Member Info for tonynorstrom1

Tomhuk,

I agree - they have delivered (and more) on everything they said since the re-negotiation of the loan notes.

The ALLEDGED "trust issues" date back to Liberator - press him - I'm pretty sure that he wont be able to provide anything substantive and the issues will amount to nothing more than his own personal view.

https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1gchfe8-Screenshot_20210615-104131_Drive.jpg

Going off topic again - attached article on Doc Jones's favorite child. Just to re-iterate - I do own and bought purely off the back of Doc Jones's research and the back story - I have no expertise really to evaluate the technical stuff like ore grades etc but I do like the story.

*Warning* though to anyone who might be looking at it - take note of the court case in the article. The Doc thinks that the verdict is in the bag and indeed they have already won one similar judgement in Spain - but who knows what the Spanish Justice system will come up with !

Tomhuk2000 / JustBe,

Thank you - when I could access his twitter comments, his posts were all cut and paste of available articles - no original insight imo except for his ramble on "trust issues" and the "North Sea Debacle"

I'm all for a Contrarian viewpoint though to test the investment thesis and see what we may be missing. If you are interested to find out what these "trust issues" are - why not send him a message on twitter and see whether you can get a straight answer out of him.

I cannot access the text - could you kindly post.

From your summary though it is the same old story - "trust issues" - when I pressed him about this he said that they had lied - its all out there, you just have to read up. I asked him to be more specific and he would not.

I'm pretty sure he lost money - the trust issues I believe relate to the failure of liberator. I believe that he felt as some other investors felt that i3e over egged Liberators chances of success.

Tomhuk2000,

I'm also interested hearing what he has to say - he was always overly negative and posted some information that had no factual basis imo. I recall him accusing i3e Management of lying - when I repeatedly asked him to provide the basis for his comments (which he would not or could not - dont know which) - he blocked me !! I think he lost money on i3e although he claims that not to be case.

Would you be kind enough to post his comments as do not have access to his blog.

https://newsforenergy.com/industry/i3-energy-plc-set-to-boost-production-in-canada-with-drilling-and-dealing/

Nothing we haven't already heard but good to see on a different website / outlet.

One thing that occurred to me whilst reading this - the two wells being drilled in the Wapit area for 175 boepd (presumably 87 each well) - given that they reportedly have drilling sites with potential far greater than 87 boepd, what is the treason for selecting this site. I'm sure that i3e have a good reason - I just don't know what it is.

Scott,

You asked a question on land rights and applicable laws. I 100% agree that that from what I have read including from you that assets on SoA lands have an advantage over competing projects that may be on Federal Land or require access through Federal lands for roads and pipelines etc.

A definite tick in the box for PANR and its SP especially since Alaska's economy is so heavily reliant on Oil. However, Alaksa is not immune to the effects of climate change and will have to adapt in the years ahead - what this will mean in terms of laws and regulation- who knows ! As a scholar of Law and Constitutional Law - I thought you may be interested in this:

"The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3]."

Seems like we are starting to get more coverage - would not be surprised to see them add to their small cap portfolio watch list:

https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2021/06/17/the-i3-energy-share-price-leaps-after-dividend-announcement/

Dividend - I think that the special dividend was paid out at a rate higher than 30% of free cash flow. A question was asked and the response from i3e was that you could not assume that the special dividend was 20-30% of Q1 FCF. Subsequently i3e have declared it a "special dividend". This is what I come up with for H1 & H2:

Special Dividend - 0.16p per share on a quarterly basis (0.32p half yearly)
H1 Dividend - 0.23p (0.12p per quarter for comparison)
H2 Dividend - 0.40p (0.2p per quarter for comparison)

As then add on incremental production - the dividend should grow quite rapidly.

Aleric,

There you go again - drawing me in - your recollection and context was incorrect and you weren't minding your own business - I didn't ask for your input in the beginning. I dont rate you opinion and in addition you are an arrogant little fellow.

I don't mind be corrected and I have held my hands up for misspeaking - but you wont let it drop !! I'm sure were going to hear from your buddy soon with his diatribe - and i'm so looking forward to that !!

giltedge,

Apologies if I was the one of the people who shot you down and well done with RECAF . This is a i3e board however and I3e is a completely different investment proposition to RECAF. I think that i3e is now starting to fall into the investment category as opposed to stocks like RECAF which are much more speculative although I agree that RECAF has some exciting potential - don't fall into the same trap as 88e who watched it go all the way up to about 6p only to see it fall to just over 1p - make sure you understand the real value.

