Member Info for Scot126

17:51

I listened in to the AGDC meeting. It's clear that AGDC and PANR have built a strong working relationship. The AGDC President, Frank Richards, was clearly aware of Megrez-1 and, along with wishing PANR well at Megrez, he stated AGDC (and thus the SoA DNR) was looking forward to receiving and analysing the data from Megrez-1.

Which brings me to my second reaction from the meeting. It is complete serendipity that PANR's natural gas is extremely low in CO2, less than 0.5%. The President of AGDC explained that there are back ups to PANR's gas supply from elsewhere on the North Slope. But it is clear that the other sources either require the gas be pre-treated prior to entering the main gasline and/or extra infrastructure to be constructed to transport the natural gas to Prudhoe Bay.

PANR is truly a cornerstone of Phase 1 of this massive project. I *think* there was a mention that the pipeline company may wish enhanced confidence in the ability of PANR to produce the required volume of gas as per the Gas Sales Precedent Agreement. In turn, would it be incumbent on the SoA (via the DNR) to expedite PANR's permitting process? And what about AIDEA providing a loan to PANR, perhaps repayable by future gas deliveries, in order to fund a couple of roadside, summer drills to appraise, to the highest standard possible, PANR's capacity to deliver low CO2 natural gas to the proposed pipeline?

If AIDEA require an economic return on funding such appraisal wells, I'm 100% certain PANR shareholders will be delighted to forgo a few months of gas sales revenue in 2031/2 in order to advance PANR's investment case *now* by further proving up the asset.

Just a thought.

Excellent news from Alaska. Governor Dunleavy just published his proposals for the 2026 budget. He also published a fast track supplemental for 2025 to appropriate the $50m for the AIDEA to backstop the FEED work for Phase 1 of the project. My thread below is aimed at US investors who are new to PANR.

hTTps://x.com/Scot126126/status/1867371414984257959

For lse folk, click on hTTps://omb.alaska.gov/ then click on "FY 2025 Supplemental" then click on "FY 2025 Operating Supplementals Fast Track 12-12-24".

The money is lining up as is the political will (Trump/Dunleavy/Sullivan). IMO analysts will have no option but to upgrade PANR's fair value once they fully discount the implications of the gasline being derisked as described above. PANR's equity is dramatically undervalued. But I would say that, wouldn't I?

17:28

You must believe so, Brom, otherwise presumably you wouldn't have made over 27,500 posts and counting??!! Hehehe.

And yet not once in those 27k posts did you point out that Project Peregrine was one of the most stranded assets anywhere in the world? Not once did you call out 88E's takeover, at a premium, of XCD Energy where Dave Wall was the first or second largest shareholder? Not once did you call out the circular invoicing, cash payment, private placing and immediate share sales trick which enriched Dave Wall and Erik Opstad at shareholders' expense?

Aye, it's a rum old world when folk like you, Brom, post over 27k times on a specific subject matter and then ask another forum member if he believes everything posted here?

Hats off to you, Brom. The brass neck on you is world class, absolutely world class.

10:45

Oh, the irony. As does yours, Brom. All 27,500 posts.

HTTps://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1062539/pantheon-resources-declares-megrez-1-a-discovery-plans-long-term-testing-for-2025-1062539.html

[Part 2, continued from part 1 below]

Next Steps

The rig will remain warm stacked at the Megrez gravel pad, allowing a quick start of the planned long-term production testing programme.

Internal and external analysis of the Megrez-1 data is expected to be complete by February 2025. That could be expected to lead to testing commencing before end Q1 25." /end

Positive note from Canaccord today and TARGET PRICE increased from 80p to 90p.

"The Megrez-1 well targeting the Eastern Topsets prospect on Pantheon's 100% held Alaska licences has found light liquid hydrocarbons over a 1,260ft vertical interval in multiple sandstone reservoirs. Pantheon's initial interpretation is very positive and supports the company's pre-drill view of the Eastern Topsets prospect and the anticipated improved reservoir parameters at this shallower depth. Interpretation of the large amount of data acquired from the well will take a little time to better define the details that will inform the planned extended testing programme expected to start in Q1 25.

