Member Info for Scot126

17:16
Fascinating insight, Professor Freud. Totally inappropriate post. Shame on you.

Oh, have you managed to investigate what the word "hedge" means within a financial markets context? Or are you waiting for your next sesh before returning to that painful episode?

(Part 2)

5) Interpreting the data v’s being presented with more data at the webinar. Once again you miss the point. I am arguing directly, and attempting to point you in the right direction (which I note you have brushed off, as is your right) that we *have* received sufficient feedback via RNSs and the interims to make the appropriate amendments to the CoS/upside or downside risk calculations. That you have not alighted upon that data, despite me pointing you in the right direction, is a cbaron problem, not a scot126 problem. I’m extrapolating nothing – fact. I’ve simply used my knowledge and capacity for research to apply the empirical data and their attached explanations *as published*, which has led to me assessing the project has been de-risked substantially. That you do not have the capacity to recognise the data (and attendant explanations) for what it is does not mean that I’m extrapolating ahead of the fundamentals. Au contraire, I contend that it is *you* who does not appreciate fully the information which has been presented to us. It’s no big deal, it is what it is. I’ve acted on the data by buying more shares. You’ve reacted by whining and choosing to voice your disgruntlement on a public forum.

I resent the fact you label me a ramper, but acknowledge there’s little I can do about that. In turn, I’ll just go ahead and label you as someone who has a lesser understanding of the PANR investment case than I do. Again, no big deal, it is what it is.

I’m *not* criticising you for having a “more cautious view”, although I accept that's what you think I'm doing. Rather, I’m criticising you for point blank refusing to admit that it was you who mismanaged your own expectations; it is you who doesn’t appreciate the difference between “objectives” and “expectations”; and it is you who hasn’t yet spotted or comprehended the data provided by the company in the last couple of weeks.

There’s no hypocrisy here. I remain as attached to the fundamentals as ever. What is apparent, however, is your incapacity to recognise a key piece of information published by the company post- cessation of operations. /end

10:46
cbaron,

1) “or” was simply meant to be the English word “or”. I have no idea what you’re on about.

2) Here’s the thing, cbaron. PANR management did not “raise expectations” prior to the winter season. They issued a description of the planned programme and relayed their understanding of the geology. It is the market, folk like you and I and *not* management, who amended our expectations when absorbing the description of the planned winter programme. You repeat this plaintive cry time and time again, and it’s just plain wrong. Read the RNSs leading up to the Theta West drill and those which were published at the conclusion of the season.

A) Theta West: “Flow testing ***achieved pre-drill objectives***, confirming the presence of high quality, light oil, and the movability of that oil.”
B) Talitha #A: Testing of Talitha #A well - Flow testing ***achieved pre-drill objectives***, confirming the presence of high quality, light oil and the movability of that oil in each of the targeted horizons.”

The fact that the results weren't presented in the manner you anticipated (eg. BFF Lower flowing at >100bopd) does not obviate or nullify the statement that “pre-drill objectives were achieved.”

The results published may have left *you* feeling your pre-results expectations have not been met, but it decidedly *does not* mean the company’s objectives have not been met. This is why I describe this as a cbaron problem, not a PANR problem. Can you not see the difference here?

3) Oh, so you’re not getting dangerously close accusing management of being untruthful? This you???

“Mmm!? Whilst I respect JC and the management team, I'm not sure I can accept that quotation, if it's been accurately reproduced. When compared with the company's own stated pre-season targets, I cannot see how he can genuinely and accurately say, " we achieved we set out to do".” [scot126 – correction, replace BR with JC, apologies]

4) How else do you expect a reader to take “First step in an attempted under the counter deal?” I note you have clarified your clumsy language in a subsequent post. Unfortunately I had not seen it as I was typing in the reply box at the time and didn’t read your clarification until *after* I hit the “post message” button. Regardless, it was a silly thing to post and any objective reader would read it as a baseless conspiracy theory. You’re better than that, cbaron. Perhaps an infection due to time spent on the SN’s forum?!

(Part 1)

15:52
Sorry, that should read (Part 4), not (Part 5).

(Part 5)

So, how to apply an objective investor’s capital in a logical fashion? Looking at 88E, the market is valuing Project Icewine as follows: 88E mkt cap minus cash on the balance sheet minus the value of the Texas asset, so US$167m mkt cap minus cash on balance sheet right now (is US$24m fair? Anyone? Do we know if there were any cash outgoings over and above shares issued to service providers in lieu of cash payments over the winter season?) minus Texas value (call it $12m after the rise in oil price over the ownership period v’s $10m paid?). Thus, the market is valuing Icewine at US$131m approx. Remember, no value is being ascribed to either Yukon or Umiat/Peregrine.

