The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
15.31 - I’m all ears with respect to your presentation of said incontrovertible evidence to support your ridiculous position stated:
“ tonynorstrom failed to respond further to my challenge of his remarks about selling Alkaid. in my book that's a technical retraction. not responding to specific questions seems to be an accepted behaviour amongst some on these boards”
Alaric,
"...feel free to jump in anytime Scot! " - whaaat - you don't think he's jumped in ?!
Scott126,
"Tony – you may feel I’m being unnecessarily cruel to you...." - I think your response is way over the top - I'm beginning to think that some of the earlier criticism of your style had some merit. I think that you are probably way over exposed here - that's what I really think !
I have not read your diatribe in full yet - I switch off after the 1st couple of sentences.
I hold a couple of shares, but my interest in PANR is a little luke warm at the moment, a bit like the markets interest in PANR's shares !
tony , if i might make a suggestion - perhaps focus on the substance of the points made against you and less on the form? in my case, to remind, that involves you substantiating your statements that Alkaid was being sold and that there were problems with that.
Scot123,
I don't want into a big back and forth - but I do want to briefly address a couple of points.
Ref your comments about about by surname, whether English is my 1st language and by reference my intelligence in general. I recall you complaining about a previous poster questioning your mental health - to call others rude and post comment such as these - a little rich me thinks !!
There are a lot of pretty clued up people on this board including yourself - does not mean you are 100% right - in fact there is a lot of fluff and hot air in what you have written.
To clarify my earlier comment about Alkaid for Alaric- I know of no issues specifically with Alkaid other than the general concerns about commerciality and environmental which applies to all assets-apologies to SH if this was read as a deliberate attempt to cast doubts on Alkaid
1) PANR need a further 4 or 5 drills to reach an equivalent state to Pikka (your opinion) . I didnt say anything different- assuming you are right - how many years and how much cash / dilution will it take to get there ?
2) Ref: Flow tests on Pikka which I think you originally brought up a month or so back. I didn't say that they were long term tests or otherwise - however, by your selective use of facts and indignant tone - I'm guessing that there were multiple tests over more representative % of the acreage compared to PANR.
3) Ref to 1st oil - trucking to the 1st pump station - really - that sounds like clutching at straws - how commercial is that ! I'm not sure how feasible that is on a larger scale bearing in mind flaring considerations etc not to mention the cost of trucks driving up and down in the middle of the arctic.
4) Environmental / permitting risks - I didn't say that SoA law did not provide certain protections - If you are saying differently then you have misrepresented my comments which I think you have done repeatedly in your response. Are you saying that SoA laws provide cast iron protection against the Federal Government - if you are - I think that that is doubtful to say the least.
I provided an example of the Keystone - whilst not exactly the same scenario - I think it does provide a warning. The Canadian's believed that it violated a bilateral Energy Treaty dating back to 1982. It has not necessarily been accepted (as you state without any context) - it was subject to a lawsuit that was raised during the Obama administration before being dropped when Trump approved the permits . The fact the the Canadian Prime Minister is no longer challenging the decision in public does not mean that he doesn't think it a breach of the treaty. I dont think you can claim that environmental / permitting is not a risk - I bet its listed as a risk in PANR's annual report.
In summary i'm saying that any oil 6-7 years from production, especially relatively high cost oil in Alaska in the current political environment is at risk and I think that is what the market is currentl
No worries, tonynorstrum1. You may very well think my reply was OTT but to remind you and all other readers, I'm not the guy who despite not knowing the difference between reserves and recoverable resources still had the entirely misplaced self-confidence to spout even more factually incorrect content on a public forum.
Serious question. When you post content that you know you haven't fact-checked, does even 1% of your conscience stir with that mature acceptance that generally comes from adulthood that you have a responsibility to your fellow man/woman/investor not to misinform them?
I refuse to believe we as a society think so little of each other's welfare that we don't give a sh** about misinforming each other. C'mon Tony, we gotta be better than that, don't we?
I'll give you rude, Tony. You had the gall to accuse Alaric of not listening to the CEO when your own post proved that you either hadn't listened to the CEO or had no comprehension about what you listened to.
Tony doesn't wish a to and fro so for the benefit of all other readers:
1) Next step for Alkaid is a LTPT => allow classification of reserve status. No-one is stating anything different. As for environmental concepts..... be specific and quit scaremongering. There is nothing about Alkaid and the environment which is any different from elsewhere on state land in Alaska *except* the massive benefit that much of the future activity will be located on *already classified disturbed land". A benefit for PANR, not an added risk as you infer.
