Member Info for Olderwiser

co****, strange lse will not allow c o a r s e, presumably doesnt like the last 4 letters

co**** equals co****

some strange formatting glitch has also remove all the capitals

sg22, i wrote this for another forum, but it might help you understand a little more about the upcoming 88e flow testing.

hickory 1 drill location is snuggled 1000ft from panrs border, in this location, in the success case it will prove up the reservoir from there to the talitha and pipeline state wells in panr leases.

panr leases are up dip of hickory, so will have improving reservoir quality as they go north

the two migrations set the stage, oil migration and reservoir sand/silt migration. big picture and simplified, sand and silt have migrated from source towards the north, spilling off the land mass into the sea. from there they have formed over the underlying contours, off and including the beach (shelf margin deltaics, or topsets), into deep water but stacked against the beach face cliff (slope fan system), then off the toe of the sfs comes the basin floor fans

if you have ever thrown a handful of dirt into still water, that is the underlying process, the co**** sands drop out first, while the finest of the sediments drift much further out suspended in the water column.

panr have leased from the source to the point at which they conclude the sediments, are too fine and combined with greater burial depth, will mostly be too tight as reservoir rock. to be a commercial quantity, 88e must prove reservoir to the south of the border is also viable

if 88e prove the reservoir to the border is commercially viable, it is fantastic for panr, but 88e still have to drill and prove a step out well, to quantify their down dip section .

oil migration is from underlying source rock shale, the hrz reservoir. 88e have proven this to be bituminous at the icewine location, so may not be as productive in filling the above reservoirs there, that is not to preclude lateral migration as a source of hydro carbon fill.

panr have drilled and flow tested in all reservoirs, so know the quality and quantity is good, while 88e are only flow testing 2 reservoirs, and assuming, (falsely imo) the panr testing in better reservoir will translate to flow in the other zones 88e are not testing

then go to the quantities,

panr have 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil with supporting flow test and independent expert reports,

~500mmbo to come in the ahpun field, which has been flow tested and currently awaiting an ier in q2 of 2024

addition in this quarter of the much better reservoir acquired in the latest lease sales, adding to the kodiak (much of which is conventional, higher porosity)

88e have news on the possible success of the 2 flow tests at hickory, around 125mmbo. while 88e have many irons in the fire, they are either very small (longhorn), or very early in the discovery stage, so consequently very high risk (namibia, leonis, icewine west)

phoenix is the current comparable, in development, it is at the stage panrs reservoirs were at, before they all proved flow, there is risk that the hickory flows will be insufficient to justify development

Bear in mind Lord Spencer committed to this purchase prior to conformation of the exceptional results from the SMDB flow test at Alkaid 2

It has been a quiet week, I am not sure why!

The base case for development of the Ahpun field, was derived from the data gathered, from the long term flow test, of the Alkaid anomaly(ZOI) in the Alkaid 2 well. As a financial model it was conservative and assumed an IP 30 flow of 1500bpd, and an ultimate economic recovery of 1m barrels of marketable liquids. On these assumptions the per well returns were highly commercial, returning the full cost of capital inside 1 year

With the latest announced numbers derived from the flow test of the SMDB reservoir at Alkaid 2, an IP30 of 4000 bpd and EUR of 2m barrels of marketable liquids, highly commercial becomes lucrative, capital recovery will be well under 6 months with more than double the initial flow model.

Beyond that the calculated gas oil rate has dropped from 2000 to 3000 scf/bbl in the ZOI to 1012 scf/bbl in the SMDB. Of note the SMDB was previously estimated at ~400m bbl of recoverable liquids.

The GOR is a fundamental in oil recovery percentage, flow rate, volumetrics and economics, its confirmation at 1012 scf/bbl by Geomarks recombination studies and pressure bomb data cannot by overstated as a positive.

