Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
Yep funding is key.......I thought it was interesting though that D.H confirmed it is one main contractor now in the running...I feel that its very positive for him to confirm that and my guess is they are further down the line to agreeing a deal than letting on.....as before it was always discussions with a few potential lenders...if this one was just 50/50 he may not have made the point on there now being just one! anyway just me reading in between the lines and hoping A.B
.........as I said after the 28 March RNS. Yesterday's was a fantastic resource upgrade, but it's all about getting the oil out of the ground. The question on further prove-up drilling was answered with the usual caveat from Jay - " subject to funding".
We now have Helium(another gas) to add into the mix alongside 'ordinary' gas. What next? I'm in the camp which questions gas pipeline deliverability and hence its use as a funding catalyst, but I hope I'm proved wrong.
I implore the company to concentrate on the core activity.
We're now appear to be down to a list of one partner in negotiation as a potential funding partner - let's hope that deal comes off.
It's all about funding, funding, funding.
Good luck all.
cb
Troughsnout
The apology is due to Scot, and yes it is due, as you were dead wrong once again
I see no point in debating with you any further, as you are a now many times proven bad actor, but do expect your false information to be corrected, as and when
A surprise for me and probably many others here....MANGROVE who have always reported on time as per their past 8/10 notifications are still short and didn't reduce anything yesterday. They may have reduced today however will not know that until tomorrow. But as the fact that are know they are still fully short and haven't covered a bean :) (unless they closed some today)
Anyway 600mln extra barrels to talk about :) always nice !
Troughsnout you seem to have have been watching and listening to a different presentation to me!!
Peaky, I have no problem with a difference of opinion, I'm not saying I'm right or its in any way fact, its just an opinion, others may differ. They are talking of funding and now only have one person on the table, the FID on the in state phase is still some way off and thus funding likely even further.
I don't see the raising of funding by equity for such a transformative stage as horrendous, particularly if they can get the SP up a bit and lower the equity requirement. However like I say it's my opinion, what I don't accept though is your cloaked accusation of dishonesty or transparency.
I'll leave you discuss, I should have expected that response though just based on the shareholders from this board that visit 88e.
I just don't understand why you've failed as a bloggerπ€·ββοΈπ
You get the derision your repeatedly deceptive posts deserve.
Every time you try to deceive, your errors are corrected by industry experts.
Fool and finally blocked.
Dont worry Tin Tin you you will feel better tomorrow π€£π€£
Troughsnout 17:24
How can you write that, when you have just done this
There is deception and then their is outright dishonesty. you continue to cross that line,
ATM you obviously owe an apology for this one
"Who was it that said they had whole core. Oh yeah Scot. Well they don't. Just sidewall. No one serious going to punt on these fantasy numbers without whole core "
SLB Modelling Update - Ahpun Western Topsets Individual Well Type Curve
SLB has continued its dynamic modelling of Pantheon's reservoirs and provided a single well model based on the rock properties logged and sampled (whole core) at the Pipeline State-1 well location. This results in per well recoveries of 3.7 million barrels of marketable liquids and 8 bcf of natural gas.
Olderwiser
My apologies if i have been mistaken and yes that is what it says in the RNS. But Bob R repeatedly talked of sidewall core on the webinar at PS. I see whole core is parenthesised in the RNS but if this is the case why does he not refer to it on the call. Can you show me where on the webinar he mentions whole core? And if that whole core pertains to the relevant section under scrutiny.
I agree with Peaky, that was my understanding also
It really speaks volumes that most of the writers on this chat think it is justified to behave in abusive ways while hiding behind their anonymity. I have never attacked anyone's character, in fact i have been scrupulous in giving praise where its due. The only subject I have interrogated is what the company/management say and its validity. I do wonder if those of you who are abusive on an ad hominem level would like it if your comments were relayed back to your employer or the people you work with or the communities you live among. Some of you perhaps have children: is this the sort of behaviour you would encourage in them? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Its easy to say that you disagree and argue the merits of the points raised, but to engage in such low level of nastiness makes a mockery of a share bulletin board. And frankly it undermines your point as those people who witness it discount any more reasoned arguments you may have. In the end it undermines the very story you are trying to promote. I have no problem with someone saying "I think you are mistaken, and this is why...", and even then to ridicule arguments made. I have simply said - it is not a serious proposition to depend on funding from a pipeline that isn't built, and doesn't look obviously economic however you cut the numbers, based on a resource story that isn't backed by multiple EWT's (extended well tests that definitively prove commerciality) and whole core analysis, PVTs etc. I don't believe it is obvious or implied that drill carries or vendor financing or bank funding will be provided either. On that basis, you are left as always with equity or quasi equity (more converts).
My take from webinar was it wasnβt the loss of a potential vendor but the whittling down by the company of a preferred one and advanced negotiations nearer completion
Once final cpr s have come in and confirming total barrels of both alphun and kodiak fields
Also David mentioned figures being discussed by vendor financing is in excess of figures needed at ground floor $120 mill bringing oil to market and being cash flow sufficient
We all read things how we read them but letβs be clear honest and transparent please
Troughsnout 17:24
There is deception and then their is outright dishonesty. you continue to cross that line,
ATM you obviously owe an apology for this one
"Who was it that said they had whole core. Oh yeah Scot. Well they don't. Just sidewall. No one serious going to punt on these fantasy numbers without whole core "
SLB Modelling Update - Ahpun Western Topsets Individual Well Type Curve
SLB has continued its dynamic modelling of Pantheon's reservoirs and provided a single well model based on the rock properties logged and sampled (whole core) at the Pipeline State-1 well location. This results in per well recoveries of 3.7 million barrels of marketable liquids and 8 bcf of natural gas.
Yes just listened to the presentation, my view was based on the loss of one potential funder, the fact that the trans Alaska pipeline, assuming it goes ahead, is years off and these things always have a tendency to be delayed and that actually $250,000,000 is only around 700 million shares so they have some headroom, even with the 100 million shares added from the bond holder that is not extortionate to get things moving and far better than debt anyway.
Oh Brevarthan/Troughsnout - did you see the directors all laughing at your pseudo-science explanation of why PANR will need to retain all associated gas to ensure the producibility of the hydrocarbon liquids?????
You just make stuff up and throw it at the wall hoping some will stick. The PANR BoD are wise to your nonsense now. Go cry to Pete and Tom and be sure to increase your short tomorrow. Make sure it's a full unit, won't you?
Ha ha then you will defo lose your money......were your listening to the presentation? dont worry it is recorded you can watch it on you tube...I can send you the link if you wont?ππ
Based on what exactly?
After listening to this I would place my money on this being funded by equity.
Troughsnout you are now the new Tin Hat.......π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ Keep up up the pathetic observations...
Trough - look outside the window and you will see the shares have risen from around 10p and the trend is up. If you want to continue to talk crap keep going.
Troughsnout you are a F*****g π€‘
Only discussion is with one counterparty - ie the gas. Which needs a FEED study. Which needs a pipeline. Which doesn't work without LNG. Do the maths. 11bn cost. 33bcf alaska gas demand. Currently met by Cook inlet. So has to compete with Cook Inlet gas. Which currently costs at CityGate $8-9/mcf. So my numbers are pretty clear. Even at $10/mcf with $1 for PANR that would be less than a 1% return, or 3% for displacing all of that Cook Inlet production, which presumably would need a big discount so is for the birds. Hilarious.
And lovely RNS an hour ago .. had forgotten about the helium !!! π
They are scoring goals all over the place!
Trough - are you finding it all difficult to understand what is being said or are making stuff up πππ