We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pantheon Resources Plc | PANR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.78% | 32.10 | 09:12:31 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31.80 | 31.70 | 32.10 | 31.85 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| OIL & GAS PRODUCERS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 03/5/2024 09:27 by olderwiser2 It is reassuring to see such a close alignment between PANR's estimates and the LKA IERWith LKA estimating 79.3 m barrels of salable liquids, over 78 wells, each well averages 1.017m barrels, interestingly very close to the conservative 1m PANR have used in their financial modeling, and the 1.2 m used in other models. What gives this some context is the share price decline from £1.40 to £0.10, on the much exaggerated basis, and short thesis, that the ALK 2 long term flow test was not a commercial success, too much gas mostly condensate etc. And the suggestion that these results would also apply to all the other reservoirs, (now disproven by the SMDB flow test results) LKA have quite definitively now given their expert independent view that, the ZOI is a costed commercial success, expected to yield greater than 20% RoR. Specifically 21.75% for the reserves based on the ALK 2 horizontal, and 27.69% for the contingent resources. A first award of possible reserves of ~5m barrels, is a major affirmation, that the reservoir is viable, the tipping point to reserves being the demonstrated proven flow rates at ALK2 H. (IMO these are project FID away from being probable reserves) Bear in mind these flow rates were sub optimal as the frack efficiency was only 20%, and PANR have demonstrated a 50% frack efficiency in their next attempt in the ALK 2 SMDB flow test. Which bodes well for the PANR modelling based on 40% frack efficiency Looking at the GOR, there is a notable change, ALK2H showed 505 barrels and 2300mmcf/d, a GOR of 4560 cf/ barrel, while the LKA IER calculates out at 5341 cf/bl (423577984000cf/79.3 m bls). A bit higher than the actual results at ALK2H, but not a deal breaker Simply put the worst of PANR wells are still million barrel wells, and million barrel wells stack up as viable as a stand alone reservoir, in the base case scenario. To which can be added synergies with the stacked SMDB reservoir, with a PANR assessed 2m barrel recovery, with much lower GOR, and the potential to exceed base case towards high side case The other notable ratio is the oil to NGLs, in ALK2H 180 bo plus 325 NGLs, ratio of 1:1.8 is compared to LKA IER of 43,300,000 bo plus 36,004,000 NGLs, ratio of 1: .83. On the face of it this is a huge improvement, but I suspect it reflects a shift of condensate from the NGLs column to the oil column, clarification is required, as if a genuine change it will reflect in the 90% value attributed to the mix of oil, condensate and NGLs This from the LKA IER stands out in regard to the possibly conservative nature of the assessment “The estimates of reserves, resources and future net cash flow set forth in this report utilized the production results, completion efficiencies and fluid analysis from the long term production test of the Alkaid #2 horizontal.” Bear in mind the completion efficiency was only 20%, I would also like to see this clarified, as to what efficiency LKA have used in their modeling. If a low efficiency has been input to the base case, the probability of a better result is high. It is going to be a complex decision for PANR to make on the next move. Allocate resources to the tried and true of the ZOI with a lower RoR, or back the SMDB with no long term flow test, but a much higher estimated RoR. Who knows maybe a hybrid of both |
Posted at 26/4/2024 14:28 by jessieduke2 References, your post: 38051Do check out the server for more information but an overview reply on where we are: PANR’s gas is pipline quality <3% co2 and is ready for wholesale without co2 stripping. It is this that puts PANR gas ahead of all other Nslope producers and puts PANR and the State (AGDC) in a symbiotic relationship. It’s not about geography. This is huge commercial advantage over other Nslope producers who in order to qualify for pipeline access have a capital spend in the order of ~10b$ to build a carbon stripping plant. Furthermore PANR’s low co2 gas allows PANR to leverage a cheap gas offering with minimal treatment requirements to the state that actually turns the probability of the pipeline project on its head, with enough margin to get the project funded and built. I have previously posted an economic example (copied below). Strategically this puts PANR ahead of other n/slope producers as the State NEED PANR gas at no more than $1 per mmbtu to get this done. PANR and the State are bound at the hip which elevates PANR, a small AIM listed company to the top table, along side