Looking back it is now in the ballpark of the original assumptions for Alkaid 2, at which time the share price was above £1. It is also worth noting the definition of success at that time was 150bpd/1000ft of horizontal well. With the planned 10000 ft horizontals, that would be 1500 bpd, which makes the expected 4000 bpd (400 bpd/1000 ft)modelled in the SMDB exceptional

Numbers like this will be very supportive of the case for financing by vendors , off takers and reserve backed lending

Hi Peaky

Page 19 of the presentation gives

* Illustrative model based on Company estimates

following Alkaid-2 recompletion and Ahpun topset

well performance IP30 4,000 bpd, EUR 2 mmb per

well

https://www.pantheonresources.com/index.php/investors/presentations/689-agm-presentation-2024/file

That is worth celebrating, the data from the Alkaid 2 testing of the SMDB reservoir, confirmed by the Geomark analysis.

Gives a flow rate double that used in the original economic assuptions, and a flow total also doubling.

Restated the same well is now going to produce twice as much oil

Kever

Imagine the share price, if the words certain and signed were included

That is the risk factor, I am investing on the probability of success, which has in fact, been the case from the very beginning in an oil explorer.

At this stage the exploration risk has been met, and now it is development risk for all but the new acreages

Kever is the type of fool that whines about immigrants and crime, while boasting proudly about his Viking and Roman blood.

I believe there was a bit of knife crime even then

yes kever, you are full of it

panr have already stated their intention to use other forms of finance, and are well advanced down this path.

interested parties in the data room and all

those parties spending hundreds of thousands for a chance at the prize

yes it is remotely possible no deal will be done, but not likely to completely fall over is it.

too much is now proven, the asset is there, its valuable

last year it was not as proven, so no valid comparison, could has now moved to should

panr have the data to declare(latest podcast),

"which is what's given us, incredible confidence in the ability to develop this thing economically "

25:18

we actually went back in to test a a newer version, you know slick water, you know microemulsion breaking chemicals, 100 mesh sand rather than co**** sand, much higher pump rates, much less perforation.

to get limited entry in there, for a much more complex frack , and the consequence of that, was really, you know was it was a step change in the efficiency of the frack. which is what's given us, incredible confidence in the ability to develop this thing economically

A strange formatting glitch, took all the capitals out of the copy paste, apologies

the next rns should be with the agm on the 24th january, as an agm it will cover specific items on the agm agenda.

having met the formal requirements, it is possible there may be an update outside of the agenda

there are a couple of news worthy reports that are due, whether they combine with the agm date is pure speculation, but the expected timeframe is january, so possible. it may be better pr to separate, with a further rns within the week following the agm

geomark are working on pvt recombination studies, that will confirm the in reservoir gor and liquids yields of the associated gas. the recovery of the pressure data from the smdb reservoir on the 10th december, is an input to this. a lower in reservoir gor, reflective of the already known in production, measured gor reduction in the smdb reservoir, of around 66% less, will be a positive to extraction rates, eur and reinjection cost reduction ( less reinjection wells and compression horsepower)

the geomark website shows a 4 to 6 week timeframe for the formal report, post data retrieval, so within the window of the 24th january

in the webinar of 14/12/2023 on the new lease acquisition, bob indicates the intention to give a much more detailed technical, on the “akin to the shelf margin deltaic play they call the nanushuk,”

i believe both of these will be significantly positive, reflecting the upside from the base case conservative financial modelling.

as inputs to financing negotiations, the completion of these will further advance the timely progression of negotiations.

19:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xja6n3nw-9e

“r rosenthal

in january we're going to take you through, a much more detailed, uh you know kind of picture of this technically, of what's going on in here. but this is absolutely no different than what people are doing to the west of this, in exactly the same play.

we we've tried to emphasize this, that the shelf margin, what we call the shelf margin deltaic play here, is exactly akin to the shelf margin deltaic play they call the nanushuk,”

o.w.

nanushuk has positive implications, with panr expectations of porosity average at 15% in some of the new lease zones, they start to approach much more productive wells with the shallow decline curves of conventional plays

(pg 26)

https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/documents/resourceevaluation/20180521_discovthinking_decker.pdf

example

willow interval core & test

• upper very fine sand to silt, average is co**** silt.

