Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Pantheon Resources LSE:PANR London Ordinary Share GB00B125SX82 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +7.50p +11.45% 73.00p 72.75p 73.25p 73.50p 65.00p 65.00p 2,050,564.00 16:35:25
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -0.9 -0.5 - 156.92

Pantheon Resources (PANR) Latest News

More Pantheon Resources News
Pantheon Resources Takeover Rumours

Pantheon Resources (PANR) Share Charts

1 Year Pantheon Resources Chart

1 Year Pantheon Resources Chart

1 Month Pantheon Resources Chart

1 Month Pantheon Resources Chart

Intraday Pantheon Resources Chart

Intraday Pantheon Resources Chart

Pantheon Resources (PANR) Discussions and Chat

Pantheon Resources (PANR) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
02/12/2016 17:00:5673.0016,24911,861.77O
02/12/2016 16:54:2169.668,6996,059.74O
02/12/2016 16:54:1170.814,0002,832.50O
02/12/2016 16:53:5471.7421,00015,065.00O
02/12/2016 16:40:5673.0020,00014,600.00O
View all Pantheon Resources trades in real-time

Pantheon Resources (PANR) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
02/12/2016
08:20
Pantheon Resources Daily Update: Pantheon Resources is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PANR. The last closing price for Pantheon Resources was 65.50p.
Pantheon Resources has a 4 week average price of 87.56p and a 12 week average price of 94.37p.
The 1 year high share price is 188p while the 1 year low share price is currently 61p.
There are currently 214,957,458 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 3,878,030 shares. The market capitalisation of Pantheon Resources is £156,918,944.34.
30/11/2016
15:31
btgman: Regards the should the shouldn't they debate I think they are right to keep the market informed. The fact that the company expect that this will be a commercial well makes the current share price drop look ludicrous If people are being influenced by idiot posters that is a real shame. I am not impressed with the current share price fall but to be honest I have no intention whatsoever of selling. On any 150 plus well play you get a mix of results it is early days this is only the 4th well and all 4 are likely to be commercial and at least one well looks a stonker, that is a great achievement, I would have taken that all day long 18 months ago. They need to drill probably another 15 to get this sold so much more still to come. Clearly they learn as they go they could drill 4 wells in the center of the basin but it would do nothing to add to the value of the acreage. Lets see what Tyler does, FWIW I think they already have enough to support a £1+ share price. For all long term holders please don't allow the vermin to influence you out of such a great play. It's time to stand up a little long term holders? Lets take a look at what we can see at the moment from test results we have. VOB1 1528 boepd Vob 2 awaiting completion as vertical say 982 boepd (average of other 3) VOB3 Awaiting results say 500 boepd Vos1 920boped Average 982 boepd lets say no oil that would give gross revenue per well at circa $20,000 per day not too shabby IMHO with drill costs $3.5m to $4m. Taxes and royalties to consider. Good luck to all holders. BTG
28/10/2016
00:37
scot126: “Tail wagging the dog” What a welcome RNS that was on Tuesday, eh? And speaking of welcome, welcome to texoil and many thanks for his contribution to our collective knowledge on this board. The website he referred to is most useful indeed, more of that later. A few points in no particular order: I’ve been surprised by the share price reaction following Tuesday’s RNS. The two disclosed institutional shorters don’t appear to have been active one way or the other. Instead it looks to me like very short term private traders are playing the “downtime̶1; between the VOBM#3 TD RNS and the spudding of Tyler 2/the flow test results on VOBM#3/news on ordering of treatment plant for Polk County. That’s their prerogative, it’s a market after all, but not a game I’d be playing as the announcements are due to come thick and fast from now until the end of January. [As an aside, I’ve got no philosophical problem with shorting provided the shorter has secured the borrow.....naked shorting in small caps is unethical in my view.] All that said, the volume isn’t particularly high and thus those short term traders are having a more pronounced effect on the oscillations in share price than would normally be the case IMHO. The reasonably large rotation on the register which occurred following the 5th September RNS (forced MSCI Small Cap Index sellers plus understandably disappointed/margined private investors) looks to have come to an end, doesn’t it? As I’m sure we all have, I’ve tried to analyse the current share register. We’re mostly a bunch of private investors who are long termist by character, believe in the Board’s “prove up and sell on” strategy, support the management......and vitally in my view, have a unit size that they’re comfortable with and don’t have much more ammo or current inclination to allocate further ammo towards PANR (for a myriad of differing reasons)....oh, and we’ve got a small institutional shareholder base, especially for a market cap of c.£200m. As every real estate investor will tell you, the vitality of the First Time Buyers market is absolutely crucial....and it’s little different in a small cap stock. More on that later too. Ok, so I’m disappointed in the share price reaction to a successful TD RNS – by successful, I mean the drill has come in on budget, was completed inside the guided timeframe and has encountered hydrocarbons. Brilliant. I’ve read a great deal about onshore drilling in Texas over the past couple of years or so, again as I’m sure many of us have. Looking at various historical statistics, I’ve tried to ascertain the probability that the JV has encountered hydrocarbons in 4 out of 4 drills by accident, by sheer chance. Depending on those historical stats and the definition of the type of drilling the JV is undertaking, I’ve arrived at a range of 0.1% to 6%!!!! Why do this? To test Jay’s claim that the JV has “cracked the code” and to test his assertion at last year’s AGM that “we ought not to drill a dry hole from now on”. That is one massive tick in the box, for me anyway. So where do I think the share price ought to be? Who knows, the market is always right, Mr Fibonacci tells me the right answer 63.7% of the time, etc, etc :) . The last crystallized price event was the fundraise on 8th March priced at 115p so let’s use that as a base case for the purposes of this post. I thought it might be worth looking at the progress/reversals in fundamentals since that date. The Henry Hub gas price on 