Member Info for Troughsnout

You guys can accuse me of subjectivity all you like but you can't deny that the stated reservoir pressure is basically on the bubble and if you want it to flow properly you need an injection strategy, either water, or gas or ideally both. If you flow the gas to surface without addressing this you not going to get much in the way of liquids out over time. Now I was not very optimistic about this anyway for reasons stated. On a related point, regarding nitrogen injection, my service chum in North Dakota (service company) quotes me $2.5 a 100 scfs of N2, so that's $25,000 for 1mmcfd injection, daily, or for a bigger job $125,000 a day for 5mmcfd N2, so for a couple of weeks that getting on for $2m. Add in mobilization costs to Alaska and you are probably adding another few $100ks. It is not, as previously suggested contradictory to inject nitrogen to sustain reservoir pressure and lighten/reduce pressure around the well bore - the key is the differential pressure. I assume the same task would be performed by gas injection, or indeed CO2 if there was any floating around. Although N2 is apparently superior given its density.

Except that as Olderwiser has opined in his "brutal takedown" (!) for the Ahpun topset, and likely other reservoirs to work, produced gas needs to be reinjected to maintain pressure, given reservoir pressure at or below the bubble point. You can't have it both ways, though no doubt some wise sage on here will tell me you can. Or perhaps these wells will permanently be on nitrogen injection, which contrary to what OW stated in his "brutal takedown", would otherwise continue to be needed to lighten well bore fluids to enable them to flow to surface and to sustain broader reservoir pressure. Perhaps given the high water cut in the Alkaid 2 well, one would also need to consider how to dispose of the water and associated contaminants in such a pristine arctic environment. None of these things augur well for the economics of the project, especially given gas processing would be required to strip the NGLS out of the gas before reinjection, if the company wanted to use "marketable liquids" in its type curves rather than oil. And all of this in Alaska, near the arctic circle. Still, I'm sure the costs will come down at some point, eh.

Not wanting to belabour the point but I just wanted to illustrate the difference between Pantheon's approach to an IER (below) and a standard form full CPR (as an example, Risc Advisory below). There is no comparison in terms of technical detail and integration of a commercial modelling approach. There are also a number of ERCE CPR's freely available online to cogitate over. I remember reviewing the Hurricane one some years back. Didn't agree with all of it but it was a basis for an opinion.

Here is PANR's summary NSAI report:

https://www.pantheonresources.com/index.php/investors/shareholder-documents/681-netherland-sewell-associates-independent-expert-report-contingent-resource-estimates-of-the-kodiak-project/file

By contrast here is RISC Advisory's CPR on the EON UK upstream assets commissioned by Premier Oil in 2016 (page 46 onwards):

https://riscadvisory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Premier-Oil-Final-Circular-RISC_web2.pdf

The latter is a basis for forming an opinion on financing a project, the former is not.

Happy Easter one and all.

@Jason

Management specifically told NSAI not to test for commercial considerations in running their Kodiak scenario for recoverable resource. I assume the same is true for Ahpun.

For the trolls on here please explain this sentence. Will Ahpun be assessed with the same omission?

"As requested, we did not perform an economic analysis on these resources; as such the economic status of these resources is undetermined"

How on earth can you have a legitimate IER or CPR without testing the commerciality threshold? Without knowing how many wells, how long laterals, how many frac stages, what to do with the gas, what to do with the water. Imagine the billions of barrels of recoverable resource one could dream up in the onshore US, Canada or elsewhere if cost of wells and other commercial factors were disregarded.

In between making ad hominem attacks perhaps one of the sages on here could address that specific question.

I do so much love living rent free in your neolithic (yes another lithic!) heads....

In order to establish any kind of funding route outside equity issuance a full CPR meeting PRMS criteria is required that covers not just theoretical resources but a path to commerciality : means of exploitation to commercial return. The current IER approach (whoever undertakes it) doesn't achieve that. I quote from the NSAI report on Kodiak (summary only)

"As requested [Why??], we did not perform an economic analysis on these resources; as such the economic status of these resources is undetermined"

"The resources shown in this report are contingent. upon...acquisition of additional technical data that demonstrate producing rates and volumes sufficient to sustain economic viability across the acreage.."

There are many more caveats. But unless these are addressed in a full CPR by a top auditor like ERCE with demonstrated commerciality then no offtaker or vendor is going to finance a development. That task will be left with the bagholders.

Until then feel free to enjoy reading an IER that says what mgmt want it to say and floats around in cloud cuckoo land...