The NN’s mkt cap today is $1.3bn. The CB is in the money so I’m not adding the debt portion to the EV calculation, ok?
So very, very roughly, the market is valuing Icewine + Talitha + Alkaid + Theta West at US$1.43bn, ascribing 91% of the value of the asset to the NN and 9% to 88E. Eagle-eyed readers will perhaps recall that for the purposes of comparative valuation, I was happy to work with a 90:10 ratio by value. So, on first glance the market looks to have got it just about right. Yes?

Actually, no. Firstly I reckon the ratio by value will end up being closer to 95:5 or 97:3 but it would be churlish to demand we all work with an amended ratio right now. But please keep it in the memory banks for the future. Secondly, in order to assess the respective upside risk an equity analyst must make a more subjective judgement about a company’s ability to deliver and execute the work required, and finance it, in order to achieve the objective of providing sufficient empirical evidence that debt providers (banks) or the sector (O&G companies) put up the cash to fund the development of the asset(s).

Here, there is a clear leader. PANR/GB spent $80m on 3D seismic and a further $150-200m on drilling and testing operations on the shared asset. As a result, its data collection and interpretation is, quite literally, two maybe three winter seasons ahead of 88E. In addition, is there anyone on this forum who would seriously argue the cost of capital/access to capital is going to be lower/easier in the next period for 88E v’s that of its NN?

Personal opinion? Once again, it leaves me assessing 88E’s mkt cap is too high today or that of the NN is too low. Probably a combination of the two.

What would the objective investor do if he had £100 to invest? Does he or she know better than the market? Surely the objective investor invests £90 in one equity and £10 in the other? I just don’t see any leverage in backing the minnow? Why buy a seat in the gods when a front row seat in the stalls is the same price? I’ll leave it to each individual reader to pick which one is which. /ends

PS I'm not charlotte. I'm scot126 here and the other place. End of.

(Part 3)

Oh, and finally can we put the following ridiculous argument to bed? Dave Wall knows we’re sitting on a veritable gold mine, he knows a takeover bid is on the way, blah, blah, blah. Why else would he a) resign b) reduce his pa holding by 60% (at least) as soon as he left the company c) continues to be retained by 88E as an advisor and to be paid, was it 6% plus options (?), for raising funds for the company. Does anyone on this forum believe for a moment that the supporters of 88E’s most recent fundraise are still on the register? Seriously? Look at the massive turnover since the fundraise.

5) But 88E now has some super-duper production assets in Texas, I hear you cry? I note the prolific posters don’t bother fact-checking the naïve posters who are posting the following gibberish: 300 barrels x 365 days x $100 = 88E’s revenue. Rubbish, utter rubbish. 88E owns 73% of the *non-operated* working interest of the Texas assets. It’ll be more like (220 barrels x 365 days x profit margin per barrel) minus royalties and state taxes and payment for the operator’s services. I dunno, call it $4m per annum. Maybe this improves if the workover programme is effective? Whatever the final figure, this asset will pay for 88E’s G&A with hardly anything left over to fund future (and expensive) wells in Alaska, that’s for sure. If anyone is of the view that the Texas assets will ensure 88E remains active *every* Alaskan winter season without recourse to further cash raises and dilution, then I submit you’re kidding yourself. And that’s without ELKO’s disgraceful budget overruns!!

6) What’s left to be happy about? In a word, Icewine. I strongly suggest this forum gets itself up to speed with the NN’s Shelf Margin Deltaic formation, and possibly the Kuparuk and Slope Fan System. Before anyone goes off on a flight of fancy about the Basin Floor Fan, I beseech you to research the implications of downdip v’s updip and also the implications of phasing risk.

I see that even today there appears to be an accepted orthodoxy that it’s NN v’s 88E, like opposing armies. It really isn’t. The characteristics of the reservoirs in the different leases are what they are. There’s nothing we humans on the surface, millions of years after these reservoirs came into being, can do about those characteristics. Therefore, it’s a case of collecting the empirical data associated with each acreage position and then applying a valuation and risk to the respective asset bases.

It's not a case of winner/loser. It’s a case of using science and empirical data to determine a fair value for the two asset bases. IMHO, there are too many folk on this forum who wilfully ignore the data and point blank refuse to undertake the comparative valuation calculations that are *essential* to making an intellectual judgement as to where to apply their capital v’s blind faith and Globe-inspired fantastical wishful thinking.

