Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Thanks for information.
Always learning.
The directors dealings tab is incorrect:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/result-of-capital-raise-gzxxhaa1v3hm1ty.html
22:49
"Now get back to the present, the BOD have joined into the recent capital raises, in particular the newly arrived D Hobbs "
If the Director Deals tab is correct D Hobbs is the only director to have purchased shares since Sep,22.
Thats their (other directors) choice and I am not criticising, just clarifying your statement.
Stas20
OW is not kidding anyone, the directors cashed in some options that would otherwise have expired, in so doing contributing ~30p per share to the company coffers
It was a bad optic, the shorts made sure it was magnified to full effect, the damage done at the time was significant.
Now get back to the present, the BOD have joined into the recent capital raises, in particular the newly arrived D Hobbs, who arrived with a decent holding of his own and then has taken several opportunities to add with cash purchases in capital raisings and on market
So yes very much aligned with investors, this gentleman D Hobbs in particular, oil expert premier, quits pleasure yachting around the globe, becomes an independent director, quickly steps up to become executive chairman, and then doubles up on his shareholding with his own CASH. (Not the all too familiar granted shares and options, so common to oil explorers)
Start
"As at the date of appointment, David Hobbs has a total beneficial interest in 1,576,002 ordinary shares of Pantheon, equating to approximately 0.2% of the issued share capital."
Current
"Accordingly, David Hobbs has purchased 980,455 shares from IPGL at the Placement Price. Following the purchase, his ultimate beneficial ownership increases to 3,697,684 shares, representing 0.4% of the Company's total voting rights."
As I recall those options were granted when the share price was ~half the exercise price. I know a number of long term holders who topsliced in the run from 7p to £1.4.
All directors have taken part in recent placings and of course David Hobbs has purchased all
his holdings, including the recent ~$500K. Those who know the back story will also understand Bob Rosenthal has had significant dilution to his original Great Bear stake.
I can't remember Brom being as critical of Wall and Opstad's shenanigans at our noisy neighbours. Seem far more cynical these days, funny that.
Lol did I say one director, seems I concentrated on the one that made the least....🤣🤣
Lol so aligned indeed 🤣🤣🤣🤣
16-Sep-22 Sell Justin George Hondris 123.40 GBX 2,000,000
16-Sep-22 Exercise of Option Justin George Hondris 30.00 GBX 2,000,000
16-Sep-22 Sell John Bishop Cheatham 123.40 GBX 1,300,000
16-Sep-22 Exercise of Option John Bishop Cheatham 30.00 GBX 1,300,000
Lol brombarb, correct a quick scan sees one director sold 900,000 at 123.4p and immediately replaced them all at 27p for an almost £900,000 profit. Perfectly aligned interest lol, who is OW kidding.
The real comment should have been in the hands of a very capable and experienced AND GREEDY team. In reality the important aspect is they likely won't sell until the share price is far higher.
Apologies my IPad appears to be playing up.
16:44 yep thatas the
10:21
I welcome that the directors here have healthy shareholdings, however I do remember that in September 22 three directors chose to sell substantial holding on the market which resulted in an immediate hit for all shareholders.
At least two directors immediately chose to partake in an options programmed at probably ~ 70% discount to replace their shares.
Lots of excuses were found for their actions but ultimately they did what was right for them as individuals and it hurt the shareholdes here.
Its a tough old world.
Jiggery Pokery
Sounds to me pretty standard
“bureaucratic jiggery-pokers”
13:19
Sounds like desperation, ADGC have been seeking private capital to finance project for years.
If you worked for the ADGC what message would be sending out!
https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2024/05/01/alaska-gas-line-leaders-ask-lawmakers-to-support-giving-44b-project-until-years-end-to-succeed-or-die/
:-)
https://x.com/flight_useful/status/1786354738130309209?s=46&t=c4s50NWXswiWg9BVziGoag
Thank you.
Seahawk
The LKA grant of reserves shows PANR have shown enough already. The combination of data topped off with the long term flow test results and subsequent analysis, is enough to justify development
PANR are in the enviable position of having further, and better and much larger prospects as well, so are now in a position to choose from several options.
The ZOI at Alk 2 is a very very small percentage of their resources. but is further developed, so can proceed faster.
As I alluded to in my earlier post, they can also choose to take on the greater risk/reward in the SMDB, and invest further in developing it further (flow test known reservoir, or explore high porosity reservoir in the new leases) either of which could yield exceptional at scale results.