• porosity avg = 17%

• permeability avg = 11 md

• flowed 3,220 bopd (41-45 api), 1.26 mmsc

Kever

Financing is under negotiation, as advised

The outcome will notified when it has concluded, don't forget there is new data to consider with the successful updip lease expansion on both Aphun and Kodiak

Kever you cannot tell me things you do not know, and expect any credibility, when it flies in the face of real world experience

Your reputation for dishonest grows with each post

Why have you chosen to ignore the recent achievements, that support the investment case

Successful long term flow test at the Alkaid anomaly

Successful frack and flow test at Alkaid 2 SMDB section

NSAI estimate of ~1 billion barrels of contingent resource

Recent leases of substantially conventional reservoir up dip of already held and proven discoveries

Kever wrong again

Companies do not just wonder in for a quick look, they interrogate at depth with teams of specialists, so as to gain a full understanding of the entire project.

The figure of hundreds of thousands stands, PANR have also quoted this scale of spend in their webinars

No Kever you remain dishonest, in fact your track record here is consistently dishonest, imaginary broker notes, and word on the street, blah blah

A 39 year old that made his fortune at 15 years old LOL, do you see the problem, you are not believable

Vendor and offtaker finance are new, as discussed

They have come to the table because there is now a productive asset to exploit

By all means dishonestly bury your head in the past, when PANR was a high risk explorer looking to find and prove oil, but just quietly we are now in the present.

The oil and its flow rates have been announced

Kever, you remain a disgrace, you statements of opinion are consistently dishonest deceptions.

It is not credible that you are unaware of the following

No PANR have not previously been trying for vendor or offtake financing, these are brand new opportunities created by having

~ 1 billion barrels of independently assessed contingent oil resource in Kodiak

~ 500 million barrels of PANR assessed contingent oil in Aphun, (currently awaiting the NSAI IER)

A proven ability to achieve frack efficiency of 50%, which backs up the 40% required to lift EUR in Aphun, to the very conservatively estimated average 1000bpd in year 1, and expected ultimate recovery of 1 million barrels per well

COS of 70% to more than 90% in the newly acquired acreage, much of which will be conventional, rather than the tight conventional PANR have based their financial modeling on.

Of note PANR have modeled very conservatively using the actual results from long term testing at the Alkaid 2 anomaly, which is the poorer of the reservoirs, with a frack efficiency of just 20%.

In short PANR now have massive discovered resources, that based on real results, are modelling as valuable assets, and are now taking those assets to production.

This is the first time this strategy has been applied, and financing sought to transition from high risk exploration, to a bread and butter oil production company.

Kever

Now you are getting there, when you add in my view. Very different from "Given nobody is interested in asset based finance"

Then it becomes just another unqualified opinion, as opposed to the dishonest statement

Transcribed from the latest Proactive interview, D Hobbs speaks to the financing, I find his planing entirely logical and credible. Whilst I find Kever to be simply dishonest

D Hobbs

Well, of course, the most important thing is access to finance. And the commitment we've made to our investors is to seek to raise the money we need to bring ourselves to first production with as little dilution to the existing value of the shareholders, as possible.

The development is completely different than many of the other north slope developments. It’s really very cold west Texas. It’s one well at a time, close to infrastructure and so the cost of getting to first production we estimate conservatively at 120 million dollars.

Compare that to one and a half to two billion dollars for Pikka Horseshoe, 6 to 8 billion dollars for Willow further to the west. You can see it's a completely different order of magnitude.

And so we think there's a very realistic opportunity to raise a good deal of the funding without having to issue equity and that is our number ones strategic Focus. And so, all the actions that we're taking in the first part of the coming year. are going to be around arranging the relationships with vendors, with potential off-takers, to maximize the funding we can develop from those sources.

So that then the residual equity requirement is as small as possible. Even, in a perfect world, zero.

Kever

Your stance is not just bearish, that would be bad judgement, but acceptable behavior.

It is the use of dishonesty that is not acceptable, such as your made up placing rumor and $150m costing to first oil