Member Info for Scot126

Tue 16:55
Hiya Brom - quite the change of heart, eh? There was a time, even *after* Dave Wall formally confirmed 88E and PANR shared an asset, when it was verboten to mention the name (or ticker) of Pantheon on this forum. How times change!

To answer your question directly, I have no link to PB whatsoever. I never met him, never communicated with him and had never heard of Alkaid/Merak/Alcor/Icewine prior to H2 '18, which is after PB passed away. And as you know very well, not once have I suggested I see "no value" in 88E. Rather, my fundamental approach encompassing comparative analysis means that establishing the *facts* of the two investment cases is necessary for true price discovery.

The enormous mkt cap anomalies which occasionally existed between the two companies have benefited massively 88E management and traders, all at the expense of medium to long term shareholders. 88E shareholders ought to ask themselves if it was all worth it. They've helped make DW and Erik Opstad very wealthy men but there are now 16.6 billion shares on issue and dilution via a farm out or cash raise is heading their way. I contend 88E shareholders have been ill-served by its BoD and management in Alaska.

Ok, back to those facts => more transparent investment case => speedier and more accurate price discovery.

1) What is the ***full*** payment to SAE for the 3D seismic data? 88E shareholders will have noted the $1m payment in shares in the initial RNS but, as described, that was only a part payment. The Q2 financial report confirmed a *further cash payment of $2m* to SAE, the seismic data provider. Is the cash license fee $2m a month, $2m a quarter, $2m every 6 months, $2m per annum or what? Bear in mind PANR/GB invested $80m in shooting 3D seismic, resulting in the largest 3D seismic package in Alaska. Surely c.$3m to license the data from SAE seems, on the face of it, an incredibly low price to pay? Also note the language: "Upfront license fee ***includes***, as ***part*** of the ***initial*** payment, US$1.0M in new 88E shares."

Or are 88E shareholders not permitted to know the full payment terms? Seems odd, doesn't it? The way the full facts of the licensing cost are dripped out over multiple announcements? Hmmm. Any ORRI attached to the license payments? Is Erik Opstad or associates or family a party/parties to this transaction?

2) I note from the Q2 report not all bills have been paid by 88E for Merlin-2. I think Merlin-1 cost c.A$39m? What will the final tally be for Merlin-2? How does the cost of Merlin-2 compare with Merlin-1? And in case there's any mix up or misunderstanding, I'm talking the *total* cost of each drill which *includes* the cost to construct and maintain the snow roads. Of the circa US$55-60m cost of Merlin-1 & Merlin-2, what percentage or absolute amount was paid in cash to ELKO or any other company where the Opstad family has a financial interest? What is the total of all share-based payments to ELKO/Opstad family?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Gn5kpnT9rqM

16:52
Hi Brom -

1) What is the full cost to 88E to license the 3D seismic data from SAE. Not "initial payment", not "part payable in shares", not "as part of", not "[only] upfront fee".....the actual full cost in $s and shares (and ORRI)?

We know PANR/GB spent c.$80m shooting 3D seismic to establish the largest sub-surface seismic study anywhere in Alaska. We also know that in so doing it has permitted PANR to be, quite literally, years ahead in its journey towards full field development v's 88E. It also facilitated PANR's decision to give up some acreage which was subsequently bought by 88E.....and vice versa facilitated PANR's decision to buy some blocks released by 88E close to Theta West.

Seems there's been a late acceptance by 88E management as to the value of 3D data, agreed? Which is why it puzzles me that the 88E BoD has refused, thus far, to inform its shareholders of the full cost of licensing the 3D data from SAE? I think we all now agree there's huge value in possessing the data - PANR has proved this repeatedly. But the data comes at a cost, and 88E are suspiciously shy to share the full cost with shareholders?

I wonder if it's because, as of the Q2 report, the company only has US$7m on the b/s? A few final bills to pay for Merlin-2, some G&A, lease fees, some Longhorn income.....perhaps publishing the full cost of the 3D seismic data would alert the market to the requirement to raise cash for working capital purposes, perhaps in the very near future?

I'm struggling to come up with any other explanation?

17:30
Brom helpfully informs the forum that, "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, some here will tell you that it is but always a risk hence why some fear to tread."

Not unreasonable from the forum's most prolific poster (>26,250 posts!!!!) but maybe there's a more obvious explanation. Shareholders have worked out that the company is going to need cash pretty soon and they're selling with a view to taking part in any such cash raise. Or they're sitting on their hands until the company is fully funded?