2) Pikka/data collection/time/money. Results will define the answers. You asked. A question about number of drills and I replied - there was no contest there??? On all metrics, and with the caveat the geological is proven the time and investment required will be shorter in duration and far less in capex. There are no cost/regulatory/logistical factors you can point to which do not show PANR's acreage to be far superior in NAV terms, with geology being a. Fully accepted caveat.
3) Of course there were multiple flow tests at Pikka. You wrongly stated Pikka had reserves which would have required LTPTs. Be a man, show some honour and admit you didn't know the difference between reserves and resources nor the requirement for LTPTs. Hard to take any other human seriously if they believe they never make mistakes in life.
4) First oil/trucking - have some respect for yourself as an adult and for other readers of your public content. At least do some reading/research/webinar listening before thinking your opinion is the equivalent of the established facts of the investment case.
5) Fed v's SoA land rights. Yeah, I am saying exactly that. As part of my law degree I elected to study US Constitutional law. Happy for you to inform me of the Amendment number which permits the Fed govt to legislate on state's reserved powers/ownership of land. Tip? There isn't one.
6) You should re-read my Keystone paragraph. I specifically mentioned Fed and Native American land for a reason. Domestic sovereign law trumps international treaty law....always has, always will. Even if Canada has a valid claim, shy of invasion enforcement will be impossible.
7) More research required, Tony. PANR's model indicated sector standout *low cost of production* and I already provided the source to rebut your 6 - 7 year nonsense. I don't know what broker research note you're reading but it's massively misinform you. If you're solely responsible for your own research and sourcing then your efforts are objectively pathetic and factually wrong.
8) The market is almost entirely focused on Farallon and the SP. Fundamentals will out eventually, they always do.
Do better, Tony. Facts are your friends, not your enemy.
that's a pretty comprehensive wrap on tony's 'stuff', thanks Scot. i see i've had issues with him before and found his style discursive and suggestive of dissimulation. nothing he's just said makes me change my mind, so i'm not so sure facts are his friend. even now he omits to deal with the 'selling Alkaid' point. not wishing to appear rude but that's either a comprehension issue or something worse.
14.53
At least try to use some variety in your vocabulary - you appear somehow self-congratulatory in the repeated use of "style discursive and suggestive of dissimulation".
You appear redolent of a young student with a GCSE in Law who's hamming himself up to be a big shot QC..............
I asked some weeks ago what the Law Society might make of your antics on this board, if you are a lawyer, and I too received little by way of response................kettle calling pan?
Alaric,
"i've had issues with him before" - you are so transparent. I have dealt with the issue of Alkaid - just refer to my previous post. Others clearly have issues with what you post - one only has to refer to the proceeding posts. All I can say is PI's must do their own research and not rely completely on the "experts" on this BB.
There are some experts on this board by the way - its clear from the technical content of their posts - i'm just not sure that you are one them. The natural tendency of most investors is to be "over invested" in a stock and not properly assess the risks. I did listed to the latest podcast and presentation (despite the assertions of your manic friend) and concur that they were extremely bullish. You only have to look at the SP to see that not everyone is entirely convinced yet.
this spat started, i believe tony, when i questioned your statement suggesting Panr were 'selling' Alkaid. your response (which displayed a catastrophic level of ignorance about this stock) suggested i hadn’t listened to what the CEO had been telling us all. so for the record and as you know, you haven't 'dealt with' the Alkaid issue as you put it. am i bovvered? not in the least and that's because i get what you're about now.
maybe just maybe, cbaron, there is some distopian parallel dimension where i get to sit down with someone like you and discuss my professional life. i think we both know though that ain't ever going to happen. sorry to disappoint.
Alaric,
The question you asked was what were the issues that I was referring to which I have responded to.
With reference to selling - I don't think I ever said PANR were selling - I'm pretty sure I questioned why PANR have not sold i.e. why there didn't appear to be a long line of parties ready to farm -in - I was not really differentiating between a farm-in or a sale. A farm after all is effectively a partial sale - so I'm not sure what the point you and numpty are trying to make and why that makes you guys so smart ?
As far as a catastrophic ignorance - lets see how well you do with PANR before you make judgements on anyone else.
I am invested here - a pretty small at stake at present mainly because I think there are much better risk reward oil plays out there.