8th March was $1.60 and at time of writing it’s $2.73......WTI was $36.70 and today it’s $49.22.......PANR217;s balance sheet is in good nick through until H2 2017 IMHO, and could be cash neutral by Q3/Q4 2017.....PANR has increased its exposure to Polk by 8%......VOBM#3 encountered hydrocarbons and came in on time and budget. The reversals? Horizontal drilling is not going to work for the JV.....the VOS#1 frack didn’t work nearly as well as anticipated........the Board burnt through a fair amount of credibility and a little bit of extra cash (belief in horizontal drilling plus disappointing frack) and goodwill (IR shortcomings surrounding VOBM#2). But fundamentally, what’s the effect been? Even if we use Art Berman’s figures, the multiplying effect of the HH price on its own will dwarf the arithmetic on a higher number of vertical wells being required to drain the acreage v’s horizontal wells (as a reminder, one horizontal well was thought to drain 2.5 – 3 times a vertical well.......capex costs of $7m v’s $12m, say, for the same drainage area). I’ve played about with my model having inserted vertical drilling v’s horizontal for the project and am struggling to achieve a figure any greater than a minus 2% (-2%) effect on an NPV basis. As an aside, where I had 40p of value per share for the Austin Chalk (see mention of Austin Chalk in Tuesday’s RNS, was it inserted just to remind us?), with the HH price move, ought I to move that up to, say, 60p per share? Upcoming timetable: Let’s say it takes 10-12 days to break down, clean, transport and install the NABORS rig at Tyler as the JV moves to spud Tyler 2? Examining the pattern of previous RNSs, we could be looking at, say, 6th November for a spudding announcement for Tyler 2. In addition, it would not be unreasonable to expect to hear in that RNS about the JV’s progress in contracting a workover rig and the likely timetable for flow testing. Indeed a workover rig may have already arrived on site in Polk by that date and even begun flow testing. I reckon the flow test itself may take anywhere from 7-10 days, that sound fair? So we could have the flow test result for VOBM#3 by the week commencing Monday, 14th November? Hot on its heels, or perhaps in the same RNS, we could be told about the JV’s intentions concerning the purchase/lease of a treatment plant for Polk. Back to Tyler and the JV will guide us to a TD announcement for Tyler 2 in, say, 6-8 weeks, thus taking us to the end of December, beginning of January. With the presumption Tyler 2 encounters hydrocarbons, flow testing to be required and reported by,say, the end of January? During this period of flow testing, the NABORS rig will head back to VOBM#2 and re-drill the vertical portion of that partially completed vertical well, a well which we now know encountered 35 feet of net pay in the vertical element. Will they target the sweet spot they intended to hit in the horizontal element of the first attempt to drill this particular piece of acreage? That gives us some hard data to expect in early/mid February. Presumably we’ll then hear around that time about the JV’s intentions concerning the contracting of multiple rigs for 2017 and perhaps guidance on the first cashflow to come from Polk where the treatment plant ought to be in place. Hmmmm, that’s quite an avalanche of news to come in the next 3-4 months. Like hpotter and ltcm1998, I am aware that Jay and Justin have been invited to present on the first day of the Investec Autumn Conference in London, that’s Monday 14th November. The Conference attracts institutions from London, Edinburgh, Europe, USA and Canada. Jay will be staying for at least a week as I’ve been given a couple of slots during that week to introduce potential new institutional investors to PANR management (slots are filled already!!). I presume Stifel and perhaps other brokers who cover Pantheon will be asked to fill the remainder of the week with similar meetings. So it looks like we have a week-long London roadshow coming up and my contact in NY is organising another North American roadshow for PANR before the end of this year. Those of you who have read my posts since November last year may recall that it’s been a concern of mine that the level of institutional ownership of our stock has been rather low, especially when expressed as a percentage of the market cap. There is a perfectly understandable historical explanation for this being the case but I hope at least some fellow long term shareholders will agree with me that this issue really must be addressed as PANR’s equity journey moves in parallel with the JV “proving up and selling” the acreage. Of course I agree with people like Davidblack that the BoD’s primary role is to create value for shareholders (to be clear, they’ve done a superlative job for long term investors, many of whom funded the company when it had a market cap of c.£20m) but it has been my contention that a CEO of a UK listed company, as part of his fiduciary duty, ought to spend a greater percentage of his time educating the UK institutional market. Is it not part of a BoD’s role to ensure the market is educated on both the risks and the potential upside of an investment case – refer also to my description above of an active First Time Buyer’s market being required for an orderly market in real estate....and small cap investing. It is my belief that the massive vacillations in share price this year would have been at least partly ameliorated by a greater level of active, UK small cap institutional ownership. I accept others may disagree with this view. For the record, I do appreciate we have the added complication of being partnered with a private company and we have a situation where the JV may very well wish to add to their leasehold acreage on the best commercial terms for shareholders – I fully accept this is a tricky balancing act. Still, it looks like Jay will be in the UK for a week in November, he’ll be here for the AGM in December and there’ll be a US roadshow before the end of the year. All very welcome indeed. Texoil noted that VOBM#3 reached a depth of c.12,000 feet on 3rd October. He raises a perfectly fair question about the time taken to drill the final 2500 ft as the drill moved towards TD. Perhaps that’s a question to pose to Jay during the AGM in December? I’d be surprised if the JV were “sandbagging” the time taken to reach TD in order to rein in expectations for the drilling duration of future wells. All communications concerning RNS-able events are time-stamped and a NOMAD would presumably have sight of these same communications if required. The main thing, however, is that the JV reached TD on budget, within the timeframe guided and encountered