Member Info for Scot126

18.09
Agreed, Sailplane. The gas to liquid replacement volume data and interpretation was, IMHO, the most important sentence of the entire webinar. Michael is trying to point the audience towards his belief that this well is a barn buster. I broke out into a broad smile when we reached that part of the presentation. I received a text from a fellow shareholder two minutes later who has worked in the sector for over 20 years. That was exactly the info which prompted him to text me. The market has failed spectacularly to pick up on this key piece of information, IMHO.

Kevin - the reason 88E is not going to flow test Hickory-1 this season is because they lack the funds to do so. They were *probably* expecting/hoping for definitive (and positive) Alkaid-2 news to have been published by Nov/Dec so they could conduct a capital raise of sufficient size to fund the drilling *and flow testing* of Hickory-1 . This would also likely have seen the spud date occur earlier in the season.

Instead we have this unusual halfway house where the well will be drilled and logged but not flow tested. To answer your question about SP reaction, yes on the fundamentals any SP rise *should* be limited even if the logs look good. Bears will always be able to point to the lack of flow test until the 23/24 season. On that note, chrisev1, how is Hickory-1 going to be flow-tested in Q3? No ice pad until Dec so Jan '24 earliest the flow test can commence? Are you expecting the regulator to allow 88E to build a gravel pad in the meantime? Highly, highly, highly unlikely, agreed?

I see the usual suspects are doing the 88E ramptastic shuffle, pre-spud. As I say every year, it's a massive game of pass the parcel. 88E is already running miles ahead of the PANR comparative fundamentals but I acknowledge few members of this forum give two hoots about that.

Brom is gently warning the forum to expect a cash raise to fund Hickory-1. You can add scot126 to the list of posters also expecting that to happen.

Jlite - your opex figure is waaaayyyyy too high. Previous guidance on breakeven was a blended figure across Alkaid and Talitha of $32-33. I note the new guidance on well costs ($19.5m).

Alkaid was previously guided at a breakeven of c.$40 and Talitha at $28. Yes, they'll both have increased due to capex increase but you can see the differential in breakeven between the two projects, largely due to scale and reservoir characteristics. Tack on the BFF at Theta West and it could (should?) have a lower breakeven than Talitha.

In summary, I think you a) need to reduce your opex figure and b) need to examine your readacross from Alkaid to Talitha and Theta West. Yes, there's some readacross certainly, but I don't think you've made sufficient allowance for that, do you?

Ok, everyone detests/hates/can't stand Scot/Snot, blah, blah, blah. So stipulated.

As usual not one of the responses dealt with the subject matter at hand. How is 88E going to pay for its 75% share of the costs of Hickory-1? Cash at hand likely in the region of US$8-9m now. What's Hickory-1 going to cost, ice road, pad, etc? Drilling to over 12,000ft depth.

I "get" why 88E management would, in an ideal world, raise cash off the back of good news from Alkaid-2. There *might* be time for good news from a post-workover rig frack sand blockage clearance at Alkaid-2 => quick 88E fundraise and get drilling. But if that scenario doesn't pan out then there is a very real possibility 88E will not be active this winter season.

As for the crowing about PANR. I get it. It's really immature which this forum is famous for but the trouble is that it's also anti-intellectual. Remember all the times I begged you all to research updip/downdip and phasing risk? Not one of you has had the honesty or knowledge to say, "Uh-oh, if PANR got shellacked for "condensate and NGLs" then what on earth will the market do once it realises Icewine East is downdip of PANR?"

Try really hard not to default to abusing me. Try really hard to engage the grey matter and ask yourself a) how certain are you 88E will be active this winter season and b) the relative weakness of 88E's portion of the shared asset v's PANR's. Don't abuse, try thinking instead.

05:14
Paperwork progressing nicely. Good stuff. The central question remains, how on earth is 88E going to fund Hickory-1? A rights issue takes way too long. Another placing organised by Dave Wall, formerly of this parish, and now boss of Inyati Capital? Trouble is, who is going to provide finance when, unfortunately for both companies, the workover rig solution to the frack sand blockage at Alkaid-2 hasn't begun yet? Placing might work if it's heavily discounted, I suppose?

Any other bright ideas from this forum? Or just the usual head in the sand approach, "if we don't talk about it, means it can't have an effect!"