Raising target price on Megrez initial partial derisking

This looks to be a very successful well result; thick reservoir zones, light liquid hydrocarbons, and high porosities. Those elements combine to form a very good basis for further evaluation and they provide hope for a successful well flow test.

There is much work to be done though in order to get a better handle on the discovery, including; the near-term detailed well data analysis, the all-important well test, integration with the seismic data, and resource volume refinement.

In our view, if all those parts fall into place, the Eastern Topsets area could become Pantheon's initial development focus, especially given the discovery's proximity to the Dalton Highway and the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).

We raise our risked NPV10 target price to 90p (from 80p) as we begin the derisking of the Eastern Topsets. We see the potential to continue that process assuming confirmatory detailed well data analysis, but especially on the back of a successful well result.

Megrez-1: Key points #1

Three reservoir zones, multiple sandstones interbedded with shales over 2,060 ft measured depth (MD), 1,260 ft vertical depth (TVD).

Primary target reservoirs Top Set 1 and Top Set 3 were encountered, with additional shallower Prince Creek Formations, between c.5,400 ft and c.6,700 ft TVD.

All reservoir zones are interpreted to contain light liquid hydrocarbons.

One target reservoir, Top Set 9, which was interpreted pre-drilling to contain a relatively small volume of potential resources, was not well developed at this location.

Megrez-1: Key points #2

As the company had anticipated before drilling, significant portions of the reservoir had high porosities, above 20%.

A full suite of wireline logs were acquired, including sidewall cores (50 in all) throughout the reservoir zones and a full 60 ft core in Top Set 3.

Detailed analysis of this data should provide a much better definition of key reservoir characteristics, including porosity, permeability, and net-to-gross (N:G) ratio, and hydrocarbon content.

In turn, that data should inform an optimum Megrez well-test programme.

[Part 1, see above for Part 2]

For goodness' sake, the SP has been 40p this year before the Trump/Dunleavy on the record statements about the gasline project, before the company raised $30m, before the company declared a conventional-type discovery at Megrez, before confirming the company is already designing a long term flow test, before securing the rig for that flow test to commence.

All else being equal, the SP should have opened in the 30s minimum IMO. I added to my position in size on the opening fwiw. IMHO anything under 30p will be seen as an outrageous bargain once the mkt digests this news properly.

Folks - it doesn't get much better than this. Initial thoughts are that the gross length of the intervals is larger than expected. Plus, the very fact they are now designing a long term flow test and that they're already planning to re-hire the equipment shows that the data has reached such a threshold they can put out forward looking statements like that. This is brilliant news. No its, no buts.

20:38 and 17:46

I listened in to the start of the Alaska House Resources Committee meeting. first presenter was the boss of Enstar, the largest Alaskan utility company. I've heard him speak before....well-spoken, on top of his brief and an incredibly relaxed presentation style. I wrote down to re-listen to his content from around the 30 minute mark where he begins to relay his thoughts on the policy decisions the legislature must work on in order to provide Alaskans with a better, energy-secure future. Very interesting.

hTTps://www.ktoo.org/video/gavel/house-resources-committee-2024121012/?eventID=2024121012

I don't know if the link above allows for playback functionality? Going by prior meetings, the playback option will be up and running pretty soon, usually within 24 hours at most. Good stuff.

23:43

Not that I'm aware of, chrisev1. The most recent guidance from the company to which you refer is to expect to hear initial results from their Megrez-1 well "by the end of the first half of December." Just like everyone else interested in Alaska, I'm looking forward to reading the RNS when it's published.

Now then, chrisev1, what about all those answers to the questions posed on 2/12/24 @ 18:36 you helpfully informed the forum you knew? Cat got your tongue? Or were you lying? Or do you not wish other members of this forum to read the answers because they're suggestive of 88E finding it difficult to advance any of their projects in Alaska or Namibia?

What about the issue of the US$350k owed to 88E by Burgundy Xploration by 31/10/24? Like Brom, you've written of your concern about the missing payment a couple of times on this forum. What is stopping you from contacting 88E's chairman or the UK NOMAD to ensure this material information is shared with the market immediately?

