Member Info for Scot126

02:35

Ausnsw - really easy answer to that point. Analysing both the fundamentals and constructing a risked/unrisked NAV model of PANR the outcome has *always* seen the fair value well in excess (often many multiples of) the share price at the time. That was true for PANR @ 130p and even more so for PANR @ 27p.

Two further things, Ausnsw. There a general market understanding that you aren't "pumping" if your fair value is supported by the fundamentals. So you can quit that nonsense for starters. Secondly, and to be crystal clear, the fundamentals of 88E do not support its current market cap. That is one of the many reasons I maintain it is ludicrous beyond belief that the market is valuing a lower quality 88E barrel in the ground at a premium of between 50-200%.

All that said, Ausnsw, massively looking forward to reading your comparative valuation of both stocks. Tell you what, even a risked/unrisked NAV valuation of 88E would do nicely. Too lazy or unable to undertake such a task? Which is it?

[Part 4, continued from Part 3 below]

12.00 - continuing answer to Brom's post.

b) "So all is not perfect over at our neighbours and they have a long way to go yet (as 88E does)." Let's dig deeper into this question. Brom - which of the two companies is closer to producing their first barrel of commercial oil (not part of a LTPT)? Would you agree with my assessment that PANR is *at least* 3-4 years ahead of 88E in obtaining the data required to move to a full field development? Do you further agree that, largely due to historical investment in Alaska since 2010 encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars in operations and 3D seismic, PANR's capital requirement is far lower than 88E's in order to move to a full field development? I reckon it'll cost 88E, as a stand alone operation, at least another US$100m+ before it has an equivalent amount of data as PANR has today. Where's that capital coming from, Brom? Where's the Namibian finance coming from? Post Hickory-1, consolidation and a prime focus on Namibia?

c) Brom is remarkably well-informed about the thought process of Oil Search executives as they looked at investing in Alaska. Hmmm.... remarkably well-informed. Challenge for you, Brom. Chase up the top execs of Oil Search at the time of that decision and ask them today, with the data now available from PANR and Pikka/Horseshoe if they would make the same decision again? I know the answer to that question. Do you?

d) You ask about proxies? Outrageous projection. I am a proxy for precisely no-one. Never have been, never will be. On the other hand, tell us more about your relationship with Erik Opstad and Dave Wall? Wasn't it you who declared they answered your phone calls "very promptly" whenever you contacted them? The brass neck of you , Brom.

e) "running out of cash" Ok, Brom, answer me this. We know from the PANR interims and Proactive interview from today that PANR's cash balance is US$8.7m. Looks like 88E's operation are going to stretch well into April. What do you calculate will be 88E's cash position once this season's operations are all paid for. Over or under US$2m?

For the avoidance of doubt, I do my own research and do not act as a proxy for anyone. Happy to be corrected but I don't think olderwiser or Rabito79 are proxies for anyone either. Odd question that one, Brom. Out of interest, did you make the same allegation about olderwiser when he was an 88E shareholder and posted regularly on Hot Copper? Nope, thought not. What a ridiculous thing to say. Shameful. /end

[End of Part 4.]

Part 3, continued from Part 2 below]

12:45

HandspringGuy - if you listen to the PANR Proactive interview and read olderwiser's explanation about updip/downdip, depth of burial, Dmax, etc, etc and you think that an **E barrel in the ground at Phoenix should be trading at a 50-200% premium to a higher classification PANR barrel in the ground then I don't know what more to say to you. I guess it means you're disinterested in price discovery and solely here for a non-researched punt. And that's fine....your money, your choice. But kindly have respect for people like olderwiser/me/Rabito79 who *do* the hours and hours of research required to analyse these companies. Stop being so rude! This isn't personal, it's all about numbers and maths, that's it. Price discovery.

12:19

Hi Brom - "on the cusp of something good." I'm sure the forum would be fascinated in your calculation of what the market is currently valuing 88E at on a per barrel in the ground basis? And then talk us through where you calculate that figure will move to if both the flow tests are successful? Or if you'd prefer, a risked/unrisked NAV model would be equally as fascinating. Or, and work with me here, are you going to post in a few weeks time that you sold your stock into the ramp/spike like you did in 2021 and 2022? You recently posted the truth about Longhorn being spectacularly underwhelming v's expectations at time of purchase of the Texas assets. How about similar honesty as you describe your valuation of 88E's Phoenix project right now, today?

