Member Info for tonynorstrom1

I think you have got this one wrong Stas - Masagements primary objective is to run the business properly including taking funding decisions in a prudent and timely fashion. You keep banging on about dodging emails and investor questions on funding - your surely not suggesting that they should have disclosed material and non-public information to you violating market regulations?

Stas:

They cannot diseminate material news either by email or in a podcast - you know that - it has to be by RNS.

As far as Zeus stating PANRs financial position prior to the equity raise - what they stated was factual and did not necessarily imply anything - that’s your assumption that no funding was imminent. In fact with PANR’s widely stated estimate of $350m required to first oil and that they were going to be proactive and not reactive - funding could happen at any time.

I saw your posts claiming market manipulation - I’m not as knowledgeable as some on the mechanics of the market but the volumes to me did not suggest that any of the big guys were jumping ship prior to the RNS- the big spike in volume was after the RNS. Your posts on market manipulation is speculation only - whilst it could be true - you have no evidence - only your opinion.

Just my opinion. If the flow test is positive - everyone will be smiling and singing the praises of management. If the flow test disappoints - I suspect we will be a lot lower than 25p.

Hobbs has also specifically said that they will be opportunistic with funding and arrange when available and not last minute when it is required. Most accept that oporating from a position of strength works out better than when in a position of need. Anyway - everyone is free to make their own evaluation.

Midnight7 - you’ve taken Hobbs completely out of context - he’s never said funding was not required - they’ve stated clearly what the estimated funding is to get to first oil. He’s also stated that they will look at multiple funding options that include debt, equity, farm ins and asset sales - whatever offers the best return for shareholders - but hey - dont let facts get in the way of your version of the truth.

That’s a bit harsh Stas - don’t you think? They need funding - funding is always done at a discount and PI’s were never going to stump up $30m - we’ve seen this before with other companies where PI’s are given the chance to participate and only take up a fraction of their allotment. A bit frustrating for PI’s but a significant vote of confidence in the assets. I see it as an overall positive including for PI’s - realistically I don’t see what else they could have done.

Blue !

"Imho the pantheon share price will not remain in the 30s for much longer." - and by the way - you called it spot on !

I got lucky here stas - I bought another 36,000 shares a little earlier this morning. Usually my buys are the kiss of death.

"Positive RNS on Monday to f@@ing it up and with a webinar where they didn’t actually tell you anything new for the RNS and actually making it worse with how short it was. Pointless at the highest level."

Maybe clueless at the highest level ! Do you not understand that material news has to be released via an RNS and not during a Webinar !

Dream big - you need to understand a couple of things that you clearly don’t - first and most important point is that any material news has to be released via RNS and not announced in a meeting - what were you expecting??

The disappointment that some raised about not answering questions during the meeting - I agree - poor.

Also clearly questions on funding not addressed - poor!

Personally I think the drop today is not justified but time will be the judge.

Well I personally think AI is great. POD cast was great - clearly a shift to a production focus now. I'm surprised that the SP did not react a little more strongly. I suspect it indicates that the smart money thinks there are still some risks around the flow test. I asked AI what these may be and it spat out the following:

🛠️ Technical Risks

• Reservoir Performance Uncertainty

While the lateral hit ~5,200 ft of the SMD-B reservoir—exceeding pre-drill expectations—actual flow rates, pressure behavior, and hydrocarbon mix (oil vs. NGLs vs. gas) remain untested until stimulation and production begin.

• Hydraulic Stimulation Complexity

Agreements are in place for stimulation, but execution risk remains. Poor frac design or reservoir compartmentalization could lead to suboptimal flow or early water breakthrough.

• Deviation and Wellbore Integrity

The pilot hole required deviation management to reach the optimal landing zone. Any instability or mechanical issues in the lateral could compromise flow test results or long-term production.

• Fluid Composition and Handling

The mix of hydrocarbons will be determined post-flow test. If gas or NGLs dominate, it may require additional infrastructure or reduce immediate commercial attractiveness.

Strategic and Commercial Risks

• Type Curve Calibration

The flow test is critical for refining the production well type curve. If results fall short, it could downgrade resource estimates or delay development timelines.

• Resource Upside vs. Execution Risk

The company has identified additional zones (SMD-C, Slope Fan, Prince Creek) with potential upside, but these remain speculative until tested. Overreliance on unproven zones could inflate expectations.

• Market and Infrastructure Dependencies

While the field is near existing pipeline infrastructure, any bottlenecks, regulatory delays, or cost overruns in connecting to market could erode margins.

Another reason why this metric might be useful:

Both UK listed on the same exchange

Both currently forecasting 1st Oil in H2 2027

RKH = 320m bbl of 2C MC = £540m SP = 85p

PANR =1.8b of 2C MC = £384m SP = 32p

Not all 2C resources are created equal and there are a lot of factors to look at including available financing, capital cost etc.

You could argue the headwinds / politics favour PANR. RKH is further along with the funding. Both locations remote/ harsh conditions / relatively expensive developments. From Copilot:

RKH Capex $8/bbl Opex $17/bbl

PANR Capex $13-15/bbl Opex $13-15/bbl

If you value PANR at 50% of RKH prorating for the barrels PANR SP would be (1.8/0.32)*(540/384)*32p *0.5= 128p

Also per copilot - the gas sales agreement and the helium not factored into the opex/capex costs above - makes PANR even more compelling

Its no that rubbish - the share count has been essentially static for quite a while - it just about covers Manolo's share awards !

"Whilst results to date are extremely encouraging, the outcome of flow testing will determine any path to commerciality."

This is probably a nod to the previous well where many criticized them for being too bullish and not adequately flagging the risk associated with a flow test. Here the wording seems a little on the conservative side although risks clearly remain.

Its been discussed here before - the main risks appear to be operational rather than geology i.e. the risk of a sand blockage or some other operational upset. Any way - not long to find out now. A lot rides on a positive flow test.

Agreed Stas - it will be interesting to see what the market thinks!

How many shares is it now Simon - 100 million?

I agree - JamesSimon = zero credibility!

Here’s a question - I asked Copilot:

“Is fracking a precise science or is it an iterative process?”

It’s a bit of both, which is what makes it so fascinating and controversial.

Fracking—or hydraulic fracturing—is grounded in precise engineering principles, but in practice, it’s also highly iterative. Engineers start with carefully modeled subsurface geology, choose specific well designs, and calculate the exact mix of water, sand, and chemical additives needed to open up rock formations and release trapped oil or gas. So yes, there’s rigorous science behind it.

But here’s the twist: the subsurface is unpredictable. No matter how good the models are, once the fractures start propagating deep underground, their exact paths can deviate due to natural faults, variations in rock strength, and hidden geologic quirks. That’s where the iterative part kicks in. Engineers use real-time data to adjust pressure, flow rates, and fluid composition on the fly. They often apply lessons from earlier wells or stages in a single wellbore to tweak the operation.

Sea Hawk - I didn’t question the cement issue, but the fact you might be correct on this issue still doesn’t disguise the fact you are batting 1 out of 3. Do you have a link to where they discussed using a wrong frac design?

Leeteuk - it matters if what he’s posting is not factual ! No problem with criticizing management - but keep it real !

The other point Sea Hawk does not appear to appreciate is that the cementing, fracking and various testing is not physically done by PANR - it’s typically done by third part Oil Field Services companies such as Baker Hughes or Schlberger - these companies are recognized as best in the business.