Pantheon Resources Share Discussion Threads

[scot126] 15/12/2021 16:20

Hi Bryan_Davis1973 - I always give someone an exit ramp. Direct question. Have you followed the, I don't know quite the correct description to use here, to and fro between john "The Pinnacle" swan193 and me from April this year until today's date?

If the answer is "yes" then my response is, "You're kidding, aren't you?"

If the answer is "no", I'd suggest you do some background reading of the historical "to and fro" before repeating the message within your post #20510. This weirdo's deep and visceral hatred for me has led to obsessive DMs to my inbox, similar DMs being sent to other regular posters and multiple attempts to misinform his fellow shareholders. If you are to hand out advice, I'd first counter with the following: when is the thread going to address the unhinged behaviour of this horrendous human being?

On another thread, I had to repeatedly beg the incumbent prolific posters to self-discipline one of their own who encouraged another poster, with whom he disagreed, to go off and commit suicide. FWIW, the post wasn't directed at me but I stood up to the cretin who wrote it. It literally took months for the regular posters to eventually find their spines and to write that they disapproved of his conduct.

It's not quite as extreme with johnswan193 but he's become *obsessive* about certain posters. It's unhinged and entirely inappropriate. I don't behave that way, ngms27 doesn't, forwood doesn't, PoS doesn't, Rabito79 doesn't, Darcon didn't, Telemachus didn't.....and yet when I appealed to shame the f^ck out of him to get him to wind his neck in, there was barely a whimper on this thread.

This weirdo's behaviour is not normal, and nor should it be tolerated. You deal with that first, Bryan_Davis1973 and then I'll re-address your post #20510.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I actually answered your question. Read my post again. Go back to the August webinar and listen to Bob Rosenthal's answer again/for the first time.

Pinnacle Boy is the one who is adopting an anti-consensus valuation "technique". It is for the thread to challenge the structure of *his* model, not Rabito79's. Rabito79's model is an archetypal risked/unrisked exercise. That's how it works in the big boy world of professional investing. It doesn't mean the consensus is always right, 'cause it most certainly isn't. But the onus of providing supporting evidence, logically, must fall on the person or model which departs so massively from the historically-accepted sector norm.

I look forward to your detailed and forensic questioning of Pinnacle Boy. Good luck and get ready for some inbox action.

[pannikin] 15/12/2021 16:18

That has always been a grey area for me and a irrelevance tbh.They were too many targets for it to be one or the other.There are lots of questions to be answered, but I am grateful at this stage that is the case. If the market was valuing us at £2 right now I couldn't hold the number of shares that I do.In four months time we will have 0-5 successfully tested zones and I don't really care if they are in appraisal or exploration wells and the fact that the market is not convinced increases the risk/reward for those happy to take a chance.

[probabilityofsuccess] 15/12/2021 16:08

Johnswan - are you suggesting the Bod is making misleading statements? What exactly is your point.

Please be clear about what is “funny” about your observation and explain, with reasoning, what you are either inferring from it or insinuating by it……R30;…….but before you post, think about what you are trying to achieve by posting and consider your audience, because without doing so, you aren’t engaging, you are appearing just to be trying to point score, which doesn’t help readers who are looking for insight. Thanks.

[johnswan193] 15/12/2021 15:49

Funny how the same management who as part of the asset raising pitch made a point of telling us in October 2020 that Talitha A was an appraisal well - not exploration, is now telling us it was an exploration well.

Don't believe me? See slide 19 of this:

[dhb368] 15/12/2021 15:44

johnswan, the question asked was 'developing or commercialising these FIELDS'
There is obviously a chance that at the end of a long presentation he may have heard or answered a different question but I think it fair to assume that after the bullish response to the previous question (see below) he was suggesting a 60-70% success case for developing the FIELDS. My interpretation of that is per field for all fields.

Immediately preceding question.
Q: Okay I have a question here I will pass in the direction of Bob and the question is would you consider Pantheon to be an exploration play, or has it advanced beyond that in your perspective.

A: Oh, it’s definitely advanced beyond that, we are at the appraisal development stage, the last probably exploration well in my career was that the Talitha A well, all the other wells were going to be drawing our appraisal and development, so we've eliminated the exploration risk, we found hydrocarbons and were well beyond the exploration stage.

Rabito is not suggesting, or calculating, a 65% chance of success in ALL targets. He is using 65% PER target which is my interpretation of the answer.
Off course the market will never value PANR on that basis, but we all know that. Hence Canaccord's target price being well short of their risked value.

[bryan_davis1973] 15/12/2021 15:43

Scott you are not doing yourself any favour. It seemed like a reasonable debate to me. Maybe answer the questions asked of you instead of causing trouble. Your informative posts are better to read.

Bryan

[scot126] 15/12/2021 15:37

For the attention of everyone. johnswan193 does not know what he is talking about. He doesn't know about the oil sector. He doesn't know how to analyse E&P stocks using the historically-accepted sector methods. I cannot make it more plain than this.

This clown is literally going up against other posters whose day jobs are at the "pinnacle" of the oil industry not to mention against the very management team we, as shareholders, have opted to invest in.

I hardly ever use the word "advise" on this website. I strongly advise readers of the thread to ignore the vapid mutterings of this wretched individual.