Overlying all of the above, there's the obvious explanation that the "trader" or short term money has left 88E and headed over to PANR because of PANR's current activity at Alkaid-2 v's waiting 10 months for 88E to be drilling again.

Thoughts, Brom?

11:33
Hiya Brom - your admission and correction are noted with thanks. I hope this finally puts to bed the errant nonsense repeated regularly on this forum that Brom doesn't read my posts?! Lol.

While we have Brom's full attention plus willingness to engage constructively, let's see if he engages on other ***factual*** matters?

1) What is the ***full*** payment to SAE for the 3D seismic data? 88E shareholders will have noted the $1m payment in shares in the initial RNS but, as described, that was only a part payment. The Q2 financial report confirmed a *further cash payment of $2m* to SAE, the seismic data provider. Is the cash license fee $2m a month, $2m a quarter, $2m every 6 months, $2m per annum or what? Bear in mind PANR/GB invested $80m in shooting 3D seismic, resulting in the largest 3D seismic package in Alaska. Brom - surely c.$3m to license the data from SAE seems, on the face of it, an incredibly low price to pay? Also note the language: "Upfront license fee ***includes***, as ***part*** of the ***initial*** payment, US$1.0M in new 88E shares.

Or are 88E shareholders not permitted to know the full payment terms? Seems odd, doesn't it? The way the full facts of the licensing cost is dripped out over multiple announcements? Hmmm. Any ORRI attached to the license payments? Is Erik Opstad or associates or family a party/parties to this transaction?

2) I note from the Q2 report that not all bills have been paid by 88E for Merlin-2. I think Merlin-2 cost c.A$39m. What will the final tally be please? How does the cost of Merlin-2 compare with Merlin-1? And in case there's any mix up or misunderstanding, I'm talking the *total* cost of each drill which *includes* the cost to construct and maintain the snow roads. Of the circa US$55-60m cost of Merlin-1 & Merlin-2, what percentage or absolute amount was paid in cash to ELKO or any other company where the Opstad family has a financial interest? Please also confirm all share-based payments to ELKO/Opstad family businesses over the last 2 years.

3) Has the 88E BoD instructed their lawyers to release the funds from the ELKO share sales in 2022? If so, when were the shares sold, at what price and what was the total sum realised? Please confirm that ELKO did indeed sell all of the shares allotted to them for the 2022 season, just as they did in 2021? Why is the 88E BoD not being transparent with its shareholders? What are they hiding?

4) Is 88E management gilding the lily when describing to 88E shareholders their hope that the common reservoirs will possess even better characteristics south of the border than in PANR's acreage.....especially when DMAX calculations appear to have been completely ignored by 88E? Do you have any concerns that 88E management are misrepresenting the relative properties of the acreage north and south of the boundary line between PANR and 88E?

23:22
Hi CEObaib - can you please refer me to the PANR management and/or consultants who have worked on the Liberty project? Perhaps you're referring to the two founders of eSeis, PANR's seismic partner, who are credited with the discovery of the 1.2bbo reserves Alpine oilfield?

FWIW I agree with you on the interview. Hearing Jay and Bob confirm during the Proactive interview the perm and porosity at Alkaid-2 was better than anticipated was an exceptionally positive piece of news. Very much looking forward to further news from PANR in the coming days and weeks.

11:30
Hi Brom - factually incorrect. At no point has PANR management ever guided that the vertical component of Alkaid-2 was due to penetrate the HRZ shale. You're always anxious to portray yourself as a good citizen of this here forum so I have every confidence you will withdraw your assertion.

The intention was to drill below the depth at which the 2015 Alkaid-1 well ceased due to an emergency weather-related incident. Since 2019, PANR's Technical Director, Bob Rosenthal, has posited the theory that the thickness of the reservoir at Alkaid "was the same again" as measured at Alkaid-1. Once again, Bob Rosenthal has been proven correct. this material extension to the thickness of the reservoirs at Alkaid also highlight the vital importance of investing c.$80m in shooting 3D seismic over PANR's acreage.

The plan was to drill below the 2015 TD, aiming to hit o/w contact. As we all read from the RNS, the regulator instructed PANR to cease drilling before the o/w contact, leaving plenty of rock between TD and the HRZ.

Where Brom is correct is that the lateral component of Alkaid-2 is the primary goal for the drill. So whilst PANR management would *probably* have liked to go another 100ft or so deeper (to add further to the incoming volumetric upgrade to the Alkaid Deep resource figure) they can always re-examine the situation in later wells as the Alkaid Unit is developed commercially.