hydrocarbons! fs360 – loved your comment on Tuesday morning.....and it drew the keyboard warrior out of his heavily-defended, apocalypse-beckoning nuclear bunker where he’s been licking his wounds after his frankly ridiculous assertions concerning the cost of a treatment plant for the JV’s purposes in Polk. Of course he’s quite correct that the BoD will know the net pay figure for VOBM#3, of course they will. I’ve looked at historical RNSs and they’ve been consistent – there has been no declaration of net pay figures until the flow tests have been completed and published. I’m totally at ease with that – no conspiracy there for the resident doomsayer, lol, no matter how hard he tries to uncover one. Brian Boru – you’ve said the following a few times now and it’s a nonsense, I’m afraid. Admittedly, you have expressed consistently a view concerning shareholder communications (a view I share only when examining the problems associated with VOBM#2, for the record) but repeating “We’ll attract an opportunistic bid, hope it’s above 2 quid, 3 quid, etc, etc”, is not helpful for readers accessing the bb to educate themselves about the company. Let’s be clear about this in order to help set expectations – it’s the declared intention of the BoD to prove up the acreage and sell it on. I haven’t read the JV agreement (wish I could!) but I’m willing to bet that there will be terms included in that contract which would make it commercially irrational, perhaps even impossible, for PANR’s share of the asset to be sold without the JV completing various milestones, certain data being established and with Vision having a major say in any such transaction. Brian – with respect and politeness, please accept this is the case and stop bleating on about this, listen to your BoD’s stated strategy and if it doesn’t suit your investment profile, that’s fine, sell up and move on. A few people have picked up on a somewhat negative comment released by Zac Phillips of share price Angels. This is going to sound terrible, but I’ve worked in the equity markets since 1994 and I’d never heard of them until this week – eek! I’ve had a quick look at their website and I recognise one of the analysts by name and reputation. They may legitimately say the same thing about me of course, lol!! I don’t know their business model and I’m not judging their experience/education/ability in any way except to say that I have never heard anyone from the sellside or buyside referring to share price Angels and their influence over any UK stocks. Make of that what you will. If anyone is wishing to access research on PANR, I’d urge them to read commentary/research notes from WH Ireland, Panmure, Stifel and I note that Numis issued a morning commentary on Tuesday’s RNS – the first time that they’ve done so as far as I’m aware. Interesting that they’ve now got PANR on some sort of analyst watchlist - Numis are now without question the leading UK small and midcap broker....wasn’;t always the case but over the last 3-4 years that’s been the generally accepted view of the market. Who is talking about the upside risk? Laying some of my cards on the table and notwithstanding the spikes which took the share price from 150p to 180p on two occasions (MSCI buying and US buying following a roadshow), I can actually make a case for the stock being worth 180p right now. I’m not for one minute suggesting anyone follow this view blindly, please DYOR. LOTM is quite correct to urge people to focus on Tyler. IF the JV has indeed “cracked the code”, IF the JV ought “never to drill a dry hole” as part of their drilling programme, IF the net pay zone in Tyler is indeed “thicker and richer” than the zone in the Double A Wells field, IF the centre basin drill (Tyler 2) meets the JV’s expectations, IF the Tyler basin is indeed 20 miles in length and “certainly 2 miles wide, and perhaps 3 or even four miles wide, who knows?” v’s Double A Wells 6 sq miles in area, IF the permeability and porosity of the sandstones in Tyler exhibit similar-ish properties to that found in Double A, IF the combined capex/opex costs and royalties/local taxes come anywhere close to being at or around $10-$12 per barrel, IF the mix between gas and condensate is similar or better than that found at Double A Wells then the upside risk is many multiples of Brian Boru’s plaintive cries concerning an opportunistic bid for PANR. Now that’s a load of “IFs”, a(n) whole load of “IFs” in fact.....but that upside potential is there. Maybe it’s worth going through that list and identifying where you feel the JV has made progress, where they’ve encountered reversals, where we’ve still to see sufficient data to come close to taking a view on any of those questions. I believe that some of those questions are close to being answered, others are many months away.......but they are legitimate questions if fundamental investors are seeking to establish a risk/reward picture in their mind. I’ve been involved in a couple of short positions which have gone all the way to zero pence (hurrah) AND I’ve been long a stock which went to zero pence (not so clever, hmmmmm). I can assure you I’m no genius....but a couple of things I can assure you are that a) this stock will never be zero pence as the asset has some value even if it is solely the Austin Chalk and b) shorters are not always correct, far from it. A quick anecdote for those following the daily share prices this week. In my first year or two of broking I remember a former colleague of mine (he is called Josh) who, when asked why a particular stock was down that day and lacking any definitive news statement from the company on his Bloomberg/analyst report being published/competitor being upgraded/downgraded, etc, etc, he replied with the simple message, “Well, sir, in the absence of any other reasons, it simply appears there are more sellers than buyers today.” Usual health warning: I am a long term investor in PANR and have purchased stock in a range from 14.5p to c.170p. GLA
18/9/2016
21:03
