Member Info for Scot126

08:04

Ganderee: Cash balance + capital no longer required for the remaining flow tests at Megrez-1 means that Dubhe-1 will be happening this summer. No need for any cash raise!

Don't forget to ask the likes of Abacus1 where you can read his historical warning post about Ahpun East being oil wet. Hint - he will ignore the question because he wrote no such post.

That's a great shame. It's worth noting that oil wet reservoirs after extended production of liquids can end up being terrific oilfields. Unfortunately the absence of permanent surface facilities at the location means that future production testing will be somewhere off in the future for PANR.

We should all expect to see the likes of Abacus1 trying to undermine management capability/integrity throughout today. It's what they do. Please remember to challenge them directly to provide the time and date when they posted on this forum their pre-drill or pre-flow test analysis which, without access to any data, suggested to them that Ahpun East was an oil wet column. Challenge them every single time they seek to undermine the company's integrity or professionalism.

Let me tell you the honest answer. Not one poster, not one shorter, not one bear of the company posted the following in advance of the drill or flow tests: "Attention all PANR shareholders. Despite not possessing any of the seismic or logging data, my analysis is conclusive that the entire 1300ft oil column at Ahpun East is oil wet. PANR can't properly slow test Megrez because it lacks the facilities on the surface to do so."

Ok, what next. Think on this. At the current SP, each PANR recoverable barrel in the ground is valued at approx 20-25c, leaving the natural gas and helium as free bonuses. Once again, the market is imputing a lower than 10% CoS of PANR developing its asset base. All the gasline stakeholders who have relied on PANR's data to support the phased approach to the LNG project must be wrong if the current SP is correctly valuing PANR's assets.

The shorters will say PANR management are lying to you, or misrepresenting the facts about the 2C 1.6bbo and 6.6Tcf of gas at Kodiak and Ahpun West. Challenge them directly again. Ask them who else is lying if they are correct? The State of Alaska Dept of Natural Resources? Netherland Sewell? Ryder Scott? Glenfarne? Wood Mackenzie? Lee Keeling? Schlumberger? The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation? Are they all lying as part of some massive conspiracy?

Of course not. The independently assessed 1.6 billion barrels of saleable liquids and 6.6Tcf of natural gas are still there at Kodiak and Ahpun West. The Dubhe-1 well is to begin operations this summer. PANR has the cash required to drill the Dubhe-1 well. It's not what shareholders wanted but cash will not have been directed towards all six intended flow tests at Megrez so PANR has the cash required.

Oh, and ask any bears what value they place on PANR's independently verified 1.6bbo? If they say anything less than 20-25c per barrel in the ground ask them why?

No, Abacus1, in the webinar they said they'd inform the market when the tracking equipment arrived at the pad.

Quit the misinformation.

18:52

Abacus1 - Dubhe-1 has got nothing to do with "saving face". Its *sole* purpose will be prove PANR's capacity to deliver the low CO2, non-corrosive natural gas on which Phase 1 of the Alaska LNG project depends utterly. Dubhe-1 is no PR exercise. Litterally billions of dollars of investment (c.$11bn) is waiting to be applied to Phase 1 of the project. Without PANR's low CO2 gas, not only will the construction of the gasline be delayed but the gas treatment plant on the North Slope will *have* to be constructed before Exxon/Conoco/Hilcorp/Santos/Repsol gas is transported by the gasline southwards. Without PANR's low CO2 gas, the whole phased approach of the project will likely collapse *and* the SoA will have to commit to importing LNG forever, or for 5-10 years at a minimum.

Nope, Dubhe-1 will *not* be a distraction or PR exercise. The exact opposite is the case. I suggest you listen/re-listen to PANR's last couple of webinars and view their slide decks in order to ensure you realise the true implications of Dubhe-1.

18:55

Rabble-rousing nonsense. Abacus-1 - do you know how many fracking units are available on the North Slope? The answer is one. If you are that single fracking unit and Conoco/Hilcorp/Exxon are requesting your kit + crew, where do you think PANR comes in their list of important customers? I'll tell you. Dead last. Combine that with the fact the majors will be able to pay "get me to the front of the queue" day rates v's parsimonius PANR and you have all the explanation a rational investor requires.