Please see below a post by Telemachus, an O&G veteran who IMO knows more about PANR than anyone outside of company management.

"The casing program and Blow Out Preventer (BOP) Stack were designed for normal pressures down to the top of the HRZ. The design has to accommodate the maximum pressure brought back up to the surface (using a gas gradient) so Pantheon chose not to drill into the overpressured zone (and knew before they spudded). If there was a risk of running into a fault that might communicate pressures through the HRZ, then neither Pantheon nor the regulator would want to take the risk of exceeding the certified working pressure of the BOP.

This is not a big deal nor a surprise to Pantheon and we should be pleased that we have deepened the Lowest Known Oil (LKO) and can now extend the area under closure down to this level, which dramatically increases the contingent resource in Alkaid.

Now we just need to show good initial flow rates and sensible decline rates to support 1-2 Mbo recoveries per well and we are off to the races. This well result reconfirms my view that we have a >80% chance of pulling this off."

Hey Ddraig - can't make up your mind, eh? For months you've been poo-pooing the HRZ and now it's golden?! Lol, you're surrounded by posters who know much, much more about the asset and yet you're so far in the hole on this one you prefer to accuse them of mental illness v's engage on the fundamentals. Pitiful.

14:45
Hiya Brom - have a listen to the Proactive interview. Perm and porosity are both mentioned specifically. Sounds good, eh?

Any luck getting answers from 88E management to the factual questions I posed a week or so ago? Odd that you've got time to comment on PANR's permeability when you appear disinterested in the financing, geology and corporate governance of 88E? Huh.

Please find below a tidied up, ya know, summary of, ya know, some of the key quotes from the Proactive interview.

JC: Geologic modelling: “we were within a few feet of our pre-drill geologic estimates. We were on prognosis and in terms of our reservoir predictions, the reservoir quality both from a permeability and porosity standpoint is better in all three [reservoirs]: Shelf Margin Deltaic (SMD), Alkaid anomaly, Alkaid Deep…and also thicker [gross pay] than our pre-drill estimates.”

“We couldn’t be happier with the outcome of this well.”

BR: “….we’re expecting to have a significant resource upgrade to the Alkaid anomaly and to the SMD. We have seen better reservoir quality than our pre-drill estimates across all the intervals.”

“We see the SMD extends to the east of the Dalton Highway. We expect major resource upgrades. This is a big impact for the whole portfolio.”

JC: “We anticipate a winter programme also. We’ll make a determination after we see the results from the Long Term Production Test at Alkaid-2.”

Excellent interview, you know!

Transcript on way but main points:
1) geologic model now accurate to "within a few feet".
2) perm and porosity better in all three reservoirs
3) expecting "significant resource upgrade to the Alkaid anomaly and SMD"

"couldn't be happier with the outcome of this well"

I added to my holding once I heard Jay and Bob confirm perm and porosity improvements v's expectations fwiw.

repeat of post timed at 9:03, should be easier to read?

First reaction from Canaccord, dated 29/7/22.

PANR-AIM | Price 102p | Market Cap £783.2M
SPECULATIVE BUY Unchanged
PRICE TARGET 300p Unchanged

Canaccord Genuity view

Pantheon's summer operational programme on its 100%-held projects on the Alaska North Slope (ANS) has got off to a very upbeat start. The Alkaid #2 pilot hole has delivered positive results across all three of its target zones, the Shelf Margin Deltaic (SMD), the Alkaid anomaly (previously tested in Alkaid #1) and the Deep Alkaid potential (not fully penetrated in Alkaid #1).

There's still a wealth of data to evaluate - logging, sidewall cores, and volatiles sample analysis - but several important positive observations can be made already.

1. Multiple oil-bearing reservoirs, >1,400ft gross thickness across all three target formations. Clearly very encouraging with better/thicker reservoir than pre-drill expectations. Confirmation that: the SMD extends from Talitha #1 that lies to the SW; the Alkaid anomaly found at Alkaid #1 c.4 miles away is present more regionally; hydrocarbons are present below deepest interval drilled in Alkaid #1.

2. Confirmation of Pantheon's interpretation. The company's technical analysis - integration of the wells drilled so far with the 3D seismic data, informed by regional geological understanding - is robust and reliable in terms of subsurface evaluation.

