Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Other than a brief increase in the SP of 9% + and then a retrace of -2.37% so far - following what appeared to be promising news - nothing has happened - just another day in paradise. Like you I have been here for many years and again - like you, have missed the opportunities that would have left me smiling. Just to get back to my average would seem to be a long way away. But I live in hope.
Following yesterdays RNS I must confess that I allowed myself a moment or 2 of hope. The news looked promising - nothing negative and an indication that the man at the helm was looking forward with the optimism that a person with all the knowledge that is currently available at his disposal would have. The market had reacted well - onward and upward?? - well - it would appear not. Back to the panic room again sadly - nails are long gone and old CDs will be reminding me of those halcyon days before I looked with interest at Pantheon Resources.
Can anyone please tell me the significance of the 2 RNS statements that were issued yesterday? They had only a marginal impact on the share price, (if one can call a 2% drop marginal) so one could assume that they were not that important and we are back playing the waiting game again. Has anyone any views, when news - good or bad might appear?.
"The Company will make a decision on a possible redrill of the VOBM#5 well". Can any of the oilmen here please tell me this - if the company don't re drill the well - other than shut it in - what other options are possible?
Having read what has become the almost inevitable mud slinging between opposing factions here - it is certain that NOTHING will be achieved by continually posting the same viewpoints over and over again. What is certain is that Scott is correct when he suggests that we ALL wait for an update in the form of an RNS from Jay and then see what happens. Our opinions may hold valid points but opinions will change nothing - we are all in limbo waiting for news from those that are in possession of the facts. We will continue to see small movements in the SP up and down until we hear the good or bad news that will eventually satisfy some and disappoint others. But can we please resist the desire to post something that can clearly not be proven one way or the other.
worth, there remains in my mind a clear pathway to the 300p - 800p per share valuation Jay referred to in his recent interview. Of course there's no guarantee of eventual success, but I have not seen ANY evidence which would categorically rule out as an empirical impossibility such an eventuality. Naturally, I appreciate the market is unconvinced......but so it was before the first well was drilled. I genuinely believe we've advanced the geological fundamentals of the project despite the operational disappointments of the last 18 months but I fully appreciate others take a contrary view. GLA
What I take to be warm measured and genuine words:- Dear All - It is my understanding that Bobby Gray's funeral service takes place in Texas today. doublestexan/marto1000 may wish to correct me if I'm wrong? Knowing Jay, I am certain he will be attending the funeral of his friend and our partner. Profound condolences to all of Bobby's family and friends on the off chance that they read this bulletin board. Bobby's hard work, determination and vision has not gone unnoticed on this side of the pond, I can assure you. gorgeousgeorge01 - you write fluently, and not without some logic, but I fear you are 100% wrong in your plea that the assets be immediately put up for sale in the light of recent events. The shareholders with whom I invest together with other groups/individual shareholders with whom I'm in contact have no intention of joining your nascent campaign to change the company's strategy. These holders, together with the Board and their family/friends/associates have more than a sufficient shareholding to scupper any such attempt to change the strategic direction of the company at this point. Again, posters such as marto1000, doublestexan, rvsy38, yoghurt73 may wish to weigh in to confirm this is the case? [gorgeousgeorge01 - just respectfully letting you know that I will not be entering into any debate with you or others on the specific arguments you raise about moving to an immediate asset sale. It's simply not going to happen as you argue for IMHO. If the strategy ever does change, I'll be happy to respond at that time.] That said, there are challenges we face collectively, no getting away from that. I would simply urge shareholders to wait for Jay to update us on the lie of the land. Last week's RNS was all PANR management could possibly have said at that time. I also know that both Jay and Bobby are/were more than aware of their mature years (they both stated as such in my presence when discussing the Eagleford sandstone project) and I cannot believe for one second that "key man" type provisions were not discussed/agreed in the event of the sad scenario of one of them passing away. Business does inevitably "go on". We know that the JV had already agreed upon the VOBM#1 sidetrack as its next operation on the ground - indeed preliminary guidance was given on the scheduled spudding date last week. We know that we have more than sufficient funds to complete this activity. We know from past RNSs that the JV is in negotiations with external parties which MAY serve to answer concerns about the balance sheet constraints. We know that the PANR Board is not seeking to tap the market for funds as they've said so expressly. I will be waiting for our CEO to update his fellow shareholders on the immediate future of the project and I urge my fellow shareholders to do the same, if your personal situation permits of course. For what it's worth, there remains in my mind a clear pathway to the 300p - 800p per share valuation Jay referr
water ingress only occurring AFTER the frac of VOBM#5, and for VOBM#1 after the frac and casing collapse; the variation in water produced in VOBM#5 during the initial flow test; the understanding of admittedly incomplete seismic information available to shareholders pointing to the water formation below the Eagleford being localised rather than mini basin-wide. I hope the above makes some sort of sense? All IMHO. GLA