What would you have PANR management do? Transport a fracking unit to Washington State, barge it up to Anchorage and drive up to Megrez-1? Oh, and pay for the return journey too? Ridiculous.

I've read your recent posts on PANR. If you're a trader (seems that way) then knock yourself out and good luck to you. But don't expect a response-free forum when you post drivel about timelines when management has described ***exactly*** the environment in which they find themselves when seeking to nail down the single fracking unit on the North Slope. Keep posting your alarmist nonsense and expect to read responses of an increasingly scornful nature.

Words like "disaster" and "COMPLETE" are dramatic nonsense, belying a profound misunderstanding of the North Slope of Alaska. To the rest of the forum, Abacus1 either does not understand or is deliberately seeking to misinform the forum about the clearly caveated and conditional language used by management to explain the logistics of the North Slope. I would far, far, far rather wait for the correct kit to become available and to correctly flow test a zone which has never been intersected in hundreds of millions of years than work to the timetable of rabble rousing traders looking for volatility.

17:58

Easy there, LordOfMud! One of the key benefits of PANR's acreage is that operations can be carried out within the disturbed corridor on each side of the Dalton pretty much all year round. Yes, you have correctly noted the schedule of operations submitted to the SoA DNR but these dates are advisory only. With the permission of the regulator, the dates are easily amended. PANR and other Alaskan operators frequently depart from the timetable as initially outlined in the permitting process.

Let's all be crystal clear on the following. If the SoA and Glenfarne are to get anywhere close to delivering Phase 1 of the Alaska LNG project, being the gasline, then PANR will be required to drill and LTPT a well which will prove conclusively PANR's ability to deliver the crucial non-corrosive, low CO2 natural gas on which Phase 1 depends entirely.

Don't know about you, LordOfMud, but before PANR commits shareholder funds to the Dubhe-1 well I want Bob's technical team to have analysed *every single piece of data* recovered from *all* of the flow tests at Megrez-1. If that means we have to be patient for a couple of months then that's fine by me. We know from the application that PANR has three locations/well designs in mind for the Dubhe-1 well. The application expressly informs the regulator (and us) that the final selection will *depend* on the analysis of the results from Megrez-1.

Capital is far too precious to be slapdash in selecting the location and design of the next well. All eyes will be on PANR's proof of deliverability of low CO2 natural gas, from the likes of the SoA, Glenfarne, Asian governments and utilities, the Alaskan utilities, the Alaskan legislature, the White House (yes, seriously), the Depts of Interior/Energy/EPA, the financial backers of the gasline and LNG export project, and likely many more.

I most definitely *do not wish* PANR to get moving on Dubhe-1, and committing capital, before they've made a clear-eyed and fully infoirmed decision on the location/well design having comprehensively analysed *all* the data from Megrez-1.

I'd urge forum members to chill on Dubhe-1 and to accept that Megrez-1 and the flow test data rightly remains the focus for the company for the next couple of months or so.

Another extremely supportive article about the Alaska LNG project written by the vice-chair of the AGDC *and* former boss of BP Alaska. Janet Weiss was the most sceptical of the AGDC board members about PANR's capacity to deliver natural gas to the pipeline. Very much sounds like the due diligence undertaken by WoodMac and Ryder Scott have been sufficient to allay her concerns. Good stuff.

hTTps://mustreadalaska.com/janet-weiss-alaskas-lng-moment-powering-the-railbelt-fueling-the-world/

12/5/25 @ 09:52

To the 8 folk who ticked up Ddraig's post, Ddraig was trying to defend his online reputation by lying.

He stated the following: "CLN is more often the term for Credit Linked Notes in primary markets where you may have been referring as Convertible Linked Notes."

No, CLN is not "more often the term for Credit Linked Notes" in the *secondary* markets to which PAS14 was clearly referring in his original question to this forum. The acronym does indeed have a dual meaning, convertible loan note and credit linked notes, but Ddraig either didn't know this when he replied @ 06:42 on 12/5/25 or he didn't understand the context of PAS14's question. Instead of simply posting, "Yikes, sorry about that, folks! Thanks to scot126 for correcting my misunderstanding," Ddraig attempted to hide his embarrassment by going on the offensive and lying to defend his initial post.