12.00

Goodness Brom, lots of misinformation in this post. Let's take it apart, shall we? But before I do so, you haven't informed the forum what happened to Erik Opstad and ELKO? Proxies indeed!!

a) yep, the PANR reservoirs are tight-ish, but orders of magnitude less tight than many commercial assets in the Permian. But let's go with your description of "tight" for now. All things being equal, Brom, and with the knowledge we have from both companies about depth of burial, Dmax, perms and porosity, P50 guidance, 2D and 3D seismic, data from each company's wells....would you prefer to own the updip, shallower tight-ish portion of the shared reservoirs *or* the downdip, deeper, even tighter portion of the shared reservoirs? C'mon Brom, how about sharing your brutal analysis in the same manner you were prepared to post about Longhorn.

To remind the forum of Brom's ability to be straight when he chooses: "“I too have my doubts about some of our projects, Longhorn has been a slow burn despite the relatively high POO , when first announced Jan 2022 the wells were producing 300BOE per day, despite plenty of investment in workovers we are not producing much more today and nothing like the projections of 1300 BOE given as a medium term target.” – Brombarb on lse; 30/1/24 @ 16:58

[End of Part 3, see above for Part 4]

[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

20:47

Musk15 - good results at Hickory-1 would indeed be good for 88E, no question. However, and as I explained to taximan57 earlier, PANR will see a *leveraged positive effect* on its recoverable resources as a result of that good news. To be clear, this isn't because 88E has done anything wrong. This was all decided millions of years ago when the reservoirs were formed in the shape they were and then in recent years lines were drawn at the surface corresponding to leases the two companies own.

I must repeat for clarity. If there's bad news from the flow tests, 88E will see material downgrades to its guidance whereas PANR's guidance will not reduce by a single barrel. Just science.

20:20 & 19:50

Olderwiser - correct. Forum should read this post and listen to the Proactive interview again. listen to this guy, please. This was his job for decades. Why do so many of you think he's making stuff up when he's spent his whole career doing O&G projects around the world?

19:06

Hi taximan57 - of course you're free to think that, but it would be the wrong choice if you wish to see a return on your investment. This is really basic science. Please fact check what olderwiser and I are telling this forum. We're not lying.

18:42

Musk15 - the answer is "deeper below the surface". Think about it....all that weight above you....put simply, if you're deeper down the greater the weight on top of you and the greater the compaction of the reservoir => the lower the permeability and porosity => the lower the properties of the reservoir at those deeper parts of the reservoir. Serious question, Musk15. Have you not listened to a single thing olderwiser/me/Rabito79 have been saying on this forum? More widely, the fact you're having to ask this question (about depth) means that, truly sadly, you don't have even the most basic knowledge of E&P. And that's fine, your money, your choice. But please have the self-reflection to acknowledge you don't know very much about 88E and its asset. And even more importantly, have the honour to stop seeking to ramp other naive credulous readers of your content into buying 88E with your nonsense posts promising untold riches. I know it'll hurt to read this but you're doing no better than whispering in their ear to back No6 in the 3.30pm race at Kempton tomorrow. Please stop. Please.

18:22

Hi taximan57 - who has said otherwise?

16:40

Hi SRBS - "HODLE IF YOU HAVE NERVES OF STEAL" Lololol, couldn't have put it better myself. Freudian slip?

15:21

Musk15 - for the umpteenth time, it's about price discovery and only about price discovery. Why on earth would I wish anyone ill whom I only know from usernames on a screen? You still think this is one big conspiracy against you when it's just about uncovering value. No more, no less. 2/

[End of Part 2, see above for Part 3.]

23:29

Hi troajan - I sat beside market makers and sales traders for years. Never heard a peep about these codes. I only ever became aware of this nonsense when I began reading social media forums like this one!

