Member Info for Scot126

I have no idea what's happening to my posts but they're being chopped up leading to g00bledyg00k!

My key message is that I strongly suspect today's notification is Mangrove "catching up" with their reporting obligations rather than them opening up a second short position in another fund. I'll try to get a definitive answer on this asap. more to follow.

****lse isn't posting my full text, sorry. I am now trying to post the second part of my original post beginning with "The differential of...." Hopefully this will work?***

The differential of

I have long suspected Mangrove has been delinquent in their reporting obligations since Sept '23. I *suspect* but am *not* certain that today's notification is Mangrove "catching up" on their reporting obligations by acknowledging the change in the SOI denominator from Sept '23 through to Oct '24.

The SOI on 11/9/23 was 919,111,769. Their declared 1.53% short on that date amounts to approx. 14,062,410 shares.

The SOI on 1/10/24 is 1,129,998,939. Their declared 1.22% short amounts to approx. 13,785,987 shares.

The differential of

I have long suspected Mangrove has been delinquent in their reporting obligations since Sept '23. I *suspect* but am *not* certain that today's notification is Mangrove "catching up" on their reporting obligations by acknowledging the change in the SOI denominator from Sept '23 through to Oct '24. [SOI = shares on issue]

The SOI on 11/9/23 was 919,111,769. Their declared 1.53% short on that date amounts to approx 14,062,410 shares.

The SOI on 1/10/24 is 1,129,998,939. Their declared 1.22% short amounts to approx 13,785,987.

The differential of

17:03

Hi Brom - happy to help you here. Any entrepreneurial UK broker could have set up Heights and Mangrove as clients of their firm and then crossed the stock. No requirement for a market maker to be involved necessarily.

FWIW, I have no idea of the identity of the parties to the large trades on Monday. The arithmetic suggests the Heights seller/Mangrove buyer speculation *could* very well be the case? Who knows? I guess we'll find out if/when any public declarations are made.

Again, fwiw, I reckon Mangrove have been delinquent in their FCA short disclosures. They were very exact when opening their short, and subsequent addition, but I had great difficulty in modelling their short remaining firmly within the 1.5 - 1.6% range during the period of their open short position. With the fundraises and quarterly CB repayments affecting the denominator, Mangrove would have had to be Messi-like in their precision trading to ensure they didn't drop through the 1.5% reporting level in particular. It's not a massive deal in the overall scheme of things and I suppose we'll know soon enough, one way or another.

Now then, Brom, seeing as I've tried to help you out with your question what about you acknowledging and apologising to sam245? Forum members will recall Brom alleged falsely that sam245 was misleading the forum when he calculated PANR's *potential* revenue from the gas offtake agreement at cUS$180m per annum. Where is your retraction of the allegation, Brom? Where is your apology to sam245? Where is your correction for the benefit of the forum?

19/9/24 @ 15:47

Hi Siggins - thank you for your post. I have been *exceptionally active* over on A-D-V-F-N in the Pantheon Resources GUILD forum. For those interested in PANR, the Guild or Flight's Discord channel are, IMHO, the two key forums where the fundamentals and *facts* of the investment case are uncovered and debated.

If you wish to access the Guild then head over to the PANR forums on A-D-V-F-N and find a user called "swendab1" by searching for his username. Send him a DM asking to join the Guild, he's the gatekeeper of that forum. He keeps the trolls and "to the moon" clowns away but is happy to welcome, eg. different valuations of PANR and widely differing assessments of risk.

As for discord, I think you can Google "Flight's Discord" and go from there. FWIW, I have zero interest in other forums except to state that, IMO, that's where all the shareholders/potential shareholders whom are interested in the facts and fundamentals of PANR's investment case have all coalesced v's the various other forums.

I'll be working on some relative valuations for PANR this week which I will post on lse. For those seeking to educate themselves about the upcoming Megrez-1 drill (due to spud early November) then head to the most recent PANR webinar on YouTube;

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ovjul6MySc

Pay particular attention to the presenter Roger Young of e-Seis. He is one of two men credited with discovering the 1.2bbo Alpine oilfield, the third largest in Alaska after Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River. He is on record stating that, "Pantheon Resources' discovery, located c.20 miles south of Deadhorse on the North Slope of Alaska and adjacent to the Dalton Highway and TAPS, will be the largest discovery of my career."

Is he all big talk and no action? Nope, exactly the opposite is true. He and the other guy credited with the Alpine discovery requested a 1% ORRI (Overriding Royalty Interest) over PANR's asset v's a US$2.7m cash fee for professional consultancy services. This guy has put his money where his mouth is, no question.

