Member Info for Scot126

10:30 and 10:43
RKHChippy/Mindbender - the volume yesterday was associated with the promotion of PANR from the MSCI Global Micro Cap Index to the MSCI Global Small Cap Index. The changes to the MSCI Index took effect as at cob yesterday. In addition, PANR has been included (for the first time, I think?) in the FTSE Russell AIM 100 as of yesterday. I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago, permits you missed it? I've suggested this to RKHChippy previously but I reckon you would both be well served by keeping track of the Darcon thread on Alpha Delta Victor Foxtrot November. The information flow is more detailed there than on this site IMHO.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-aim-100-index/constituents/table?page=4

(continued from post timed at 17:03)

Therefore I ask the following question which no-one on this forum wants to answer. The NN has a contingent resource of 1.9 billion barrels of oil, is located immediately adjacent to the Dalton Highway and TAPS and has a mkt cap of approx £500m. 88E has approx 100mmbo of reserves (which haven't been touched since their discovery 70 years ago), zero contingent resources, the 88E boss in Alaska (Erik Opstad) values the Yukon acreage at

(Continued from below)

88E has approx 100mmbo of reserves (which haven't been touched since their discovery 70 years ago), zero contingent resources, the 88E boss in Alaska (Erik Opstad) values their Yukon acreage at

The following is an excerpt from the recent interview (23/11/21) of Ashley Gilbert, MD of 88 Energy.

“Work is continuing with the reassessment of the potential across the acreage in light of the Pantheon Resources Talitha #A well. The Talitha #A well is just north of our Icewine acreage. We’re encouraged by the results that Pantheon published in relation to their drilling last season. I understand they’re going back again next season so we’ll be watching that with interest. We believe that [the] resource potential being targeted by the Talitha #A well extends on to the Icewine acreage so we’re anticipating putting out an updated prospective resource estimate in the near future.” ( - Ashely Gilbert, MD of 88 Energy, interview; dated 23/11/21)

Admittedly not an unreserved third party verification of the NN's results at Talitha #A, however if 88 Energy is “anticipating putting out an updated prospective resource estimate in the near future” for Project Icewine. I contend a newly appointed MD of an E&P company would not be trailing a downgrade in a public interview? Therefore, to my mind, it’s pretty much a racing certainty the 88E technical team has accepted and approved the VAS data from Talitha #A to a sufficient degree that it forms a primary basis for a resource upgrade at Project Icewine.

Therefore I ask the following question which no-one on this forum wants to answer. The NN has a contingent resource of 1.9 billion barrels of oil, is located immediately adjacent to the Dalton Highway and TAPS and has a mkt cap of approx £500m. 88E has approx 100mmbo of reserves (which haven't been touched since their discovery 70 years ago), zero contingent resources, the 88E boss in Alaska values their Yukon acreage at

06:52 and 09:51
csw12 - factually incorrect. Unlike 88E, the NN's mkt cap is running some considerable distance below fair value when employing the traditional and globally accepted risked/unrisked valuation method. Using exactly the same method, 88E valuation is running waaayyyy ahead of its fair value. Thus, using comparative analysis, there is no other objective judgement to make that, based on the fundamentals alone, 88E is currently massively over-valued by the market and the NN massively under-valued. Of course, you've effectively already admitted this is the case when you posted on 15/11/21 @ 09:11: “I don't care! 88e is no longer a fundamentals stock. It's a meme stock.”

Speaking on the subject of "ramping", what is your opinion of the US OTC social media posts about 88E, the vast majority of which are factually incorrect? Any view on that, csw12? Or best just keep schtuum because you want one more roll of the ramptastic rampathon dice this coming winter, profiting off the backs of genuinely ill-informed and ill-educated Americans?

Fact checking a couple more points. I wasn't "spiked years ago". I've posted this answer on a previous occasion when challenged (perhaps by you?) on this forum. A poster challenged me to sell out of my NN shares at a loss and I replied that it would be a mathematical impossibility. You can choose to believe me or not but that's what the maths proves.

"....you are desperately jealous of the fact that 88e has a huge following in the USA that will lift the price massively on a whif of news, whereas PANR seems to have no such following." Hmmmm, not jealous but certainly baffled and puzzled. I'm also genuinely uncomfortable that so many here are metaphorically licking their lips in anticipation this winter season of profiting from the ignorance of a group of incredibly naïve US investors who are victims of "influencers" such as the recently indicted, Steven Gallagher, aka Alex Delarge.