21:17

Redirons - for the avoidance of doubt, I only have one username across all social media platforms. If olderwiser bumped into me on the street, I wouldn't know him from Adam. But if you want to keep dreaming up conspiracy theories instead of uncovering the *facts* of the 88E investment case, then knock yourself out.

21:11

Hi Rpj8438 - "biggest discovery" compared to which other reservoirs and owned by whom? Source please?

20:51

Hi again taximan57 - you need to listen to the Proactive interview again. Firstly, imagine two rectangles, one on top of the other. The top or northern rectangle is PANR's acreage and the lower or southern rectangle is 88E's acreage. Ok, in the top, right hand quarter of 88E's rectangle place a dot quite near the top of the rectangle. That's Hickory-1. Hickory -1 is located 150m south of the boundary line between the northern edge of 88E acreage and the southern edge of PANR's acreage.

Jay is telling you the following. Look at the two rectangles, one on top of the other. The further north and northwest on the *external* outline of the two boxes the better the properties of the reservoirs. This is what olderwiser and I have been banging on about for years now. The further north and northwest the location, the shallower the reservoirs - this is the "updip" portion of the shared reservoirs. That part of the acreage has better permeability and porosity (thus more likely to be commercial) then the acreage to the south and southeast of the *external* outline of the two boxes.

Thus, the further south and southeast within the *external* outline of the two rectangles, the deeper the depth of burial, more overburden (remember me banging on about Dmax....did any of you Google it?), and the poorer the quality of reservoir permeability and porosity => less likely to be commercial. Understand?

The second point he was making is that the guidance by PANR management on the volume of contingent and recoverable resources within its acreage does not include the acreage at the southern edge of PANR's border with the northern edge of 88E's border. Thus, if there is good news from the flow tests at Hickory-1, there will be a *leveraged* upgrade to PANR's numbers. That isn't Jay boasting, it's just basic science. PANR will be able to upgrade its numbers on the basis of quality (updip, Dmax, perm, poros) *and* quantity (be able to include volume from PANR's southern acreage that PANR management had conservatively *not* included in its formal guidance until after the Hickory-1 flow tests.

However, if the flow test results are poor at Hickory-1 (and I truly hope they're not) then PANR's base case numbers will not change by one barrel whereas 88E will have material downgrades. Not boasting, basic science. 1/

Whilst we wait for the Daniel Yergin/Governor Dunleavy interview to be uploaded on to the CERAWeek website, here's a verrrryyyyyy interesting interview by Governor Dunleavy from CERAWeek on CNBC.

hTTps://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/03/18/amos-hochstein-u-s-will-be-most-dominant-lng-exporter-this-world-has-ever-seen.html

Sounds to me that the Japanese and Koreans are looking to secure long term LNG supply, we're talking multi-decades. Alaska has oodles of the stuff. Pay particular attention to Governor Dunleavy saying he hopes to have some news on the gas pipeline going ahead "in the next couple of months".

*If* PANR's gas is to be a cornerstone of this project, would this constitute a major plank in DH's strategy to source external finance via a medium/long term offtake agreement? If so, the base case could see PANR "give away their gas for free" but see a reduction of at least a billion dollars from its capex requirements if gas reinjection wells are no longer required in the 3:1 ration as guided? That would improve PANR's NAV and, more pertinently, improve the IRR for future partners examining the investment case. Upside, of course, would see PANR receiving revenue from the gas pipeline owners/Alaskan utility companies/LNG exporters at some point.

Personal view? There's too much chatter about this gas project going on in Alaskan and US media for it not to be under very serious consideration by someone or some countries. I note even the US Federal govt has stated pointedly and very publicly that the Alaskan LNG export license is ***not*** subject to the US moratorium on all new LNG export projects.

Definitely worth keeping an eye on IMO.

17:35

Hi Brian1234 - surely up until Thursday, 28th March? If indeed we are to hear something prior to "the end of March" then from tomorrow until Thursday next week. The stock exchange is closed on Good Friday and Easter Monday only, fyi. Hope that helps.