(Part 2)

The strongest warning signal about Merlin-2, however, was the fact that Erik and his APDC mates sold back their 50% interest in Peregrine for $14m after Merlin-1. C’mon folks, think about it. These guys had access to all the data from Merlin-1 and opted to sell out. The excuse about them not having the financial resources to move the project forwards was complete bs. If they honestly thought Peregrine was a metaphorical gold mine they would have stuck around and worked their a$$es off to find a farm in partner and retain a diluted but valuable stake.

3) Ok, all of the above has turned out to be true. Sad, but true. Market analysts will now value Umiat/Peregrine at zero in their models. For those who wish to genuinely confront reality and face up to events, I suggest you do the same.
Yukon? If Erik Opstad values his adjacent acreage at a negative NPV then it’s time to stop this childish “But Yukon, but Yukon” nonsense. It’s worth zero and it’s also stranded (although not quite as stranded as Umiat admittedly). It’s going to take massive bucks to get that area of the ANS coast into play. I’d suggest acknowledging this and accepting the reality. Oh, and every time you read 88E management continue to be in discussions with neighbouring lease holders, just picture Erik and Ashley speaking to each other on the phone. Hmmmm………

4) What now? Here’s what I think UK and Aussie 88E shareholders should do. Form a group on Discord or Telegram or some other platform and collectively write to the 88E Chairman and Non-Exec Directors. This ludicrous and deeply unethical arrangement whereby Erik Opstad is an 88E employee and whose family company is also its prime contractor is outrageous. This season’s attempt to deflect shareholders’ attention from their key employee being able to trade the shares issued in lieu of cash payments DURING THE WINTER SEASON (!!!!!!!) is, in my view, unethical, likely corrupt and *perhaps* even criminal. At the very least, the Chairman must not release the cash from ELKO’s share sales this season until all invoices have been received, audited and published. If, as I strongly suspect, ELKO has made a substantial profit by selling out of their shares over the last couple of months, you shareholders should make it clear that any such profit be retained by the company and Erik told to accept it or do one.

Erik and Dave are ripping 88E shareholders off, royally. They’re doing it in plain view. And it’s not as if this some novel scheme. They did the *exact same thing last year* too. I warned the readers of this forum. I even wrote out the questions which needed to be posed to the 88E Chairman and auditors but apparently none of you could be bothered to follow through. Ever wonder why ELKO was always issued with shares which just snuck in under the declarable threshold under the UK listing rules? I don’t.

I have purposefully not posted on this forum since the bad news from Merlin-2 on 29/3/22. It’s a horrible feeling when hopes and faith are dashed. I still have a visceral reaction to the name of a company I invested in over a decade ago which went bust and which subsequently saw a couple of directors end up in the criminal courts. Grrrrr.
Ok, the purpose of this post is, in part, to look backwards and to confront some, I argue, self-evident home truths concerning 88E. I appreciate fully most users of this forum thought I was an unwelcome Jonah over the last year or so. Sadly, some of my worst fears have come to pass.
1) I didn’t make any call on the geology of Peregrine because I didn’t have sufficient data in order to do so. What I did try to communicate was the true CoS. It wasn’t really the much quoted 56%, it was far more nuanced than that. It was a longer shot at asset validation and value creation than the simple 56:44 proportion of success:failure would suggest. I repeat again for the record, even if Merlin-2 had been a blinding success geologically with all three horizons coming in, the asset was so incredibly isolated that any “value” attendant to a discovery would have been minimal.
2) What now for Peregrine? I suspect it’s highly unlikely 88E management will invest in a 3D seismic study over that acreage, not in the foreseeable future anyway. It just doesn’t look to me like a constructive use of precious shareholder funds. A couple of posters have trumpeted that it’s not over, 88E has operational obligations at Umiat which *must* be fulfilled. Hmmm, not really the case, I’m afraid. Remember that Umiat was purchased by 88E for $1m only. If the lease obliges the owner to drill a $15m well or spend a few million dollars on an updated seismic study to fulfil the operational obligations attached to the Umiat lease then 88E can just give up the lease and walk away, providing they’ve left Merlin-1 and Merlin-2 in a safe condition. I suspect that’s what will end up happening.
Please confront and digest the following. There is a reason Umiat and its 100mmbo reserves were purchased for the princely sum of $1m. It’s the same reason that not one commercial barrel of oil has been produced at Umiat for >70 years. It’s so incredibly stranded that the cost to extract and transport the oil to market is impossibly high. Peregrine + Umiat (in a geological success case) *still* relied on Conoco playing ball by permitting 88E access to their infrastructure. It’s illuminating that not one poster, even one of the prolific posters, has drawn this forum’s attention to the ongoing stand off between Conoco and Santos (Oil Search) over access to infrastructure which is holding up the Pikka/Horseshoe FID. Santos is a Top 20 global oil company! And a great many of the posters on this forum genuinely argued that Conoco would roll over and let 88E tickle their belly? That was poor judgement.

