Member Info for BricksSA

Lols…. Summer in Alaska roughly runs from mid-May to mid-September. They stated…before the end of summer. So it could be imminent as well I suppose.

Older wiser is correct Lee.

Multiple third‑party firms have issued Independent Expert Reports (IERs) covering the reservoirs PANR refers to:

Alkaid horizon (within Ahpun) — independently assessed by Lee Keeling & Associates (LKA).

LKA confirmed 79 mmbbl of recoverable reserves/resources and provided economic modelling showing >20% real rates of return.

Ahpun western topsets — independently assessed by Cawley Gillespie & Associates (CGA).

CGA estimated ~280 million barrels of recoverable oil + NGL (2C case) and provided a full economic valuation (NPV ≈ $1.74B at $80/bbl).

Kodiak field — independently assessed by Netherland, Sewell & Associates (NSAI).

NSAI has issued contingent resource estimates for Kodiak (2023 and 2024 reports).

fook tony…give up your bull****e please.

key financial reasons for farming in

1. capital efficiency

farm-in partners provide funding for exploration and development costs, reducing pantheon’s need to raise dilutive equity or take on debt.

this is critical because pantheon’s projects (kodiak and ahpun) require billions in development capital to reach commercial production.

2. value retention

by farming in, pantheon retains a larger working interest in its assets compared to farming out, where they would sell down their stake.

this means they keep more of the upside if the projects succeed, especially given their certified resource base on alaska’s north slope.

3. risk sharing

farm-in deals allow major energy companies to share technical and financial risk.

pantheon benefits from the partner’s operational expertise and balance sheet strength, while avoiding the full burden of development costs.

4. market timing

interest in alaska oil assets is currently strong, with multiple majors evaluating pantheon’s projects. farming in lets pantheon leverage this demand to negotiate favorable terms without surrendering control.

📊 comparison: farm-in vs farm-out

aspect farm-in (pantheon’s strategy) farm-out (alternative)

capital needs partner funds development costs pantheon raises capital or sells stake

ownership pantheon retains larger interest pantheon dilutes ownership

upside potential higher long-term returns if successful reduced upside due to smaller stake

risk profile shared with partner reduced risk but less control

control maintains operational influence loses influence to farm-out buyer

Fook…you are now showing your ignorance and misrepresenting the fact. It’s not the same ….please do some more research and I expect an apology from you.

tony i am honestly tired of reading your bull****e day in and out and you quite frankly just don’t get it. grow up you plonker.

Short Tony….this is what my co pilot system says about your post.

Pantheon’s recent RNS (Regulatory News Service) announcements have referred to potential farm-in arrangements, not farm-outs.

A farm-in means another company would take a stake in Pantheon’s projects by funding part of the exploration/development costs.

A farm-out is the opposite: Pantheon would give up a portion of its interest in exchange for funding.

So when posters talk about “farm-out odds,” they’re misrepresenting the company’s own language. Pantheon has been clear that it’s seeking partners to farm in to its Alaskan assets. That distinction matters because it frames the negotiation: Pantheon is inviting capital and expertise into its projects rather than divesting them.

This is why the speculative odds and price targets you saw don’t line up with the official RNS wording. They’re essentially commentary from outside observers, not company guidance.

It’s rough being short Tony. You are a full twit.

Chickens like you Tony.

So contrary to some posts on the BB the RNS yesterday imo was well timed and very positive. It tells me Michael is on top of the situation and leading from the front and a man of his word.

I found it…..

Michael Spencer

I'm just reading one here. Executive team and Board of most successful companies have a significant stake in the company. How does the CEO plan to demonstrate his skin in the game interest and faith in the company that he is leading and ensure that his decisions will be aligned with Shell ventures? Well, I mean, I'm just only a new boy on the Board, as you very well know. As Chairman, I can tell you, I personally have an interest in over 100 million shares in Pantheon, bought at prices that are all overwhelmingly higher than the current price.

It's true that at this time, our CEO, Max does not have a material equity interest in the company. I certainly -- until I became Chairman, of course, it wasn't my job to discuss compensation with him. But looking forward, I will definitely be doing that because I completely agree with what that submission said, which is a Board where the directors have a considerable equity interest in the business generally performs better than one that does not. So yes, I will be focusing that for you.

Source https://seekingalpha.com/article/4882646-pantheon-resources-plc-pthrf-discusses-post-agm-investor-q-and-a-covering-vision-investor

Anyways news is imminent in my opinion. So let’s hold thumbs and hope for the best from the new chairman. I also think the RNS released yesterday was done purposefully so as not to create noise along the lines of possibly unethical behavior. He said something along the lines that he was going to sort Max out as Max did not hold enough shares?

And in answer to your question.

Most realistic near-term outcome: A farm-out or as I prefer th use farm in deal as that’s what the RNS says😊 with a mid-tier or major oil company, priced around GBX 60–80/share equivalent.

Full sale is possible but less likely unless a buyer offers a premium closer to GBX 100/share.

