The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
April 10th RNS confirms CGA report will be in Western Ahpun. Eastern is part of same field but are different reservoirs that carry appraisal risk. However Pantheon's seismic has been proven to be successful in spotting oil accumulations so far. Permeability expected to ~100fold increase from Western Topsets (~10,000 fold better than Alkaid).
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/webinar-and-update-rhf8gw2epra0cdn.html
The directors dealings tab is incorrect:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/result-of-capital-raise-gzxxhaa1v3hm1ty.html
As I recall those options were granted when the share price was ~half the exercise price. I know a number of long term holders who topsliced in the run from 7p to £1.4.
All directors have taken part in recent placings and of course David Hobbs has purchased all
his holdings, including the recent ~$500K. Those who know the back story will also understand Bob Rosenthal has had significant dilution to his original Great Bear stake.
I can't remember Brom being as critical of Wall and Opstad's shenanigans at our noisy neighbours. Seem far more cynical these days, funny that.
18.12 Taximan, they are not really bad points more irrelevant points given Pantheon are a pre-production company. I am sure we could go buy some Texas production but to me it would be a complete waste of money. Longhorn will take years to pay back the initial outlay and subsequent work over costs. Although the deal made sense at the time as I recall it converted overvalued shares into annuity revenue.
As I said well worth reading the IER for comments on Alkaid commerciality, given 88e we're likening their plays to it. Also comments on the SFS in the RNS.
As a reminder this is not a board for 88e shareholders.
15.09 perhaps it's worth reflecting on what you just wrote regards Pantheon in reflection of recent share price and corporate activity on 88e.
Also perhaps try reading Pantheon's RNS regards Alkaid commerciality and think about the significance to your investment here.
The numbers show that our worst quality and smallest reservoir from Ahpun and Kodiak is commercial at $80ANS, without any benefits from shared infrastructure and utilising gas reinjection.
The next news will be the Ahpun numbers which based on SLB modelling are much better than Alkaid (100x permeability in the West). Note LKA adopted some of SLB's 'extensive reservoir characterisation' in their assessment of Alkaid. If SLB's modelling holds up for Ahpun top sets as it did for Alkaid, which I am confident it will, then we will have independent support of a robustly commercial project. News of Ahpun expected in 'weeks' with financing news expected in 2 months.
Actions speak louder than words IMHO. The company has largely sat back and watched the share price drop post the flow test results. They were happy to raise money at the lowest price in years post flow test results. These are not actions of a company aghast with the market's reaction to 'successful' flow tests.
If they indeed think the reaction was unjust a few puff pieces from Next Investors et al was not the defence required. They could quite easily have scheduled a webinar to give a summary of their findings and support the share price a little more. They didn't even add additional commentary on last Friday's further information RNS.
Moving to the resources from prospective to contingent is not an assessment of commerciality. Likewise claiming a farm out process is underway doesn't mean anything, remember the Yukon farmout out.
Many will want to see some 3rd party modelling to demonstrate commerciality. If you apply the company's guidance of 6-12 vertical flow rates to even the peak rates I think you are struggling to be commercial.
Monet2, the problem. Is that line was in an article reposted by the official 88e Twitter account. Shows utter contempt for shareholders. Timing of placing shows they were not willing to present further findings of flow tests in a webinar to persuade investors the market got it wrong. Poor form all round and I genuinely feel sorry for those sat in further losses.
Wow Taximan, what a whopper of a line that is. I guess they don't say fully develop but grossly misleading never the less.
Good to see they qualified the statement regards natural lift to just the SFS. Although this still goes against previous inferences from 88e that Alkaid 1 was a SFS play.
Taximan, generally if you only publish the positives things will read positive. Note no mention of permeability. Pantheon's SMD is 100x more permeable that that at Alkaid and I believe their new leases are predicted to be 10-100 times better again.
In my opinion if the flow tests are positive, likely only confirmed by further third party modelling/verification, 88e have shot themselves in the foot by being selective in the way they have reported results. Certainly been an interesting week for the spectators.
Marbs, I think you are wrong. I believe all the reservoirs on Icewine are Brookian plays (see link). I also think you are confusing frac propagation (200ft) with height of interval perforated (20ft). It would be good to understand how well the fracs performed, this has been a learning curve for PANR shareholders.
I note 88e plan to request the contingent resource classification, it will be interesting if they look to get 3rd party type curve modelling and a commercial assessment in the updated IER.
Given the above I still think the comments regards natural flow are misleading.
Taximan, I would have though the lack of gas at SMD-B would be the primary driver to nitrogen lift being required. Not sure where your confidence in this respect comes from.
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02508470.pdf
Marlbs, the SMDB test was a vertical test in the Alkaid 2 well. Only thing I have uncovered is misleading statements IMHO.