Why are you not engaging on the *facts* of the 88E investment case? Are you attempting to distract fellow forum members from the answers to these perfectly valid and legitimate questions? Or do you just prefer to stick your head in the ground? That policy has not been beneficial so far, eh?

22:21

Reaper007 - yep, that's a new ANN out in Oz, so RNS in the morning for the UK.

No information on Burgundy Xploration's late/missing payment of US$350k to 88E, due by 31/10/24. It's getting to the stage where 88E shareholders will be concerned not only about the US$350k payment, but the entire remaining balance of c.US$3.5-4m. By any objective reading, whether Burgundy has paid the US$350k to 88E is now a material matter as it speaks to Burgundy's liquidity and the possibility (surely now probability?) they will default on the whole sum due. If any 88E shareholders are of a similar mind, they should contact 88E's Chairman and the UK NOMAD (Cavendish Securities) to ensure the AIM rules are being followed ref transparency and timely publication of material information.

In the scenario where Burgundy walk away from Project Phoenix without paying a single further dollar, their W.I. share of Phoenix (25%) reverts back to 88E.....and where Longhorn's annual dividend to 88E (AU$700k in Q3'24, so AU$2.8m annual dividend?) more or less covers the cost of 88E's G&A......then how on earth is 88E going to pay for the next stage of the Namibian project? (see below)

Background to the Farm-In Agreement

Under the Farm-In Agreement executed on 14 November 2023, 88EN earned a 20% working interest in PEL 93, and can increase this working interest to 45% by funding its proportional share of exploration costs under the 2024 work programme and budget. The maximum anticipated investment is approximately US$18.7 million."

If Burgundy walks away from Phoenix, and Longhorn covers 88E's G&A then 88E will be company standing still waiting for divine intervention. There'll maybe be sufficient cash to pay the employees' salaries so they'll be right, Jack. Meanwhile, shareholders will be sitting on frozen projects in Alaska and Namibia, relying utterly on sourcing external capital to advance any of those projects.

Or 88E issues another 50 billion shares? What's it to be?

17:46

Yeah, I noticed that deletion from the agenda too, Blackadder2708. Shame, as that was the part of the meeting I was hoping to listen in to as it likely affects the PANR investment case the greatest. Like you, I have no idea why. All I would say is that the Committee struggled to listen to and digest all the information presented to them during the last meeting on 19/11/24 so it could be as simple as re-scheduling the AIDEA presentation for another time?

15:58 and 16:00

So, Ayecuramba, it's the internet so who cares about facts, eh?

More name calling and no hint of an attempt to engage on the facts. Typical. Typical and entirely dishonourable.

10:36

Awwwww, diddums. Now that Ayecuramba has been called out for his blatant disinformation he's the victim all of a sudden.

Pathetic. You called me and a couple of other posters on this forum some truly awful names, Ayecuramba. Where we posted facts, you posted filth. Fact.

Funny how accountability and integrity is viewed as bullying by those who lack the introspection to realise their behaviour was unacceptable. You have no shame, Ayecuramba.

How about admitting that what I describe in my post of 6th Dec @ 23:10 is factually correct and that you were wrong to suggest 88E could be producing saleable hydrocarbons by 2026? A chance to "do the right thing" or are you too busy feeling like a victim?

Sailplane and asher7 - the formal company guidance was +/- 30 days for operations at Megrez-1. This was further refined by DH's presentation at the Sidoti Conference on 4th December where he stated shareholders can expect to hear the initial results from Megrez-1 "by the end of the first half of December."

That's a direct quote. Giving them the benefit of a weekend and time difference between London and Alaska, the envelope of time extends to the morning of Monday 16th Dec when applying this latest guidance.

It's most unhelpful to all stakeholders to declare with misplaced confidence that an RNS will be issued precisely on x date. It leads to heightened emotions and then the baseless rumours start.

Be content that. If something had gone disastrously wrong with the drilling rig, the company would have been obliged to issue an RNS and to formally amend guidance. This has not happened. Operations are. Therefore proceeding as planned and the geology will be what it will be. Nothing any of us can do about that.