3. Initial data analysis suggests a further uplift in oil resource volumetrics. First look interpretation of the extensive Alkaid #2 well information indicates improved reservoir parameters and additional reservoir intervals that may lead to a substantial bump in oil volume estimates.

Put simply, and in combination with previous wells at Talitha and Theta West, the company's acreage is awash with subsurface oil. The next and most important stage is the drilling of the horizontal well section in Alkaid #2 and its long-term testing to operationally demonstrate commercial potential.

Alkaid #2 pilot hole results:

The slightly deviated pilot hole reached total vertical depth (TVD) at 8,584ft (8,950ft measured depth, MD).

Multiple oil bearing reservoirs were found in all three target zones in the well.

The company believes those oil bearing reservoirs extend below TD, but the well was terminated above an anticipated high pressure zone.

Better than pre-drill expected porosities/thicknesses across the reservoirs suggest resource upgrades in due course.

continued from below.

Alkaid #2 next steps:

Pantheon will now sidetrack the well, drilling a horizontal section through the Alkaid anomaly. That is expected to be several thousand feet in length, but shorter than potential full development horizontal sections of c.8,000ft.

The reservoir will be cased, stimulated, and put on long-term test, with oil trucked for input to the TAP and sold.

We would not expect drilling results before end August ahead of testing starting in October. The company currently models 150 bopd/'000ft horizontal in Alkaid.

Valuation, target price and rating:

We leave our SPECULATIVE BUY rating 300p target price unchanged. Our TP is based on a highly risked evaluation of the market value of the >2 billion recoverable oil potential that Pantheon has already identified, and we leave that unchanged given the still early stage in Alkaid #2 data assessment and the wider resource commercial evaluation. Nevertheless, we see the Alkaid #2 pilot hole result as an important step in derisking the various reservoirs and helpful in terms of market trajectory ahead of the well testing. /end

First reaction from Canaccord, dated 29/7/22.PANR-AIM | Price 102p | Market Cap £783.2MSPECULATIVE BUY UnchangedPRICE TARGET 300p UnchangedCanaccord Genuity viewPantheon's summer operational programme on its 100%-held projects on the Alaska North Slope (ANS) has got off to a very upbeat start. The Alkaid #2 pilot hole has delivered positive results across all three of its target zones, the Shelf Margin Deltaic (SMD), the Alkaid anomaly (previously tested in Alkaid #1) and the Deep Alkaid potential (not fully penetrated in Alkaid #1).There's still a wealth of data to evaluate - logging, sidewall cores, and volatiles sample analysis - but several important positive observations can be made already.1. Multiple oil-bearing reservoirs, >1,400ft gross thickness across all three target formations. Clearly very encouraging with better/thicker reservoir than pre-drill expectations. Confirmation that: the SMD extends from Talitha #1 that lies to the SW; the Alkaid anomaly found at Alkaid #1 c.4 miles away is present more regionally; hydrocarbons are present below deepest interval drilled in Alkaid #1.2. Confirmation of Pantheon's interpretation. The company's technical analysis - integration of the wells drilled so far with the 3D seismic data, informed by regional geological understanding - is robust and reliable in terms of subsurface evaluation.3. Initial data analysis suggests a further uplift in oil resource volumetrics. First look interpretation of the extensive Alkaid #2 well information indicates improved reservoir parameters and additional reservoir intervals that may lead to a substantial bump in oil volume estimates.Put simply, and in combination with previous wells at Talitha and Theta West, the company's acreage is awash with subsurface oil. The next and most important stage is the drilling of the horizontal well section in Alkaid #2 and its long-term testing to operationally demonstrate commercial potential.Alkaid #2 pilot hole results:The slightly deviated pilot hole reached total vertical depth (TVD) at 8,584ft (8,950ft measured depth, MD).Multiple oil bearing reservoirs were found in all three target zones in the well.The company believes those oil bearing reservoirs extend below TD, but the well was terminated above an anticipated high pressure zone.Better than pre-drill expected porosities/thicknesses across the reservoirs suggest resource upgrades in due course./1 more to follow above

First comment from WH Ireland, dated 29/7/22.

Pantheon Resources (PANR) – Corporate – Alkaid #2 Significant Operational Update
Market Cap £786.1m Share Price 102.4p

Pantheon Resources announced that the Alkaid #2 well reached a total depth of 8,950 feet (MD). Most importantly the company indicated that:

The well penetrated 272 feet of oil bearing reservoir in the Shelf-Margin Deltaic-B structure – thicker than expected – and the reservoir quality was better than expected, according to the company.

