Member Info for neil9327

Bethany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Dgh5yiAis
6:35 "We've just finished drilling our 7th well ... and may leave 4 wells uncompleted ... to complete at a later date when the price of gas is more supportive"
I presume this means they have stopped drilling new wells, but I might be mistaken.

We're not going bust.
The share price bears no relationship to the internal financing of the company, especially with a cash-generative company like ours. The fact that we have stopped drilling for the time being means we also have a huge cash buffer in place to protect us.

Well to be fair to Muddy themselves, they didn't make any adverse claims about the company that I am aware of. This fact alone tells me that they had no real insight into the company, and were trading on investor fear and ignorance instead.

I thought I would do some digging around Muddy Waters Research to try and find out why they decided to open their (very profitable) short position they have recently closed.
While I don't have a definitive answer, the following interview of that company's owner Mr Carson Block gives some clues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_QXV-Ej1MM

At 41:24 the interviewer asks him how he finds candidate companies to short.
His answer is as follows:
1. 41:42 "A lot of it is: What is "too good to be true""
2. 42:41 "I have a rule of thumb that anything with a market cap of greater than $1 billion that is listed on AIM, is a fraud .. so that's a great place to look"
3. 43:00 "Companies where the management is highly promotional, are promising the moon, and where the stock's been on a tear"
4. 45:00 "What often happens, ... is the company takes on debt"

In the case of PANR:
1. What it is promising is very good
2. We are on AIM, and over the summer we had a market cap of over $1 billion
3. The company hasn't especially been promotional (in fact the opposite is true), but the share price had certainly been "on a tear", rising by around 400% over the previous two years.
4. We effectively took on some debt, the convertible bonds, recently.

So I can understand why PANR was in his sights.
Of course I don't agree at all that the company was a good company to short. Its assets are real, and are very much good and true. The market cap was more than justified based on the value of those assets, and the rise in the share price over the past two years was fully justified on the success of the company's drilling operations over the period, combined with the rise in the oil price. The convertible bond "debt" was set at a conservative level, and fully justified for the purpose it was put to.

In summary it is clear that Muddy Waters were acting on the basis of prejudice and past experience rather than on a real understanding of our business and proved-up assets.

Our market cap of £40M is not much higher than the amount of cash we probably have, so that should provide a support to the share price. And just because we may not be drilling new wells does not mean we are not currently generating revenue and profit from our existing ones.

I think he's working for someone trying to buy up a lot of shares at the moment. Need to try and keep the price down while he is doing so.

Oil is down over 5% today, so that probably explains today's drop in PANR.

"professional commentators". Yes they're professionals at commenting - that's all they're good for.

Scot uses fact and reason to overcome emotion and lies.

Agreed Scot.
And in addition the Willow project, being in the news, might cause AIM investors to take a look at North Slope oil investments in general, and bring some of them to us.
I think that being already on the highway does mean we can potentially start producing oil, should we so choose, quite a bit sooner than Willow can. So it might be us providing Willow with access to some of the equipment, as well. Which we would be able to charge for - economies of scale.

Exactly right alfista. The negative comment by people like Louis and his ilk are a key reason PANR is a great investment. They've driven away some casual investors leaving the rest of us to buy the shares at a price much less than they are worth.

Miner4, did you mean "value" to mean the value of the company's assets, or its market cap?
Scot's correct answer is talking about the value of the former. But in my opinion the latter is important too. With a too-low share price we have to dilute more in order to raise finance for ongoing testing, and reduces the maximum amount that we can theoretically raise. This results in a weakening in the company's negotiating position when discussing a farmout deal.

In addition a low share price makes a takeover bid more likely at a price that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

For that reason I feel we should be wishing 88 Energy success, despite its bad geology, because that would benefit us.
Secondly I think we should now start to adopt some of the techniques used by 88 Energy in order to make our stock more popular with new investors. For example by using a PR agency to bling up the company image a little. Rename it "Pantheon Energy" rather than "Resources".

Thanks Brombarb.

From that link:
"The Company has specified that only those members entered on the register of members at close of
business on the day that is two days before the day of the meeting shall be entitled to attend and vote"

I think my PANR shares are in nominee accounts, so my name might not be on that list.
I'll take a photocopy of a recent account statement. If they won't let me in I won't be especially bothered :)

"The Annual General Meeting of the Company will be held at the offices of Shakespeare Martineau LLP, 6th Floor, 60 Gracechurch Street, London EC3V 0HR, on 20 March 2023 at 2:00 pm GMT."

Are us shareholders entitled to attend this meeting, in person?
I'm up in London on that day, so might be tempted to go along just out of curiosity - I've never attended a company Annual General Meeting before.
But I don't want to be a nuisance or get in anyone's way, as I have no legitimate reason to go. I don't intend to vote on anything.

Haha.

Agreed, and not least because "David Hobbs has a total beneficial interest in 1,576,002 ordinary shares of Pantheon" = just under half a million quids worth even at today's low price. Evidence enough that at least one expert who purports to support the company is genuine and more than putting their money where their mouth is.

So Muddy Waters Research has closed their short position, crucially without ever publishing an article on their website claiming that we have any problems with our company or our projects (their normal modus operandi). This shows that their only intention was to shake out nervous shareholders and cause the share price to fall.

Had they had any real concerns about the company they would have said so.

I see this as very positive for our share price because it means our shareholder base now consists of those who are not easily swayed by emotions and a lack of core conviction. I see a gradual rise to 50p and beyond in the next few weeks, so have bought £10Ks worth this morning.

Many thank Scott. I agree with your reasoning, and I can't see any other interpretation. Alkaid 1 didn't contain the excess gas, so the only source of the gas in A2 must be something else (e.g. gas cap). Alkaid 1 flowed oil in line with expectations, so there is no reason other than the gas cap as to why Alkaid 2 should not also flow in line with expectations (the 150, or higher), once that cap can be taken out of the equation.
So tomorrow I'm going to buy another £20K of PANR, to add to my (originally £200K) investment. This takes me over my own limit for one company, as I was already fully invested, so I'll sell double that of another energy stock I own (much that it pains me as that is a great company), to reduce risk.

Scot, may I ask: How confident are you that 1. we hit a gas cap (and the gas is not from the oil etc), and 2. that had we not hit the gas cap that the flow rate would have been 150 instead of 100?

Just thinking aloud- could they blow the gas down the TAPS oil pipeline? I guess probably not, but if they could it would mean it could be monetised given that the pipeline is currently less than 50% utilized.

Re: "AOGCC approved flaring in association with a long-term production test of the well, but in three-month increments, not the nine months requested by the company."
Is there any significance to this refusal to grant the nine months in one block?