Dear All - the CERAWeek Q&A session featuring Daniel Yergin and Governor Dunleavy took place at 11.10am today, Houston time. The link below will allow us to access that session. It hasn't been uploaded yet but worth keeping an eye out for it? (h/t sporazene)

hTTps://ceraweek.com/promo/cw24-live.html

01:24

PANR don't have *any number* in their guidance for the SFS within their acreage. Thus, good news from the 88E SFS flow test and there'll be an automatic upgrade to PANR's numbers. Ah, but what about an upgrade to 88E's SFS best estimate guidance of 100.8mmbo? Nope, not without at least one other appraisal well + flow test of that horizon at another stepped out location. That'll cost time and money....at least US$20m and another year...at the very least.

Bad news from the 88E SFS flow test and PANR's guidance won't change by a single barrel. Same goes for the SMD flow test. How come? Because PANR's portion of these reservoirs are ***updip*** of 88E's portion. Also, PANR's *base* case numbers (chiefly data collected at Talitha #A) will not reduce by a single digit no matter what happens at Hickory-1. QED the benefit of updip v's downdip.

NB This is a perfect example of the advantage of being updip. Bad news from the downdip area is, bluntly, bad news for the owner of the downdip location. But it does not necessarily mean it's bad news for the updip location because the improved properties of the updip part of the reservoir *can mean* the updip part of the reservoir is commercial whereas the downdip location is not.

This is not nah-nah-nah-nah-naah bickering. This is the science of O&G reservoirs.

The good news is you don't have to believe me. I think there will be unanimous consent that Ashley Gilbert, MD of 88E, knows a hell of a lot more about 88E than me or olderwiser or Rabito79, correct? Let's therefore examine Ashley's financial alignment with 88E shareholders.

Since joining 88E in May '21, 88E has undertaken 5 equity fundraising exercises, with the intention to raise a minimum of AUD$90m. And how much has Ashley Gilbert chosen to invest of his own cash? Zero, nil, nada, nothing. In fact, he elected to take his bonus in cash rather than shares.

So the guy running 88E, who understands the assets, who executes the corporate strategy, who knows more about the value of the company than anyone else on the planet.....he has decided to invest precisely zero dollars in 88E shares, most recently refusing to support the fundraise at a share price of 0.23p. Maybe he's short of a bob or two? The salary component of his remuneration is >AUD$500k!!!

20th March @ 07:28

Hi again Dave73 - I'm not convinced you've thought this one through. I, for one, will be very disappointed if the company published an RNS about the first tranche of external finance at any time other than 7am, London time.

In addition to my explanation on 19/3/24 @ 20:51 I offer the following:

1) PANR's largest short is run by Mangrove. They're based on the east coast of the US with no European desk that is known about. There is a *greater* chance of stealing a metaphorical march on Mangrove by publishing an RNS at 7am London time than an intra-day RNS.

2) Far more importantly, UK shareholders are fully conditioned to expect formal material news to be published via RNS at 7am. If any of those UK shareholders had , say, limit orders to sell stock at 30p or 35p or 40p, positive news arriving at 7am about the first tranche of external finance would allow them to delete or amend their limit orders in anticipation of an opening well in excess of the previous day's close.

If, however, there was an intra-day RNS at , say, 1pm then the professionals in the market (ie Mangrove) with their Bloomberg screens and alerts and colleagues keeping an eye on open positions would have an enormous advantage over UK-based retail shareholders who might be driving their car, working on their day job, etc, etc. It is those poor sods, Dave73, who would suffer from Mangrove a) being in the office in US and b) being able to act quickly due to their market tools and contacts ensuring they can react more quickly in the market than retail shareholders.

This completes my explanation. You're free to think what you wish, of course, but I'm relaying to you how brokers/bankers advise their corporate clients. Feel free to adopt or delete that advice as you wish!

[Part 4, continued from Part 3 below]

And so we return to the market’s valuation of an 88E recoverable barrel in the ground v’s a PANR recoverable barrel in the ground. I contend that it is preposterous to argue that an 88E barrel should be valued at 16.9p (never mind olderwiser’s assessment which would see a value of 25-30p per 88E barrel) v’s 11.5p for a higher classification PANR barrel in the ground. “Oh, but the market is never wrong.” Nonsense. The market is right until it’s not. If the market was always correct then none of us would be here anticipating SP movements in any listed company.