Part 2, continued from Part 1 below.

I don't know about everyone else, but if I was a political leader in Alaska or an investor in the LNG project, I'd want to make damn sure tiny wee PANR can definitely, 100% no doubt about it, supply the 500mmcf/d required to meet Alaska's domestic gas requirements, at the very minimum. Reasonable? If that means the SoA or the AIDEA funding a couple of appraisal wells, or providing bank guarantees or some sort of facility then that would appear to me to be totally logical.

If that means PANR has to "pay back" the SoA for the cost of another couple of appraisal wells by providing the gasline with 3 months or 6 months (or whatever period) of "free gas" once the pipeline is operational, that's fine by me. The more data PANR is able to collect asap will lead to the "realisation of inevitability" about PANR's investment case, which in turn will protect PANR shareholders from excessive dilution *and* open up many other financial sources to fund its progress.

This forum has been very useful in keeping shareholders aware of the political manoeuvres in Alaska and DC. I think it would be a great idea if we continued to do that, and also to monitor Japanese and South Korean utilities and/or their equivalent of their Dept of Energy to see if there's further evidence building out there which would leave PANR in a very advantageous position.

In turn, UK/Aussie investors in PANR have an advantage over the vast, vast majority of US investors, despite the asset being located in the USA. We can steal a march on US investors by ensuring we keep up with these macro events, correct?

That said, if any historical/current 88E shareholders wish to wave their magic internet wand and betroth their, ahem, online skills of 2021 and 2022 in order to introduce PANR to US investors then that would be fine too! /end

PS. of course we'll all be looking at the results from Megrez-1 too. Just something else to think about.

For those wishing to follow the Alaskan House Resources Committee meeting on Monday, 9th December @ 10pm, London time, please see the link below. When you arrive at the page, you can click the tabs marked "Schedule" and "Documents" and browse through them at your leisure.

hTTps://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail?Meeting=HRES%202024-12-09%2013:00:00#tab2_4

The previous Committee meeting was very easy to follow live and I'm sure someone will provide the link on this forum on Monday afternoon/evening.

*Personal* view: I recognise and acknowledge all the alternative strategies Alaska has examined, and continues to examine, as it seeks to address the shortfall in domestic gas supply from the Cook Inlet. As is often the way with politicians in democratic nations, they're finally waking up to the *fact* that political inertia is no longer acceptable conduct. It's now a case of finding a solution to the impending gas supply shortage or Alaskans are going to be very cold in their houses in about 5 years time, and residents will vote with their feet by leaving the state for good.

If forum members go back over the last few weeks since the US election, it genuinely seems clear to me that President-Elect Trump, Governor Dunleavy and Senator Sullivan have decided to use their political capital (and Federal and State financial capital) to press the start button on the whole LNG project, not just Phase 1.

All three men continually mention supplying their Pacific allies (Japan and South Korea, but also Philippines) with Alaskan LNG as they move away from their strategically risky energy dependence on Russia. We know for a fact that Senator Sullivan especially, but also Dunleavy, has spent considerable time negotiating with Japan and South Korea on this subject.

I strongly suspect Trump will contact the Japanese and South Korean govts in the coming weeks (before and after inauguration) to ask them whether they both appreciate the presence on their soil if US airmen, sailors, soldiers and marines. If the answer is yes, they'll be "guided diplomatically" to sign decades-long LNG purchase agreements. It'll look like a protection racket but Trump couldn't give a monkey about how it looks. I suspect Japan and S.Korea may also be asked to provide financial or banking guarantees to assist with the capex of the project. They may even be invited to become equity investors in the project....I could see the sense in that, ties them to Alaska for the next 30 odd years.

Either which way, the probability of the gasline going ahead has never been higher than it is now. *If* Phase 1 goes ahead and is constructed before the gas treatment facility in the North Slope and the LNG export infrastructure in Nikiski then PANR will be the *sole* supplier of gas to the pipeline for 2-3 years, I estimate.

End of Part 1, see above for Part 2.