18:08

Taximan57 - either you listened to a different webinar from the one I did or yet again you have not understood the information conveyed by experienced professionals. I reckon I know which option is correct.

17:58

Keepin' it classy, Midnight7. Brilliant.

17:43

Ok petal, you've just confirmed you have nothing constructive to offer, you're just here to have a whinge. Fine. On an emotional level, I get it. What I *genuinely* don't understand is how your brain computes and reconciles the desire to sell your shares at a higher price (I'm quoting *you* here) with multiple unconstructive whinges on a public forum?

I presume you can see the irrationality of your conduct? Or has the emotional side of your brain taken over entirely? Lol, have you actually worked out that your posting conduct is acting in direct opposition to your stated financial aim??!!

Jeepers, lol.

17:12 and 17:17

Midnight7 - all noted. Of course you're free to conduct yourself as you see fit but your behaviour is manifestly irrational. If it is your genuine desire to sell your shares at a higher SP, what on earth is your rationale for publishing multiple posts containing nothing but plaintive whinges and lots of gnashing of teeth?

I have zero issue with criticisms provided they're fact-based. The adult in me has long ago accepted that where I make a criticism of a fellow professional, it is surely incumbent upon me to offer a solution or alternative strategy. What's yours, Midnight7? Or are you just having a whinge, petal?

I note your criticisms of Exec Chairman, David Hobbs. Fine. A grown up investor would set up an email address where other shareholders could contact you in order to mobilise a vote to remove him. I'm sure forum members/shareholders will contact you if they are supportive of your desire to remove the Exec Chairman.

C'mon midnight7. You've made your point. It's noted. Time for you to be a proper grown-up and mobilise shareholders in an organised manner or cease posting your childish (and self-defeating!!!) whinges.

16:55

Stas20 - I suspect you're correct about the predictability of the CB repayments, and trading patterns around the structure. I understand your desire to "re-finance" but remember it takes both parties to the contract to amend terms.

Speaking solely about vanilla buyside instos, it is incredibly difficult to attract fresh equity capital if the "use of funds" is to clean up historic balance sheet structures. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely difficult.

The most realistic solution, IMO, is a successful well at Megrez which delivers on pre-spud guidance. And the gas pipeline making progress via Governor Dunleavy's administration would do no harm either. *If* Megrez is a success, this Sept CB repayment *ought* to be the last one delivering this level of dilution.

16:39

Brom - for goodness' sake, what is wrong with you????? Are you so damaged by what happened over on 88E that you've lost the ability to comprehend English? What on earth do you think "targeted" means? By 2031, PANR might have drilled, say, 20 production wells max? in a 30-40 year project, with capex of billions of dollars, if PANR has to drill, say, 5 re-injection wells in the first four years, so what?

I don't know what you're trying to achieve here, Brom, although I have my suspicions. Be under no illusion, you're not going to go unchallenged as you did for years (>27k posts!!!!!) on the 88E forum. No chance. What about all those questions I posed to you? Here's a really simple one just for you. On date xx/xx/xx, if Governor Dunleavy announces Alaska will be proceeding with construction of the gas pipeline, will PANR's SP a) rocket b) remain unchanged c) decrease?

Fellow forum members - think hard on Brom's conduct.

Midnight7 - sell your shares. PANR has clearly moved outside of the investment parameters you have set yourself. Good luck with your future investments.

14:45

Brom - did you listen/view the AGDC Board meeting at 9am (local time) on 12/9/24? Had you done so, you could not possibly have stated, "It could well be argued that WM reports estimations are based on unknowns such as the reopening of a fertiliser factory, opening of new data centres etc etc." These matters were addressed head on by the two WoodMac consultants. The base viability of the gas pipeline is *not* predicated on the re-opening of the fertilizer plant and certainly not the construction of new data centres. Do better.

Out of interest, why the 180 degree reversal in your attitude towards posting on lse? In your >27,000 (!!!!!!!!) posts on the 88E forum, you point blank refused to fact-check the made up nonsense so frequently spouted by the casino punters on that forum.

07:24

Hi boom.boom - as Brom has helpfully provided from the RNS dated 14/6/24: "The Company believes a US listing is an important step into providing greater access to the US institutional investment community, and to enhance market depth and liquidity in the Company's shares."