major O&G upstream but also top tier construction, international entities, Asian traders who deal in world LNG supply and distribution. When the ripples of this hit the radar across industry, key stakeholders will want exposure to the upside of the project. Huge potential for a PANR re rate. So, to your question References it’s not a case of ‘do PANR get to use the pipe first’?, PANR ARE THE PIPE - and allow the economics to work. I know that sounds ridiculous, - to be the reason a global 40b$ lng project could ultimately go ahead, but it’s a fact. What does that do to a minnow like PANR? Shock and awe stuff, shock and awe. To answer your other questions. The AlaskaLNG project is fully permitted as a whole. It awaits its FID for phase1 after the completion of FEED work scheduled to run for 1yr from July 2024. My understand is that the AGDC need an investment of 50 m$ for FEED, but investment partners locking at that require a firm commitment of offtake for the gas (Enstar and Nutrien) and a producer to commit to long term supply contract with a price attached. We know PANR have given this assurance. The timeline for both the AGDC FID decision and PANR full funding strategy is in sink and one could argue the AGDC schedule is actually pegged to PANR development schedule. With those commitments in hand the AGDC can work on phase 2 stakeholders. (AGDC announced this week the update with the Japanese consul to Alaska) and there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence of industry specialists liking pantheon articles, obviously aware of the projects development. My hunch is heads of agreements for key project stakeholders are being put in place ahead of FEED decision with option agreements for phase 2. Other developments from the Alaska legislature is House Bill 222 (HB222) which looks to allow the Alaskan Permanent Fund to invest for upto 25% of project funding. The State is gearing up for skin in the game, which is prudent as the below economic model shows huge IRR’s for the State, and they can out to bed the instate squabble over PFD cuts which are the yearly payments made to every Alaskan as a share of the states natural resources income, yr on yr income and payments for the state budgets are falling. The destiny of State economic growth is in its own hands, and a no brainer (IMO) for the State to back its own infrastructure project. And so the age of the symbiotic relationship between PANR and State begins ….. Pipeline economics: The AGDC point to the presentation slides for basic economic considerations. Using guided input cost and sale price, along with financing headroom shows a robust project. hxxps://www.akleg.go Global LNG Japan current price $8.993 Enstar has stated importedLNG as cook-inlet replacement could be $16 double the baseline cost of AlaskaLNG phase1. From AGDC website: Pipline capacity 3.3 bcfd Long time planning 3.1 bcfd Pipeline development economics look sound: (All figures are illustrations) 8$ mmcf delivered price gas out 1$ mmcf gas in (PANR) Gives 7$ per mmcf to build and finance pipeline. 7$x1m =7m$ per bcf x 180bcf (PANR agreed supply with AGDC) Revenue on 180bcf per year is 1.26b$ 10.7b$ project build out cost but let’s say 12b$ for headroom. Funded @6% amortised over 20yrs & 30yrs Gives 700-900m$ per year financing payment. Ramp up to clear 300m$ profit from base line Instate supply of 180bcf (1.26b$ rev less 900m$ financing payment) Senior debt - Federal guarantee loans 60% Junior debt - mostly likely 20yr, 10yr bond Mezzanine debt - investment bank/balance sheet. Phase2 export: Additional compression stations on pipeline say x4 to push volume. Max capacity to 3.3 bcf per day. 1277 bcf per year. Long term planning based at 3.1 bcfd Profit ramps on forward curve as debt is covered from baseline phase1 Additional profit as loans get paid down. Obviously this there are tax implications to deduct but it’s hard to argue with the general concept of this calculation. Join us @ Flights Investment Server Has an AlaskaLNG channel dedicated to following this element of the PANR investment case. Download the discord app for phone or laptop then use this Invite to the server: hxxps://discord.gg/f |
Posted at 15/4/2024 13:07 by content5827 Helpful refuses to say if he is short or not.Helpful won’t respond to forwoods take down of helpfuls claims last week. Now he has a further boost to his dubious credibility when he accuses others for belittling when helpful continuously refers to us genuine panr shareholders as mug punters(including the billionaire lord Michael Spencer as well as the chairman David Hobbs who bought a large position in Panr with his own money). I have tried many times to get helpful to share with us his past successes so that I and possibly others may have reason to think i should consider him over my own thoughts on panr but as with refusing to reveal why he trashes panr,there is complete silence… Personally as said before I am definitely will to listen to bears but first I need to hear their motives. Others may disagree.Each to their own. |
