Member Info for cbaron

10.34

"any deal with a major will be a massive plus"

Irrespective of what the terms are? ANY deal?

Do you really believe that?

10.20

Another complete cop-out!

You can't provide any substantiation to back up your fantastical nonsense and like many brave souls here elect to play the commentator and not the comment.

10.03

Dickbat,

Do you consider 09.15 to be remotely credible? If you do, perhaps you could answer my questions of it? Answer the points.

Apologies for the duplication - computer died part way through.

09.15

2C is contingent and not Reserve.

To obtain Reserve status requires proof that it can be commercially extracted.

"must be worth £200m". Who says (other than you) - where are the precedents?

Why an assumption on numbers of wells - why six, why not 10 or 20? Well cost precedent?

Why £100m cash?

Why a 50% share? That would be the deal of the century for PANR given their current position and the negotiating strength of a major - dream on, IMHO.

There are more holes in this than a lump of Swiss cheese.

Pure misleading BS.

09.15

More nonsense!

2C is contingent, not Reserve.

In order to get to Reserve you would need to prove it is commercially viable to extract it.

"must be worth"? Who says this (other than you), where are the market precedents?

Where are your well cost precedents? Why the "plus £100m cash"?

More holes than a lump of swiss cheese!

08.30

This is the stuff of pure fantasy with no basis in fact or precedent.

Have you considered changing your moniker to "Hans Christian Anderson"?

Just more misleading ramping nonsense.

Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, to name but a few...............??? 😜

"o Dubhe-1 drilled and tested, confirming the presence of movable hydrocarbons, prior to being shut-in for pressure build-up and other analysis, and re-start of testing pending the outcome of partnering discussions"

Why was this shut in several months ago?

It seems to me that had there been the merest whiff of a chance of good news from this well, then work would have continued and the results would have been shouted from the rooftops. The cash issue would have been wholly disregarded as the benefits of continuing must certainly have outweighed the disadvantages.

Smoke and mirrors me thinks?

Regurgitating a 2 weeks old RNS and trying to pick out the positives must also consider that 'majors', whomsoever they are, will be looking very closely at this.

16.51

In terms of the main thrust of your post, I agree that more exposure in whatever medium of media marketing and promotion can only help.

15.21

Siggins, when you step back and look at the matter dispassionately, stick to facts and issues and sensible interpretation you actually make sense. Just cut out the personal barbs!

As you rightly point out, few , if any, company will be considered to have pure and unblemished assets and attributes. And in reviewing them one must consider everything. After dispassionately considering all matters in a full risk analysis there will be issues that an acquirer my able to live with, re-model or develop a new strategy to obviate. Others are so fundamental as to be deal breakers. I would consider the ability of an oil producers not to be able to get the stuff to the surface and therefore to market would fall into the latter category. Therefore talk of potential future values and SPs is wholly premature until you've solved that one. The way in which the Oak Securities report is structured talks about all of the jam tomorrow before addressing the engineering issue of extracting the oil from the rocks and getting it to flow to the surface - the elephant in the room.

In negotiations will Spencer major on the elephant? Of course he won't. Will the person sitting opposite? You can bet your life on it!

You say, "i have no idea if pantheon will succeed or not and maybe obstacles that they face may never be over come". I totally agree. You can't ignore the obstacles - it would be foolhardy in the extreme.

You say, "clearly the share price reflects that things have not gone the way the company would have liked, but does that mean the end?who knows,i dont." I don't either, but if they can't get the stuff to the surface at a commercially viable cost, I'd say it was fundamental to their chances of success in creating value. Wouldn't you?

You say, "they are engineers.they are there to try and solve issues". We agree that issues remain and the report from Oak Securities finally acknowledges it.

Good luck.

14.08

Apologies Coggy, should have been addressed to Siggins.

10.58

...and so Coggy what did you make of the caveats I highlighted? Wouldn't you think that any prospective value would be impacted by them, howsoever positive they may have seemed?

08.35

Two points;

Firstly, Oak securities are hired hands.

Secondly, the final two sentences get to the crux,

" 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."

So what they're saying is that all of their commentary and forecast is based on successful production testing - the key area PANR has yet to do.

16.05

Count me in to that consensus too Lee and Bricks.

I suspect that no-one here expected those words. 😜

Another storm in a teacup with the potential to mislead.

A very brief synopsis is that Conoco Phillips will not be changing its plans without a sustained increase in the oil price for the long term. Will react to sustained higher oil prices in "2027, 2028 and beyond".

Oh, so you're OK - that's great for you and wonderful that you are 'not so concerned' - and what about those who might have been misled by the nonsense you have posted in just over an hour this afternoon.

Where's the evidence? It must have been deleted? How convenient.

Is it any wonder that some of us are sceptical and advise caution? This is the epitome!

15.50

Can you please post the evidence?

Siggins, you appear to be stepping perilously close to the edge of decency and respectability.

You should take a few moments to reflect.

14.53

You also appear to have an unhealthy and highly repetitive interest in the commentators and not the content.

10.34

You say,

"Baron and his trusty sidekick Tony are once again waving their arms about, shouting “They can’t get the oil out of the ground!”"

Tell us Bricks where you have seen in reported or demonstrated that they can? Even you say that "the challenge is how", "experts are on the case". Great, and I hope they succeed, but tell us where they have told us they've been successful.

Of course it's engineering and not geology. Good to see you have a handle on that - one of the few things you do have a handle on!