Shaun Day, Greatland CEO gave an upbeat presentation to over 800 London South East investors. Watch the full 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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
You know how I feel about you bud.
Perhaps be a little braver next time, if you have criticisms to make, tell us who you're aiming them at. Then we're all clear.
Didn’t mention any names cbaron. Interesting how you feel the need to defend yourself. Just made a comment based upon the last few days worth of posts that I was catching up with. Every few days I catch up and it seems there are a handful of people constantly acting in the manor I described. Just an observation that I’m sure others find demoralising and boring as well. We all let are emotions surface at some stage. Apologies if mine offended you.
Ford & Blade,
What's your problem?
Pander sought a view to assist him with his sell or stay conundrum, I simply attempted to assist him with some thoughts and my thoughts.
I'm not sure what there was in my answer that caused you a problem. I covered your next subject of the 're-rate' also.
Ford707 22:39 - totally agree, some people really need to leave the keyboard alone and pop out for a pint and a real chat. However, cbaron and Scot the bore, not in my pub please.
I used to enjoy signing in to have a read of people’s posts. If some of you are trying to turn this into a board no-one wants to visit, you’re succeeding. Some of you obviously have the need for attention and have the need to have an adverse effect on others. Perhaps it’s because it makes you feel better, dunno. The posts are so long, boring, offensive, childish, arrogant and pointless. Great movement today, £s’ very soon.
Apologies for the length of this missive.
You and I, share some views and not others. In answer to the sale of shares, we can neither prove nor disprove that the Farallon debt owed by GB has been repaid and so it is perfectly feasible that there may be a continued sell down. However, in order to service the debt owed to Farallon, the higher the SP then the fewer shares will need to be sold to compensate debt servicing and repayment costs.
As to Pander's conundrum @ 18.11, it's almost unsolvable. Head says cash out and realise your gain. Heart says I may make more if I stay, if the price goes up again, head says , but you may lose some of the gain if the SP dips. Compromise? Go with the head and take some profit, bank it, and leave a stake in the game, for the heart, that you're happy to lose if the SP were to drop and never recover. If good news comes along and you're confident of getting back in, only do so if you're happy to lose your stake. At least you cashed a profit earlier. All of this sounds like common sense, but I'd hazard a guess that almost all of us are guilty of playing this particular conundrum and getting it wrong. Who is to say that my theory is any better than anyone else's?
My own view, whatsit on the block, is that the SP has a little way to go yet before we're at 'stick or bust' time.
Negatives: Possible fund raise ahead of the next drill which could cause dilution and a dip in the SP. The next drill is a duster.
Positives: A short term increase in SP ahead of the drill, which at least compensates the dilution as is often (though not always) the case - a good point to re-evaluate ahead of drill results. An already positive (though not yet proven) resource estimate suggesting a successful drill outcome which would lead to a positive revaluation of the SP and an ultimate position way ahead of where we are now, potentially leading to multiple(s) of the current SP. (The RISKY bit). Do I believe that the results will be good enough to enhance the SP beyond the speculative rise ahead of the publication of the results???
Back to risk/reward scenarios - is it better to cash out on all , leave the whole stake in on a high risk play or do a bit of both to retain some profit whilst leaving an affordable stake in the game? This is all highly personal and is all about affordability and your own attitude to risk.
Where do I currently stand?
The current published results from the Talitha-A well give me a great deal of confidence in this oil play (let me just confirm that this is from the viewpoint of my own DD as an amateur investor, reading the information to hand in the public domain). Interestingly, our near neighbours at 88e appear to be taking confidence in the Talitha oil bearing strata extrapolating into their own leased positions. They appear to have similar belief in the positive Talitha results.
What am I going to do next?
Re-appraise my investment strategy at every stage of the process, from fund raise/dilution, FO to spud. From then on, it could be heads
If that was to me Seahawk?. You do know I'm invested here? I've been invested since I found out Farallons plan to recoupe their debt as soon as they were able. Now its repaid, I won't be selling. How's that for ramping?