Why bother? He and I could walk past each other on the street and not be the wiser. Yet his anonymous digital avatar is more important to his ego than seeking oout the truth, or the correct acronym in this example. He adopted the same loose association with empirical data, corporate finance and financial modelling for years over on the 88E forum and look where that got him. By all means feel free to swallow everything he posts, but please be aware of his approach to bulletin boards. He'd rather have his online avatar's ego stroked v's earnestly seeking the facts about everything to do with the investment case of the stock in question. Pathetic and unhelpful if you ask me, but there you have it.

Do also take note of Ddraig's consistent fallback whenever he's corrected on a question of *fact*. He lashes out. Many on this forum will recall when he urged a poster on another forum with whom he disagreed to go grab a rope in order to end himself. His other unacceptable and highly inappropriate "go to" insult is to refer to another poster's mental health and/or mental faculties. For example, "...but like a mentally challenged child we give him room to grow."

Just a heads up for any folks new to this forum.

06:42

Ddraig. - I thought you knew more about accountancy than all the accountants you've ever hired for your business??? Lolololololol.

For other forum members: for all intents and purposes, CLN = CB, so PAS14's question is perfectly fair.

PAS14 - the presence of a CLN on a small cap's balance sheet is rarely a massive positive!! If you can raise fresh equity capital at a reasonable price then that's nearly always preferable IMO. Failing that, and exhausting most/all other options, be aware that the CLN will almost certainly exacerbate the downside reaction to poor operational news or even lack of tangible progress from the listed company. Downside SP reactions to "bad news" will likely be more intense and long-lasting than if the instrument was not on the balance sheet.

Best avoided if at all possible....but if the alternative is going into a long term hiatus or slow but inevitable decline, then it could be the best (only?) choice? Best of luck with your investment.

Yes, I note the following: "Ex-Date and Restoration of Dealings in the DIs, now representing Consolidated Shares, on AIM on Existing ISIN. 13/5/25"

Obviously I know what an "ex-date" is during corporate actions but why describe or permit trading on a "post-consolidation basis" on the 8th of May?

Lol, would today's buyer or seller of 15m shares show themselves to help me understand the nature of your decision to trade today? Tax loss or have I got myself in a muddle?! {I'd bet on the muddle :) ]

Delighted, repeat 100% delighted, to be corrected and educated but is there a possibility the buyer of 15m shares @ 0.007p today, investing £10,500, has bought the shares ***post 1:25 consolidation***??????

"Post-Consolidation trading commences on a deferred settlement basis. 8/5/25"

If, and I repeat "if" a thousand times, I am reading the latest RNSs correctly then someone's just "made" >£200k??????? And someone has lost a bundle. :(

Standing ready to be educated on what I must surely have missed or misunderstood in the recent company communications? Anyone?

HTTps://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-trumps-alaska-pipeline-could-fuel-americas-energy-needs-his-legacy

00:27

Now let me think, do I believe in the unsourced gibberish spewed by KimJongPutin or do I rely on the centuries of experiences contained within external organisations which have independently ceetified PANR's O&G resource in Alaska.

KimJongPutin v's Netherland Sewell, WoodMack, Lee Keeling & Assoc, State of Alaska Deptartment of Natural Resources, IHS Markit, Cawley Gillespie & Assoc, AHS Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, Glenfarne, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, etc, etc.

Tricky one, but I'm going with the 1.6bbo of independently certified contingent resources plus 6.6Tcf of low CO2 natural gas before Megrez even got started rather than pay a millisecond of attention to KinJungPutin, an internet troll.

Thanks for coming. As Billy Batts would say, "Now go home and get your f^^^ing shinebox."

21:29

SeaHawk - you're thinking emotionally, not rationally. When you've committed, what, $20m+ to a drill + multi-horizon flow test operation, why would you not spend, I dunno, $1m and two weeks of time to flow test a zone no-one has ever intersected before to collect valuable data? C'mon, be sensible please.

18:24

Sorry, abacus1, I've got a little bit more to add.

1) You write, "They [management] know that the next results are make or break...." Unsourced and nonsensical drivel. Bears no attachment to reality.

