fault of its own. Who, in general, gets diluted? The debt holder and day-to-day financier of the company or the original owners of the business?
âFraid I have to reply to rebut JofHâs various allegations. Iâll try to answer his points in the order of the paragraphs in his post timed at 19.25. I had to wade through JofHâs historical posts to look for direct quotes but I note a large number have been deleted. Lesson learned for me to keep copies of offending posts but good for the lse moderators I guess!
1) See Rabito79âs response timed at 19.41 for OIP answer.
2) Farallon being inside accusation. I remember the âclosed period argumentâ partly because cbaron (I think?) and I had to inform JofH about the soft lock in arrangement. JofH patently had no clue about the soft lock in otherwise he wouldnât even have gone down the âclosed periodâ cul-de-sac. What I also remember prior to this is having to explain why Farallon were NOT inside at any point since at least Sept â20 and certainly not since they were sellers in the market from mid-Jan â21. JofH made a series of, since deleted, accusations that because CHONS is a vehicle for the holdings of Farallon, the GB founders and the Riverstone guys that Farallon will know from their relationship and communications with former GB employees (now employed by PANR) of non-public information. JofH most definitely did accuse Farallon of being inside whilst active in the market. I remember the accusation. I reacted to it. lse deleted the post which is damning in itself. JofH keeps repeating his closed period argument because he knows he made a dreadful error in publicly accusing a $35bn US hedge fund of being inside whilst active in the market.
3) Payments every month. JofH described a pattern of activity which saw Bob Rosenthal and other GB founders âpaid by cheque every monthâ by Farallon and I seem to recall something about âquietlyâ or âon the quietâ which I went on to re-use in subsequent posts. JofH didnât use the word âbribeâ, I did. JofH didnât use the word âcriminalityâ, I did. However the conduct he described happening behind the scenes would indeed amount to a bribe, would amount to fraudulently deceiving shareholders and therefore would easily meet the threshold of criminality.
4) Bob Rosenthal promoting then selling. I remember this accusation particularly well because I know Bob and heâs physically incapable of behaving in such a manner because heâs just not made that way. Plus, I know the sale of shares by Farallon is having a direct negative effect on the GB founders. JofH described conduct, since deleted, where Bob R had been part of a webinar promoting the PANR investment case and then been part of the decision-making the following morning which saw Farallon actively selling stock in the market. JofH voiced strong personal disapproval of such behaviour and made clear his thoughts on that alleged conduct. The âarms lengthâ admission only arrived when I challenged him about his accusation that Bob R had âpromoted in the evening and sold in the morningâ. JofH is starting to show all the classic signs of revisionism. Not lookin
JofHoggit
Thank you for replying to the odious claim that â Farallon paying bribes to GB founders 'by cheque every monthâ
I knew you weren't the author. I couldnât find it in your posts. However, I can see when you were targeted. There is a playbook happening here so try not to take it too personally when accused of lying, misleading, misdirection etcâ. Relax and watch the hole being dug.
BTW I, also, was curious about Farallon's activity and how it may affect minnow shareholders. Got too complicated. It may be one or some of the original 30+ GB investors have a greater priority for immediate funds. Alternatively, your suggestion maybe closer.
âUNLESS they are selling to get funds together to fund one or more drills as a 'farm-in partner' for circa 50% stake in the asset.â
Wouldn't surprise me if DW popped up as the CEO. Oh and CD as CFO.
I am understanding correctly that todays PANR notification indicates GB etc have a bankroll of ÂŁ30 million.
Let's see how it pans out (excuse pan pun).
JofHoggit, if you cant work out where Scot got his 26B OIP estimate from there really is no helping you. In fact there is as per Olderwiser's previous post:
33m 30sec"likely to have the highest hydrocarbon pore volume, at a play level, of any play on the North slope, since the discovery of Prudhoe bay. It is that big"
50m 20sec "One of the largest plays on the North slope, if not the largest"
Prudhoe Bay was shown on the slides as having 32B OIP, Kuparuk was shown as having 14B. We know Kuparuk came after Prudhoe Bay so this as per above comments would put BFF between 14B and 32B OIP. The 'if not the largest' comments would suggest its nearer to the 32B OIP or higher. Will the maiden resource estimate be this high we don't know, but given the above comments the 20B OIP estimate from Scot could be conservative.
Scott-'Point to one matter of fact where I have lied, misled, misdirected. You can't because I don't conduct myself in that manner.'
There's been a few.
26b OIP was the first whopper. Still waiting on the link to evidence that....
A) Farallon being inside whilst selling shares in the market - I NEVER SAID THAT. I MENTIONED THE POSSIBLILITY OF THEM BEING IN A CLOSED PERIOD PRIOR TO WELL RESULTS , OTHERWISE WHY NOT SELL AT 40p+ INSTEAD OF 30p+.
B) Farallon paying bribes to GB founders 'by cheque every month" I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BRIBES OR ANYTHING ILLEGAL, SEE YOUR COMMENT BELOW*
C) Bob Rosenthal promoting the PANR investment case one evening and then being part of a decision-making process to sell shares in the market the next day. I NEVER SAID THAT AND CLEARLY STATED WAS AT ARMS LENGTH AS PER PANR'S OWN RELEASES BUT IN MY OPINION THE GB GUYS ARE BENEFICIARIES AS PER PANR RNS' ON THE MATTER. HOW COULD THEY NOT BE, THIS PROJECT IS THEIR BABY AND AS YOU POSTED RECENTLY...
' ...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.'