scot126: Dear All – many thanks to rvsy38 for his input on Friday. I’ll do my best to transpose my notes but please do correct any mistakes as it was a group forum and, by its nature, you don’t hear everything clearly or maybe my writing is more illegible than normal! I’ll attempt to deal with past issues of fact first and then share my personal thoughts on those and label them as such. Then I’ll move on to future plans. Polk County, VOBM#2, horizontal drill: The vertical element of this well was drilled ahead of schedule and $600k under budget. They encountered 35 ft of net pay at circa 14,500 ft depth before plugging back as pwald9 has spotted and beginning the horizontal element of the well. pwald9 asks the reasonable question about when they started to discern problems, did they have advance warning? Jay was asked about this directly and you could see in his body language that this has all been most frustrating indeed. He declared that they’d had 12 separate instances of equipment failure during the horizontal element of the drill, and that each event took circa 36 hours to turnaround (extrication of dud tool/battery/drill bit, source new tool, re-insertion of tool, circulating the now settling mud, swapping over the horizontal drilling crews, etc, etc). He confirmed that the company and its NOMAD were in touch constantly and that his view and Vision’s (Jay and Bobby are in daily communication, some days on multiple occasions) was that if the horizontal crew and equipment were all operating at normal efficiency levels then completion to Target Depth (TD) was between 3-5 days away. Progress was variable, ranging from 1.5 ft per hour to 30 ft per hour but, as discussed in the two interviews of the last 10 days or so, they eventually made a decision on cost/benefit analysis that horizontal drilling wasn’t worth persisting with. For the horizontal drilling component of the well, a specialist horizontal drilling crew was contracted. It was during the horizontal section of drilling that most of the aforementioned equipment issues were encountered. Jay confirmed a rough ratio on the JV’s model of 1 horizontal drill equating to 3 vertical wells. The intention of horizontal drilling was to increase efficiencies – it is what the industry does. One horizontal well was forecast to drain what two/three vertical wells could for 50-60% increased cost. Double A Wells was drilled in the 80’s and 90’s and horizontal drilling capabilities have improved materially in that time. Jay was also asked why the JV decided not to flow test VOBM#2. Three main reasons: (1) Cost – given the pressures, to maintain integrity would have required running a production liner 16,000 feet to the surface. Cost could be up to $1m. (2) by running a production liner which is by definition narrower than the existing casing, would mean that when it comes time to re-enter and complete the well vertically, the JV would be stuck with using smaller tools (to fit within the narrower diameter of that production liner) which would compromise the ability of that future operation. (3) the horizontal section of VOBM2 stopped short of the final TD, and so did not get to a high potential target. To complete the well early (to flow test) would preclude getting to that final target. Personal view: As discussed previously on the bb, I have no problem whatsoever with this groundbreaking (hmmmm...poor humour!) attempt to drill horizontally in this area. It was worth a go, it hasn’t worked, the JV learns and moves on. [As an aside, I wonder if the eventual owner of the acreage will throw sufficient resources and engineering nous at this challenge and come up with a long term solution....just a thought, anyway it doesn’t apply to the JV any more]. I am satisfied that our BoD and the NOMAD did indeed have frequent discussions concerning the delays and the materiality of such delays. Jay was asked if he’d do anything different if he had to “do it all over again”? Referring to Malcy’s interview and seeing how he answered at the meeting I attended, it does appear that it was a case of “on the one hand there’s this way of looking at it, and on the other there was this different way of looking at it.” He did appear genuinely torn. Net net? I suspect if the JV were to encounter operational delays in the future, the default setting will likely be to keep the market informed in a more timely manner but that’s just a personal view looking at the body language and tone of voice that showed no evidence of dogma but an appreciation of grey areas of interpretation. It’s also worth mentioning that the base case of the JV’s models were ALWAYS centred around vertical drilling across Polk and Tyler Counties. Horizontal drilling would have been a welcome bonus. I don’t know for sure if the analysts at WH Ireland, Panmure and Stifel need to adjust their models in the light of the cessation of horizontal drilling? My understanding is no adjustments need to be made, and as discussed previously it’s a relatively small negative adjustment to npv per well which is de minimis at this point in the investment case for PANR’s equity value. I suspect the analysts will only have to change any numbers at the upper end of their valuation ranges at point of asset sale. The effect on the JV’s cash expenditure as it moves to scoping out the asset is slight/minimal in my view. A couple of other posters have noted the differential between the net pay of 62 ft in VOBM#1 v’s the 35ft of net pay in the vertical element of VOBM#2. I asked Jay about this directly. The first thing he said was that the 35 ft of net pay in VOBM#2 “was exactly what we expected to encounter” and that due to the drill plan, the pad’s location and anticipated TD “sweet spot” for the horizontal element, they were aiming to encounter a larger net pay had TD been reached. So that’ll remain an unanswered question for now but I was VERY reassured by the 35 ft of net pay being encountered. Remember: (1) Average of AA Wells is c.32ft, and (2) the vertical pilot hole of VOBM2 is offset by c.1000ft from where a pure vertical well for VOBM2 would have been located – to allow for the bend. I wonder, I really wonder, had this been explained more clearly in last Monday’s RNS whether we’d have seen the share price fall so dramatically? We’ll never know of course but I’d gently urge those of a more pessimistic hue to re-read the RNS and insert this extra element of knowledge at the appropriate point. Doesn’t quite read as the complete disaster of a well, or waste of cash resources that on first reading it appeared to some, eh? Tyler County, VOS#1, remedial frack: Ok, no point beating about the bush, the anticipated uplift in flow rates was 2-3x and what was achieved was more like 15-20% or so. It does appear that all the damage to this well was done at the back end of 2015 and it sounds like the operational mistakes have been laid firmly at the feet of a party who will no longer have a role to play in future drilling for the JV! As Jay said a couple of times, “we’ll now never know just how good the VOS#1 well could have been”. The use of heavy barite mud weights can harden like concrete at those pressures and temperatures when not circulated, casing damage, etc, etc have all contributed to a compromised well v’s its geological potential. However, Jay repeated that it was most definitely in his opinion a commercial well (but it will take 6 months production history to