Dear All - admittedly not an unreserved third party verification but our neighbours to the south, 88 Energy, are “anticipating putting out an updated prospective resource estimate in the near future” for Project Icewine. I contend a newly appointed MD of an E&P company would *not* be trailing a downgrade in a public interview? Therefore, to my mind, it’s pretty much a racing certainty the 88E technical team has accepted and approved the VAS data from Talitha #A to a sufficient degree that it forms a primary basis for a resource upgrade to their Project Icewine.

“Work is continuing with the reassessment of the potential across the acreage in light of the Pantheon Resources Talitha #A well. The Talitha #A well is just north of our Icewine acreage. We’re encouraged by the results that Pantheon published in relation to their drilling last season. I understand they’re going back again next season so we’ll be watching that with interest. We believe that [the] resource potential being targeted by the Talitha #A well extends on to the Icewine acreage so we’re anticipating putting out an updated prospective resource estimate in the near future.” ( - Ashely Gilbert, MD of 88 Energy, interview; dated 23/11/21)

Fri 10.00
Ddraig - you absolutely *must* be taking the mick with this post, lol???? An 88E shareholder complaining about alleged "ramping"???? Do you not remember what happened to 88E in March/April this year???? lolololol.

Genuine question: without the organised OTC ramptastic rampathon, do you believe the 88E share price would currently be above or below 0.5p per share?

With the possible exception of a few unconventional loyalists from the old days of The Globe and Paul B, I reckon practically everyone else active on this forum agrees with csw12 . The only difference between him and the majority of other active posters is he wrote down what you're all thinking. Actually, to be fair, Brom said pretty much the same thing, as did Rabito79 recently. And then of course, Dave Wall, Erik Opstad, APDC and ELKO all agree too, just follow their actions. They've all sold out entirely or in the case of Dave Wall, sold >60% of his holding.

csw12 on lse on 15/11/21 @ 09:11: “I don't care! 88e is no longer a fundamentals stock. It's a meme stock.”

Fri 06:49
Hi pander - yep, the FTSE AIM 100 algobots (close cousins of the Autobots and Decepticons) will need to begin tracking PANR's SP movements. Indeed some of the algobots may have begun the reweighting process in advance of the index inclusion effect date?

Also worth remembering that on 11/11/21 we received official confirmation PANR has been promoted to the FTSE Global Small Cap Index from the FTSE Global Micro Cap Index. The effect date for that index promotion is also the cob on 30/11/21.

Dear All – well, well, well…..turns out my longshot hunch was correct after all. Remember the “Silence Therapeutics” RNS published after the market shut on Thursday evening? A subsequent enquiry to FTSE Russell Client Services has led to the following response:

“We have confirmed that as a result of Silence Therapeutics being deleted from all FTSE AIM indexes, Pantheon Resources will be promoted to the FTSE AIM 100 Index, effective from the open of 30th November.

This is why Pantheon Resources was referenced. However the 'tag' to that announcement has been from RNS today. We apologize and will discuss internally ways to avoid such issues happening in future.”

So, that’s good news on the “technical” front and, all things being equal, ought to see a further tranche of index-related buying over the next few days/weeks.

Happy to be corrected but I don’t recall PANR being included in the FTSE AIM 100 previously? I suppose there’s still a possibility PANR will be included in the FTSE AIM 50. I checked the applicable rules for the AIM 50 index and PANR would *appear* to have met the required threshold for entry. Trouble is, there’s no way, I can see, of knowing/guesstimating the candidates being relegated from the AIM 50 and any candidates for promotion who are *ahead* of PANR in the queue.

Still, inclusion in the AIM 100 is a noteworthy event. Good stuff.

09:39
Ddraig - let's stipulate for the purposes of comparison that I am an "angry insecure little man". My question to you and every other reader of your posts on this forum and that of our SN is as follows: how would you describe the character of a man who, on disagreeing with someone on an anonymous bulletin board, then proceeded to encourage that poster to go off and plan to commit suicide? What type of wretched human being would even think like that never mind feel it appropriate to post the suggestion on a public forum?

And a supplementary question would be: what type of man, when challenged on the suicide post, refuses to apologise?