In summary, taximan57….comparing 88E with PANR is definitely comparing like for like. Furthermore, there is zero justification for the market valuing an 88E barrel in the ground at a 50-200% premium to a higher classification PANR barrel in the ground.

If a forum member refuses to acknowledge the above, or at least engage intellectually with its central contentions, then you really must admit to yourself that you’re playing a massive game of ‘pass the parcel’. Remember a poster’s anecdote about Olderwiser saving him a potential trading loss of £10k, likely for analysis on Merlin 1&2 drills? Be under no illusion, Olderwiser/Rabito79 and I are sounding the exact same warning calls right now, today. If 88E is to appreciate in value from today’s closing price, it will be solely on the basis of social media hype. That’s punting, not investing.

PS I really enjoyed the video released by 88E. Brrrrrrr!

Part 3, continued from Part 2 below]

Thus, when forum members shrug off any comparisons between the valuation of these two companies, they are wilfully electing to ignore the established science of O&G exploration. When forum members say that the value of one company has absolutely no bearing on the valuation of the other, they are wilfully ignoring the guidance given out by the management of *both* companies. When forum members say they have no interest in the neighbouring company, they are wilfully ignoring the *fact* that 88E management has voluntarily entered into a data-sharing agreement (Talitha #A and Hickory-1) and has invited the PANR experts to assist with the design and execution of the two flow tests at Hickory-1.

Do forum members think 88E management has invited PANR experts to assist at Hickory-1 as part of a cunning plan to waste the PANR employees’ time?! C’mon.

What about the differential in scale of the hydrocarbons in each company’s portion of the shared reservoirs? A massively important question which this forum studiously fails to address. Let’s say Project Phoenix does indeed contain 371.3mmbo of recoverable resources. PANR’s recoverable resources are 2.415bbo. So what’s that…6.5x larger in scale. And when I describe PANR’s barrels in the ground as “higher classification” I don’t just mean updip v’s downdip. I’m also referring to the *fact* that Netherland Sewell has certified a contingent resource at Kodiak of 963mmbo and Lee Keeling a contingent resource for the Alkaid ZOI of 76.5mmbo. In comparison, 88E’s BFF contingent resource number is 102mmbo. That’s a 10x greater number of *higher classification* PANR contingent barrels than for 88E.

Please don’t just think that it’s just a matter of time before 88E’s contingent numbers rise also. It will *literally* take years of drilling and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment for 88E to obtain the empirical data to qualify for the certification of higher classification contingent barrels across its acreage.

Back to Mayfair and Battersea. PANR/Mayfair deserves its premium valuation v’s 88E/Battersea due to the higher quality of the property together with the fact that London chartered surveyors *all agree* that the value of Mayfair property should be higher than Battersea property per square foot.

[End of Part 3, see above for Part 4]

[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

- But the other Alaskan assets? Leonis looks interesting but is purely speculative at this stage. It needs tens of millions of investment/farm in to scope out its potential, if any. Project Peregrine/Umiat? No question in my mind the value there is nil. That acreage is so incredibly stranded in the middle of nowhere plus Conoco is the only buyer on the planet…and Conoco has many, many bigger and better projects around the world to investigate before looking at Peregrine/Umiat. Nope, Dave Wall and Erik Opstad did a proper number on 88E shareholders on that one, I’m afraid.

And after all that, you argue 88E and PANR are not “like for like”? taximan57 – I am being earnestly serious here. Rarely in my 30 year career has there been a *better* example of comparative valuation of like-for-like assets.

I’m trying to think of ever simpler analogies for this forum. Let’s give this a try. I would imagine most of us are fairly familiar with pricing of property in £ or $ per sq foot? Mayfair and Battersea are two fine areas within London. For the purposes of this exercise let’s say that Mayfair property prices are £100 per sq foot. It’s a prime London location, as the Monopoly board confirms (!), and the market recognises its premium value due to location, services, quality and desirability of the offering, etc, etc. Battersea is still a great location, but values there are a bit less, £75 per square foot. Slightly less central location, quality of transport links a bit lower, lower quality of services, property not quite as grand.