opening up a channel between the Eagleford and a water table located perhaps 100ft below. However the analysis concludes that the well and its immediate environs have been sufficiently compromised such that the well is unlikely to contribute to the economics of the Polk mini-basin in a meaningful way. Certainly this would be unfortunate in terms of contributing to cashflow BUT it would be the NEXT BEST result after paragraph 2). Such a result would serve to reassure shareholders and reaffirm the JV's understanding of the geological model, albeit with a further level of knowledge about the presence of a water formation not too far below the Eagleford and what that may mean for future well designs/fracs in Polk. Personally, I would be happy to read such analysis. Not perfect, but that would be the "gold" result if paragraph 2) above was the "platinum" result. 4) analysis confirms the water travelled into the Eagleford as a result of the frac opening up a channel between the Eagleford and a water table located perhaps 100ft below. However the analysis concludes that the well and ALL of the Polk mini-basin has now been compromised as a result of this channel opening up between the Eagleford and the water table located below. Not a good result for shareholders but not fatal either. The JV would still have options available to them if this were to be the result of the ongoing analysis, for example drilling into the upper third of the formation only and moving to production in a more controlled manner thereafter. Whilst the feedback I have received confirms this scenario is possible, it's not thought overly likely as the amount of water ingress and pressure measurements do not suggest this scenario has occurred. Perhaps I'd label this scenario being confirmed as a "silver" result? 5) further analysis of VOBM#5 does not permit any definitive conclusion and the well is plugged and abandoned. Yuck, not overly helpful in any direction and would leave shareholders with plenty more unanswered questions. "Bronze" result, at a stretch?! I'm sure there are other scenarios but I hope readers can see what I'm trying to do here? Whilst it would be super to receive an RNS along the lines of paragraph 2), paragraph 3) would be ALMOST as good to receive. The other scenarios, less so, it has to be said. As for likelihood? I'm relying here on my communications with other shareholders who collectively have vast O&G experience in the field. The consensus appears to be coalescing around the scenario described in paragraph 3). Why? They're chiefly pointing towards the complete lack of water (or de minimis levels) being identified in all the other logs of wells in Polk; the water ingress only occurring AFTER the frac of VOBM#5, and for VOBM#1 after the frac and casing collapse; the variation in water produced in VOBM#5 during the initial flow test; the understanding of admittedly incomplete seismic information available to sharehol
Dear All - this post is seeking to do a bit of expectation management largely as a result of some posts I've read which, to my mind, have failed to pick up on the mood music/body language and experience of our O&G drillers/engineers on this and other forums. Ok, we're all waiting for the definitive diagnosis from VOBM#5 with the essential question being posed: does the water ingress to the well come from a separate source located beneath the Eagleford formation (with connecting channel opened by the recent frac) or is the Eagleford itself water-saturated in Polk? It seems to me that there are a number of scenarios which could come to pass when the JV announces the results from its latest analysis of the well. 1) the Eagleford formation is water-saturated, a situation which has not been identified in any of the previous wells in Polk. There's no getting away from it, such a result would be bad news and would inevitably lead to the JV having to fundamentally reassess its understanding of the geology in Polk. 2) analysis confirms the water travelled into the Eagleford as a result of the frac opening up a channel between the Eagleford and a water table located perhaps 100ft below. The JV then declares that they have a plan for remediating VOBM#5 which means that the water ingress hasn't and will not compromise the well unduly. This is the platinum result shareholders would like to read, I know I would. That said, and from speaking with multiple O&G experts, the percentage likelihood of the well going on to be the "gangbuster" well some had wished for (including me) having suffered the water ingress after the frac is not overly favourable. Possible? Yes. But likely? I'd have to say that the feedback I've had is that it's not likely to be a truly successful well in the short, medium or long term. 3) analysis confirms the water travelled into the Eagleford as a result of the frac opening up a channel between the Eagleford and a water table located perhaps 100ft below. However the analysis concludes that the well and its immediate environs have been sufficiently compromised such that the well is unlikely to contribute to the economics of the Polk mini-basin in a meaningful way. Certainly this would be unfortunate in terms of contributing to cashflow BUT it would be the NEXT BEST result after paragraph 2). Such a result would serve to reassure shareholders and reaffirm the JV's understanding of the geological model, albeit with a further level of knowledge about the presence of a water formation not too far below the Eagleford and what that may mean for future well designs/fracs in Polk. Personally, I would be happy to read such analysis. Not perfect, but that would be the "gold" result if paragraph 2) above was the "platinum" result. 4) analysis confirms the water travelled into the Eagleford as a result of the frac opening up a channel between the Eagleford and a water table located perhaps 100ft below. However the
Without any positive news to the contrary we have to assume that the installation of the heaters has started and not yet been completed or started and run into more problems - not what any LTH wanted to hear. My lack of knowledge and the the absence of any information about how long it takes to install the heaters and what will happen next means that like many others we will just have to wait for an RNS - unless any of the oilers here can fill in the obvious knowledge gaps. Hope you are ok Baldski. Chippy
Very welcome posting on ADVFN from Marmaris - I do hope he hasn't abandoned us here. I am back. More problems again. A lot has gone on and the learning curve is long and very tedious. The water from the frac was probably caused by fraccing the whole of open hole. Again a mistake. Cement plug should have been set below the pay zone and then frac the well. Think it also happened on VOBM1. I am not privy to the whole scenario or the well bore design and lithology. Problems are solvable but again I am disappointed that they keep making to me basic mistakes. To solve any problems on both wells they will need a rig( we are not very good at getting 15k rigs). Hopefully 5 cleans up with the heaters and we get production until we can get a rig for 1.