And if you ask me how it was calculated …..I copied and pasted your question into ChatGPT 😀😊

Fook….Leeusteuk you are right again 🤔 it does say major …..👍✌️🙏

Little Tony tries to rope me in again and again…..shows his ignorance.

All the below thanks to Brendan Long Oak Securities 🙏😀

Part 3.

Farmout – Expect Funding: The company announced that it is actively pursuing farm-out opportunities with multiple major energy companies. We believe that the experience of Michael Spencer and the technical expertise of the management team led by Max Easley will favour an outcome that is optimal for shareholders. Broadly, we believe that funding risks have reduced significantly for Pantheon Resources due to positive company specific and macro developments. Notably, ongoing geophysical work in respect of the Kodiak discovery being progressed by the technical team at Pantheon Resources is intended to further improve the attractiveness of that asset for a farmout. To insist on this point, growth is broadly considered to be a requirement for publicly listed oil & gas companies of all sizes. The major oil & gas companies, we believe, will essentially be required to look at growth opportunities in Alaska in light of geopolitical developments which have very significantly increased risks for producing regions outside of the USA. We would expect this pressure to grow over time noting that many of the regions of growth for large American oil companies have now become areas of distressed and most likely declining production. Expect solid farmout interest of a structural nature for Pantheon Resources’ assets – expect a successful farmout. M&A Valuation Metrics – Corroborate Tremendous Upside Potential: We believe that the most relevant M&A benchmark for Pantheon Resources’ assets is the sale of Armstrong Exploration’s interest in the Pikka field (to the west of Pantheon Resources’ assets) to Oil Search in 2017 (via a two-stage transaction). We estimate that that deal was completed at a valuation of $3.44 per barrel (2C; liquids only; see Table 1). For reference, the average price of Brent crude oil in 2017 amounted to $54.17 per barrel. For further reference, at the time of the acquisition, Pikka had not been ascribed proven and probable reserves nor had a final investment decision been formalised for Pikka (albeit the all-in cash consideration of $877.5m suggests that Oil Search had every intention of ensuring Pikka would be developed). Finally, we highlight that Pikka had been drilled by seven wells (focusing on the main Nanushuk formation) based on our research, of which two wells were production tested. Ultimately, we believe that subject to success and comparable derisking we believe that Pantheon Resources’ assets should attract a premium valuation relative to Pikka reflecting their proximity to the main Alaskan infrastructure, namely, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System and the Dalton Highway.

Part 2.

The late great investor Charlie Munger (Fig. 1) defined lollapalooza effects as the confluence of multiple tendencies that create virtuous circles and produce exceptional, non-linear shareholder value growth. We cannot over-emphasise the importance of this dynamic for Pantheon Resources and the critical importance of the inflection point brought about by Pantheon Resources’ strengthened board and management team, notably, by the appointment of Micheal Spencer as Non-Executive Chairman, complementing the existing and technically inclined leadership team led by CEO Max Easley. Funding – Positive Outlook: For more than a decade, in our view, funding risks have been greater than geological risks for appraisal stage oil & gas companies. This has weighed heavily on the share prices of appraisal stage growth companies in the oil & gas sector, with Pantheon Resources being no exception. Looking forwards, we see that weight lifting, suggesting amongst other things that market prices for high-quality appraisal companies, such a Pantheon Resources, should rerate towards fair value. In effect, we expect the large industry players to step into the exploration and appraisal farmin market out of sheer necessity. In the case of Pantheon Resources we also see significantly reduced refinancing risks in relation to the $28.5 million of convertible bonds due in March 2028 due to the company’s significantly strengthened position. We cannot under estimate the degree to which the outlook for Pantheon Resources has been positively transformed.

Comprehensive Update Note PANR-GB Target 11.4p 39.1p (32.0p) Target Price Upgrade 13 April 2026 Rec: BUY NAV: Full success-case value: 461.1p Risked target price: 39.1p Upside to full success-case: 3,955% Upside to target price: 244% We are increasing our TP for Pantheon Resources to 39.1p from 32.0p (+22%). The change reflects i) Michael Spencer’s appointment as Non-Executive Chairman, one of Britain’s most recognised and successful entrepreneurs, ii) rising energy prices, iii) increased focus on energy security due to the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, recognising Pantheon Resources’ assets are ideally positioned to produce oil & gas from the safety of the USA into the Pacific Basin markets, iv) growing interest in Alaskan oil & gas developments from major oil & gas companies, v) robust political support for Alaskan oil & gas from the US Government, vi) strengthening balance sheets of oil & gas companies, favouring a farmout of Pantheon Resources’ assets on advantageous terms, vii) a Uturn from US banks favouring the funding of upstream oil & gas assets, particularly in Alaska, viii) the announcement of increased cost discipline within Pantheon Resources, and ix) the announcement by Pantheon Resources that it will give strategic priority to its highest quality and largest scale asset, namely, Kodiak (1.2 billion barrels of 2C recoverable resources based on the estimates of Netherland Sewell and Associates; 271.5p success case valuation based on Oak Securities’ assumptions and estimates).

Yep…I’m with you on this one…🤣🤣😊

And has zero to do with Panr imho…..