I would hope most readers of this content found themselves nodding along to the logic of the paragraph above? So, too, with O&G reservoirs. It is a scientific *fact* that the updip portions of these shared reservoirs possess enhanced characteristics, due to Dmax, which the downdip portions of the reservoirs do not. That’s not speculation, guesswork, or boasting kids lashing out in a game of ‘whose Daddy is the strongest?’ Nope, this is cold, hard science backed up by decades of empirical data and thousands, millions of geologists/reservoir engineers/seismic engineers, petrochemists/geo-physicists collecting and analysing data all over the world.

So when Olderwiser, Rabito79 and I state that PANR owns the higher quality portions of the shared reservoirs, we’re not just making stuff up, it’s proven science. Vitally, this science is supported by PANR’s 6 wells and US$80m 3D seismic study. These operations have taken over 10 years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to collect the evidence.

[Part 2, see above for Part 3]

Wed @ 02:56

Hi taximan57 – see, here’s the thing. You are either deliberately obfuscating or you lack the comprehension of E&P terminology and asset modelling. Looking at your posting history, I’m pretty sure you don’t understand what 88E is telling you. The 371.3mmbo figure is 88E management’s *best estimate* of the liquid hydrocarbons contained within the BFF, SFS and SMD horizons in the Project Phoenix acreage.

To remind you and the wider forum, the BFF was intersected but 88E management elected *not* to flow test it. There is a marked lack of curiosity on this forum as to why 88E management made that decision. Olderwiser has tried to explain management’s decision but it hasn’t quite ‘got through’ yet. taximan57 – why don’t you ask him again? I note you’ve been prepared to do the work on whether the flow test program is running on or behind schedule down to the last minute (!)….why not spend equal time and effort on actually trying to understand the 88E asset base?

As for the SFS and SMD *best estimates* which, along with the BFF P50 figure, make up the 371.3mmbo, don’t forget that 88E’s own management has advised shareholders the CoS for the SFS is 50% and 81% for SMD.

If I adopted olderwiser’s “shrinkage” thesis and ratio (remember he has decades of experience working on O&G projects like Phoenix and knows the relative value of 2D and 3D seismic when calculating O&G estimates) *and* I also used management’s CoS for the SFS and SMD then instead of an 88E recoverable barrel in the ground being valued at 16.9p by the market, it would be somewhere in the 25-30p ber barrel range.

The market is currently valuing a higher quality, updip PANR recoverable barrel in the ground at 11.5p. I contend this irrational differential will not be maintained into perpetuity, that never happens. And I do mean never.

Let’s deal with the usual plaintive cries of fury because “you’re not comparing like for like, scot126!”

- But PANR’s CB debt? I fully account for that by swapping debt for equity as per the terms of the CB, and add to the PANR SOI accordingly.

- But Namibia? Happy to value 88E’s investment at purchase price. How could anyone do otherwise? The Namibian partners haven’t even shot 2D seismic yet.

- But the Longhorn asset? The asset which has required an overspend of US$5.6m to deliver production of between a third and a half of original guidance? That asset? I attach a value of US$8m to Longhorn. Are you arguing it should be higher than US$8m? If I used the transaction price of 88E’s latest addition in Texas across the whole Longhorn asset base, I’d be valuing Longhorn at only US$1.2m!! Perhaps you’re suggesting I’m being too generous in valuing Longhorn at US$8m?

[Part 1, see above for Part 2]

[Part 3 - end]