Its a decision I am pleased is in the hands of a very capable and experienced team, that have aligned their interests with shareholders, by having meaningful holdings themselves
£1.55m - the figure is being reported in pence [GBX]
Does that show their current liability as £150 million? Doesn't sound right.
Thanks Olderwiser that a great bit of analysis, put into simple terms for those of us without in depth oil knowledge. Do you think this is enough to attract help or do they still need to show a well flowing at full on rates eg hundreds/ thousands Bopd. It all looks good on paper.
Https://shorteurope.com/history_player.php?player=THE%20MANGROVE%20PARTNERS%20MASTER%20FUND%20LTD.&land=united_kingdom#Pantheon%20Resources%20Plc
No wonder someone has been squeezing the price down.
Part 2
Bear in mind the completion efficiency was only 20%, I would also like to see this clarified, as to what efficiency LKA have used in their modeling. If a low efficiency has been input to the base case, the probability of a better result is high.
It is going to be a complex decision for PANR to make on the next move.
Allocate resources to the tried and true of the ZOI with a lower RoR, or back the SMDB with no long term flow test, but a much higher estimated RoR. Who knows maybe a hybrid of both
Part 1
It is reassuring to see such a close alignment between PANR's estimates and the LKA IER
With LKA estimating 79.3 m barrels of salable liquids, over 78 wells, each well averages 1.017m barrels, interestingly very close to the conservative 1m PANR have used in their financial modeling, and the 1.2 m used in other models.
What gives this some context is the share price decline from £1.40 to £0.10, on the much exaggerated basis, and short thesis, that the ALK 2 long term flow test was not a commercial success, too much gas mostly condensate etc.
And the suggestion that these results would also apply to all the other reservoirs, (now disproven by the SMDB flow test results)
LKA have quite definitively now given their expert independent view that, the ZOI is a costed commercial success, expected to yield greater than 20% RoR.
Specifically 21.75% for the reserves based on the ALK 2 horizontal, and 27.69% for the contingent resources.
A first award of possible reserves of ~5m barrels, is a major affirmation, that the reservoir is viable, the tipping point to reserves being the demonstrated proven flow rates at ALK2 H. (IMO these are project FID away from being probable reserves)
Bear in mind these flow rates were sub optimal as the frack efficiency was only 20%, and PANR have demonstrated a 50% frack efficiency in their next attempt in the ALK 2 SMDB flow test. Which bodes well for the PANR modelling based on 40% frack efficiency
Looking at the GOR, there is a notable change, ALK2H showed 505 barrels and 2300mmcf/d, a GOR of 4560 cf/ barrel, while the LKA IER calculates out at 5341 cf/bl (423577984000cf/79.3 m bls). A bit higher than the actual results at ALK2H, but not a deal breaker
Simply put the worst of PANR wells are still million barrel wells, and million barrel wells stack up as viable as a stand alone reservoir, in the base case scenario.
To which can be added synergies with the stacked SMDB reservoir, with a PANR assessed 2m barrel recovery, with much lower GOR, and the potential to exceed base case towards high side case
The other notable ratio is the oil to NGLs, in ALK2H 180 bo plus 325 NGLs, ratio of 1:1.8 is compared to LKA IER of 43,300,000 bo plus 36,004,000 NGLs, ratio of 1: .83.
On the face of it this is a huge improvement, but I suspect it reflects a shift of condensate from the NGLs column to the oil column, clarification is required, as if a genuine change it will reflect in the 90% value attributed to the mix of oil, condensate and NGLs
This from the LKA IER stands out in regard to the possibly conservative nature of the assessment
“The estimates of reserves, resources and future net cash flow set forth in this report utilized the production results, completion efficiencies and fluid analysis from the long term production test of the Alkaid #2 horizontal.”
I'll not argue, its not an either / or, its a tool. I'll leave it at that... other than, I think you'll find that a lot of shares are already traded by AI is just one step removed from algorithmic trading.
It certainly is.
When all shares are traded by AI, and no emotion or aspect of differing human interpretation is involved, it may then work, although I doubt it. I've read so may believers over the years, all of you must be as rich as Croesus by now, and far to busy to argue on a mere chat board.
Its not a belief system it is just one tool in a toolbox of many from fundamental analysis to economics and environment, so many use it it has an aspect of self fulfilling thus it helps to understand but heh, we cannot all use all the tools, thus if you choose to have one less tool in your box that's your choice.