PS My cleaner wrote this.

This RNS is a classic of the genre. Hopium over an LNG project that has been kicked around for decades and still can't raise the FEED money, more gibberish over fantasy contingent resource reports. As for financing, the offtake financing is now reduced to fantasy land over 2030+ gas via said LNG project (so obviously no money anytime in the next 5-10 years if at all), and the vendor financing isn't really vendor financing at all just some vague language about reducing up front cash requirements and incentives for exceeding [sic] "target service costs"! So more equity inevitably coming shareholders way to keep the ball rolling.

Meanwhile, my spidey senses suggest the next pivot/pump being lined up. David Hobbs is Exec Chairman of Proton Green, a small OTC helium company with $20m of debt, but with some apparent helium production and reserves coming on stream. Steven Looper's helium biz was reverse acquired into a shell OTC company Cyber App and now called Proton Green. Enter one D Hobbs. Suddenly there is mention of helium in PANR's RNS's, not once but twice. Is this the next stage of the PANR story, after the Texas switcheroo in 2016?!.... I see balloons! Back into Proton Green, take on its debt, and raise money OTC in the US on the back of an Alaska helium pump. Pumptastic mate!

You guys keep referencing SLB and other "paid" experts. None of those reports are worth the paper they are written on. An IER is not a CPR. The contingencies in that NSAI piece make any contingent resource claims risible - for example the resources were not constrained by economic considerations! Does anyone here remember Oryx Petroleum in Northern Iraq. That had a blockbuster NSAI report that turned out to be toilet paper. And that was for 2P reserves not even contingent. As for SLB or the rest, I will believe it more when and if they agree to co-fund or finance development through vendor financing. Otherwise they are just paid to write a report, the contents of which were not provided to investors, just a few summary lines and generic blurb. The last service company in bed with PANR that came anywhere close to taking resource risk bailed out pretty quickly and for peanuts - HAL. Ask yourself the question, why apart from paid-to-promote brokers like Ireland, does a company like PANR with its decent market cap, not have any decent brokers covering it. Where is Stifel, Jefferies, Peel Hunt, Auctus? Where are the conference calls of mgmt with top sellside analysts that other oil companies have? Why is the only way you get to hear from management through infomercials like paid content provider Proactive?. Why on webinars are there not lines open to buyside and sell side institutionals who can ask questions live? Why is it just instead a selection of random softball questions dreamed up by Hondris. Why don't you get NSAI's full chapter and verse and SLB's full report? Ask yourself those questions. What would be the reason to do it this way rather than go down the institutional route? And once you've answered those questions then go back to trolling me and others who dare to ask them.

Didn't see the announcement for the gas pipeline at CERA Week that Flight was trailing, with base capacity supplied by PANR...can someone find me the presser? Where was the deal on the FEED we were told would be announced, and that PANR gas would unlock....?

Was about 9 million end of December. Can't be much over 5 left. Irrespective of other financing options (which i'm highly sceptical of) they are going to need equity to cover admin costs and G&A at some point soon. Look forward to the trolls having a go at me! Ps Any news on this Alaska pipeline secured by Pantheon's low CO2 gas? Haven't seen any so far....

Have a lovely weekend too, clink clink!

I couldn't be more relaxed. This is not a big short for me. It was the last time around when the thing priced well over a pound. Thank you so much for that opportunity by the way. This is more for the amusement of seeing what passes for insight on this blog. Hobbsy said he would pay the March convert in cash from the money raised in November. The fact he hasn't speaks volumes. Enjoy the ride. Don't say you weren't warned. #bagholders.

Shows how financially constrained PANR is. Hobbs promised that by raising equity last November he would be able to pay the December and March convert payments in cash. Suddenly it seems they that cash to keep the lights on. Tick tock.

Dear full time PANR bloggers:

Could you please point me to where in PANR public disclosure a CO2 content of less than 3% is pointed out concerning gas? Also in the now famous video regarding the AGDC pipeline can you point to where Great Bear or Pantheon is mentioned as opposed to "other fields". Other fields, apart from Point Thomson (which has 8 tcf of quite low CO2 gas), and Prudhoe Bay (20+ tcf) include Pikka Horseshoe, Willow, Smith Bay etc all with multi tcf of proven gas. Are there any remarks, anywhere, where Tim Fitzpatrick mentions Great Bear/Pantheon? In regard to all this, has anyone weighed the evidence presented in this piece? https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/01/24/political-pressure-builds-as-state-led-alaska-lng-project-goes-another-year-without-a-deal/ Always happy to digest and reflect on contrary arguments - that's what makes us all better as investors, and why this bulletin board is such a pleasure to interact with!