Scott,
You are a rude little man - your posts are manic and emotional and although I recognize you have some expertize, your posts are by no means 100% correct. Let me point out a couple of errors or at least areas where things are not as clear cut as you would have some believe:
1) I recently completed a 4 and a half year project for a greenfield 100,000 boepd crude processing plant - I was involved in the project from contract award , through detail Engineering, fabrication, construction, commissioning and handover. Prior to this there was a nearly 2 years of concept selection, FEED and budget approvals etc. So the "6-7 year nonsense" you refer to with regards to a Project Timeline is not nonsense - If you had hands on experience in large Projects - you would know this which you apparently dont. Digging a little deeper and finding out what it might take in Alaska - please find a link to an article posted by Telemachus which kind of backs up this timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/PantheonResourcesPANR/comments/n79g5i/some_of_the_material_in_this_post_is_useful_for/
2) With reference to the Processing Plant above - this is not a small piece of kit - this is about $600m worth of equipment sitting on a plot plan of about 400,000 m2 so the idea of a law graduate heading up to the artic circle armed with his Mont Blanc fountain pen and his brothers 25,000 litre tanker producing commercial oil is just laughable. When I referenced first oil - I meant a production facility - not a one man band disposing of oil from a flow test. Again if you had hands on experience you would know details like this.
3) Permitting requirements and government regulations including state regulation is a risk regardless of what you say and is listed as such in PANR's Annual Report Ref page 12 under Political conditions and government regulations including the Northern Slope Borough and the State of Alaska.
4) Finally cost - When you refer to "sector standout low cost of production". This is of course based on PANR's estimates which are hardly impartial. I'm also assuming that the statement refers to projects within Alsaka. Would I have 100% confidence in the numbers - no I would not given that they PANR have a vested interest in pushing the project forward. However, I'm not talking of just Alaska there are much cheaper places around the world to produce oil competing for project capital.
Facts and data are your friend - even though you may think you know everything - you probably don't and for the sake of your investment you should ensure that you don't let you emotions cloud your judgement - as I said before, I think you are too emotionally attached to your PANR shares - PANR is very much in the speculative range of investments and there are better risk reward plays out there.
1) and 2) were to first oil, not full field development. Re-read your original challenge. Whenever first oil has been debated on this thread or by the company in relation to Alkaid the LTPT was explicitly labelled as "first oil". If *you* had done the bare minimum of background reading before pontificating here you would have known that. First oil, first commercial oil.....so selling into TAPS at Pump Station No 1 isn't a commercial sale? Catch up, Tony. All the hands on experience in the world doesn't beat the minimum of background reading.
3) I'm not saying it's not a risk.....I am directly rebutting your scaremongering and uneducated b/s about Fed v's SoA confering so particular benefit (towards SoA acreage) when it manifestly does in law. Fact. This is where the equivalent of "all the engineering degrees in the world won't educate a person about the nuances and intricacies ofFed v's State law in the US."
4) agreed, relying on company guidance. I note your retreat from the relatively high cost of production nonetheless.
Now then, all of the above and below is very interesting but it still doesn't answer the baseline question about your knowledge of reserves v's resources. Your engineering background strongly suggests you know the technical difference so, for me anyway, we now have an answer. Tony didn't take the handful of minutes required to Google the Armstrong/Repsol/OSH deal to read about the status of the asset when the initial translation occurred. Lazy, but fine, it happens. However, when corrected Tony doesn't man up, thank the poster for informing him of the facts so as to better assess the PANR investment case, acknowledge his error, withdraw his comment. Nope, he completely ignores it and proceeds to take out his embarrassment on the person who corrected him. Conclusion IMO? Tony is one of these self-confidence men who a) think they always have sufficient baseline knowledge that their unresearched views and opinions on pretty much any topic will *always* have a value and b) is part of that generation of men who regard being corrected publicly as a savage blow to their ego and immediately go into attack mode when instead they should be grateful when their factual errors are pointed out so, going forward, their opinions are based on a foundation of facts. Tony wasn't brought up that way and neither was I, particularly. Thankfully, a specific event forced me to confront that serious character flaw. Facts don't give a flying **** about ego or baseline knowledge or anonymous avatars on bulletin boards.....they're just facts, incontrovertible pieces of information. So here's a fact which Tony didn't know but felt the urge, the ego-driven need to show off his smarts to a bulletin board read by his fellow investors. He told us Pikka had reserves when the original OSH deal was done in 2017. Wrong. They had contingent resources. In fact Pikka still doesn't have any reserves in 2021, nearly four years after the original deal wa
(cont'd)
.....was signed.