Good to hear your wise words B - I have to say that while the RNS was bad news and it was bound to bring a downward spiral, nearly 63% seems to me to be a case of over reaction - ("RKH Chippy - subject The bleeding obvious") but I suppose with so much "bad luck" it was inevitable. It did make me wonder though, - would it be deemed to be insider trading if Jay and any other board members with their natural belief in their company bought a boot full of shares each ?. On the surface - if all current knowledge was in the public domain it should appear not, although I stand to be corrected. That being the case why would they not do so? - under 19p would seem to be a no brainer if they have the belief that they have shown in recent interviews and meetings with major shareholders. It would also show others that "they are still believers". If like me your refuge is now back in use - I trust that the dog kennel has had a new roof and the chain shortened somewhat (no pun intended). My karate suit though somewhat tainted with a claret like liquid - still looks good on the cameras that have now been installed. Like you I would like to hear some comment from Marmaris - he seems to be in touch with Scott on ADVFN a bit - but nothing as far as I am aware on here, although with the large amounts of postings of late it might be easy to miss one.
Malcy has been a long term supporter of PANR as have many of us here - me ? Im here till I see profit or total loss - dreading one - and the other looks like getting further and further away - thank goodness for the panic room - complete with black and white television.
Pantheon Resources Following the disappointing recent announcement from PANR that the frac job had not succeeded in bringing any oil to the surface the company appears to be back to square one, how much operational misfortune can a company have? And I say that because I genuinely believe that the team here are not fools or rogues but have had dreadful operating problems, given that they effectively started with five discoveries. On this well there are logs showing 60 feet of net pay but the frac job couldnt find it, maybe with heating and perseverance it will work, the alternatives are a sidetrack or a new well a few metres away. Remember it was deemed to be better than the VOBM#1 well and like comparable Double A Wells field wells, hopefully they have local experts on the site. There are a number of things the company need to do now starting with getting the offtake from Tyler bringing in some cash and maybe the VOBM#1 well can start producing as well. They have enough money to sidetrack or redrill this well but after that it may be necessary to bring in money on a single well basis. The handling of advisory input has been woeful changing that is probably too late now though. Followers tell me that they might release the full Eagle Ford report which so far they have failed to do for competition reasons, they are now defunct reasons and it would be a good move. I also hear that another highly experienced director may come in, it had better be quick. When the Pantheon story started it was all about the �geological code� and that was going to go through the Austin Chalk and hopefully find the Eagle Ford and produce, very cheaply. Clearly mistake number one was not producing from the first well which is why the casing is now in such bad condition but it was a good well then and still could be. Finding the Wilcox was good but did it put them off the original task and of course the early refusal by the gas trader not to take it was another unfortunate happening. At 19p Pantheon looks like it has proved those of us believers wrong and I put my hand up too, but it has been more of a series of operational misfortunes than anything more sinister. With nothing much left to lose, the shares are clearly option money but for those shareholders who havent yet given up on Pantheon there could still be a lifeline, this time next week or even after a redrill. If that sounds like not much to offer then I understand, but I am sitting here in front of what looks like a portfolio of excellent prospects with virtually no dry holes, it should have some value.