2) You wrote, "...and I assure you the market makers are more informed than a retail investor with a few thousand in shares." I had a good hearty laugh at this statment. I sat beside market makers for 20 years. I'd be amazed, like 'knock me down with a feather' amazed, if more than one of them could point to Deadhorse on a map. Market makers respond to volume and the intensity of the orders coming in. They'll occasionally listen to an analyst/salesperson but there are only a couple who follow PANR properly. That one statement of yours alone now leads me to judge the unseriousness of your utterences.

3) My purchase price for my shareholding would make you blush. Be sure not to include me in your fantasies about posters on this forum possessing a 65p average in price.

18:24

Abacus1 - so, if Megrez fails in the remaining 5 flow tests, the gasline is never built, and using the closest regional comparable transaction, you assess the probability of PANR succeeding in developing its asset is between 5.2% - 8.7% .

Cool. Thanks for your answer. I think you're wrong. Let's see what transpires. Hopefully you'll be aware i'm an investor rather than a trader so I'll be delighted for you to judge my investment performance in this stock when I sell up. I promise to let you know when I have sold out.

19:21

Hi Abacus1 - let's examine your maximum downside scenario. None of the 5 remaining intervalsat Megrez-1 flows oil and the gas pipeline never gets built. What value per barrel in the ground do you assign to PANR's 1.6bbo of independently certified contingent resources, recalling that PANR's absolute breakeven is an impressive $25 POO?

I'm sure the forum looks forward to your considered response.

18:19

Really? I hadn't noticed?!

11.39

Very quick fact check, Tonynorstrum1. There are 5 more intervals to be tested at Megrez-1, not 6.

09:52

Hi JohnHenry - I just finished listening to it. So everyone else knows, it was very much "An Introduction to Pantheon Resources" rather than an explanation of the TS1 result and why the company now has increased confidence in the five shallower intervals.

I disagree with your view that the interview poor. As an intro to PANR I reckon it was pretty good.

I learned something new which I was very happy about. I learned from Max that a $35 oil price delivers a 20% return for the operator of the asset. I also learned that the absolute breakeven price for PANR's asset is $25.

IMO, I do not think the O&G industry nor the equity markets have any comprehension of the size and quality of. PANR's asset. Time to wake them and up!

11:08

chrisev1 - I don't think divesting of Longhorn would "save" any money, per se. Here are the questions to ask management IMHO.

(1) The Longhorn partnership arranged a US$5m debt facility with a regional bank. How much cash was drawn down from this facility, if any? If an amount was drawn down by the Longhorn partnership, what is 88E's share of the debt?

(2) In absolute terms, what has 88E invested in Longhorn from acquisition, including 88E's share of investments in workovers + new wells?

(3) In absolute terms, what dividends has 88E received from Longhorn net of any fees paid to the operating partners for leases, operator expenses and operator margin/agreed profit?

(4) Add (1) and (2), then deduct (3) and that's 88E's total sum directed at Longhorn.

(5) Whatever amount is offered for 88E's share of Longhorn when it's put up for sale (that's what they're looking at now having read the latest quarterly report) is deducted from the answer to (4).

I'll provide you with my best guesstimate of the net loss over the duration of the Longhorn experiment but you're best having a go at the calculation yourself first. Perhaps contact the company directly with precise questions, such as the ones above?

We know the company does not have sufficient cash to pay Stage 2 of the Namibian farm in deal. *If* 88E was able to sell its share of Longhorn for, say, US$5m then I can see why the BoD would wish to do so. Facing facts, 88E is so underwatrer with 99.9% of its investors that it's got to go for moonshots if its equity is to increase in value to anything nearing a respectable level. Leonis and Namibia certainly qualify as moonshots. Longhorn and Phoenix just don't offer the moonshot upside necessary for 88E's future, IMHO.

IMHO, Leonis and Namibia are the two final rolls of the dice for 88E shareholders. There's probably little, if any, appetite for further cash raises, agreed? Therefore, as Brom suggests, selling Longhorn to generate sufficient capital so that the Stage 2 payment can be made to the Namibian partners *and* in order to keep the company going until some sort of news emerges from either Namibia or Leonis is likely the only play management has left.