Macro backdrop: Whilst Pantheon Resources has proven adept at navigating the challenging context for the oil & gas sector prior to, during and after the COVID-19 lockdowns, we believe that the broader economic, political, psychological and energy specific backdrop will be determinant for the fortunes of Pantheon Resources’ two massive-scale, 100% owned projects in Alaska. From that perspective, we see oil markets tightening and oil prices strengthening, we see increased focus on energy security and increased rejection of the ESG agenda. Critically, we believe that, based on the historical precedents, Alaskan oil developments make their biggest strides forwards when i) oil is in short supply and oil prices are high and ii) supply growth is limited in the Lower-48 states. From that perspective, we already see growth stalling in the key US shale oil basins (Figure 1). We also see the Biden Administration, the EU and the UK turning a blind eye to illegal Russian oil sales and increased oil production from Iran to cover-up, what we believe is, an energy shortage – in a context where Russia has invaded Ukraine and Iran is supporting hostile actors in the Middle East. We believe that that is untenable, and in any case, the increased supplies resulting from the West’s attitude towards Russia and Iran have already run their course in terms of increased supplies. The broader psychology of the energy sector is shifting fast and is increasingly favourable for large-scale oil projects in Alaska, we believe. That, we expect, will provide the backdrop that will enable the tremendous value realisation of Ahpun and Kodiak. In more straightforward terms, we expect oil prices to increase over the remainder of 2Q 2024 and into 2H 2024 as demand for oil exceeds supply causing inventories for fall. In short, what has been a structurally challenging backdrop for Pantheon Resources, is, we believe, turning into a structurally supportive backdrop – a critically positive development. /end

[Part 2, continued from Part 1 below]

Funding: The company reiterated its estimate that to launch the Ahpun project it has a funding requirement of $120 million comprised of i) $20 million to drill each of three wells, ii) $20 million to upgrade facilities, iii) $20 million for a hot-tap into the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, and iv) $20 million for three years of G&A. The company reiterated that it funded its September and December 2023 quarterly convertible loan repayments through placements of shares to long-term supportive holders including IPGL Limited, which now holds more than 7% of the company, according to Pantheon Resources. The company retains the right to issue shares in lieu of cash to honour payments due under the convertible bonds, which for reference had a notional principal outstanding of $29.4m after the settlement of the 13 December 2023 repayment. The company indicated it is progressing with an intended US listing in 2025. Additionally, the company is engaged in discussions that could lead to potential funding being provided by i) vendor financing, ii) offtaker financing, and iii) reserve based lending. We highlight that the retention of 100% interests in both its Ahpun and Kodiak projects provides the company with a position of strength in our opinion.

[End of Part 2, see above for Part 3]

Dear All - please find below WH Ireland's reaction to the interims, note dated 18/3/24.

Pantheon Resources

Interim Results, Forthcoming Catalysts and Changing Macro Context

Pantheon Resources’ interim results for the six months ended 31 December 2023 were broadly consistent with expectations. Most importantly, the company reported a post period end cash balance of $8.7m as at 15 March 2024. The company provided an update of notable forthcoming catalysts. Our view is that the macro backdrop for the oil & gas sector will play a preponderant role in the fortunes of the company; from that perspective, we believe that the backdrop for the oil & gas sector is significantly strengthening, which we anticipate will be pivotal and favourable for Pantheon Resources.

Key forthcoming catalysts: The key forthcoming company specific catalyst, we believe, will be the provision of the first resource assessment by Netherland Sewell & Associates (“NSA”) in respect of the company’s 100% held Ahpun field, expected around the end of June 2024. We highlight that an updated NSA report in respect of the Kodiak field is expected around the end of March 2024, which is anticipated to include the resource potential of 66,240 acres of lease area acquired in December 2023, which will be additive to the prior NSA resource assessment of 962.5 million barrels of recoverable liquids (2C estimate). The company is expected to provide a finalised funding/development strategy to the market by the end of Q2 2024. We also highlight the ongoing testing of the Hickory-1 well, operated by 88 Energy with the advisory involvement from Pantheon Resources, will test the Upper Slope Fan System and the Shelf Margin Deltaic (B) zones that would, we believe, have read across in the event of success to Pantheon’s Ahpun project. We note that Pantheon Resources stated today in its results announcement that it intends to host a company webinar in early April 2024 to provide a corporate update. The near-term outlook for Pantheon Resources is clearly rich in potentially positive catalysts.

[Part 1, see above for Part 2]

Dear All - I thought I would update the comparative valuations of a recoverable barrel in the ground for 88E and PANR.

Let's do 88E first.