09:35

Ayecuramba - you are badly misrepresenting 88E's position when you state, "This is not something we currently expect [production] til at least ‘26..." That's just made up nonsense, Ayecuramba. Agreed that 2026 is the first year in which 88E could possibly conduct a LTPT at Project Phoenix, providing 88E shareholders and/or external investors can supply the $25-30m to fund the test (no evidence of interest in funding this activity currently).

However, what Ayecuramba fails to mention is that *even if* 88E can find source the funds for a LTPT at Project Phoenix....and *even if* the geology does a 180 and turns out to be commercially viable (for which there is no evidence currently)....and *even if* 88E + partners can fund the EIS....and *even if* 88E + partners can fund the FEED process up to FID...and *even if* 88E + partners can fund the full field development...then there is not a snowball's chance in h^ll that first production at Project Phoenix will occur before 2030/31. At the very earliest.

On the other hand, if Ayecuramba is seriously attempting to suggest any O&G produced during a LTPT at Project Phoenix between 2026-2030 will do anything other than cover the costs of disposal (as per the NN's LTPT at Alkaid-2) then he's either truly ignorant of the operational constraints of working on the North Slope *or* he's deliberately trying to misinform the readers of his content.

What could his motivation be? Pretty simple really. Apart from any financial exposure he may continue to have to 88E shares, he's loathe to admit he badly misunderstood 88E's investment case. It's pretty obvious he's switched immediate attention to the NN, and I guess he's now invested in NN shares. But there's no honour. No apology for the endless personal abuse towards those who attempted to point out the *facts* of the respective investment cases.

Buy, sell or hold 88E shares but please treat Ayecuramba's under-researched content with suspicion.

09:44

C'mon Brom, quit gilding the lily after all these years. You know fine well that for *any* benefit to accrue to 88E's assets in Alaska, the production of hydrocarbon liquids MUST, MUST MUST be economically viable in its own right in order for a development to go ahead.

Please Brom. You must search your conscience and resolve once and for all to cease posting all this forked-tongue nonsense about 88E. It is a *fact* that Project Phoenix has not met the threshold to declare economic viability. How on earth can you honestly type out content and post it on a public forum which serves to hold out hope for 88E shareholders at Phoenix?

You talked earlier in the week about a formal farm out process? 100% genuine question. Why would any investor inthe world even consider farming in to 88E's Project Phoenix if the NN's resource is far larger in scale, has far better reservoir properties (updip, Dmax), whose barrels are more highly classified and have been declared commercially viable by independent auditors.... and where each barrel in the ground is, preposterously, still valued at less than an 88E barrel in the ground?

Project Leonis? I have no idea. You have no idea. The market can only give it optionality value at this early stage. It's literally years away from even knowing if the proposed gasline will have an effect, if any, on Leonis' value.

Get real, Brom, and quit all this nonsense. If you wish to "do the right thing" by fellow forum members, how about you pick up the phone and ask Ashley ("I find 88E management are very quick to respond to shareholder questions") whether Burgundy Xploration has paid the US$350k owed to 88E by 31/10/24. If the answer is yes, super. If the answer is no, objectively that's bad news. Either which way, it's a material piece of news in the context of Burgundy's crucial relationship with 88E at Phoenix so 88E's shareholders (and the wider market) should be informed immediately.

Even you've mentioned the Burgundy (missing?) payment on this forum a few times. That surely proves you're concerned about this matter also.

In the *scenario* where Burgundy Xploration walks away from Project phoenix and 88E altogether, how do you suggest 88E is going to be able to afford to pay Stage 2 of its cash commitment to the Namibian project, due in 2025? Do you think that 88E will be compelled to issue billions more shares at a steep discount to fund their commitment to Namibia? Or will 88E have no choice but to walk away from Stage 2 and Stage 3, accept a smaller share of the Namibian project and run 88E from the cash generated by Longhorn for a couple more years as shareholders wait for any drilling activity at Leonis and/or Namibia? That scenario would see no drilling for 88E in 2025, and 2026 would be completely reliant on attracting external partners (and who knows what dilution at the project level).

Are there penalties if 88E cannot fund further investment in Namibia? Is 88E overvalued?