People are are little sensitive to investors, particularly new investors coming onto a board and pumping stocks - mainly because they are an unknown qty dont know the motivations of the person posting and the quality of the information provided.

I did go off subject a little and did half expect someone to push back, however, my motivation was not to pump the stocks per se but to highlight a couple of interesting stocks Doc Jones was now covering. I thought that they might be of interest of fellow posters because of the profile of Doc Jones, the quality of his research and the fact that many on here seemed to value his research on i3e.

I did ask GGG to provide a couple of names that i could benchmark IMO against he said he had some experience in mining otherwise I dont think GGG who have posted anything. I do plan to highlight other stocks that Doc Jones may come up with if I like the research and think they may be of interest to this boards unless I'm told to behave and stick to i3e - so far no one has objected.

GLA

Aleric,

I don't think I was wrong on both accounts - It may be your opinion and your are entitled to it - but that doesn't make you right. You are correct in that that my initial response to you may have been a little "dismissively arrogant" as you put it because in my opinion you are a dismissively arrogant person. I have read a few of your posts to others and its hard not to get drawn into to responding to you in a negative manner.

Scott,

Your response is poor:

1) Selling a bit of oil from a flow test is not really considered commercial development and not what many would consider 1st oil - you can spin it if you like but you know you are talking rubbish.

2) Project times lines it looks like you might have accepted that you didnt actually know what you were actually talking about.

3) I have not not retreated at all on my comments about Alaska being an expensive place to produce oil - its a fact and the reason that their are assets sitting their not developed that would ordinarily be developed elsewhere due to the high costs of working in the artic circle. Even the mundane task of building roads and pipelines become an exorbitant expense.

4) The question of reserves v resources etc is not really a baseline question at all - of course I know the difference - the definitions are out there. I may have misspoken in one of my posts - but I wouldn't read to much into it. You have clearly misspoken on several occasions on areas of the projects you know little about- so what !

Scott,

You are a rude little man - your posts are manic and emotional and although I recognize you have some expertize, your posts are by no means 100% correct. Let me point out a couple of errors or at least areas where things are not as clear cut as you would have some believe:

1) I recently completed a 4 and a half year project for a greenfield 100,000 boepd crude processing plant - I was involved in the project from contract award , through detail Engineering, fabrication, construction, commissioning and handover. Prior to this there was a nearly 2 years of concept selection, FEED and budget approvals etc. So the "6-7 year nonsense" you refer to with regards to a Project Timeline is not nonsense - If you had hands on experience in large Projects - you would know this which you apparently dont. Digging a little deeper and finding out what it might take in Alaska - please find a link to an article posted by Telemachus which kind of backs up this timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/PantheonResourcesPANR/comments/n79g5i/some_of_the_material_in_this_post_is_useful_for/

2) With reference to the Processing Plant above - this is not a small piece of kit - this is about $600m worth of equipment sitting on a plot plan of about 400,000 m2 so the idea of a law graduate heading up to the artic circle armed with his Mont Blanc fountain pen and his brothers 25,000 litre tanker producing commercial oil is just laughable. When I referenced first oil - I meant a production facility - not a one man band disposing of oil from a flow test. Again if you had hands on experience you would know details like this.

3) Permitting requirements and government regulations including state regulation is a risk regardless of what you say and is listed as such in PANR's Annual Report Ref page 12 under Political conditions and government regulations including the Northern Slope Borough and the State of Alaska.

4) Finally cost - When you refer to "sector standout low cost of production". This is of course based on PANR's estimates which are hardly impartial. I'm also assuming that the statement refers to projects within Alsaka. Would I have 100% confidence in the numbers - no I would not given that they PANR have a vested interest in pushing the project forward. However, I'm not talking of just Alaska there are much cheaper places around the world to produce oil competing for project capital.

Facts and data are your friend - even though you may think you know everything - you probably don't and for the sake of your investment you should ensure that you don't let you emotions cloud your judgement - as I said before, I think you are too emotionally attached to your PANR shares - PANR is very much in the speculative range of investments and there are better risk reward plays out there.

Alaric,

The question you asked was what were the issues that I was referring to which I have responded to.

With reference to selling - I don't think I ever said PANR were selling - I'm pretty sure I questioned why PANR have not sold i.e. why there didn't appear to be a long line of parties ready to farm -in - I was not really differentiating between a farm-in or a sale. A farm after all is effectively a partial sale - so I'm not sure what the point you and numpty are trying to make and why that makes you guys so smart ?