And before the inevitable question. I have no reason whatsoever to wish for Hickory-1 not to go ahead. That doesn't mean I must stop doing maths, and the maths tell me that 88E doesn't have sufficient cash to fund its 75% share of Hickory-1.

Lol, Ddraig. 88E are pinning their short/medium term future on Icewine. If you for one millisecond think that a failure at Alkaid-2 (which it's not but for the purposes of this exchange, let's say it was) is in any way a good or even neutral piece of news for 88E then you're smoking the strongest stuff on the planet. 88E ought to be off massively today. But the market is imperfect. Also, how do you think. 88E's fundraise is going to go with big brother up the road having to wait for clean data until the workover rig does the job?

Schadenfreude? Are you crazy? PANR's share of the shared asset is bigger in scale and superior in properties. Today's reaction has actually given Ddraig an opportunity to upgrade his risk/return at a cheaper price than yesterday. But his personal animosity blocks him from seeing it, lol.

Nonsense CrudeTrader. Guidance was 150bopd per 1000ft of lateral => 795bopd.

Mixed bag for me. The social media bears who state "There is no oil" can go do one. But we are going to have to be patient until the workover rig cleans out the frack sand blockages and for management to analyse the condensate/gas question.

Hi OilBcNu - you're making some pretty ill-advised comments when, unless you're on site or an employee, you could not possibly have the full range of empirical data with which to make such assertive judgements. Naturally you're perfectly entitled to your opinion but, in turn, you must expect to be challenged on your publicly posted views.

I think a few of you should think on the following. When a company lays out a *range* of options, that is exactly what they're entitled to do. It is only when the company formally adopts Plan A or Plan B in an RNS where it achieves the description of "guidance".

For example, *this* is formal guidance: "As previously stated, it makes sense to observe the results of Alkaid #2 before making final decisions on our forward activity plan and to engage in potential farmout discussions."

The deductions you have made, OilBcNu, do indeed hold water. But, and there is a but, it is far from the only explanation.

Moving on to your views about operational CoS. I can certainly see *why* you may think as you do. In turn I would counter that it is *you* who misunderstands the discovery and appraisal stages of E&P v's the development phase. Let me remind you that it took about 7 years before ARCO's predecessor found O&G at Prudhoe Bay.

I would strongly urge you to wait for hard data before speculating further in public. I'd further remind you that the people leading the operations in the Slope are all Great Bear men. They have now drilled successfully (and safely) 6 wells on the acreage: Alcor, Merak, Alkaid-1, Talitha #A, Theta West-1 and Alkaid-2. In that time they've delineated (and Schlumberger has validated) "a world class petroleum system" with a gargantuan 17.8-23bbo OIP. I also remind you Alkaid-2 is the first multi-stage (29) long lateral on the Slope. IMO PANR management has more than earned shareholders' patience as they feel out the correct way to clean up the well and to produce an IP figure at or above formal guidance of 150bopd per 1000ft of lateral => a forthright and proud statement of PANR's commercialisation.

FWIW, I think the photos and videos of Alkaid-2 are giving us all the clues we require, for now. Also, please do remember that whatever figures are reported for IP, it is important that it meets a certifiable standard of data collection whereby other O&G corporates (and potential farm in partners!!!) take PANR seriously, that PANR's leadership team is taken seriously and that the equity markets can recognise the figure is solid so we may all enjoy the re-rating *I* think is more than warranted. GLA

Ah, I now see how they're going to squeeze Hickory-1 into the schedule. Drill and log Hickory-1 in the 22/23 winter season and then flow test, if warranted, in the 23/24 winter season. Kinda makes sense as 88E will be hoping (praying) for a commercial production flow at Alkaid-2 and hoping (praying) that Alkaid-3 will be targeting/drilling/production testing the SMD so the market grants 88E a readacross.

I reckon there'll have to be a cash raise between now and spud of Hickory-1. Look for opportunistic (and understandable) timing immediately following any news from PANR's Alkaid-2, IMHO.

14:41
Fact check? False.
Jay was not in London, he's in the US. Fact.
A US institutional investor was in London last week and met with UK management and the US-based exec directors Zoomed in.

What's happening today? Best guess is a decent sized shorter has capitulated and is having a big problem covering their short. Also, there's no question the photos and videos of the flare at the Alkaid-2 pad plus the tankers to-ing and fro-ing have delivered a jolt to the market, especially US folk I reckon. GLA

PS Make the shorters hurt, and hurt badly. Their bear raid was under-researched and their conduct has been highly unethical. I'm not selling a single share.