have a more accurate assessment given it is 4.5 miles from the closest well so there are few close comparisons), that the JV had learned a great deal for future wells in Tyler and that, vitally, the pressure build up tests give the JV “reason to believe” that VOS#1 has many of the characteristics of LP2 (drilled in 2005 I think he said) in terms of its likely depletion rate and relatively smooth rate of production. Jay was asked about some concerns, publicly expressed, about the permeability and porosity of the sandstone in Tyler. There are many others on this bb who have far greater knowledge on such technical matters than I and I’ll leave it to them to interpret any data made available. All I would add is that Jay stated that he was not worried about the data received thus far and that the relatively high pressures in the zones the JV is targeting allows for the extraction of hydrocarbons at very low opex costs, with minimal, if any, stimulation required. Treatment plant for Polk County: rvsy38 has written a great post (No. 9269 on this bb) and I’d urge readers to have a look. Let’s just deal with the fear mongers, shall we? The modular unit we are looking at is budgeted at less than $1.5m gross. I heard no evidence whatsoever of the JV diverting in the slightest from its oft-stated strategy of proving up the acreage in the two counties and then selling the asset on to a far larger owner-operator. The treatment equipment the JV requires until such time that the asset is to be sold will be sufficient to treat the hydrocarbons from the scoping wells drilled, in order primarily to build sufficient models which will permit reservoir geologists to move towards a financial value of the acreage. Until that time arrives, the JV’s kit will be relatively small and inexpensive, and modular in design. The CEO was dismissive and really quite angry about nefarious suggestions from those with their own agendas who are stating as fact the need for the JV to invest in large treatment plants and thus to tap the markets for more capital, with the attendant impact that may have on the share price. He said that this was categorically not the strategy of the JV and either those people hadn’t read the strategy (prove up and sell to an owner/operator), didn’t understand the characteristics of the hydrocarbons encountered and the treatment which is required to be undertaken, or had unknown agendas of their own. Balance sheet and cash flow: rvsy38 and I were both at pains to nail this one down as it does, obviously, affect the future progress of the JV, the speed of that progress and thus helping to manage the expectations of long term shareholders and the likely investment horizon. Here’s what I wrote down: starting with $30m on the balance sheet following the raise in March minus $6.5m for the extra Polk percentage minus $4m for PANR’s share of VOBM#2 horizontal drill minus $1m for PANR’s share of the VOS#1 frack minus c.$2m for PANR’s share of VOBM#3 minus $2.5m for PANR’s share of VOS#2 minus c.$1.5m for PANR’s share of the “re-drill̶1; of VOBM#2 minus c.$1m for PANR’s share of the Polk treatment plant = $10.5m. I’ve rounded up each cost item to be conservative. Cash inflow: Along with a couple of fellow investors, I have arrived at an approximation based on current data available so it’s a “best guesstimate” for cash inflow from Polk once all three wells are hooked up to the plant, and net to PANR after all royalties, taxes, Vision’s share, etc, etc. This figure is approx $1.1 – $1.2m net to PANR per month. Timing on this? Not nailed down but I got the feeling we’d see cash inflows build progressively throughout Q1 ’17 and that the figure above could be the run rate at the end of Q1 ’17. Happy to be corrected but this level of cash inflow ought not to be directly extrapolated elsewhere as production will be tailored to treatment plant capacity but yet sufficient to build the scientific model of the reservoir, ie. the data behind this figure was not arrived at in order to maximise cash inflow for the sake of it. Operating costs: Jay twice mentioned that anticipated opex per well in Polk would be circa $10k per month. Vision: Jay confronted the concerns held by some that Vision has cash liquidity concerns. He offered a direct quote from Vision: “You worry about your finances, we’ve got ours covered”. Jay also stated Vision has paid their share of all expenditure on time and in full thus far. Also, if Vision were short of cash, would they not have already hooked up VOBM#1 and VOS#1 and just accepted the third party costs in order to receive some cash inflows? My summary: the combination of available cash reserves and the proposed model for cashflows by the end of Q1 ’17 ought to allay most concerns on the ability of PANR to fully fund the strategy of scoping out the acreage with a programme of vertical wells. Leases: the JV is managing over 5000 leases. A great deal of resource is being directed towards the maintenance of those leases, which are generally five years in duration or three years with a two year option attached. Jay was asked directly about safeguarding those leases. He said it was a constant process, that the JV was aware of the stipulations and obligations attached to the various leases (expiry, extension of option, requirement to complete certain operations within a defined timeperiod, etc, etc) but that a combination of renewals and the operational drilling plan is proving to be sufficient to protect the JV’s interests. As an aside, and as expressly stated during the fundraise in March, the JV is still examining other areas of potential prospectivity but we did not hear of any concrete progress on that front on Friday. Tyler County and VOS#2: a few commentators have started to do the maths on the potential size of Tyler. To declare my bias; the optionality value of Tyler has been the main contributor to my desire to invest in PANR. The Malcy interview, the audio file of last week, Jay’s AGM presentation in December and the meeting I attended on Friday have all added to my understanding of the POTENTIAL of Tyler. VOS#2 is to be drilled approx 10 miles from LP2 and I infer it to be located centrally. That makes the length of the reservoir potentially 20 miles long. I’m going to paraphrase here as I don’t wish to mis-quote Jay but I seem to recall he said something along the lines of knowing that the reservoir has the potential to be “circa 1.5 – 2 miles wide” and that there "is an argument for it being 2.5 - 3 miles wide". He confirmed that the Double A Wells field was 6 sq miles in total. As written above, he also confirmed that the average net pay across Double A was 32 feet and the JV believed from its studies that the average