(Part 1)

08:34
cbaron - or, and work with me on this, Bob Rosenthal has complete access to the data acquired over the course of this season (VAS, logs, pressure build up tests, chemical composition of the light oil in two locations 10.5 miles apart, porosity, permeability, salinity and heaps more) and you don't. Plus, Bob Rosenthal has forgotten more about O&G than you(and I) possess today.

You're getting uncomfortably close to alleging Bob is a liar, cbaron. Or a dissembler of "fake news". This reflects poorly on your judgement of Bob's character and his career and reputation in the industry.

Personal opinion: it's becoming more and more evident to me that it is you, cbaron, who a) misjudged the guidance for this season's results and therefore set your *personal* expectations too high b) does not understand the full implications of the data as presented c) is allowing the muted SP response to this season's results (pre-webinar interpretation) affect you in such a profound manner that you have lost sight of the fundamentals (temporarily?) such that you are attaching blame/accountability/responsibility to PANR management where the true "culprits" are a Big 3 contractor or Mother Nature.

I *believe* I have a better grasp of the implications of this season's data than you do, cbaron. And I've placed my money where my mouth is by openly admitting I own more PANR shares today than I did before this season's results were published. If my judgement is amiss the value of my investment will suffer accordingly and I'll happily admit I was wrong. But all the evidence *I'm assessing currently* is supporting my position so I'm going to run with that.

I'm going to try to point you in the right direction. Have a detailed read of the Interims (either for the 1st time or again) and note the explanation/description for the failed cement job. That ought to get you off researching a few things.

As for an explanation for my answer of "No" to your earlier question. How about that it's a baseless conspiracy theory? It's also not how the sector works in my experience. The buyer is a principal and manager of a family office and hedge fund so why on earth would such a vehicle be used by any sneaky super-major oil company v's an approach directly to the BoD? I'll throw it back to you, cbaron. Simply provide this forum with a couple of genuine examples where such methods and random Asian/NYC entities are employed in the E&P sector on AIM when planning a takeover and I'll look into it further. You won't because you can't.

You've been watching too many episodes of Billions, haven't you, cbaron?!

Anyhoo, you've made your call and I've made mine. No point in going back and forth until we're all armed with the knowledge and expert interpretation of management from the upcoming webinar. I imagine we'll circle back at that point.

Tue 22:38
cbaron - No.

You're welcome.

08:07
Totally agree with you, Mindbender. Unequivocal, emphatic, confident. It was *the* most important question and answer in the entire interview IMO.

Bring on the webinar, sometime in late April. Great stuff.

h/t dhb368

"New Core Finance / BlytheRay interview with Jay and Bob on YT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loYX06vyafw

Q: You reported flow rates of 57 bopd at Theta West. Is that enough to make it a success?

Bob: The answer to that question is simply YES.... This is a massive light oil discovery. We had 950' gross section, about 50-60% net to gross of light oil. We were in the early stages of cleanup when we announced 57bopd of light oil. This is a success.

Upcoming webinar in late April to include detailed technical discussion of this winter, and what it all means. Additionally, they will talk development scenarios 'because everybody wants to know how much money can you make out of this'"

I just watched the BlytheRay interview. Watch out for Bob Rosenthal's demeanor. There's *no equivocation* in his answers. And, IMO, there will be no excuse for regular readers of this thread if they cannot now discern the direction of travel of the recoverable resource figure within the PANR investment case as we move closer to the date of the next webinar.

It is my opinion management will deliver a meaningful formal upgrade to the PANR contingent resource figure and will also provide ample empirical evidence supporting the statement that this winter's results have *significantly* de-risked the project and thus the PANR investment case.

To repeat, I couldn't give a monkeys if the SP moves up before or after the upcoming webinar. I am under no doubt, all things being equal, that the SP will be considerably higher on the 5th of May than it is today on the 5th of April. Make of that what you will.

PS. Bob was positively champing at the bit to be let loose on the webinar. Look at the man's history, his character and the past performance during webinars. I submit the clues are there for all to see. GLA

PPS. Also, and unusually for Jay in a non-webinar environment (?), he explicitly trailed a comprehensive disclosure on development plans and the financial model on which it is based. These short form interviews normally stick to operational and technical matters, agreed? Looks to me that Jay and Justin have done the preliminary updates to the development model following this season's technical data retrieval and interpretation? I put it to readers that you don't volunteer that particular subject is on the webinar agenda unless you believe shareholders are going to like what is about to be relayed to them.