For the record, I was not the poster Ddraig suggested ought to go off and commit suicide. There has been no apology, no acceptance of responsibility, nothing. And this empty shell of a man appears to believe it's appropriate for him to post on this forum and that of our SN? The world has gone stark, having mad.

FYI - I’ve looked at the Russell AIM Index rules again. I reckon PANR is a pretty decent shout for inclusion in the AIM 100 during the December quarterly review, and it's perhaps just on the cusp of the AIM 50. If you forced my hand I’d say PANR is highly likely to be included in the AIM 100 and will narrowly miss out on the AIM 50. These indices are reviewed quarterly.

17:27
SeaHawk - still don't get it, not even slightly, do you? Our values are just so incredibly far apart. You believe it is wholly reasonable for you to make a call about the judgement and capacity of a BoD without having access to the full facts. Not content with that logical fallacy (no access to facts) you then believe it's entirely reasonable to post those factless opinions on a public forum.

Self-admittedly, I have different values. I point blank refuse to come to definitive conclusions when I know fine well I do not possess the full facts necessary to come to any logical or intelligent judgement. But even if I did have that set of values, there's no way on earth I would think it appropriate to level my baseless, factless, notably incomplete conclusions on a public forum where a) an innocent party may act as a result of reading and accepting my content and b) my content will potentially have the effect of undermining my purported fellow shareholders' confidence in the capabilities and professionalism of the PANR BoD.

So you're damned right we don't have similar values. I would be absolutely horrified if, either intentionally or not, I had posted factually incorrect content *or* dressed up opinion as fact *or* posted content which served to undermine confidence in a BoD when I knew with absolute certainty that I did not possess all the facts necessary to come to a half-baked conclusion never mind one as definitive as you have posted on this forum.

Can you not see how massively inappropriate and irresponsible your conduct has been? You literally could not give a flying f^^^^^k about your fellow shareholders. I'm "unpleasant"? Ok, whatever you say. I'll take my values over yours any day of the week.

16:48
Shame that you're irritated but I'm sure you'll get over it. Here's what you should have written:
"Ah, good point scot126. All those bonds I mentioned were arranged and issued by companies with long histories of oil production and the cashflow required to service the coupon attached to the bonds. In addition, I also recognise the highly structured and inflexible characteristics of O&G corporate bonds. At your urging, I have reviewed the characteristics of the PANR Short Term Facility and I now recognise I wasn't comparing like for like financial instruments, was I? When I think about it again, the Short Term Facility was arranged in 3 days or so; is unsecured; can be repaid at PANR election; can be drawn partially or fully at any time; has no arrangement fee of any type attached to it; and a simple annualised interest rate applied.....for a pre-revenue E&P AIM listed company? Hmmm, I'm now thinking you have a fair point. I also agree with you that the comparables I provided earlier are not appropriate. As you say, the interest rate attached to directors' loans, shareholder loans for pre-revenue AIMN listed companies from any sector is a far more accurate comparable. Let's both go look for examples of that facility. Nice one

19:38
Hi Squirrel26 - they're moving from AIM to the NASDAQ as far as I can make out. There is a strong possibility the RNS was made in error, likely a human or clerical error. However, it got me thinking. I had a look at the T&Cs for inclusion in the AIM 50 and 100 indices, neither of which has PANR as a constituent. The December quarterly review is nearly upon us and it looks like PANR's mkt cap, the fact there is now only one class of (voting) shares, the increased liquidity throughout 2021 all taken together means PANR will, IMHO, be added to the AIM 100 Index. There is an outside chance of being included in the AIM 50 index too, but it looks to me that there will be other candidates with higher mkt caps ahead of us in the list of possible additions. I'll keep an eye out and revert back when/if I hear anything.

The only possible reason I could come up with for the Silence Therapeutics news to *correctly* be labelled as being of interest to PANR is if PANR was one of the "reserves list" stocks which would see PANR replacing Silence immediately. I don't have a subscription to the Russell Indices so I can't see if PANR is on that "reserves list". It wouldn't surprise me if PANR was on that list because the mkt cap would certainly qualify. As I said, I'll revert if I hear anything further.

