Member Info for Scot126

23:02

Hi Derbyshah - I trust you're aware BP sold all of its Alaskan assets to Hilcorp for $5.6bn in 2019, with the transaction closing in 2020? BP sold their share of Prudhoe Bay, the operatorship plus BP sold their percentage ownership of TAPS. Never say never but for supermajors like BP to go back into a territory which they had exited so publicly after 60 years would appear to be....unlikely.

"With today’s agreement and previously announced agreements, Alaska LNG has now reserved 50 percent of its available third-party LNG offtake capacity to investment grade counterparties, and the project has overwhelming interest from additional counterparties globally.”

hTTps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250623972703/en/Glenfarne-and-PTT-Sign-Cooperation-Agreement-Including-Offtake-From-Alaska-LNG

This is excellent news for Alaska LNG and for PANR.

Dear All - please see below the login details for the AGDC Board meeting today. If my calculations are correct, the meeting ought to begin at 6pm London time.

Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) BOARD OF DIRECTORS will meet on June 18, 2025, at the Legislative Information Office (LIO), 1500 W Benson Blvd., Anchorage, Alaska.

The time of the meeting will be 09:00am.

The public is invited to attend in person at the location mentioned above or by teleconference/Zoom:

Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android. Please click the link below to join the webinar:

hTTps://us06web.zoom.us/j/82094493595

Telephonic:

Dial-in Number: +1-253-215-8782 or +1-408-638-0968

Webinar ID: 820 9449 3595

The link below takes you to Frank Richards' June '25 presentation, likely the central document to be discussed at today's meeting.

hTTps://agdc.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AGDC-_Board_of_Directors_Meeting_Presidents_Report_June_18_2025.pdf

11.35

chrisev1 - factually incorrect. The facility does not work that way.

Also, if the company was to buy back its own shares it would have to announce this policy specifically and in detail. You'd then see RNSs issued every day that shares were bought back by the broker on behalf of the company. You will not see such notices as part of this facility. It truly is simply to save admin costs.

I guess many of us will have suspected the social media campaigns of 2021/22 drew heaps of retail investors to 88E, especially in the US. But to read over 8300 distinct private shareholders now have holdings worth

Please see link below to 45min Q&A with Governor Dunleavy and Glenfarne's Brendan Duval at the Alaska energy conference last week. Essential viewing.

hTTps://youtu.be/i7ns5PH2W7E?si=-TvtgPWVLtBH2QeB

News article from South Korea about potential interest in the LNG project.

hTTps://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20250604007600320?input=feed_smartnews

I've watched all the content from Alaska over the last 48 hours so fellow forum members don't have to!! Please see below a link to a 5min interview on CNBC with US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright.

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3HUzMf0m4A

By far the strongest message the US politicians wish to convey about the LNG project is directly to their allies in Asia. Both Secretary Wright and Secretary Burgum have stated *very directly* that once there are offtake agreements in place for the output of the project (circa 20 million tonnes of LNG per annum) then "it's relatively easy" to find the capital for construction.

That's it, that's the key message for PANR stakeholders. Of course there's the domestic messaging about US energy dominance, cutting red tape (also likely to benefit PANR in fairness), fighting the radical left, MAGA...all that stuff too. But for PANR stakeholders the message from this summit/conference appears to be clear. If the Asian allies sign up to buy Alaskan LNG on long term contracts then the Trump administration will make sure all the regulatory paperwork will be sorted in short order *plus* Glenfarne and the White House appear exceptionally confident the necessary capital is just waiting for the green light.

Running total of indications of interest so far (happy to be corrected):

Taiwan: 6 mllion tonnes per annum

Thailand: 2 million - 5 million tonnes per annum

AGDC confirmed 2x 1 million tonnes per annum historical agreements already in place.

Demand looks to be indicated @ roughly 50-65% of supply. We know India, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines are also in attendance at the energy conference this week. *If* the conference prompts demand for the full 20 million tonnes per annum then, all else being equal, the value of PANR's equity *ought* to be marked up materially IMO.

Please see link below to a round table event in Alaska today in advance of the Energy Summit and Conference this week. Present were: Senator Sullivan, Senator Murkowski, Governor Dunleavy, Secretary Burgum, Secretary Wright, Administrator Zeldin.

I'm not sure but I *think* some members of the overseas delegations will be accompanying US politicians to the North Slope over the next few days?

International delegations are expected from: Japan, South Korea, India, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines.

If PANR's low CO2, non-corrosive natural gas is as crucial to the phased construction of the Alaska LNG project as has been relayed to us by management then I struggle to understand why PANR leadership *would not be attending* and lobbying for directed support for PANR?