Posted at 14/4/2024 17:27 by attyg Thinking further - there must be an excellent chance that FID for Kodiak will go ahead sooner than slated in presentations.What stops the Company declaring FID for Kodiak now? It’s not that they don’t have commercially recoverable oil. It’s Money. What can we reasonably expect regarding funding now? Possibly Ahpun drilling commencing up to a year earlier than plannned - thus producing money and getting to break even sooner. An agreement being signed with AGDC in the near future providing PANR with access to ~$250m of reserve backed lending able to be drawn down against drilling wells. DH’s initial plans require $120m to get Ahpun to cash flow break even, so he will have plenty up his sleeve to develop Kodak whenever he wants. Ahpun is likely to deliver better than base case oil flow - so quicker for Ahpun to get to break even. We await the IERs on the Ahpun fields - imminently. The NSAI report highlights the newly acquired Kodiak leases are capable of producing much better flow rates than in the base case - which in any case provided payback within one year! So less cash drain than initially anticipated for each new well. Of course we can hopefully look forward to all the capex costs being significantly less than base case once the gas pipeline is established which will avoid the need for almost every third well being a gas re-injection well. All in all, I think DH will be motoring to get these fields producing asap. As he said some time ago - words to the effect - once the market recognises what PANR will deliver, the share price won’t care about shorters - it will jump. Basically, the gas deal - if it gets signed - totally changes the landscape for PANR |
Posted at 13/4/2024 19:26 by attyg What is the final investment decision?Final Investment Decision means the decision to be made by the Members, after review of the Feasibility Study and Permit Approval pursuant to Section 12.4 of the Agreement, as to whether to proceed with a Development Program and Budget and Project Construction Contracts to place the Properties into production. FID for Ahpun is set for 2025 - according to the most recent AGM presentation. However, if PANR signs agreements with the AGDC for gas and following receipt of the recently commissioned IERs from backed up with updated NSAI overall report - all possibly concluded and signed by 30 June 2024 - might Ahpun FID be brought forward? Surely FID on Ahpun is an internal company decision, so if the IERs state Ahpun is commercial (the IERs are also to report on the economics of the fields as well are their size) and we have signed an agreement with AGDC for the gas enabling PANR to obtain reserve backed financing of up to $250m – what is there to stop the BoD declaring FID on Ahpun in June 2024? Even if the oil didn’t flow, we know the gas will flow, so PANR should have no problem delivering the gas – and make money just on the gas. Did anyone else think it curious that DH said - I hold my hands up - I could have been more explicit about the link between the discussions with AGDC and funding. (Frankly I don't know how he could have provided such a steer without the AGDC being more open and forthcoming about their plans.) He said it twice. Was he giving us a message? DH confirmed that no other oil fields are in a position to deliver gas directly into the proposed gas pipeline – apart from Ahpun – at this moment. Not only is our gas substantially below the 3% max CO2 allowable for entry to the pipeline, but Ahpun is directly below where the gas pipeline will be located. Thus a planned gas pipeline FID due in 2025 was not unreasonable as there were issues in the AGDC getting access to suitable gas. However, now that Ahpun not only has the right gas but does not require further infrastructure to link it to the pipeline, plus the expectation that the AGDC and PANR could conclude negotiations on the supply of gas by 30 June 2024 – might the AGDC bring forward their FID? After all, it will take a couple of years to build the pipeline and Alaska needs the gas – so the sooner they start…. AGDC has all the permits to build the pipeline – they just needed the gas! Once they have the gas supply resolved, they can then get the financial support – the business case is overwhelming, so a simple enough process to get the funding. I understand Biden is supportive of the export LNG facilities and thus the internal delivery of gas to the south and central Alaska. With the Presidential election only a few months away, it would be unsurprising if the go ahead on the development of the gas pipeline was not accelerated through before November allowing Biden to take credit for this infrastructure development while campaigning. Maybe I am joining too many dots - but I have the strong impression that things are moving faster than is being publicised. Again, maybe my wishful thinking. Supremely confident - was what I took away from the webinar. Supremely confident they have some 3+ billion barrels of recoverable oil over the whole acreage. Importantly for us, supremely confident they will have the financial resources to develop sufficient wells till the company is cash flow positive – quite possibly without the need for any further placing of shares. |
