Member Info for cbaron

19.43

Siggins,

You need to work on your punctuation.........but moving swiftly on.......

A very telling sentence is ...."the worries you have,i for one dont share them."

What an elegant way of disagreeing.

If only you'd adopt it with others, rather than labelling anyone who disagrees with you a shorter, a liar or someone who is not a holder of shares.

Scot,

I appreciate you've not been answering me, but if I may I'd like to thank you for your prodigious output in explaining the situation as you understand it. We go back a few years to 88e and have been involved in many of the same debates.

Might I first say I'm surprised that Siggins hasn't yet labelled you a 'shorter' given your less than glowing testimony about the company. I'm also surprised that James Simon (or Jimmy as he appears now to be known) has stayed quiet in the corner and hasn't yet fired a rocket up your arz.

This strikes me as a typical revaluation of an employees worth on receipt of notice and one done with such undue haste that so many key points have been missed. The most important of these is any link to the value, to shreholders, of any FO agreement.

Is any FO, on almost any terms, good enough for Spencer to get his money back?

I agree with you that to simply assume Spencer's ability to lend his experience to the negotiation of just about any deal, including a FO, is too much. This is a highly specialist area and one which the big guns will hold all the experience.

I'd be interested in your view on the limited cash resources of PANR and whether you'd expect the large cap oilies to exploit their vulnerability both in terms of dragging out time in hard balling the deal. I think I might if I was them.

Another article.

https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2026/06/08/alaska-gas-pipeline-developer-offers-concession-proposes-to-cap-natural-gas-costs-for-alaskans/

Siggins,

A typical and boringly repetitive jibe in the first sentence. For clarity my use of the word 'proof' was clearly not an absolute, but, very obviously, my opinion. Try harder if you're trying to spin an argument based on silly definition.

Moving on though, I actually think you are making satisfactory progress in actually trying to address pertinent matters affecting the business, the market, actions of its competitors, etc, etc. What a great contrast to some of your recent outpourings

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with most of the points in trying to talk up the company but well done for trying.

Go to just below the middle of the class

C for effort.

"Not proof of a deal, but certainly not the actions of a company giving up."

But proof of a company which realises it'll be in a binary position at the end of 2026. No deal and having run out of money, they've nowhere to go. Survive or die. That simple.

It's highly unlikely that Spencer will ever need to work again, given his age and wealth. The same is not likely to be said for the 3 executives.

You certainly need to incentivise staff to stay around if they consider the task at hand is becoming increasingly more difficult and the outcome uncertain.

Your loss!

You've admitted to limited education - which is abundantly clear, by the way - and are therefore missing an opportunity to catch up remedially.

10.08

Keep up Wudee!

You've missed the point. Go back and re-read the earlier posts.

I'm saying he wouldn't. The corollary therefore is that there can be nothing 'going on' which might lead to such an allegation. If there was he would be potentially culpable.

A commentary by a law firm but worth a read.

https://www.stephensonharwood.com/insights/what-is-inside-information-under-the-uk-market-abuse-regime-any-the-wiser/

8.34

theoilbarron

There still appears scepticism in the legislature regarding the figures put forward by Glenfarne.

The reported cost in 2018 was $46b. The most recent figures are in the range $44b-$54b.

I have to say that I too would be sceptical of such a relatively small increase in cost over an 8 year period.

There is also the matter of Pat Galvin's statement to the recent committee that the gas only flows, in this instance, with the oil, not separate from it. As there is some uncertainty about the flow of oil (as yet unproven by PANR), that must, by definition, question the ability to deliver the gas.

08.58

But even you must agree that any deal must be sufficiently remote at this juncture to preclude an allegation of insider trading?

FO Siggins (and that's not shorthand for farm out). You can't even be original in framing your own responses to what I say and are coming across as a stupid stalker.

08.37

Amigavel,

An MOU would be an effective declaration of advanced discussions and some outline agreement on terms or principles with a single party and IMO would be sufficient in and of itself to warrant an allegation of insider trading.

....and if he does know that there's something 'going on', surely that's called insider trading.

He is surely too experienced an operator to be caught doing that and so there cannot be anything 'going on' currently nor in the foreseeable future.

Forget the name-calling just consider the logic.

Go on Siggs, have the last word............again!

Siggs,

Put your toys back in your pram and have a wee sleep. You'll feel better for it.

Ask mummy to teach you a new story as the current one is becoming really, really monotonous.

Ever felt you were being wound up Siggs?

Well done Spence, looks like you conned a short term SP rise that will make you a few quid. All for a bit of pocket money to you.

That should provoke some outrage! 😜

8.30

Reassuring to see that you're still playing the man and not the ball. Do you actually have anything to say about PANR? Do you know who they are?

❤️

Seewhat,

What is bizarre for me is that they issue an RNS to tell us they were presenting to the Legislature last Friday and that the presentation was already in the public domain to the extent that we discussed it here yesterday.

The update is very simply old news with nothing which gives anything remotely different from what they told us 3 months ago. Not a hint of additional positivity, merely stating that the process is complex and takes time.

Is any of that what investors might have hoped for?