18:15
csw12 - really , really simple answer. Because if you were an experienced corporate financier or employed within the SMID cap sellside/buyside you wouldn't post that 10% was an expensive interest rate for an AIM listed, E&P, pre-revenue, short term, draw down or not, no arrangement fee, repay at borrower's behest, set up inside 72 hours Short Term Facility.

It's like if I go to A&E. The consultant says I've got a broken leg and leaves his junior doctor to fit the required plastercast. The junior doctor proceeds to place a plastercast on my left arm. I am entitled to draw a conclusion based on his actions. It's no different for you csw12. I'm simply drawing a conclusion (which we all know is correct) based on your historical posting on here and the SN forum that you're not a corporate financier and nor have you worked professionally on the buyside or sellside.

If you are a corporate financier for Goldman Sachs, I'll be happy to withdraw my relevant posts but I'll also be recommending you go to a refresher course at uni to help you regain the knowledge you must have forgotten over the years.

17:11
SeaHawk - you suspect wrongly. You still don't get it. It's folk like you who dress opinions up as facts that are the enemies of civil debate. It is folk like you who go on public bulletin boards and have the temerity to second guess the as yet unveiled strategy of management whilst criticising and undermining the judgement and capabilities of the BoD who are the enemies of civil debate. Go on then, SeaHawk, tell this bulletin board what % of the full suite of facts associated with PANR you profess to know v's that of Bob Rosenthal or Jay Cheatham or Phillip Gobe? Let's say Bob is somewhere between 90-100% aware of those facts? Are you actually going to place yourself as being conversant with a double figure percentage of the suite of facts??????? What a joke. Pathetic.

13:10
csw12 – your strategy is perfectly reasonable, and it’s also none of my business. You’ve opted to eliminate downside risk *entirely* and will re-assess on hard news. Cool. In so doing you are declaring to the forum you will miss out on any “gap up” on good news. Also cool. It’s a bit odd that you address this post at me, csw12? How so? Because I never, ever, ever advise or recommend an individual buy/sell/hold any share. That’s an individual’s decision, not mine. I do, however, analyse the upside and downside risk associated with a stated strategy, which is exactly what I’ve done above. Personally, *my* assessment is that funding *will* be secured by the BoD and I do *not* wish to miss any immediate SP appreciation, ie. miss out on the upside risk.

As for your non-experienced call on the interest loan? Yep, that’s exactly what I *know* and believe. Entirely up to you what you wish to believe.

(Part 2, continued from below)

(ii) Your comprehension skills are woeful. Re-read my rebuttal, SeaHawk. I didn’t for one millisecond suggest I knew whether management had made any of those demands/strategic plays, etc, etc. It was ***you*** who had “Monday morning managered” us all with ***your*** gibberish about insisting on a hard stop date. Can you genuinely not see how hideously inappropriate it is for you, a purported shareholder, to criticise management for following or not following your strategic advice when *you have absolutely no idea what management has done since the August webinar*??? NB I’m not saying for a millisecond I know what strategy they’ve adopted or are adopting but I sure as hell know you don’t. What if, on Monday next week, PANR announces a farm out deal with Hilcorp which values PANR at £1bn equivalent? There’s no responsibility attached to your posts, none whatsoever. You’ll either disappear because you’re embarrassed or you’ll keep posting away as if your historical content had never existed. Maybe there’ll be a raise at 10p per share and you’ll be lauded as a crystal ball gazer par excellence? You’re speculating. You’re back seat driving. You’re criticising management when you do not have access to the full range of information required to make any type of assessment. You’re pontificating (like a Major Hindsight, a deserved promotion from Captain) ***before*** the actual results of management’s strategy have even been unveiled to shareholders…….aaaaaaargh!!!!! Beyond belief. Your content is incredibly inappropriate on a public forum. Have you no shame? No sense of civility towards the directors or your fellow shareholders?

“The board dropped the ball….”?????? SeaHawk, you’d have had us raising $50m at 45p for goodness’ sake. Jeepers. Unreal.

“…and that to me is a flow test followed by a drill, followed by another drill in the summer.” That’s my *understanding* of their preferred plan of action.

