Member Info for Louis10

See you at 0p

What's worse, Rabito, is being an arrogant fool and losing your money.

You'll see who that is the next time you look in a mirror.

Must have been on and off your filter all day, Adz. Pathetic.

But they're not involved in this one, are they, Rabito.

Pantheon meant they don't have any economic production. And nor will they.

Ask him, but if you read the Pantheon RNS he's quoting from, it's quite clear.

Perhaps read what Pantheon actually said. They've got problems, as evidenced by the pathetic production numbers.

You trying to play with words (poorly I would add) does not change that.

Nor does Jim's opinion, but he's usually/invariably a harbinger.

Not sure what you're saying, Adz. Assume you believe they've got shale too.

It is painful, Rabito, since as you now admit, PANR does not have shale.

Indeed, if you read the sentence in their announcement which Jim is clearly referring to, that is explicit.

It appears to be you who is trying to mislead.

"tight oil-bearing formations" were the words PANR used, not shale

You still don't get that PANR don't have shale and Jim isn't referring to shale.

Not hard to understand why you might get blocked.

Exactly, per the PANR board, who've never been able to get a well to flow commercially and leave a trail of financial destruction for their gullible shareholders.

What Tony/Scot fail to mention of course is that Jim invariably turns out to be right.

And Tony = Scot

Not my argument, Rabito. Go ask Jim about it on Twitter. I'm sure he'll put you straight.

Production numbers don't show that.

https://oilman.substack.com/p/sunday-blog-30-april-2023

Since Rabito asked

Don't think you understand, Rabito, that what PANR has isn't shale.

Problem is that what they've got isn't shale.

Instead of insulting, abusing and making silly videos about me, Adz_K, you might benefit if you actually read my posts.