21:02
I've been variously informed each "tanker trip" transports 500 barrels, 400 barrels, 210 barrels and 200 barrels! I would be delighted if one of the O&G experts on this forum would have a look at the Worley tanker in the photos taken at Alkaid-2 and let us know? TIA

22:52, 23:01 and 00:21
I have a couple of questions, as I'm sure, all GLTHs do too.

1) Q3 cash at hand was c.US$10m. Inevitable incoming and highly dilutive cash raise to fill the $10m+ hole needed to fund Hickory-1. I reckon another 4bn shares at 0.4p, something of that order of magnitude. We know that in the past Brom has been able to access 88E fundraises but what about everyone else in this forum? Pity.

No mention of the cost of Hickory-1 in the ANN. Do GLTHs ever take a moment to wonder why the 88E BoD doesn't wish to be transparnet with the company's owners, its shareholders? While we're talking costs, 88E GLTHs haven't yet been told the ***total*** cost of licensing the 3D seismic acquired earlier this year. What is the BoD hiding from shareholders?

2) Spud due "late Feb/early March" from an ice pad & ice road. Hickory-1 is planned to drill to a depth of >12,000 ft, plus prior RNSs guided to a minimum of one flow test? Objectively, that is an exceptionally tight window of time. Fact.

Suggestion? Don't be spiked ***before*** Hickory-1 is fully funded. All mention of a potential farm out has been dropped from recent RNSs/ANNs. Ask yourself who is going to fund the remainder of Hickory-1 if there's no farm in? Hint: Dave Wall's Inyati Capital's client base, brought over from his time as MD of 88E of course.

Oh and another really pertinent question. Does Erik Opstad have any involvement with Fairweather, LLC? Is ELKO bidding for any of the oil services work surrounding Hickory-1? Heavens to Betsy, please tell us that Erik/ELKO aren't going to be project managing the whole drill for the third year in a row?????

18:50
Hi Olderwiser - thanks for the link. I must admit I'm not surprised but this may be the first formal sign of 88E management admitting their timeline could slip for Hickory-1.

I suspect we all know by now that 88E has insufficient cash to fund Hickory-1. I figure there's a $10m hole minimum, fwiw. I suspect we also all know 88E management will be praying for success at Alkaid-2.

If Alkaid-2 is a success, I'd expect 88E to get out on the road raising cash asap. We know from an 88E RNS that hickory-1 will have to be drilled from the ice. Thus, if 88E is to be active operationally this 22/23 winter season, they need to get the cash in the bank asap => cash raise immediately following an RNS by PANR stating that Alkaid-2 is a success. That's all pretty reasonable, agreed?

Let's now look at the scenario where Alkaid-2 is either a failure or needs weeks/months more time to determine success/failure. Firstly I stipulate that the PANR SP will be affected negatively, no issue with that. But for 88E shareholders this will be even more serious IMO.

1) No chance a fund raise happens and 88E is left being inactive in Alaska for another 12 months. AIM E&P punters take their investment elsewhere until the lead up to activity, don't they? I think we have all learned that to our costs!

2) The market either knows or will shortly come to understand that 88E's portion of the shared assets is located largely in less favourable locations, ie. downdip and Dmax (burial depth), increased phasing risk, etc.

3) Ah, but 88E's producing assets in Texas. Aye, ok. But the Texas asset doesn't even cover G&A so that's not going to fund Hickory-1 any time soon.

4) If Alkaid-2 fails, PANR will be active at Talitha #B this winter season, but 88E won't be active.

Tell me again why 88E should trade at any more than 10-15% of PANR's mkt cap on any given day?

#realism

20:56
Spot on Investor1111. And he's the founder of his own investment management firm????? Jeepers.

19:57
Hi SunZoo - please find below a post I wrote on the other place, dated 2/12/22, in response to the news about Mangrove Partners.

"Dear All - new short position declared by Mangrove Partners, submitted 1/12/22 and published by the FCA today. Short position is 0.54% so circa 4.2m shares? [edit, now c.4.8m shares as of 3/12/22]

hTTps://www.mangrovepartners.com/about/strategy

Here's a direct quote from the description of their shorting strategy.