The initial laziness not doing the background reading about the Pikka deal, the arrogance that his baseline knowledge means his opinion always has value, the descent into ego-driven aggression and defensiveness, the refusal even to acknowledge his factual error, the schoolyard level Mont Blanc jibe revealing the importance of status and ego........it all adds up to an individual who has absolutely no regard for his fellow shareholders ot anyone else reading his content. There's no ambition to uncover the *facts* of the investment case, just a desire to puff up the ego, he doesn't need to do the background research, he already knows enough, the rules don't apply to him.
He cares not one jot about anyone but himself and he posts with no responsibility nor acceptance that posting means being accountable for the content. Shameful.
As for other investments Tony is looking at, none of my business.
tonynorstrom Thur 22.33. you are wrong on both points: you stated Alkaid being sold and i asked you why.
'..I forgot about Alkaid. However there are issues with Alkaid also - why has it not been sold yet?' 12 June19.02
'... and why on God's earth would we be selling .. Alkaid, after its successful flow test and the data from Talitha#A ?' 12 June 20.35
my question was met with dismissive arrogance - had i not been listening to the ceo? when i then asked did you mean a farm-in?, you didn't respond further.
so when you now say you meant 'farm-in', at best you're dissembling. i have come across more than a few arrogant people in my life and many of them are/were hugely intelligent and importantly also usually correct. that's scary. you on the other hand don't bother me a jot. i have no interest in taking this roadcrash of a discussion any further.
Scott,
Your response is poor:
1) Selling a bit of oil from a flow test is not really considered commercial development and not what many would consider 1st oil - you can spin it if you like but you know you are talking rubbish.
2) Project times lines it looks like you might have accepted that you didnt actually know what you were actually talking about.
3) I have not not retreated at all on my comments about Alaska being an expensive place to produce oil - its a fact and the reason that their are assets sitting their not developed that would ordinarily be developed elsewhere due to the high costs of working in the artic circle. Even the mundane task of building roads and pipelines become an exorbitant expense.
4) The question of reserves v resources etc is not really a baseline question at all - of course I know the difference - the definitions are out there. I may have misspoken in one of my posts - but I wouldn't read to much into it. You have clearly misspoken on several occasions on areas of the projects you know little about- so what !
Aleric,
I don't think I was wrong on both accounts - It may be your opinion and your are entitled to it - but that doesn't make you right. You are correct in that that my initial response to you may have been a little "dismissively arrogant" as you put it because in my opinion you are a dismissively arrogant person. I have read a few of your posts to others and its hard not to get drawn into to responding to you in a negative manner.
20.47
Alaric,
That may indeed be interesting, or then again, not. I am genuinely disappointed.
You could tell me about you and your professional life - interesting to note that we'd be talking about you, no real surprise there.
My aim would be to advise that you might get a little further in whatever it is you do and also on this blog if you toned down the pomposity and tried not to sound like an arrogant pri**.
For someone who holds himself in such high regard, I would have thought that you might have understood, by now, that sentences start with capital letter. ;-)
you guys are just hilarious. 'interesting to note that we'd be talking about you, no real surprise there.' well cbaron, the point is there won't be any talking and btw you was asking not me! (please rest assured i have zilch interest in what you do)
Alaric,
"guys"? Only one of me you'll be pleased to hear.
In your parallel universe, and I would say utopian rather than dystopian (note 'y', not 'i'), you suggested we talk about you and so I was going to talk about you too. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume we were going to be talking about me - so have no worries.
"you was asking not me"? What did I ask? It should be 'were' not 'was', by the way. You really do need to start using capital letters to start a new sentence.
;-)
.........you see, Alaric, that repeated, forensic and highly critical analysis of the contributions of others, when after all it's only a blog, can be tedious and none of us are perfect. Not even you!
Have a nice life.
well cbaron, i was just minding my own business and reminding tonynorstrom about what he'd actually said to me and there you are again out of the blue yesterday afternoon, talking about my qualifications, my career and correcting my syntax, my typos and suggesting i broaden my vocab. all a bit spooky perhaps? (sorry no verb in that one but, as you say, it's just a blogging board after all.)
Aleric,
There you go again - drawing me in - your recollection and context was incorrect and you weren't minding your own business - I didn't ask for your input in the beginning. I dont rate you opinion and in addition you are an arrogant little fellow.
I don't mind be corrected and I have held my hands up for misspeaking - but you wont let it drop !! I'm sure were going to hear from your buddy soon with his diatribe - and i'm so looking forward to that !!
Aleric,
Not spooky at all.
Just calling out someone who appears to enjoy calling out others and, not for the first time, tried to sound like some sort of legal hotshot...........that's all.