I'll add in a little bit more colour, if I may. The addressable market of potential investors in the US is far larger and better educated about large O&G projects. Frankly, the UK institutional market is now largely disinterested in the sector due to SRI constraints. Plus, UK private investors are showing signs of exhaustion, wrongly IMHO, when it comes to the PANR investment case. I fully support the strategy of a dual listing in the US. It's an American asset and I've always thought the US investment market was the natural place to have a listing. Positively for UK shareholders, there's also the distinct likelihood US investors will value the asset far higher (once they actually become aware of it!!!) than UK investors are willing to do.

Timing of US IPO? Latest guidance from recent webinars is "the middle of 2025".

12:42

Hi Seeing2030 - yes, that's the intention. Dual listing.

14:01

Stas20 - I agree. I hope and trust PANR leadership are reaching out to journalists such as Alex DeMarban of ADN, offering to talk them through the PANR story and describing the progress the company has made in understanding the asset. I'd also hope the company is reaching out to Janet Weiss of the AGDC Board who appears to have concerns about PANR's capacity to produce gas for the proposed pipeline.

I remain deeply unimpressed by the current and past PANR leadership in their efforts to educate the North American O&G community (journos, corporates, Alaskan leaders, politicians, nat'l security think tanks, energy independence think tanks/pressure groups, investment community, O&G sector academia, sector conferences) about PANR's massive discovery. *If* PANR has indeed discovered the "second largest onshore O&G accumulation in US history" then I am perplexed at the reticence of PANR leadership to proselytise and inform the US about our asset. This apparent reliance on "If we build it, they will come" is naïve and complacent, and a demonstrably ill-informed failure on the part of management. I had hoped a re-energised leadership would see this issue addressed. With the exception of one podcast, the efforts have been poor.

Lol, having said all that, I'm looking forward the webinar tomorrow. I *always* learn new facts about the asset during these webinars and I'm especially looking forward to hearing from eSeis founder, Roger Young. As a reminder to other forum members, Roger and his colleague are credited with discovering the 1.2bbo Alpine oilfield on the North Slope. It's currently the third largest oilfield in Alaska. Roger is on record stating that the PANR asset will be the largest discovery of his career. NB eSeis requested a 1% ORRI in lieu of $2.7m in fees. Hmmmm

18:59

I *think* it was around US$1.2bn, but happy to be corrected. If you wish to calculate it yourself, I suggest you look at the historical SP graph, look at the peak SP and then check the RNSs in the weeks leading up to that SP peak for the shares on issue. Multiply the two numbers and that's your answer. Trust that helps.

13/9/24 @ 19.07

Hello again, Brom. I note with thanks your fact-checking of the year the first PANR gas will be produced and delivered into the proposed Alaskan gas pipeline (2031).

I have some questions for you, please.

*If* Governor Dunleavy and the State of Alaska move forward with the gas pipeline as laid out by the AGDC and WoodMac:

a) will PANR benefit immediately from analysts revising their models to incorporate the fact that instead of PANR having to drill one gas re-injection well for every three production wells (at a cost of c.$12m per re-injection well) this ratio will expand radically, and thus benefit meaningfully the NAV and NPV calculations of the project?

b) will the IRR of the project improve at a stroke, thus making the project far more attractive to external parties considering investing in/partnering with PANR to develop the asset?

c) what multiple do you suggest the market will attach to the c.$180m of annual revenue for 20-30 years which will be generated by PANR for the gas sales alone?

d) how will the market react when it is established that the AGDC, SoA Dept of Natural Resources *and* WoodMac have been in the PANR dataroom for months and have (i) independently verified the data from the LTPT at Alkaid-2 and the subsequent successful SMD flow test and (ii) incorporated those datasets as the base case for PANR's capacity to deliver 500mmcfd into the proposed pipeline?

In summary, I put it to you (and other forum members) that the date of first gas production (2031) is relatively immaterial in the overall scheme of things. Of far, far, far greater importance is the independent verification of PANR's data by such professional entities as WoodMac, the AGDC and the SoA DNR; the material upgrade in PANR's NPV due to the number of gas re-injection wells decreasing markedly across the lifetime of the asset; and the Present Value or multiple the market will be prepared to attach to the next 20-30 years of annual revenue *from gas alone* of $180m per annum.

The market is currently pricing in the certainty that the gas pipeline will never be constructed. I think the market is wrong. I also think the market is going to be in for a helluva surprise when the pipeline receives the green light. IMHO, the market errs in not even discounting, say, a 5% or 10% chance of the pipeline moving ahead. *If* the pipeline moves ahead, PANR's equity value will roof it.