12:57
SeaHawk – not special in the slightest. I’ve simply done more work on this than nearly everyone else with the exception of Telemachus. When you do the work, you have the facts to hand and therefore can speak with factual authority *without any reliance whatsoever* on ego. That’s the mistake you and so many others make when posting. You think this is all about intellect, egos, the loudest voice, blah, blah, blah. Rubbish. The *facts* of the investment case couldn’t give two hoots about scot126 or SeaHawk or Mindbender…..the facts are the facts, and the maths follow on from these facts. If you’re genuinely a long term reader of my content you will surely know that the first sentence of your post at 12:57 is a waste of your time. I couldn’t give a monkeys about what people think of me in relation to a series of anonymous posts on bulletin boards. I care only about the facts and the market’s consensus understanding of same.

Lololololol, you’re accusing me of being Captain Hindsight?????!!!!!! Lololololol. The post I’m rebutting is the very definition of Captain Hindsight. Remove your distaste for me for a moment and go back to read your original post to which I was responding. Everyone else reading this, please do likewise. Then please ask yourself the following: is there a better example of Captain Hindsight-ism than SeaHawk’s beautiful exposition of it on Monday at 11:29???? If *you* lack the self-recognition that it was *you* who was second guessing the actions of the BoD when *you* did not, and do not, have access to the full facts…and then proceeded to aggressively criticise management’s judgement and capacity on a public forum in a stock where you profess to have a holding, then it is *you*, SeaHawk, who betrays your ignorance, lack of experience and poor judgement. I repeat again, I’m full on delighted, ecstatic even, that you are not a director of PANR.

(Part 1, continued above)
(i) the late summer raise: can’t help noting you do not even acknowledge never mind address management’s plans as laid out in the April webinar and as repeated by me in my factual rebuttal. You’ve made no attempt whatsoever to address the plan to create value by having management work on the dissemination of the investment case in the US and ensuring the dataroom was crammed full of top-class data. Not a peep, eh? Nope, being the unsophisticated investor you are, you have *already pre-judged* the actions of management ***before*** the full extent of their strategy has even been unveiled. That, SeaHawk, is amateurish and limits severely any weight anyone ought to attach to your commentary and opinion.

PS FAO Mindbender

"You may be right on the shareholder being taken inside. I already said in my previous post I don't see how we can know that."

Yep, you obviously need to reread my reply to you, see below. I *already* "accepted entirely" this point. So why repeat it??????

"I accept entirely your point that the RNS did not confirm the shareholder who provided the Short Term Facility was made inside during the course of the loan being arranged. In fairness, I didn't state that any such confirmation has been made."

15:43
.....and yet here you are, continuing to argue your point. I obviously need to be more blunt because you're showing no signs of humility. I don't know if you've followed my posts on the website but I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I once spent 3 hours going back over my historical posts correcting a factual mistake because I was so concerned that any of my content would unintentionally misinform a shareholder's decision-making process. This is not a battle of ego, ffs!

1) The loan is for an ultra short duration, can be drawn or undrawn, can be repaid anytime at PANR's election, was arranged in a matter of a few days.

2) Corporate bonds you've pointed to are ***ALL*** from producing and thus revenue-generating oilers. they are of a far longer dated duration. They have massive arrangement/corporate finance fees attached to their creation and maintenance. The fees are payable whether the company makes use of the funds or not. Very rarely will they permit the borrower repay the debt in full without any notice.

3) What does the US bond rate have to do with this debate? It's about as far removed from the characteristics of this Short Term Facility as you can get. You are comparing oranges with limes. They're both members of the citrus family but that's about it.

You don't *need* to have an argument with me on this matter, but you just can't help yourself???? What is going on with the world??? I tell you I did this for a living for >25 years and you don't even acknowledge it, you just plough on regardless because your digital feels might be hurt if you hold your hands up and reply, "Fair dos, scot126. I didn't immediately think about the fact that all the supposed peer group names I supplied in support of my argument were all revenue generators, unlike PANR. I also forgot about the massive arrangement fees levied by professional lenders. Also, I'm a dentist by profession. In the same way I would scoff at you conducting your own root canal treatment, I can see why you were exasperated with me. If, in your experience, an ultra short term shareholder loan priced at 10% p.a. is within the standard range for such a facility, I'm happy to accept that. Thanks for the info."

Oh, the comps I'm using are for small cap pre-revenue listed companies from any sector when short term director/shareholder loans are required at very short notice. Why don't you try looking for a ultra-short term, *unsecured* overdraft facility which must be available in 72 hours with no arrangement fee with a 10% *annual* interest rate for a pre-revenue listed company? Good luck.