'...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.'
Apologies to genuine holders as to how this has degenerated on the board ( I really dislike this guy) but I genuinely feel this is worthy of discussion and for holders / investors to look into for themselves. Until the selling stops the brakes are going to be on for any SP movement.
As I posted earlier, F/GB selling at this stage doesn't make sense when the SP should be higher in matter of weeks.
My thoughts are the GB guys are 10 years+ invested in this and would, like everyone, want to make as much money from this project as they can.
By selling they are reducing their stake in the asset....UNLESS they are selling to get funds together to fund one or more drills as a 'farm-in partner' for circa 50% stake in the asset.
PANR could place to raise funds for further drills , MAPS expenditure etc and keep the asset 100% WI, or if they did farm out, why go to someone line Premier or APDC or ANother oiler?? When the GB / Farollan guys could fund the farm in themselves. That is how they would make maximum $$$ from this and would be no detriment to PANR or PANR shareholders.
I don't really care why Farallon are selling but I am grateful for the opportunity it has created. Anyone who watched the webinar will understand the size of the numbers PANR are likely to release. We have seen from our neighbours what a bit of hype can do to the share price. 88e's Merlin had a NET BEST resource of 135MMBO, BFF will like have a number 20-50 times this value and that's before considering the improved COS and NPVs/barrel. Just a case of waiting for the market to catch up and I am happy to do that.
Well done to JofHoggit for predicting something that was already happening. I predict we will get updated BFF numbers in the next few weeks.
16.21
GS,
That's most likely connected to why they sold in the first place. Needed some cash either because they simply needed some cash or they wished to explore another opportunity and keep skins in two games.
Don't forget the 'concert'. It is the concert that is being monitored in the RNS not merely one of the parties. It could be that certain parties wish to sell whilst others don't.
If they sold the lot then that might be a huge tell tale but they're keeping at significant skin in the game. They were only allowed to sell at all in January 2020, they were limited to sell in an orderly manner - I take that to mean without doing so in a manner which does not negatively affect the company from January 2021. They still hold a little under 18% and so are retaining a very significant stake.
cb
#rse.
17.11 Feck. &rse. Pity theres no Father Ted moniker on here.
Anyone got an answer why they sold shares yet. Hedge? Overexposed? No oil ? No Farm in? No takeover? Facts only sung to a song of your choosing.
GS
oh for goodness sake will you give it up, it's just like children or i'll have to call Mr. SeaHawk and he'll give you all a jolly good telling off (that should certainly deal with Jof anyway). ps. if i'd known you suffered from tourettes GS, i would have cut you some #rse yesterday, so no need to #rse for being an #rse. #rse.
15.05 Cheers for the civilised response cb. I hadnât fully understood the âconcertâ party relationship. And for Scottâs sake, who just proved yet again what an absolute &rse he is, when I see this kind of behaviour by individuals, companies and entities all shrouded in weird tie ins, selling shares when the rest of the world is screaming BUY, I do feel it is right to point out that acting in concert to conceal a takeover could be construed, by some, as odd at least. I simply want to know why they sold down according to the TR1 today. You seemed to have made a whole load of massive assumptions Scott that I support someone on this board and wish to discredit / accuse others. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I seek is the truth so that I can better understand my investment and whether to buy more. Thatâs my karaoke stint over for today.
You got booed off. Not sure how I did.
GS
14.47 This effect? https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real
GS - I'll happily add you to that list if you publicly AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE accuse a PANR director of accepting payments by cheque every month from a $35bn hedge fund, accuse multiple parties of a conspiracy to trade while being in possession of inside information and attempt persistently to sow disinformation ("deza") by the use of partial cut'n'pastes of paragraphs of legal text.
To hell with your arrogance label, GS. That you lack the spine or moral fibre where it becomes acceptable for you to back up the person who is literally imperilling your investment, literally taking money from your pocket v's the guy who is challenging his lies is completely bewildering. Can you not see that?????? I hate myself for even thinking this but you deserve to lose money for attacking the truth teller v's the thief who is undermining your investment.
Point to one matter of fact where I have lied, misled, misdirected. You can't because I don't conduct myself in that manner. And you throw pejorative terms around like confetti like a toddler, lol. Knowing more than the next person does not make one arrogant, GS.
Scott you are such a big baby. I'd urge all Panr holders to look into this for themselves. DYOR and make your own decisions. Trust no one on here and certainly not the 'gurus'.
GS,
Acting 'in concert' takes a group of companies, entities and/or individuals who might otherwise be connected and treats them in specific circumstances as a single entity.
In this case the 'concert' were defined in the original Agreement to acquire Golden Bear (GB) as being GB, Lavallon and certain other individuals including Rosenthal. The Relationship Agreement as part of that deal defines who the 'in concert' group are.
Apologies if you already knew this.
cb
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acting-in-concert.asp
Acting in concert? Seems a tad complicated to me too if you would add me to your 'stupid' list.
Unbelievable arrogance. But even worse, cannot explain in writing what they want to teach ppl with their amazing wisdom.
GS
Good one Scott, haha. You talk out of your orifice. What did you say the other day about Farallon selling GB shares and reducing their interests? Sounded remarkably like what I had said, albeit without the cheque. Maybe it's a bank transfer.
You are correct Cbaron. I bow to your wisdom on that one.
Makes you wonder why the selling though. Derisking?
But why now when surely the SP would be higher in a month's time?
These GB boys have been here a lot longer than we have, I'm trying to work out how they can make as much money as possible which is surely their intention.