Your response prompted me to check the Alkaid 1 vertical test as well, guess what:
'The Brookian ZOI has an estimated gross 400 feet and net 240 feet of pay. A six foot interval was perforated and stimulated and the well flowed naturally until 30% of the frac fluid was recovered, when a nitrogen gas lift system was initiated. Light oil (40 degree API) was recovered and c.40% of the frac fluid was returned within the first 14 hours. The well was shut in for 72 hours due to equipment problems and severe weather conditions (stage 3 Blizzard). The well was then turned back on and the oil cut increased steadily to +40%, producing about 80-100BOPD with occasional slugs of oil producing at much higher rate.'
Note Pantheon has occasional slugs much higher but didn't report these as peak flow rates. They also only perforated 6ft opposed to 20ft. However I don't think it's wise to compare well tests as they are seldom like for like. For instance there has been considerable learnings from Alkaid 2, which Pantheon have advised 88e on.
Taximan, please note the SMD-B flowed under natural flow:
'Expectations for flow rates, water saturations and water cuts had led to plans for nitrogen lift (necessary to reduce bottom hole pressure and ensure that fluids were recovered to surface). Encouragingly, nitrogen injection was not required until the last six days of the eleven day test, resulting in the operation coming in at or below budgeted timelines and costs.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/validation-of-frac-design-and-fluid-sampling-tcrx4qvdikio0t4.html
The Alkaid 2 well also achieved natural flow. Note 88e have referenced Alkaid 2 as being a SFS play previously, although I am not sure Pantheon agree:
'Encouragingly, despite the blockage, the well is flowing naturally into Pantheon's recently commissioned permanent production facilities located on the Dalton Highway at a rate of over 500 barrels per day ("bpd") of hydrocarbon liquids which includes oil, condensate and natural gas liquids ("NGL's"), as well as significant natural gas, from an estimated 4,000 ft of lateral.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/operational-update-qdows7bk03aci0x.html
The language used by 88e is misleading at best as evidenced above.
Stas20, if you are to persist with the placing line of attack it would more effective if you use the correct number required for initial CAPEX sink. Most PANR shareholders know that the number is ~$150M due to the multiple webinars we have watched were these numbers have been openly discussed.
Please also be aware that given the sheer size of the resources, many people won't be fazed by the dilution threats. Indeed Jay Cheatham has openly discussed worst case scenario's in past webinars also.
It would be good to get some balance on this board but you need to up your game if you are going to provide it.
Well the good news is all the directors holding means we are aligned regards dilution. Some directors have been significantly diluted since the Great Bear days so I can't see them wanting more. When you are likely looking at 3-4B bbls there is room for dilution.
Taximan, I would not classify using measured porosity, permeability, PVT data and applying it to proven industry modelling as 'guesstimating'.
There seems to be significant cherry picking of data going on. Or just making stuff up in the case of MMOs '250M in the basin'.
Taximan/MMO, it's a big assumption to use Pantheon's $5-10 per barrel given information released by 88e to date. If you look at the development plan numbers taken from 88e's own presentation. 88e are targeting EURs of 1-2M bbls and IP30s of 750-1500 bbls/day. Pantheon's latest modelling is predicting EURs of 3.5-4.5M and production rates capped at 5000bbls/day. Note I expect the difference to be even more stark in the BFF.
In reality your assumptions regards commerciality are far worse than those made by Olderwiser regards using well count to proportionally determine resource size. One might ask why haven't 88e provided this info? In reality 88e holders have went into these flow tests with neither the SMD B or USFS resource numbers available despite it being a year since the discovery. This seems a little odd to me
No need to imagine Brom, 88e confirmed at the time it was 2D.
'The data used to compile the independent prospective resource report includes reprocessed 2D seismic data, basin modelling, petrophysical analysis of publicly available wells and historical geological records. The data was compiled and interpreted by 88E and was reviewed, validated and in some cases modified independently by LKA.
LKA's methodology for determining Prospective Resources for Project Peregrine
LKA has determined Prospective Resources by examining the areas of consistent bright amplitude that were mapped by independent consultants to 88E, Jordan and Pay, using the reprocessed 2D seismic data within the Icewine East area. Parameters including potential pool area and thickness, porosity, hydrocarbon saturation, oil expansion and recovery factor were estimated on a probabilistic low, mid and high basis. The Prospective Resources distributions were then aggregated into four (4) prospects, on the basis that one (1) well could effectively test all the mapped prospective intervals. The unrisked prospective resources estimates (and associated geological chance of success) were modelled using Monte-Carlo analysis on the assumption there was no economic minimum and that volumes and risks of each of the prospective intervals within each prospect were independent.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/88E/icewine-east-maiden-prospective-resource-1j92w0uv9syx88p.html
The 3D may have been used in NSAI BFF resource estimate where it dropped from 341M bbls Net Prospective Resource Oil Resource to 85M bbls (Net Oil + NGLs)
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/88E/hickory-1-bff-maiden-contingent-resource-estimate-jpsev216etiwara.html
Lets hope the same doesn't happen to the SMD and SFS resources numbers when/if they move from prospective to contingent.