To all those who say I'm wrong. Prove it.
Who is laughing now, sure ain't you.
Your continued naivety is child-like.
Your belligerent self-confidence is both awe-inspiring and frightening. You really would back yourself to undertake your own root canal treatment, wouldn't you?
Your failure to recognise someone has gone out of their way to point you in the right direction to enable you to source the FACTS of the investment case is pathetic and wilfully ignorant.
Here's another fact for you, GS. The Farallon fund which purchased the GB debt from BofAM at 96c in the dollar (so a quasi-sovereign rating, with the SoA's exploration rebate repayments supporting the debt) was a credit fund and had *no intention whatsoever* to invest in an AIM-listed UK small cap. They can do whatever they wish with their shares, just as you or I are free to sell them whenever we wish.
You admitted on this thread you didn't understand what financial hedging is. I believed you. Go on then, did you know what an RTO was? Hint - no chance.
Me exiting stage left? Not when folk like you insist they're Gordon Gecko and, whether with nefarious intent or not, opt to post damaging, fact-less nonsense on public forums, thus endangering the consensus understanding of the facts of the PANR investment case => thus damaging my investments.
It's really quite simple. If you, GS, and folk like you didn't give in to the urge to post drivel on a public investment forum, I wouldn't need to be here correcting your nonsense.
Correction - ‘hope they have now made enough’
Glad you can see my point of view at last Scot.
Ps - I hate dentists. Wouldn’t trust them. Wolves in charge of sheep.
Take it easy.
From Farallon web site
We pursue multiple investment strategies on an opportunistic basis
Farallon seeks investments across asset classes and around the world through a process of bottom-up fundamental research and analysis emphasizing capital preservation. Our investment strategies include Credit Investments, Long/Short Equity, Merger Arbitrage, Risk Arbitrage, Real Estate Investments and Direct Investments. Investment ideas compete for capital based on in-depth, critical assessment of specific risks and rewards. Risk is monitored and managed through rigorous and thorough analysis of each investment and, at the portfolio level, through risk management analytics and overlay and tail-risk hedging.
It’s what Farallon do to make money.
I sincerely hope they have no made enough and have had debts paid. I do hope they now observe their own green objectives and exit stage left taking Certain posters with them…
(cont'd from below) (part 3)
“Farallon must be laughing because the shares were issued when price was around the 15.25p to 17p range.” The personnel who manage the PANR holding may very well be laughing but the price at which the shares were allotted was ***solely*** a function of the mkt cap (and thus SP) of PANR at the time of the merger. I refer you back to my answer about RTO rules which was the guiding star around which the merger was shaped. You’re correct to observe the Farallon holding has likely led to a position whereby they’re sitting on a net paper profit of circa $100m at time of writing. But please remember, this would *not* be the case if the flow test at Alkaid had been unsuccessful; or if the data retrieved from Talitha-A (specifically the VAS data from Baker Hughes); or if PANR hadn’t bought out Otto Energy’s 10.8% of Talitha; or if PANR hadn’t secured an additional 80k acres during the January state leases auction. It is the quality of the asset which underpins the increase in SP from 15.25p at the time of the merger to its current level around 70p. And to repeat for the record, had it not been for CHONS’ selling throughout 2021, the PANR SP would, IMO, be a great deal higher than 70p (all else being equal).
GS – you’re welcome to accept or discard the content above as you see fit. It is a shame I feel I have no choice but to dismantle some of factually incorrect statements you make in your various posts. I take no delight in doing so because I truly do have better things to do with my life. My primary motivation is not to make you feel embarrassed, rather it’s to a) ensure your misinformation does not become part of the consensus understanding of the PANR investment case and b) hopefully, one day it will click and rather than making all these damaging posts due to your lack of knowledge/understanding, you will instead pose ***questions*** to those who have already asked those exact same questions months/years earlier or who have a background in small cap, UK, E&P equity analysis and investing. /end
(cont'd from below) (part 2)
Now then, GS, you "assumed all along that the non-voting shares given to GBPO as part of the $49m price tag when we bought them, which were then packaged into CHONS, were the security for Farallon to get their loan back. If I'm wrong I am wrong I hold my hands up. But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way."