The well penetrated 155 feet of net Alkaid oil bearing reservoir – thicker than expected – and the reservoir quality was better than expected, according to the company. The company indicated that detailed analysis of the logs/cuttings are underway to help optimise the forthcoming horizontal and fracked completion in this zone.

The well penetrated 300 feet of oil bearing reservoir within the Alkaid formation, beneath the main Alkaid reservoir. Reservoir quality was better than expected, according to the company. Drilling operations were stopped due to the regulator’s (Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission’s) concern about penetrating the high pressure HRZ zone; as such, the company indicated that as much as 200 feet of additional vertical oil bearing column may exist beneath the well’s total depth.

WHI View: The result is rich in data and will take time to fully assess. However, from a preliminary perspective, Alkaid, is going to grow from being a “baby elephant” into a larger scale elephant – the natural outcome of increased volume and reservoir quality. For reference, the pre-drill recoverable oil estimate for Alkaid was 76.6 million barrels of oil (based on the third party analysis of Lee Keeling and associates). Our pre-drill success case for the Alkaid was valued at $605 million of which we had included 25% or 14.2p in our 208p fair value estimate – with the bulk of our fair value estimate premised on Theta West – the giant elephant.

The news in material and significantly positive. More analysis will be required before the scale of the upgrades resulting from the well can be quantified.

Dear All - wooshka! This news is as good as we could have wished for from the vertical component of Alkaid-2.

1) Upgrade in scale incoming.
2) Upgrade in quality incoming.
3) Continuing and increasing confidence that PANR's sub-surface modelling is accurate. Only upside "surprises" to pre-drill expectations points to robust models *and* further evidence of PANR management being *intentionally* conservative in overall disposition.

Stock goes up.

Canaccord research to follow.

20:07
Not convinced Warren Buffett would agree with you that "the whole stockmarket is a punt", Ecuagold.

21:04
Keepin' it classy I see, MW93. As I keep repeating, for the fundamental investor the minute Dave Wall formally confirmed 88E and PANR shared a common asset, it became an intellectual obligation to carry out comparative analysis of the two companies. Proof for that assertion comes with the *fact* I posted about 88E once in the 4 or 5 years ***prior*** to Dave Wall's confirmation about the shared asset. That you don't like the results from my rigorous analysis is a pity, but your reaction does not invalidate the analysis. I've been spot on thus far, and the vast majority of you know it.

18:57
Incorrect, chrisev1. The geological data, as currently published and understood are *facts*. The finances, as currently published and understood, are *facts*. That you are uninterested in the consequences of those *facts* is a chrisev1 problem, not an equity market problem.

Why keep up this pretence? just admit your 88E strategy is to have a punt, relying on another US OTC social media inspired hype-athon? Go on, tell the truth.

06:38
chrisev1 - I'm scared to ask this question on this forum again but here goes. You have £1000 to invest and must invest in either Company A or Company B, ok? Company A has 1000 shares priced at £1000 per share. Company B has 1 million shares priced at £1 per share. Which company's share(s) would you buy and why?

Whilst we wait for chrisev1's answer, a reminder to all other readers of this forum that market cap or enterprise value are the only true *immediate* representations of a company's market value. Without the context of shares on issue, the SP data alone is meaningless. Fact.

06:53
Nope, I don't accept your rationale here. A couple of OTC inspired spikes where convicted fraudster AlexDelarge and simple-minded ingenues like Katie from NJ et al. got the GameStop pandemic WFH cult all geed up does not count. Have you read the tweets from distraught "punters" who believed the hype and who lost tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars by investing in 88E?

I 100% accept the *average* profile of investors involved with the two companies, the two owners of the shared asset are dramatically different. PANR's average shareholder is mostly focussed on the fundamentals, is more experienced in the equity markets, more sophisticated in their financial knowledge, more interested in the facts of the investment case, care far more about the corporate governance of their company. 88E's average shareholder, as represented by the various public forums, displays little/no interest in the fundamentals, is happy to 'place their bets' without enquiring too deeply into the facts of the 88E investment case, is reliant or indeed part of a social-media inspired misinformation/disinformation campaign upon which they hope/expect to profit by selling their shares before reality inevitably crushes the hype.