net pay in the Tyler reservoir has the potential to be “thicker”; than Double A. Timing and investment horizon: I recognize the desire by some to move on to a multi-rig programme and to accelerate the drilling activity. Based on what I heard at the AGM in December, I had thought that a possible sale of the JV asset could begin in Q1 ’18. I’m mentally re-adjusting that timeline to the back end of 2018. We’ve lost some time this year with the fundraise moving from January to March and then of course recent events with the drill bit. Jay put a fair point to us on Friday: had the JV been drilling two horizontal wells simultaneously in Polk and Tyler and both had to be discontinued due to the abrasive nature of the sandstone in the horizontal element of the drill, the market wouldn’t have taken too kindly to that and the greater cost of the “second” horizontal well at Tyler would have been “wasted” cash. I don’t think there’s a cast iron schedule in place to move to a multi-rig programme at time of writing but I do believe tentative plans are taking shape in that direction. It sounds like the JV wishes to finish VOBM#3 and perhaps also VOS#2 prior to signing up a second rig. Jay did concede that of course there comes a time when having a rig continuously transferring between the two counties simply doesn’t make sense. My own interpretation is that Q1 ’17 shareholders will see a second rig contracted – providing the two drills in the current schedule don’t serve up any nasty surprises. VOBM#3 update: Jay quite correctly couldn’t say much save to give the usual response we’ve all come to know and love/hate.....but the body language and smile suggested the return to vertical drilling was not proving to be a headache from spudding up to that Friday morning. Final Summary: Jay reminded us of the reason why this play is so attractive. The depth of the geological study exceeds anything he has seen in his career. This gives the JV better fundamental understanding and great confidence. But the JV is drilling 15,000 ft underground and there is always a learning curve when drilling. However reservoir characteristics are such that, if successful, the capital and operating costs have the potential to be some of the lowest in the USA, which is attractive in any oil price environment. Double A Wells field wells are still producing some 30 years later, and despite some bb speculation to the contrary, produce almost no water from the target horizon. Health warning: I have been a shareholder for around 4 years and have purchased stock in a range from 14.5p to circa 170p. PS I'll deal with my understanding of the GSA short position in a separate posting. I'll also give my personal view on the selling volume in the second week since the RNS. Hope the above has been of some use? GLA and DYOR
13/9/2016
21:01
scot126: Hi All - right, I'm getting a wee bit annoyed with some of the drivel being posted here. I realise we're all smarting from the reversal, both operational and in market cap terms but please get a grip. If you want to have a whinge, fine, go for it but label it as such. Here are a few facts: 1) TS - you should be ashamed of yourself. What's this utter sh^te you're peddling? 40 years, 160 wells, tucking the shares away....utter hogswash. Until the BoD announce to shareholders that they're thinking of changing the whole strategy of our company you have absolutely no basis in fact to contribute the paragraph you posted earlier this evening. When in the wide, wide world of sports (Blazing Saddles) did Jay ever suggest we were going to be an operator in any size other than minuscule? Here's another fact - how much money did the company raise in March? Do you even know the answer to this? $30m is the answer and the extra 8% PANR bought in Polk together with PANR's share of VOBM#2....let's say we're down to $20m. With me so far? 2) Mortie1's post about the potential cost of a treatment plant for the JV in Polk is stomach-churningly awful, an outright lie. Ask the company as I did....then go online and check out the veracity of the estimate, or better yet phone up a services company that operates or sells these pieces of modular kit. The gross cost to the JV is likely to be in the order of $2m not $135m, and maybe not even as much as $2m (according to my investigations). NB these are my investigations so I cannot be categoric....but I can be categoric on the order of magnitude on the cost. Make sense? 3) Ok, we're now going to be vertical drillers, fine. For what it's worth, I still think giving the horizontal a go was the right thing to do. Horizontal drilling techniques have moved on significantly in the last 20 years and it was worth a bash, it didn't work, we move on. (Yes, I'll discuss the elephant in the room, IR, later on). Let's say a horizontal well would have drained the equivalent of 2.5 - 3 vanilla vertical wells. I think it's griff/yoghurt who's seeing the consequences of this clearly (forgive me if I've got this wrong), the return to vertical drilling has only affected the npv calculation per well, ie. the capital cost up front and PERHAPS the speed of extraction and thus cashflow, but the total amount of hydrocarbons recoverable for that same patch of earth has not changed one iota. 4) Impact of this on future owner of the acreage? They'll attempt to ascribe an npv per well to the acreage (amongst many other metrics). Cost of a horizontal c.$7-8m versus, say, 3x a vertical cost = 3x$4m so $12m to drain the same area. Ok, our vertical wells may now payback in a year or 13 months v's 7 months on a horizontal.....so in turn Jay might choose to reflect that a potential buyer might pay $9 per barrel boe in the ground v's $10 if horizontal drilling had worked...big deal, it's de minimis or rather should be for current equity holders at time of writing. We haven't even scoped out the geology yet, nor had a well flowing for six months to even begin to tackle the question of depletion rates!!!!! And while I'm discussing the eventual sale strategy to an owner/operator, for God's sake TS and a few others, we haven't even scoped out the potential size of Polk never mind Tyler yet. Who in their right mind would buy out the JV at this stage in the exercise....and equally importantly, who in their right mind would put the JV up for sale without at least attempting to firm up exactly how much oil and gas exists under our acreage at 14,000 - 15,000 odd feet? The share price goes down and suddenly we put the company up for sale? Jeepers, words fail me. If any shareholders don't understand this, may I respectfully suggest they do some reading or better yet, sell out and buy a managed fund.....but at the very least stop posting such piffle. 