Firstly, I contend that you have not assumed this “all along” because, having re-read your posts on the subject, it is abundantly clear you had *no historical knowledge* of the merger agreement of January ’19. However, I acknowledge you have subsequently done a fair amount of background reading. Good stuff. For example, it has taken you weeks to even entertain the notion that Farallon has a charge (or security) over the shares attributed to Great Bear as a result of the merger with PANR. Then there was the kerfuffle about “hedging” and accusations of unethical or even illegal behaviour on the part of Farallon, Great Bear (and I even got a mention at that point too, lol!).
As it turns out, you may actually have *guessed* the attribution of equity to Farallon/GB founders/GB funders correctly. However, that would just be a *guess*. None of us non-parties to the arrangement have uncovered the legal contract binding the various GB parties to the repayment of the debt to Farallon; uncovered the interest rate Farallon charged on the debt; uncovered the timing of the repayments schedule; or uncovered the penalties or conduct permitted if the non-Farallon parties don’t/didn’t meet that repayment schedule, etc, etc. To be clear, the parties within CHONS have no obligation to share the terms of their intra-party contract so please don’t go down another one of your conspiracy theory rabbit holes seeking an explanation, ok?
Thu 16:27 (part 1)
GS - "But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way." Goldstinger, please do me the honour of opening your mind to the following answer. Kindly imagine the answer I'm about to give is written by "niceguy101" or some such username.
niceguy101: "Hi Goldstinger. I understand the reason for the somewhat unusual structure of PANR voting/non-voting classes of shares came about in order to provide a legitimate workaround of the RTO rules. Hope that helps?"
OK, GS, now please ask yourself the following? Did you have to look up what the acronym 'RTO' means within the context of corporate finance? Based on your posting history my assessment is that you did indeed have to do so, correct? It is for this reason that whilst I recognise your investment dollars or pounds are as green as everyone else's (including mine), I reject utterly the contention that everyone's opinion is equal.
I have no idea what your profession was, GS, but let's just say for the purposes of this exchange that you were a dentist. I am not a dentist, in fact I never have been a dentist! Let's say we are both sitting at a table in a pub and are joined by a third person. This third person is clearly in a great deal of pain, clutching their jaw in their hands, tears forming in their eyes as they explain the source of the pain and answer some of your (qualified dentist, remember?) questions. Being a dentist, you caveat your words but still convey your diagnosis and even have a brief stab at describing the likely prognosis, "all subject to you examining the third person's mouth back in your surgery, etc, etc". I'm sitting at the table and feel a bit left out when the other two are discussing the dental pain of the third person. Instead of recognising the formal training of the dentist and his >25 year career, I tell myself “I'm a clever guy, reasonably well-educated, I've got something constructive to add to the conversation too”. I then interject and proceed to inform the third person of my opinion based solely on my own personal history of dental treatment.
In the (intentionally patronising) parable above, the dentist isn't *guaranteed* to have assessed correctly the diagnosis, but he's *far more likely* to have made an accurate and informed diagnosis of the problem than I have. Equally, the venue was a table at a pub so I was as entitled to speak out loud as any other person present in the pub at that time. Just have a think about your recent conduct on here, GS. No need to reply, just think on it for a moment.
Just looking at the 14th Jan 2019 RNS, regarding the result of AGM and GM.
"In addition, as previously disclosed, 102,471,055 Non-Voting Convertible Shares and 9,607,843 Consideration Warrants will be issued to the Great Bear Vendors."