13/9/24 @ 19.07

Brom - your fact-checking about the year first gas is expected from the gas pipeline (2031) is much appreciated. And you were 100% correct. Good stuff.

While we're on the whole "fact-checking" thing, let's examine your record on this forum.

1) You alleged falsely that sam245 was misleading the forum when he calculated PANR's *potential* revenue from the gas offtake agreement (US$180m per annum). Where is your retraction? Where is your apology to sam245? Where is your correction for the benefit of the forum?

2) You haven't fact-checked taximan57 about his erroneous assertion that 88E can produce gas commercially even if producing liquid hydrocarbons from the same wells isn't commercial. Why not?

3) You haven't provided this forum with factual answers I posed about 88E and Erik Opstad. Here's a reminder. "With this newly found, and much welcomed, attitude to fact-checking perhaps you can finally get round to answering the following? Is Erik Opstad still retained by 88E as General Manager of Alaskan Operations? If not, when did he depart and for what reason? Are the activities of Erik Opstad and ELKO concerning the financing of Merlin 1 & 2 being investigated by the 88E BoD and/or Australian regulators? If not, why not?"

To everyone who reads and uses the PANR lse forum. Brom has posted about 88E in excess of 27,000 separate occasions. After a period of time he had many of the less sophisticated/experienced members of that forum more twisted up than a New York pretzel. It all culminated in Brom eventually admitting to selling his 88E shares into the spike(s) of 2021 and 2022, spikes where he had been one of the main posters distracting the less sophisticated away from any concept of fundamental analysis and fair value. but the admission he had sold his stock into the spike(s) came ***many months*** after the bubble had burst. Brom is a greedy, duplicitous, manipulative piece of work.

And that's all fine, as long as you don't hold yourself out as the fact-checker par excellence, the arbiter of truth. Only one post out of >27k told the real truth about Brom.

Brom - that you are even attempting to pull the same stunt on this PANR forum demonstrates both your arrogance and poor judgement. *On the whole* PANR shareholders are far more experienced and fundamentally driven v's the casino antics, anti-science, 'pass the parcel' strategies adopted by so many on the 88E forum. You're not going to get away with manipulating this forum as you did for so many years with our southern neighbours.

Do you possess an ounce of honour, Brom, or will it be crickets as usual?

Dear All - just listened into the AGDC meeting. Must admit, I found it very educational. Felt the WoodMac presentation was thorough and comprehensive. Please find below the draft WoodMac Report where they address three out of five of the key questions within the scope of their undertaking as requested by the AGDC. I *think* the full report is to be delivered to AGDC on 20/9/24.

hTTps://agdc.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024.09.10-WM-AGDC-Alaska-LNG-Phase-1.pdf

FWIW, the AGDC webinar was very easy to follow and lasted about 1.5 hours in total. The technology worked very well so I'd encourage forum members to have a listen.

Personal view? I got the feeling the AGDC personnel and their Board are supportive of the gas pipeline option (v's importing LNG). That's probably no surprise. I don't know if WoodMac are going to make a final formal recommendation or not (?) but from the body language/voice intonation/enthusiasm of the WoodMac analysts, I assess they favour the pipeline option over the LNG import option.

Oh, a final thing. From the answer Mr Costa of WoodMac gave to Janet Weiss, it appears WoodMac has been granted entry into PANR's dataroom. WoodMac said something to the effect of "they've examined the production data from GBP and using the current numbers (I'm guessing from the LTPT and re-entry to flow test the SMD, implying no improvement from those datasets?) and they would be sufficient to underpin WoodMac's initial model for transporting North Slope gas to Southcentral Alaska in the ramp up and initial stage of the project". Good stuff.

The wider equity market has no idea about what's going on with the AGDC, and is certainly not pricing in *any* chance of the pipeline being given the go ahead by the Governor and Legislature.

23/8/24 @ 18:13

Not quite, taximan57. I'll do a bit of editing to ensure forum members aren't misled in any way.

"88E's theoretical plans to drill an exploration well at Leonis and to build a modular processing unit at Hickory-1 would be positive, *but only* if they find a partner and/or Burgundy successfully raises funds. 88E's future in Alaska depends totally on the actions of external parties."

Good stuff.

Well, knock me down with a feather! 88E has granted an extension to Burgundy until 31/12/24. Looks like a few members of this forum are going to have to revise their 88E financial models, specifically the cash balance. I look forward to reading their updated numbers.

Naturally I'll volunteer to assist if no other forum members, especially those who were so insistent about Burgundy paying up on time, can't find the energy to post on that subject this week.