Shares on issue = 25.12bn

Mkt cap at close in UK today = £71.6m

Valuation of Namibia = US$3m or £2.4m

Valuation of Longhorn = US$8m or £6.3m

GBP v USD = 1.272

Recoverable resources for Project Phoenix = 371.3mmbo [NB this assumes both the upcoming Hickory-1 flow tests are completely successful]

Result: each 88E barrel in the ground is currently valued by the market at 16.9p

88E again except this time I use ***88E management's*** Chance of Success guidance for the two upcoming flow tests at Hickory-1, being 81% CoS for SMD and 50% CoS for SFS. We arrive at a recoverable resource figure of 288.9mmbo, which in turn means the market is valuing each risked Project Phoenix barrel in the ground at 21.8p.

PANR's turn.

Shares on issue = 944.2m

CB debt of US$27m or £21.25m. Swapping debt for equity sees PANR issue 88m "new shares" @ 24.3p (10% discount to current SP as per CB terms)

Total shares on issue becomes = 1.0322bn

"Revised" Mkt cap using today's closing price = £278.5m

Recoverable resources for PANR's portion of shared reservoirs = 2.415bbo

Therefore the market is valuing each PANR recoverable barrel in the ground at 11.5p.

To repeat, on the concrete assumption that the impending two flow tests at Hickory-1 are a *complete success*, the market is valuing a ***lower quality downdip 88E barrel*** in the ground at 16.9p v's a ***higher quality updip PANR barrel*** of oil at 11.5p. On the fundamentals, that is madness. Stark, raving madness.

Put it another way perhaps?

*If* you genuinely believe 88E is fairly valued today, then the market ought to be valuing PANR at 40p v's SP of 26.9p. Right now, at time of writing.

*If* you genuinely believe PANR is fairly valued today, then the market ought to value 88E ***after announcing two successful flow tests*** at 0.205p, v's current SP of 0.285p.

If you are solely interested in a stockmarket game of 'pass the parcel', hoping that social media will attract a bunch of punters to bid up the 88E 'parcel' to deliver you a trading profit before the music stops and reality hits, then knock yourself out. Please try not to be unethical and ramp 88E by using made up nonsense. I know it's tempting but place yourself for a second in the position of a credulous reader of your content who is taken in by blatantly made up claims of instant riches, with no basis in fact or science. Not nice.

For those who post they're genuinely interested in the fundamentals of either company then 88E, ***even if both flow tests are a screaming success***, is overvalued by at least 40%. If you refuse to acknowledge the maths behind this statement then you must also acknowledge you are relying on social media hype rather than the fundamentals to support your investment strategy.

Dear All - please see below links to useful info about the mooted Alaskan gas pipeline. The top link is a four post thread, the other two links are single tweets.

https://x.com/Scot126126/status/1769884998633505132?s=20

https://x.com/Scot126126/status/1769887237779460256?s=20

https://x.com/Scot126126/status/1769887346818740566?s=20

09:29

Hi Dave73 - with respect, an intra-day announcement would be a very bad idea. PANR is run as a professional company, seeking to be worthy of its listed status. To be investable for institutions that means behaving as per market protocol. When it comes to RNS publication times, that invariably means 7.00am announcements. Of course there *may* be emergencies where an intra-day RNS is required but truly they are comparatively rare occasions. Tr-1s are often published intra-day, no worries on that score. Oh, and when PANR hosts webinars and presentations are RNS'd beforehand, the market understands this is because of management being in vastly different time zones.

The reason to stick to a 7am RNS for major news such as the announcement of the first tranche of external finance (due by the end of Q1'24 until recently updated guidance on slippage on timing) is because the market is primed to receive news at that time every day. If you wish the brokers and banks to notice your news and to alert their clients to it, that's the time to do it. If you wish journalists to pick up on exciting "new news" to send out on the news wires and into print, that's when to do it.

Think about it, Dave73. If you wish to give an advantage to institutional investors who are short PANR, publish the good news RNS intra-day. They're the folk who have Bloomberg terminals set up with alerts. Thus, they could steal a march on retail investors who may be out shopping or doing their day job and thus unable to react to intra-day news.

Nope, *if* there is to be a "first tranche of external finance" RNS in the coming days/weeks, then it should definitely be published at 7am. If not, there would have to be an exceedingly good reason for a departure from the norm. Good stuff.