Ah, carbon, your post timed at 08.11 explains your "damp squib" comment earlier.

1) "It was almost a given"? Perhaps by you, cbaron, but not by the market.

2) The horizon extending from Talitha to Theta West being "priced in". You're kidding, aren't you? If it was "priced in" then using historically accepted valuation methods then PANR would have been trading at 300-400p PRIOR to operations BEGINNING at Theta West this season.

You're allowing your emotional response to the share price to affect your intellectual judgement, cbaron. Totally normal reaction but at least now we have an explanation for it. Good stuff.

Hi cbaron - to describe this winter season for PANR as a "damp squib" is, quite simply, intellectually wrong. It also betrays, I'm afraid, your relative lack of understanding of data collection and how E&P projects are de-risked over a period of time.

Not much more to say, really. From a fundamental standpoint, you're just plain wrong.

Hi Blingybird - Talitha #A is being suspended in order to conduct a sidetrack into the SMD next winter. Theta West is being P&A'd. They're going to be drilling a new thread well in a different location in Theta West next season. Trust that helps.

That's the interims published today. Main "new news" is that the season has come to a close due to the weather window. If we didn't already know from last year the Arctic is a tough place in which to operate.....

Before sulking and whinging, please all read the commentary. Firstly, the webinar looks set for "late April". Excellent stuff. They have a heap of new data to interpret and I'm massively looking forward to management debriefing shareholders and the wider market.

The rest of the commentary? This is a management team which, weather and cement foook ups aside (grrr!), is ****-a-hoop in terms of de-risking the asset and increasing the scale and probability of upside risk to the investment case.

Theta West being P&A'd releases the cash lodged with the SoA. For shareholders like me who have always urged the company to a) go it alone this season if they could arrange the finance and b) advance as far up the value curve as humanly possible before selling up then to hear conformation of Alkaid-2 in July, an SMD sidetrack at Talitha #A and the next Theta West well for winter 22/23 will be warmly received.

For fundamental investors and for those who remember the events of April '21, the "late April" webinar will contain fireworks IMHO.

In case there are some holes in people's knowledge:

1) 88E's Merlin-2 is about 100 miles west of TAPS.

2) 88E's Merlin-2 was targeting the Nanushuk geological formation. Not the Brookian age formations PANR has identified and successfully flow tested at Alkaid/Talitha and Theta West.

I, and many others, have always pointed out the vast, vast differential in quality and quantity between the PANR asset and 88E's assets. Sadly for 88E shareholders, today proves that differential exists yet further.

Do not read anything into PANR's fundamentals from today's news from 88E.

12.00
Derbon99 - I'm afraid your first contribution to this forum has revealed how little you know about this company. PANR has no "reserves".

Off you toodle now, there's a good chap. You clearly have nothing of value to add to this forum. Buh-bye.

WH Ireland first pass, dated 24/3/22

Pantheon Resources (PANR) – Corporate – Theta West #1 Testing Update
Market Cap £938.58m Share Price 124p

Pantheon Resources announced that the Theta West #1 well flowed oil to surface from the Lower Basin Floor Fan structure. Production rates averaged 57 b/d reaching peaks exceeding 100 b/d over a 2.5 day period. The company indicated that the rates met its pre-drill expectations in terms of i) oil presence ii) quality of oil iii) mobility of the oil. In relation to its pre-drill, success-case recoverable oil estimate of 1.2 billion barrels of oil, the company indicated that the result supports, and likely exceeds, expectations.

The company indicated that the onset of a severe storm suspended testing.

The company, cautioned, that despite the excellent results announced today, ultimate commerciality will require long-term production testing.

WHI View: We believe the result vindicates our long-term belief in the potential of the largest elephant in Pantheon Resources’ stable, the Lower Basin Floor Fan of the Theta West Structure. The result is unambiguously positive in our opinion – it substantially derisks the potential of the resource.

We believe that the assets of Pantheon Resources represent a potential means of decreasing reliance on Russian oil in a manner than conforms to the highest standards of ESG. We note that as the world awakens to the reality that crude oil is the lifeblood of the modern economy there is a scarcity of high-quality, large scale oil development projects. As such, we believe assets such as the Lower Basin Floor Fan, amongst other large-scale assets held by Pantheon Resources, have potential to be of vital strategic importance.