Posted at 12/4/2024 10:24 by content5827 I wonder why helpful never sends his calculations to panr during the webinars q and a sessions and let panr respond?Helpful doesn’t seem to want to engage with panr even though he is prepared to send countless posts every week on this site. Why is that helpful?? |
Posted at 04/4/2024 11:48 by content5827 HelpfulIs Lord Michael Spencer(a panr investor)a mug punter?Is everyone invested in panr a mug punter? What successes have you had to call everyone invested a mug punter? Why don’t you ever say if you are short panr? |
Posted at 02/4/2024 09:22 by officerdigby Good for upper SFS !Also, I wonder how much PANR know how was used to get this result?Maybe all the 'optimisation' achieved over all the cracks, refracks etc...has enabked this goo result.Also, to PANR management. Please note the details released by 88E on the water cut etc, time lines of flow..etc etc.. I know PANr pride themselves on being open but they withhold these details! |
Posted at 06/3/2024 12:06 by jessieduke2 I think PANR would have known that the AGDC were presenting to the finance subcommittee. The fact it is now confirmed it’s PANR’s gas that is pipeline quality worthy <3% Co2 (as they are talking to consumers), we can further posit it is indeed PANR’s gas that has caused the AGDC to move to AlaskaLNG plan B. (Which was my speculation after watching the video of the meeting) Here’s the [FIS] report link: In view of yesterday’s holding RNS, we can now assume PANR have been at the top table working with the State all along.I’ve thought about the timing of that public presentation which is now just 2 weeks before the industry gathers at Ceraweek held in Houston , (hxxps://ceraweek.co I’m thinking there could be a State announcement at Ceraweek. If I’m wrong on that and all the ducks are not aligned then the presentation to the Finance Subcommittee on the 26th Feb may not have presented to the legislature the plan B at this stage. (IMO) Does that make sense to you? The AGDC are talking about instruction of FEED from July 2024 which is very soon. So if that’s the position from the AGDC perspective, I believe they would have terms of agreement in place with PANR on indicative sale volumes and price ranges to work through economics inline with PANR’s production model and schedule. I think it must have been expected that journalists would write up the meeting and put it into the public domain. I was sent an article and looked up the meeting as a result. The market is beginning to join the dots. What we don’t know is if the gas pipeline piece is linked to the funding news or if that’s separate or multiple events, the first of which is promised before end of Q1. If that’s not a buying opportunity, with a market cap of £267 ($335), 2b barrels recoverable and so far 4,482 Bcf of gas, I don’t know what is. All the best Flight ✈️ |
Posted at 06/1/2024 20:29 by olderwiser2 Trolls still beating their tired drums, and fluffing up and rehashing the tiresome banality of the last few weeks.Moving along to the investment case now, PANR have 100% of ~ 1 billion barrels of independently assessed contingent oil resource in Kodiak ~ 500 million barrels of PANR assessed contingent oil in Aphun, (currently awaiting the NSAI IER) A proven ability to achieve frack efficiency of 50%, which backs up the 40% required to lift EUR in Aphun, to the very conservatively estimated average 1000bpd in year 1, and expected ultimate recovery of 1 million barrels per well COS of 70% to more than 90% in the newly acquired acreage, much of which will be conventional, rather than the tight conventional PANR have based their financial modeling on. Of note PANR have modeled very conservatively using the actual results from long term testing at the Alkaid 2 anomaly, which is the poorer of the reservoirs, with a frack efficiency of just 20%. In short PANR now have massive discovered resources, that based on real results, are modelling as valuable assets, and are now taking those assets to production. This is the first time this strategy has been applied, and financing sought to transition from high risk exploration, to a bread and butter oil production company. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