This is a puff piece response to a promoted story, with cloud cuckoo caveats. The only caveat here is one: caveat emptor. I keenly await the capital raise that is presumably waiting in the wings. And I hope it does spike. Would love another big fat opportunity to short rather than the modest returns currently on offer. So please bid it back up to a quid!

How on earth will you get an offtake announced before you have a pipeline study commissioned and a pipeline securing FID? Thats years away!! And how would you sell an offtake when you don't even have a commercial well to your name. Its fantasy land. Focus on finding commercial quantities of oil first and we can discuss the gas in (checks watch) 2035...

Putting Scot's trolling to one side, here is an interesting piece to read through for those interested in Alaska LNG. Point Thompson is the source for most of the low CO2 gas, an 8 tcf retrograde condensate field (4.4% CO2) operated by Exxon, 60km to the east of Prudhoe bay (which itself has over 20tcf of higher CO2 gas reserves. There's quite a lot of chapter and verse about how that would fit in. The key issue with the cross-state pipeline is that it wouldn't work at the lower diameter 24in pipe given the enormous tariff having to be imposed to earn a return on capital (as mentioned before upwards of $10/mcf). But a higher diameter pipe supplying 3bcfd would need a full LNG plant to be constructed at $40bn plus cost. Given the current climate of surplus LNG that seems unlikely, along with political and environmental opposition becoming more entrenched. Regarding Pantheon's gas, modest flows of wet gas production from numerous hypothetical fracked wells is of marginal interest whatever the promoters and trolls say. LNG is big boys stuff if it ever gets anywhere near the drawing board, and Exxon and others will want to monetise their gas first. The fact that the $50m FEED money hasn't been found yet doesn't augur well. See this report for details: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/draft-seis-0512-s1-alaska-lng-volume-2-2022-07.pdf

Always attack the man not the ball don't you Scot. Happy to address Olderwisers points. I note he only covered part of the note and didn't address the reservoir points or type curve concerns. I stand by the other points made - If the company wanted to split out "black oil" in its press release it could have done, rather than hedging it with separator liquids, marketable liquids etc. Did the press release cover when oil flow begin, and when it stopped and was that because of thee well being shut in or otherwise? Why not run the test for longer? How long did it flow at 100bls/d of whatever? An hour? A day?? In the past they gave clarity on oil/gas/ngls mix. Not in the "topset" release. Anyway i can assure you that my report had input from veteran oil industry experts with geologicial expertise and experience of working in similar basins. No one in sell-side capital markets who is not on the payroll takes this business seriously - just ask anyone at Stifel (Wheaton), Jefferies (Wilson), Auctus (Foucauld), Morgan Stanley or even Peel Hunt (Cooper). Or any of the buyside oil investors at specialist oil funds at schroders, Guinness, investec etc.... That's why its left to retail trolls like yourself to pump and paid-to-promote brokerages like WH Ireland etc...

They can't even raise the money for the $50m FEED. 1300km cross state pipeline. Keep dreaming! Far easier to develop the remaining Cook Inlet gas resources...https://www.enstarnaturalgas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CIGSP-Phase-I-Report-BRG-28June2023.pdf. The 300mmcfd pipe in your puff piece would require >$10/mcf pipeline fee to get off the ground. Who is going to pay for that? The customer?! Unless you build a 3bcf/d pipe. Even then you need >$1-2/mcf. But then you need FID on another 45bn of capex for an LNG plant to deal with all the gas. Assuming you can supply that gas. Its just complete nonsense. But lets meet up in 2035 and see how its going!

Did you actually read any of the reports on substack. Where if anywhere have you detected "dishonesty"? If you believe there are factual or analytical errors in those reports, please draw attention to them. I haven't as yet seen a coherent rebuttal but am always interested to read a contrary opinion grounded in factual analysis.

I'm part of a global conspiracy ("the collective") powered by the deep state and various shadowy hedge fund entities (codename "Mangrove") as well as George Soros and the Rothschilds to deprive you of your Pantheon millions.. Password: "Rosebud". The Collective are deeply concerned at the possibility of this 1300km pipeline seeing the light of day and allowing Pantheon to enter its rightful place among its peers like Aramco and Exxon Mobil. Chuckles.