As far as a catastrophic ignorance - lets see how well you do with PANR before you make judgements on anyone else.

I am invested here - a pretty small at stake at present mainly because I think there are much better risk reward oil plays out there.

Alaric,

"i've had issues with him before" - you are so transparent. I have dealt with the issue of Alkaid - just refer to my previous post. Others clearly have issues with what you post - one only has to refer to the proceeding posts. All I can say is PI's must do their own research and not rely completely on the "experts" on this BB.

There are some experts on this board by the way - its clear from the technical content of their posts - i'm just not sure that you are one them. The natural tendency of most investors is to be "over invested" in a stock and not properly assess the risks. I did listed to the latest podcast and presentation (despite the assertions of your manic friend) and concur that they were extremely bullish. You only have to look at the SP to see that not everyone is entirely convinced yet.

Scot123,

I don't want into a big back and forth - but I do want to briefly address a couple of points.

Ref your comments about about by surname, whether English is my 1st language and by reference my intelligence in general. I recall you complaining about a previous poster questioning your mental health - to call others rude and post comment such as these - a little rich me thinks !!

There are a lot of pretty clued up people on this board including yourself - does not mean you are 100% right - in fact there is a lot of fluff and hot air in what you have written.

To clarify my earlier comment about Alkaid for Alaric- I know of no issues specifically with Alkaid other than the general concerns about commerciality and environmental which applies to all assets-apologies to SH if this was read as a deliberate attempt to cast doubts on Alkaid

1) PANR need a further 4 or 5 drills to reach an equivalent state to Pikka (your opinion) . I didnt say anything different- assuming you are right - how many years and how much cash / dilution will it take to get there ?

2) Ref: Flow tests on Pikka which I think you originally brought up a month or so back. I didn't say that they were long term tests or otherwise - however, by your selective use of facts and indignant tone - I'm guessing that there were multiple tests over more representative % of the acreage compared to PANR.

3) Ref to 1st oil - trucking to the 1st pump station - really - that sounds like clutching at straws - how commercial is that ! I'm not sure how feasible that is on a larger scale bearing in mind flaring considerations etc not to mention the cost of trucks driving up and down in the middle of the arctic.

4) Environmental / permitting risks - I didn't say that SoA law did not provide certain protections - If you are saying differently then you have misrepresented my comments which I think you have done repeatedly in your response. Are you saying that SoA laws provide cast iron protection against the Federal Government - if you are - I think that that is doubtful to say the least.

I provided an example of the Keystone - whilst not exactly the same scenario - I think it does provide a warning. The Canadian's believed that it violated a bilateral Energy Treaty dating back to 1982. It has not necessarily been accepted (as you state without any context) - it was subject to a lawsuit that was raised during the Obama administration before being dropped when Trump approved the permits . The fact the the Canadian Prime Minister is no longer challenging the decision in public does not mean that he doesn't think it a breach of the treaty. I dont think you can claim that environmental / permitting is not a risk - I bet its listed as a risk in PANR's annual report.

In summary i'm saying that any oil 6-7 years from production, especially relatively high cost oil in Alaska in the current political environment is at risk and I think that is what the market is currentl

Alaric,

"...feel free to jump in anytime Scot! " - whaaat - you don't think he's jumped in ?!

Scott126,

"Tony – you may feel I’m being unnecessarily cruel to you...." - I think your response is way over the top - I'm beginning to think that some of the earlier criticism of your style had some merit. I think that you are probably way over exposed here - that's what I really think !

I have not read your diatribe in full yet - I switch off after the 1st couple of sentences.

I hold a couple of shares, but my interest in PANR is a little luke warm at the moment, a bit like the markets interest in PANR's shares !

JAdam,

What do you make of the transaction sizes - looks like there's no large buys at present. The news is excellent in my opinion - the only explanation is that we are still flying under the radar.

The most interesting news and no one has mentioned it yet - page 11 of the presentation:

"Example South Simonette development (12 wells per year @ flat $75/bbl WTI) provides attractive farm-out or investment opportunity...........Initial investment of $45mm spins flywheel toward 18 kboepd and $800mm+ CF"

I don't think it will be too long before we here something about this - I mentioned previously that I thought they would farm out to speed up development but I wonder what they mean by "investment opportunity" - Oil Bonds ?

This is just South Simonette - they could do the same at North Simionette where I think they said they had modelled a 38 well development targeting 10,000 boepd.

Then they have Clearwater which is supposed to be their best acreage !!!

I'll have to re-run the poll - when I last took it about 1 months back - the vote was to fire his A_S .