ormation/field, I really don't. The question now is "Can we get the stuff to the surface consistently?" and "What corporate structure ought the JV to adopt in order to maximise its chances of unlocking the embedded value of the acreage?" That's for all of us to think about when assessing the investment case. GLA
VOBM2H - the horizontal experiment and all round problem child. JV error, no question. Experiment undertaken too early in the project on a strategic basis and persistence in maintaining the horizontal element of the drill in the face of repeated equipment failures was a mistake. Commercial? Hmmm, possible but unlikely in JV ownership. VOBM#3 - well drilled, variable flow, subsequent frac didn't improve things. JV error in site location as it was right on the periphery of the formation. Decision to move the site of the original pad should have been changed as it was located, originally, with horizontal drilling in mind. JV error. Commercial? It'll contribute something but nothing to write home about. VOBM#4 - well drilled, encountered two "surprise zones" on the way to the primary target. Halliburton made truly MASSIVE human error in setting hangar lining 90ft too low such that it was set slap bang in the middle of the Navarro. Attempt to remediate unsuccessful and primary target not reached. FACT - HUGE contractor error. VOBM#4 sidetrack - drilled successfully in an attempt to investigate whether the Wilcox (remember a "surprise bonus zone") could be drilled relatively cheaply and speedily in order to generate cash to be utilised for more expensive Eagleford wells in the future. Didn't prove to be commercial. Management error? Hmmmm, just standard E&P risk for me. Commercial? No, but uncovered two potential, hugely NAV-enhancing "surprise" hydrocarbon zones. VOBM#5 - well drilled on budget, encounters c.60ft of net pay, logs look truly exceptional, frac commissioned prior to flow testing in order to minimise the effect of omni-present skin damage when drilling at this depth in this sandstone formation. Frac pretty powerful and led, unintentionally, to channel opening up to previously undetected water formation 95ft below the bottom of the Eagleford. Management error? Hmmmmm, MAYBE you could make a case for the frac being too powerful (?) but no sign of water on the seismics nor in the logs over the full 60ft of the Eagleford sandstone formation. Net, net? Bit rough to assign full blame on management....normal E&P risk factor for me. Commercial? Maybe, but unlikely in my view. Overall summary? Meaningful production and cashflow? Not yet. Why not? Combination of, yes, incorrect management decisions but also contractor error on the part of industry leaders such as Halliburton and Kaiser Francis, incomprehensible terms offered by Enterprise in Polk and, I would argue, normal E&P risk factors. Lack of oversight on the part of the operator? Ok, perhaps a fair point. But they have identified a potentially massive hydrocarbon resource over 3-4 mini basins. I don't think the market fully appreciates the % likelihood of encountering hydrocarbons in 6 out of 6 wells when scoping out a potential new formation/field, I really don't. The question now is "Can we get the stuff to the surface consistently?" and
In case anyone hasn't seen this - its one of a few posted following Scotts meeting with Jay. Make of it (or them) what you may - even though I realise that Scott is a big and long time supporter of PANR - I was encouraged to read his opinions and appreciate his in depth knowledge. john henry - in fairness to the journalist's interview yesterday, I was afforded a great deal more time than they were, eh? There is one other main gripe I have with many of the posters here, whether they're shareholders or trolls and I'm going to address it directly. It simply is a FACT that the JV has suffered some genuinely bad luck over the last couple of years, where external factors completely outside their control have had a dramatic effect on execution. I'm going to list the wells in turn so that it doesn't become accepted fact on this bb that every single well was a failure, because that is simply not the case. VOBM#1 - drilled and tested, exceptional flows. Shut in for 24 months, casing collapse, frac leads to water ingress and subsequent decision to sidetrack. FACT 1: The extended shut in period in Polk is due entirely to a perverse and financially ludicrous decision on the part of the boss of the nearby Enterprise gas plant. Not only were the tariffs nonsensically high in a plant with plenty of spare capacity but Enterprise was demanding terms such that it would have impeded massively the JV from achieving anything approaching full value when the Polk acreage was to be sold. I, for one, 100% support the JV's decision to reject those terms. It has now emerged that a new boss at the same Enterprise plant has reviewed his predecessor's negotiations with the JV and has approached the JV stating that he couldn't understand his predecessor's rationale and he's asked for the opportunity to renegotiate. two years too late for us! That's how crazy the terms were...but it's had a huge knock on effect to the project, no question about that. Long term readers will be aware of my massive frustration at how long the JV took to decide upon an alternative solution but the root cause - the Enterprise terms - was outside of the JV's control. Extended shut in leads to putty-like blockages which bailer failed to remove entirely. FACT 2 - the casing was supplied by Kaiser Francis. Random sample quality tests occurred at surface with no weaknesses detected. Kaiser Francis owned c.33% of the JV at that point - why would it be in their interest to supply poor quality casing? PANR's fault? No. Commercial? To be decided when sidetrack drilled and tested. VOS#1 - drilled and tested with great commercial flows initially. Kaiser Francis employee uses incorrect mud weight (refer to marmaris for his thoughts on this human error) and compromises well. Subsequent frac improves flow a bit but not by too much. PANR's fault - no. Commercial? Highly likely but we'll know for sure when hooked up in next 3-4 months? VOBM2H - the horizontal experiment and all round problem child. JV error, no qu