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOj4lNJyDo4&t=1559s

IMO the most interesting part of the video was from 33min 50secs onwards. It dealt chiefly with a question around the financing of the Alaska LNG project. Secretary Burgum gave a very direct answer. He stated that providing American allies in the Asia Pacific signed up to LNG offtake agreements, then the capital is available to finance the whole project. He went further and, surprising to me anyway, stated that foreign direct investment in the infrastructure wasn't required or necessary for the project to be funded.

As I understand it, letters of interest/intent on purchasing between 11-13 million tonnes of LNG per annum are already in place. The project aims to deliver a minimum of 20 million tonnes of LNG per annum. Therefore, if we hear of further offtake interest during the course of this week, it sounds like the capital for construction of the pipeline/CO2 treatment plant/liquefaction and export facilities may already be lined up.

All else being equal, confirmation of foreign offtake interest up to the magic 20 million tonnes per annum ought to see the value of PANR's equity be marked strongly upwards.

11.02

chrisev1 - have you downloaded and read the document posted by Brom on 23/5/25 @ 09:00?

Fox Business interviews Secretary of Energy about unleashing Alaskan resources and previewing the energy conference with invited guests from Asia.

hTTps://x.com/i/status/1926654702675959817

Fox Business interviews Secretary of Interior about unleashing Alaskan resources and previewing the energy conference with invited guests from Asia. Lots of information about the LNG project and potential timetable of construction.

hTTps://x.com/Varneyco/status/1926276291684114655

hTTps://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Courting-Asian-Investors-for-44-Billion-Alaska-LNG-Project.html

See headline below from the WSJ this weekend. A Korean delegation will be travelling to the Alaskan Energy Conference in early June. In advance of that crucial conference it's no coincidence to see Trump tightening the screws on Asian allies who host expensive US military assets. Some may view this as a protection racket but if it gets the LNG project under way.........

"wsj.com

Exclusive | U.S. Considers Withdrawing Thousands of Troops From South Korea"

C'mon marmaris, they've never ever done anything like that in over 15 years. Unless you know of a specific reason why they might have blocked you, isn't the answer that a technical gremlin got in the way? Regardless, these webinars get posted on to YouTube and IMC websites pretty quickly so you'll have a chance to review all that was said.

I note your anger about the company missing out the middle three or four intervals. They gave very logical answers to that question and I hope you're able to park that specific concern once you listen to the webinar.

It wasn't you WAaussie. Don't worry, there are a few of us who remember exactly what Ddraig posted.

Shareguru22 - my average in price on PANR would make you blush. You keep thinking my in price is 100p if that makes you feel better about your loss in 88E.

13:10

Ddraig - it was deleted by the moderators as well you know. And it wasn't just me who was horrified by your post. Many other members of this forum posted at the time that your conduct was contemptible.

You still haven't apologised. You're a poor excuse for a human being.

11:34

Ddraig - it's not sudden. Quit the misinformation. The requirement for a "proof of PANR's capacity to deliver low CO2, non-corrosive natural gas via a long lateral well plus LTPT" has ALWAYS, REPEAT ALWAYS been part of the plan since the GSPA was signed. Do you actually bother to listen to any of the webinars, review slide decks, read RNSs? You must be the only clown on the planet who would expect construction of a $11bn gasline to begin without PANR proving the deliverability of its crucial low CO2 gas.

More reading, less snark.

10:19

Awesome news. coeus_12345 has popped up to regale us further with his misunderstanding of E&P. Just as a heads up, coeus had to be educated on the difference between resources and reserves a while back. Twice.

Ok, to his points.

1) Ahpun East could have loads of O&G, or not. coeus has not seen the raw data. SLB has and I'll listen to them before coeus. I have already stated unequivocally that the market will not recognise any value for Ahoun East. Don't know who he's arguing with there.

2) So much wrong with this paragraph that it's not funny. I'll leave olderwiser to correct this gibberish.

3) when have I ever stated PANR's recoverabel resources were anything other than 2C. Again, I don't know who coeus is arguing with here. coeus - think you need a refresher course on the various classifications of recoverable oil.

4) show me another project in the world where a junior E&P has 100% ownership of a 2C 1.6bbo + 6.6Tcf of gas onshore asset? This has been a remarkable achievement.

Shocker! Shocker! Read all about it! Listed junior resources sector stock needs capital for operations! Well, knock me down with a feather.

coeus - so stipulated that PANR has not signed a partnership agreement with anyone.....until the day it does, and you'll disappear, never to be heard of again.

5) coeus has long thought it was all a big conspiracy. Trouble is that coeus doesn't read annual reports. coeus hasn't researched the fact DH invested $1m of his own cash in PANR ordinary shares, $500k prior to his appointment to the BoD, $500k since then. He's also conveniently forgotten the $1m invested by a NED in March. These two *facts* alone blow his childish conspiracy theory out the water. coeus studies markets on a theoretical basis. He has not matured sufficiently such that he conflates nefarious intentions and conspiracy theories with risk.