[probabilityofsuccess] 15/12/2021 15:27

What is it about egos? This board has been reasonably ok for the last few days and now it’s all about “I’m right, this is my opinion, why is everyone else so naive etc”. Good grief, find some humility people.

Alaric the $3.1 number is from Oil Search’s pricing of Armstrong’s resources.

[johnswan193] 15/12/2021 15:26

Scot, any response to the fact check? Or still just spamming the board with the same old drivel you've posted countless times? Seems somebody has been caught out badly and is upset and embarrassed about it.

I will make sure I remind you of this each time you try to fact check anybody else.

[johnswan193] 15/12/2021 15:19

Rabito, let's just say I respectfully disagree. But I appreciate your effort in putting together the model.

Edit: I only saw your above post after writing this. Although that older model is out of date, the overall risked relative to unrisked is a lot more like it.

[rabito79] 15/12/2021 15:16

Here you go Johnswan, here is other analysis which has more 'realistic' COS numbers. Funnily enough written by the same person who released the unrealistic numbers.https://www.reddit.com/r/pennystocks/comments/o4zwol/88e_88eeeenfpantheon_panrpthrf_and_reconnaissance/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[rabito79] 15/12/2021 15:08

Johnswan, you seem to be missing my point. The numbers I have released don't really reflect my opinions, they just reflect different ways of estimating fundamental value. For instance in different analysis I have used Broker NPVs, Oil Search Deal and now Jay's comments for the NPV. It's literally impossible for me to agree with them all.I also commented I am fully aware that company's often trade well below NPVs but you didn't mention that part funnily enough.

[johnswan193] 15/12/2021 14:51

Dhb368, do you (or anybody else) agree with Rabito's interpretation that he meant a 60-70% chance that ALL of the fields are developed? Because that's what the total risked valuation in his much acclaimed model is based on.

[johnswan193] 15/12/2021 14:48

Rabito, I can tell you right now with a high level confidence that any risked valuation of Panr that is less than 65% of the unrisked valuation is more realistic, such is my ability to spot BS. I expect management would also agree with that. Or perhaps you feel they'll be unhappy with the unrealistic 32% used by Canaccord, which I expect wasn't based off a reckless interpretation of a throw away remark?

[dhb368] 15/12/2021 14:46

From my transcript of the August presentation Q&A

Q: But what does that mean in terms of both risk of the project but also confidence or probability of success if you like in terms of developing or commercializing these fields.

A: Well, again, it is, we’re a much lower risk profile than we were 2 years ago and even where we were from the fall so we are at 60, 70 percent confidence of success.

[johnswan193] 15/12/2021 14:19

Exactly right Jonny. Yet the most optimistic interpretation of that remark seems to have made its way as a best estimate COS in a model that appears to be almost universally accepted on this BB.

[ngms27] 15/12/2021 14:12

From memory they said 60 to 70% for a commercial discovery but was a throwaway remark without any other context.

Is that 60 to 70% per zone or 60 to 70% for just one zone out of five being commercial?

[gorgeousgeorge01] 15/12/2021 14:02

"I am sure he would be smiling down Yogurt, yes and no as to if he was right on Texas."

Mortie est mort remains the most shocking thing I've ever read on a share forum. Poor fellow.

[alaric7] 15/12/2021 13:43

where do you get the $3.1 figure from?

[ngms27] 15/12/2021 13:19

responsible investor, the $1 per barrel feels about right for me as it's a figure I've previously quoted, so I know where the Canaccord Analyst is coming from ;)

Sure if they have good success with the flow tests then I and others won't have a problem with a valuation of $3.1 per barrel from the zones successfully flow tested.

It all depends on whether you accept that PANR has met the criteria for Contingent Resources. Without flow tests it's my personal opinion that they are on unsteady ground with that definition, hence $1 per barrel. I also think that's why they didn't get a satisfactory farm out for this seasons work program.

Lets get some flowing horizons (please please LBFF) and see the shares trading above 200p in the next few months :)

[probabilityofsuccess] 15/12/2021 12:31

Johnswan you may be underplaying your and ngms role in your perceived view that things have calmed down a bit recently. I had noticed a more balanced approach from you (though your last couple of posts have unbalanced it slightly with reference to Scot and the guild AGAIN - it gives the impression you like/seek confrontation). Maybe leave it alone and just focus on PANR?

[responsible investor] 15/12/2021 12:18

No doubt members of this blog will have seen the update from Canaccord - with fair value at a disappointing £2.00 per share.

Canaccord used a value per brl of just $1.00. Rather than use an arbitrary figure of $1 per brl they could have used $3.1 which at least has some credibility based upon a real benchmark even though we are being told that figures of $5-$10 are more likely to reflect the real market for PANR bearing in mind location etc - subject to flow testing.etc., etc. The latter factors should surely however be taken into account in the RF and CoS figures used in the valuation.

However to be fair, Canaccord did refer to "a risked valuation of 417p/sh and an unrisked valuation of over 1,300p/sh. That is the ultimate prize for the company."

I am surprised that the market does not reflect the improved and lower risk position in which PANR finds itself but reassured by the fact that the assets exist and will be exploited.

It will be interesting to see what WH Ireland has to say on valuation!