"On the short side, we focus on companies that are executing a flawed business plan or strategy, engaging in fraud, or capitalizing on a fad."

1) "engaging in fraud" - nope.
2) "capitalizing on a fad" - hardly, chasing oil in the North Slope of Alaska.
3) "companies that are executing a flawed business plan" - I hope and trust all shareholders are aware that the key geological issue is whether PANR's reservoirs have sufficient lateral continuity such that the flow of oil to surface can be considered commercial. IMHO there is no way on earth that Muddy Waters or Mangrove Partners nor the likes of the odious Fraser Perring (of Viceroy) can make a definitive call on this outstanding issue. In fact I'm pretty sure not even the individuals who have had access to the dataroom could make such a definitive declaration, be it success or failure. Are the odds in shareholders' favour? I would argue yes, and strongly so.

To be clear, there's nothing dishonourable about being sceptical about the PANR investment case or electing to say that you haven't yet seen sufficient empirical evidence to come to an informed view. That's fine, no worries whatsoever. What is decidedly *not* fine is to make up fantastical tales of a wide spread criminal conspiracy involving the likes of Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, the SoA DNR, eSeis, Lee Keeling *and* the PANR BoD and to then disseminate them in a co-ordinated bear attack in order to deliver a financial gain."

My summary? IMO this is an opportunistic and "follow the leader" type short. There's been no "new news" or compelling new evidence/analysis published by the bears. For goodness sake, look at the gibberish Josh Young of Bison Interests chose to publish on Seeking Alpha today. If that's the best they've got then they deserve to lose an arm and a leg, as well as their jobs! Trust that helps.

Part 3

Pantheon/Great Bear has invested >$300m over a period of 12 years in its goal to discover and delineate this huge accumulation of oil. Included in this investment is an $80m investment in shooting the largest proprietary 3D seismic study in the whole of the North Slope of Alaska.

Pantheon has just finished drilling and stimulating its first production well from a gravel pad, c.300m west of the Dalton Highway. The well encompasses a 5300ft lateral with 30 multi-stage fracks. On November 10th the company informed the stockmarket that fracking sand (NB confirmed by analysis v's reservoir sand) had blocked the well during the initial clean up phase. A coiled tubing unit was employed and recent photographs (dated 3rd/4th December) show a gas flare at site, which suggests the well is no longer blocked and the clean up phase has recommenced.

Pantheon management has issued formal guidance to shareholders which suggests, using industry-accepted modelling, a flow rate of 150bopd per 1000ft of lateral. Thus, 5.3 x 150 = 795bopd from the Alkaid-2 well.

Shareholders are aware of the tight nature of the reservoirs. The major "known unknown" is the degree of lateral continuity present and whether it will be sufficient to deliver commerciality. If, and I repeat if, commerciality is proven then Pantheon will have discovered the second or third largest onshore conventional oilfield in US history. It is that upside risk which commentators such as Josh Young refuse to contemplate, never mind acknowledge. /end

Part 2

I submit that Josh Young's logic is deeply, deeply flawed. Embarrassingly so. As a fund manager in the O&G space, he ought to be well aware of the industry standard E&P valuation model using a risked/unrisked NPV per share. This technique has been used for decades across the globe in order to provide consistent analysis and comparative value assessment of disparate projects seeking to produce what is, after all, a universal commodity. Despite being challenged repeatedly, Josh Young has refused to construct his own risked/unrisked model, nor to debate the models published by the covering broking firms.

Mr Young has, over recent months, waged an emotional and evidence-less campaign against Pantheon Resources across various social media platforms. During that time he has twice alleged nefarious conduct by insiders despite being corrected publicly and informed that the transaction in question was utterly standard for a UK-listed entity and fully in compliance with English law and the London Stock Exchange rules. He has also amplified doxxing attempts on private individuals and has urged his Twitter followers to dig up dirt on Pantheon and its employees. He even went so far as to admonish his followers for their apparent reluctance to do so and wrote not to let X follower "have all the fun" on his own.

Perhaps most bizarrely of all, and without a shred of evidence, Josh Young suggested an equivalence in conduct by the directors of Pantheon Resources and that of the Bre-X directors. Outrageous. Stunningly inappropriate behaviour from a supposed professional investment manager.