6) coeus is free to beleive his conspiracy theory as described in point 6). Trouble is that for him to be correct, every single one of the following must be wrong. State of Alaska Dept of Natural Resources, Netherland Sewell, Ryder Scott, Glenfarne, Wood Mackenzie, Lee Keeling, Schlumberger, the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, Cawley Gillespie and AHS Baker Hughes. If coeus is correct, this criminal conspiracy involved hundreds of industry professionals over 10 distinct organisations.

coeus is a loon. Whether he's right or wrong about PANR's eventual value, it will be because of the fundamentals being fully uncovered. Not, as he would have us believe, due to some goggle-eyed conspiracy theory dreamed up by a sore loser.

10:04

Certainly, Simon. Prior to PANR moving into development, a full fat environmental study has to be conducted by the Army Corp of Engineers plus other regulatros like the SoA DNR.

Idea? Read about the next well, Dubhe-1. Its purpose, its sole purpose, will be to prove to all the Alaska LNG export stakeholders that PANR can produce sufficient low CO2, non-corrosive natural gas to supply Phase 1 of the gasline. For PANR, that also means being able to prove that sufficient saleable liquids are co-produced with the gas (it's the other way round but you know what I mean) such that moving to a full field development is viewed as commercially viable.

Good news on the sidelines? The Alaskan Governor reckons Phase 1 of the project will pass FEED in late summer and FID by the end of 2025. There are also signs that the Trump administration will look to accelerate the EIS process.

Being crystal clear....if PANR cannot supply its non-corrosive gas to the intended gasline, the phased plan will have to be thrown away. Instead of Phase 1 "only" requiring $11bn, the whole $44bn will need to be committed for the whole project to be built in a oner. Plus, Trump won't see the gasline built during his second term. He won't like that, lol!

09:28

Hi Orange33 - couple of questions for you please.

1) Expressed as a percentage, what do you assess is the probability that PANR's assets will be developed?

2) What do you consider is a fair value for 2C 1.6 billion barrels of oil?

3) Do you accept that the State of Alaska Dept of Natural Resources, Netherland Sewell, Ryder Scott, Glenfarne, Wood Mackenzie, Lee Keeling, Schlumberger, the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, Cawley Gillespie and AHS Baker Hughes have either been given access to PANR's dataroom and/or the raw data from the field? do you accept that each one of these parties has analysed PANR's data on Kodiak and Ahpun West and, based on that analysis, have supported the phased approach to the Alaska LNG project? None of us should be under any illusion. PANR's low CO2, non-corrosive gas is crucial to the gasline and LNG export project going ahead in its current form.

Billions of dollars are being lined up to construct the gasline. A huge amount of due diligence has been done by all the stakeholders listed above. It is NOT just PANR mangement who are preparing to deliver natural gas to the gasline. All the entities listed above expect that to happen also.

I contend that the probability of PANR's assets being developed is far, far higher then the market is currently imputing. The market thinks there's a 6-8% chance of PANR's assets being developed. I think the market is wrong and the probability is far higher than that. I point to the quality of the external parties listed above as support for my contention.

09:28

.....and many members of this forum, Ddarig, will recall you urging another poster with whom you disagreed to find a rope to end himself. You're a truly dreadful human being.

08:50

Serenstar: you've maaaaayyyybe made a fair point about the company not RNSing the move away from fracking the second of the six planned flow tests. In fairness to the company, during the latest webinar they said they'd RNS when the fracking kit arrived on location. I can see both arguments here...calll it a no score draw.

However you are 100% wrong in your understanding about PANR heading to the shallowest interval, Sag 3, as advised on Monday. In the light of the data retrieved by Monday, that was *exactly* the correct thing to do. The company would have spent millions of precious dollars testing the intervening zones. By heading to the shallowest horizon, and in so doing having tested the floor and the ceiling, management has preserved precious shareholder funds. That you feel misled is because you have misunderstood the rationale for heading to the shallowest zone, not because you have been lied to.

Idea? Maybe have a read through the RNSs again and listen ini to the webinar this afternoon. I think we'd all be amazed if a cost/benefit analysis wasn't the main reason for the decision to head to the shallowest zone, skipping over the zones in between.

08:44

Ddraig

88E 1 yr perf -73.23% 5 yr perf -83.99%

PANR 1 yr perf -27.07% 5 yr perf +44.74%

Most odd, I could swear you'd turned positive on PANR over the last few months. We all know that it would be tiresome to copy'n'paste all your positive PANR posts, but I'll be delighted to do so if revisionism is your thing.