These two classifications of investors have been around as long as equity markets have existed, no doubt about that. And that's fine. Where there is a profound ethical question is the persistent effort by the "punter" classification to disguise their true intent. Readers of this forum are strongly urged to ask themselves why it is that the most prolific posters point blank refuse to engage on matters of fact, of maths, of probability, of empirical data?

Would that they just either admitted they were disinterested in the investment case and just admitted to readers of their content they were punters relying on the music still playing when they look to offload their stock.

It's the persistent attempts at mis/disinformation which are highly unethical, not their decisions to trade the stock. If you're relying on perpetuating inaccuracies on public forums to deliver your trading profits, it's time to take a good hard look at yourself. Go read the eponymous 88E Army on Twitter if you wish to learn the harsh reality behind the corrosive 88E hype machine.

07:20
chrisev1 - to quote you directly: "Also I disagree with you about the valuation. I am talking about the price at time of drill for 88E."

OK, let's examine that logic. All things being equal, 88E aren't going to be drilling Icewine-3 until spring/summer 2023, agreed? [why drill a more expensive winter well when the company lacks capital? why accept more *unnecessary* dilution to the asset than the bare minimum?]

What to do in the meantime, chrisev1? Continue to hold 88E shares thus exposing yourself to the inevitable dilution via cash raise [$30m required to drill Icewine-3 IMO, thus 7.5bn new shares at 0.4p or 6bn new shares at 0.5p?] and/or dilution to the asset when 88E signs a deal with a partner in order to finance the drill? Can anyone make a serious argument that any such potential partner *won't* demand a fair old slug of Project Icewine? Would they demand >50%? Would they demand operatorship? Even if Erik Opstad experiences a Damascene conversion and feels guilty about the amount of shareholders' funds which has been directed towards his company (ELKO) and decides to make a "generous" offer to partner 88E for Icewine-3 (perhaps via ELKO or APDC II?) who reckons he won't ask for >30%?

So let's fast forward to next June, Icewine-2 is about to spud, 88E now has ***24 billion shares in issue*** but continues to own 75% of Project Icewine. chrisev1 - are you seriously trying to tell us that the mathematical upside is greater for 88E (despite the OIP, TRR, CoS being markedly lower for 88E v's PANR remember) than it is for PANR today? Absolutely no chance.

You're doing the readers of this forum a genuine disservice, chrisev1. Enough with all this fantastical made up mathematical gibberish. It's time for you to admit, as in fairness a number of other posters are perfectly happy to do, that 88E will ***ALWAYS*** rely on baseless internet hype in order to provide a return anywhere near approaching PANR's potential return.

If that's your thing, punting, relying on social media hype, financial game of pass the parcel then that's fine, no worries whatsoever. But to continue to post your factless beliefs that the maths favour 88E is just preposterous, and unfair to your fellow shareholders and members of this forum.

17:09
Thanks for the link, moda. Conoco's Willow project is really important for the North Slope so I wish them all the very best. to readers of this forum, this is *not* new news. It's a few weeks old so has been fully discounted in the investment cases of PANR and 88E IMHO.

A really important point worth considering for PANR shareholders/potential investors is to have a look at the massive capex required to get Willow to first commercial production. I've seen figures reported of $4bn- $6bn for Willow. Compare this to PANR which has managed to get to first production by investing c.$300m over the last decade or so. Yes, I fully appreciate the capex required for Willow is mostly the construction of new infrastructure (airstrips, roads, bridges, pipelines, pads, etc.) but therein lies the beauty of PANR's model. Due to the fact PANR's acreage is located, literally, right next door to the Dalton Highway and TAPS the requirement to invest billions of dollars upfront is non-existent. Thus an incremental, modular development is possible with all attendant benefits to NPV that such quasi self-financing models bring to the owners. Good stuff.

Not long now for news from Alkaid-2 IMHO. Personally, I've *pencilled in* news in the w/c 1/8/22 but if it comes earlier than that, so be it.

20:43
Let's be crystal clear, Islandgirl. That makes you a punter, a refugee from your local casino. It also means you are punting in the full awareness that you're taking advantage of the credulous naivete of others.

20:35
Hi MW93 - that's the thing, you're relying solely on the "ramping" of which you erroneously accuse me. What you're clearly unaware of is that using the traditional risked/unrisked equity valuation model PANR is at least 200p ***below*** its fair value, and 88E is double its fair value. It's decidedly not ramping if you're highlighting cheap fundamentals. And your and so many others obfuscation and refusal to engage on the facts of the 88E investment case makes *you* and so many posters on this forum "rampers" rather than discoverers of fact.