Mr Young was approached via Twitter by Mr David Hobbs, a globally acclaimed expert in the O&G sector. Mr Hobbs has co-written numerous papers on the sector with fellow acknowledged expert, Daniel Yergin. Mr Hobbs is a Pantheon shareholder and perhaps uniquely qualified to assess the Pantheon investment case. Mr Young risibly accused Mr Hobbs of threatening him when Mr Hobbs employed a flowery rhetorical allusion which likened Josh Young to Putin and, because I was involved in the Twitter exchange, I was labelled Zelensky!

If any of the readers of Josh Young's article above are genuinely interested in the pros and cons of the Pantheon investment case, I strongly suggest they engage with David Hobbs on Twitter/Discord/ADVFN (UK). His Twitter handle is @Telemachus

A brief summary of the facts of the Pantheon investment case.

No serious commentator is now doubting the declared OIP figure of >23bbo light, sweet crude. The recoverable resource is assessed to be >2.3bbo. The five stacked reservoirs discovered by Pantheon (Great Bear) are located 20 miles south of Deadhorse and are immediately adjacent to the Dalton Highway and TAPS (a crucial factor in the investment case).

17:48

I note Josh Young has published an article today about PANR on Seeking Alpha. I have submitted my response to Josh's latest gibberish and it is being examined by the Seaking Alpha moderators currently. Let's see if it's published?

"Fact check:

(i) The price paid per acre in the recent State of Alaska North Slope lease auction was released by the Dept of Natural Resources. The winning bids submitted by all parties, including Pantheon, were published on the DNR website at 9am on Wednesday, 9th November. Mr Young attempts to imply it was Pantheon's choice to communicate the price paid per acre when in fact parties as distinct as Santos (Oil Search) and Hilcorp saw their winning bids also published at the4 same time on the same website.

(ii) Pantheon operates in a capitalist society. As such it is comical for Mr Young to infer some measure of bias when professional service providers such as AHS Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Lee Keeling & Assoc are rightly paid for their labour. I challenge Mr Young to refer his readers to oil services firms which carry out work for free? Perhaps he doesn't charge his investors a management fee in this utopian workers paradise?! In addition, the State of Alaska Dept of Natural Resources has awarded Pantheon two Production Units at Alkaid and Talitha. Is Mr Young also accusing the Alaskan State regulator of bias? Finally, it should be noted that eSeis (whose two founders are credited with discovering the 1.2bbo reserves Alpine oilfield on the Alaska North Slope) elected to take a 1% ORRI in lieu of a cash payment amounting to $2.7m. NB eSeis will therefore begin to receive royalties only on production. Quite the statement by a professional services firm. One of the eSeis founders, Roger Young (no relation to Josh), is formally on the record stating his assessment that the Pantheon discovery in Alaska will exceed that of his previous major discovery, the 1.2bbo reserves Alpine field. A reminder that Roger Young has spent thousands of hours working on the raw data. At time of writing I am unaware of Josh Young having had access to the dataroom.

Moving on to Josh Young's main argument: the putative readacross to Pantheon's equity value via the sum bid per acre in the recent lease sales held by the State of Alaska. I am delighted to stipulate Josh Young's arithmetic is quite correct, as detailed in his article above.

Let's now apply that identical rationale to valuing Prudhoe Bay, approx 30 miles north of Pantheon's acreage, just up the Dalton Highway. Hilcorp, the operator of Prudhoe Bay, bid on a number of leases adjacent to Prudhoe Bay. The bid price per acre ranged from $28.29 to $34.22. Using the lower figure, Prudhoe Bay's 213,543 acres are thus valued at $6.04m. Yes, I repeat....a mere $6.04m for Prudhoe Bay.

Part 1/

09:50
Fact check. Incorrect.
CTO Bob Rosenthal stated during a webinar in 2021 that PANR had surpassed the evidentiary threshold required to declare geological CoS of 100%. He went on to state his assessment that the commercial CoS was "between 60 and 70%".

Bear in mind this assessment was given *before* the successful 21/22 winter drilling programme which saw multiple intersections with light oil reservoirs and confirmed a 1000ft thick interval (Basin Floor Fan) of at least 10.5 miles in length (between Theta West-1 and Talitha #A).

*88E cash at hand now 12k ft, complete at least one flow test, all from the ice. Budget? $20m? Cash <$10m. Cash raise incoming.....4 billion new shares at 0.4p?