I have assumed all along that the non-voting shares given to GBPO as part of the $49m price tag when we bought them, which were then packaged into CHONS, were the security for Farallon to get their loan back. If I'm wrong I am wrong I hold my hands up. But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way.
Farallon must be laughing because the shares were issued when price was around the 15.25p to 17p range.
No need for any more discussion as, like you say, we will never know, except for further RNSs.
Farallon will do what Farallon will do, we are up 150% since some of their earlier sells.
In my opinion a lot of the recent buying is US but seems a different crowd from those behind 88e’s rise earlier this year. Mot much uptake on Reddit or Stocktwits but certainly more commentary from more sensible US players (contrarian8888/ seekingalpha etc). If the OTC crowd really catch on it could move much faster.
I'm not sure that we'll ever know the status of the current debt relationship as between CHONS/Farallon and GB until all of the shares have been sold or an RNS is published which may confirm that all debts have been paid. Once all shares have been sold then Farallon, it would appear, have no other collateral, at least not any which involves or impacts PANR. In the original RNS announcing the deal fund raising and shareholdings dated 21 December 2018, it was stated that on completion it was anticipated that the 'concert' would own 39% of PANR in a combination of voting and non-voting shares. We know from the RNS dated 29 July that the remaining non-voting shares had been converted to voting shares. We also know from the RNS dated 28 September that the total number of voting shares held was 125,079,113, equivalent to 17.99% of the total share capital of the company - so that's all that the concert have left, from a starting point of 39%.
In the absence of any ability on the part of GB to raise money elsewhere to pay off its debt to CHONS/Farallon, I suspect that the sell-off will continue. You must note however that CHONS/Farallon are only able to sell shares to pay off debts due to them through the servicing of the finance arrangements with GB, not for any other reason.
Happy to be corrected if I've misinterpreted the agreement.
18% is a sizeable stake but it is very far from one which gives the ability to exert control.
08.23 cbaron. Thanks for your further comment. I respect your views also.
Regarding the debate about the GB debt now being paid in full. Do you have any comment on that? I think the debt is now paid in full, but my opinion is derived from the fact that all non voting shares have now been converted (and sold, tbc?). Is that your understanding too? I am hoping, and it's the main reason I've kept my shares, that we will not see any more 'concert party' TR1s.
Following on from this, I also assume that if Farallon (CHONS) sell any more shares they are doing so not to pay debt but because either
a) they have made enough money and want to derisk further
b) they want the money for investments in other projects.
c) ESG policies make them a forced seller. Maybe?
d) Other reasons which could include they have lost confidence in the story.
Whatever Farallon do next, the market will be watching. After all, their founder did run for POTUS not long back. They are quite an influential player. And 18% is in my view quite sizeable stake.
I respect your views, but having looked back again at the structure of the deal and the arrangements for repaying of debt by sale of shares, cannot see any ghosts. I simply see it as the ability for a lender to sell down collateral against a loan in the event of default on the part of the borrower to service that loan.
Moving on, the good thing, for GB is that as the share price improves, there will be fewer shares which need to be sold per $ of debt and so the negative impact on the SP by a reduction in the rate of sale ought to be beneficial to us all. We remain with a single shareholder with a holding in the upper teens %, but then that happens widely. At that level the single shareholder cannot trigger any actions which might be negative, as far as I'm aware.
PS The SP appears to have held up well yesterday given that there is often a retrace following a single day rise of the order we saw on Tuesday.
13.52 Hi Rabito.
I think if you read some of my past posts, maybe it will be obvious what I am alluding to. Right now I will refrain from restating as I will be accused of all kinds of stuff and my post removed. As per last week. I have no wish to perpetuate the discussion.
Hope you appreciate the reason.
Take care. And I promise I am still invested despite my concerns.
GS, I am sorry but what can be construed as ‘a bit bent’?
07.52 I agree with you entirely on your post.
Have a great day.