5) $20m on balance sheet minus central costs, minus treatment plant for Polk......we've got enough for, say, our share of another 7-8 vertical drills. And that's without the cashflow from Polk to come at the very back end of this year, or maybe the start of 2017. I offer no categorical statement (unlike some lunatics on here) but the large balance of probabilities is that PANR will not need to tap the equity markets again. Our existing cash plus cashflow from Polk should be more than enough to carry out the scoping drilling plan. Where are all the posters who were talking about getting unfairly diluted in Q4 '15 and Q1 '16? The fundraise was for exactly this strategy - the BoD are carrying out that strategy until we shareholders are informed otherwise. 6) Vision's liquidity - I cannot believe either the stupidity or downright malfeasance contained in some posts stating as a categorical fact that Vision's ability to contribute its share of JV costs may be compromised. Let's look at the evidence for such spurious claims. The fact that we loaned Vision money to pay for the VOS#1 frack or that we bought an extra 8% of Polk? Does anyone reading this know definitively the ownership structure of Vision? I sure as hell don't...by all means if anyone has the written evidence of Vision's structure and balance sheet and the personal liquidity of all the individual partners, please ship them my way. Maybe Vision thought as marmaris did (see below), that remediating VOS#1 wasn't worth the hassle, that it was commercial anyway but our BoD decided to go ahead and get it done? Might that be a cause of the inter-JV loan? Whomever within Vision sold their share of Polk might have had a family crisis, or the potential to invest in a 100 bagger v's the potential 20 bagger that Jay believes he's on to with Pantheon. We DON'T KNOW. Who amongst you may have debt on your personal or company balance sheet because it's tax efficient to do so, not because you couldn't be debt-free in one transfer of cash? Ok, bit of a stretch but you get the point, WE DON'T KNOW and until they can't pay up or get to a stage where our leases are potentially compromised due to lack of operational activity, then this speculation is hogwash. 7)) Tyler - I'd argue this is the woolly mammoth in the room v's the elephant in the room which is IR.....trying to make some of you smile just a little bit after a few tough days in the market. I'm not for one second saying this is a slam dunk but at least permit yourself to debate the potential of this area. LP2 is 4-5 odd miles from VOS#1 and the next step out, VOS#2, is a further 4-5 miles from VOS#1. And we're told VOS#2 is in the region of the central location to the reservoir. For those who haven't seen a map or presentation on Tyler, imagine LP2 was a well drilled (in 2005, correct?) right on the boundary rope of a cricket field. VOS#1 (with its noteworthy net pay of 270 feet v's average of c.30 feet in Double A Wells...albeit partially blocked but still COMMERCIAL) is situated at the inner boundary rope defining where a certain number of the fielders must field in the first 10 overs of a one day game (forgive me if I'm butchering the rules and thus the analogy here, I'm Scottish, we don't play cricket). VOS#2 is intended to be drilled around or about the batting/bowling pitch....with me so far? So we're looking at a POTENTIAL field measuring 20 miles in diameter.....and what did Jay say at the AGM? We know it's certainly a mile wide and we have reasons to believe it could be 2, 3, 4 miles wide according to the studies and the seismic. Everyone can do the maths on this.....go ahead and then compare it with Double A which is c.6 square miles, that's right 6 square miles. Ok, the above constitutes a few corrections to some of the drivel posted recently, a few facts and a paragraph discussing the POTENTIAL of Tyler. Let's now have a look at the events of the last few days since the RNS. a) My PERSONAL view is that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the materiality of the delay at VOBM#2 and what could have/should have been transmitted to the market. If I felt the BoD were cheating, chiselling fraudsters I'd call them out publicly, help arrange an alternative BoD and throw them over. But look at your latest Annual Report....they're not the typical sponger directors who suck AIM companies dry with their salaries. No, the structure is such that any life-changing money is to be made via equity performance, straight and simple. We're all feeling a bit b^ggered by the VOBM#2 delay and the oft-repeated answer, "If we had anything of a material nature to announce, we'd do so, etc, etc." People like esmeralda could legitimately accuse me of naivety (oh, and thanks to the individual who accused me privately of operating in a cabal with Yost Capital.....I didn't know whether to laugh or laugh some more, so I just deleted it) and I'll take that one on the chin. Each shareholder should decide for themselves the degree to which management credibility has been tarnished or had a spotlight placed over it where previously there was none........but really, £100m worth of a credibility hit???? Personal view there. b) VOBM#2 - refer paragraph 3 above. We've lost some dough undertaking the horizontal part of that well and definitely lost some time, no question. BUT, look at the picture on the top left hand of the company's picture gallery on the website. Looks like they're flaring something rather flammable? The JV is 3 for 3 on identifying and locating hydrocarbons.....and 1.5 for 3 in the robustness of those selfsame wells. So the horizontal experiment cost us $3m and 3-6 months......what portion of the £100m market cap decrease do you ascribe to that? Again, that's for everyone to decide....and naturally begs the question that the market cap 2 Fridays ago was irrationally exuberant but you see the question I'm posing. c) VOS#1 frack didn't work out as hoped for/expected. I'm looking to Jay to educate me on this one, it's beyond my knowledge. But let me give a nod to Marmaris who, back in January remember, noted the blockage in VOS#1 and gave his opinion that the lessons on appropriate mud weights should be learnt, that the well still looked decent to him in terms of commerciality and the JV should just move on. Instead, we got a frack remediation which led to a 30% uplift v's the 100-200% uplift anticipated. I understand we're going to have a Malcy interview at some point when Jay is over.....I'll be looking to Jay to answer this one head on. However I have a firm correction for Marmaris, who I fear has himself misled readers (easily done, eh?!) - I received a categoric reply that a work over rig has NOT "been sitting beside VOS#1 since January at a day rate of $4k". That, Maramris, is utter sh^te and I'd be really grateful if you would label your future contributions (which I generally love reading as I learn something most times) with fact/personal view/speculation/musings/sounding off, etc, etc. Yip, happy to admit management credibility has taken a bash on the remedial frack issue but how much? I don't know enough about this part of the RNS so I'm looking to become better informed before attempting to ascribe a value to this particular operational reversal. But remember, it's still COMMERCIAL :) d) Hooking up Polk to allow cashflow. I'm fairly at ease with this as the delay in so doing has seen the Henry Hub price move from $1.70 to $2.80 and oil move from mid-30's to mid-40's. Yes, it would be reassuring to hear a proposed time schedule on this piece of the strategy but for those of us who try to follow the movements on the balance sheet, it's not a massive deal.....for now anyway. Certainly worth keeping an eye on however if we detect any further slippage. e) Multi-rig strategy - I suspect that we'll hear far more about this once we have the result of VOS#2 as success in that drill will be a company-changer IMHO. Yip, we may hear more about a second rig before then but I'm fairly comfortable about this...for now. It feels like Vision has a bit to digest and to finesse their drilling instructions and I'd rather they didn't rush but got things right with the next two wells....but I fully accept we've lost some time on the schedule outlined at the AGM and that some shareholders would like an acceleration to a multi-rig programme sooner rather than later. So where does all that leave me? Personal view: I've digested the RNS to the best of my ability and where I have questions, I intend to pose them. I would urge others to do the same instead of whinging and misdirecting people. And if you choose not to engage with your BoD, at least put a bloody question mark at the end of your sentences to show you're not speaking with factual knowledge....please stop polluting what was a rather informative bb, please, please!! I've then applied a discount due to the debatable IR (I'm not accusing anyone on the bb or within the company, simply saying that there's a debate to be had), a discount for the $3m of "lost" funds on VOBM#2, a discount for the time slippage (3-4 months slippage?) and a discount for the shareholder structure as it is my opinion this retail-owned company has led to an exaggerated negative reaction to last Monday's RNS and thus I'm not reading the mood of my fellow shareholders as well as I would like. Against these discounts, I value the Woodbine at 40p per share, I now know we hit hydrocarbons at VOBM#2, and I now have a better feel thanks to Jay's audio file for the true POTENTIAL of Tyler. This POTENTIAL IS VAST, make no mistake, vast. But it is for each individual shareholder to make those calls. If you no longer trust management at all or feel that the geological understanding of the JV has been categorically disproved then you really ought to sell and move on. If you feel as I do that the BoD has a bit to learn about IR but that, at heart, they're honest men and totally aligned financially with fellow shareholders.....that the odds of hitting hydrocarbons in 3 out of 3 drills by mistake is rather high, and where the optionality of Tyler is worth paying under a £ v's the potential reward....then you do as I have done today and yesterday and that is buy PANR at these levels and wonder to yourself whether this could be an absolute steal of a price. Sorry for the length of this post - I couldn't hold it in any longer! And try to keep the replies polite as it seems to me that most people on this board dislike the rudeness and apply a rudeness discount even if the poster has a brain the size of Bournemouth. Right, off to watch the Champions League which I've recorded. Don't tell me the scores.
07/9/2016
20:20
last of the mohicans: Ok I'll try to reply to those who have asked me specific questions Bit coin, To be honest I wasn't thinking it would be a problem. I don't think they tried it at Double AA, probably too long ago to do decent horizontals (without 3D) & I imagine the cost would have been far greater then (1984 - 96) than it is now. The rigs had far less power etc as well and trying to handle the extra pressure would have been too much (drill bits back then were terrible in comparison with now). I haven't spoken to my geo friend in 2 months, so I can't add any of his thoughts for now either. Mortie1 I took the view from the info in the public domain at that time, that Vision had gone non committal on the frac. I'm also probably more aware of the pressure from the formation that they were going to be working against than virtually anyone else here (given I know the pressure gauge reading etc at VOS#1). They felt it was routine, my geo friend thought it was less than routine and might not work as well as they'd like. Personally I thought at over £1.50, it was virtually already in the share price, whereas having seen what happened to the share price on that earlier disappointment, I saw much more downside, The longer they kept delaying it the more I was convinced to give it a miss. VOBM#2 was just a horizontal offset, ok might have significantly enhanced the flow-rates they could get, but wasn't going to add any real reserve value. I hold the same view on VOBM#3 just another offset. The next Tyler one is the one that has the chance to add significant value in the drilling program. Of course the risk reward scenario on it depends on the share price at the time you buy in for that event & how long you have to hold it before you'll see the share price movement. I don't see us getting news on it before Christmas unless they bring in another rig. When you look at how consistently behind schedule they always end up being. ------------------------------------------ My Geo thought they paid top dollar & then some for that 8% WI on some of the prospects. Am I rushing to get in at the current price, err not exactly when you factor in around 4 months until the important news breaks which is a long wait. I'd rather leave my money in Syntonic for now & look to move some over come December. ASX:SYT very much worth some research I'd say if you're looking for a potential multibagger of epic proportions. LOTM
06/7/2016
13:47
randowiggum: First thing is first, as we have no announcement on the frack results, the frack has either not started or is not finished. PANR's announcement history has shown they announce as soon as there is a result. Companies are not allowed to hold back price sensitive news. I think the PANR share price is off as people are getting nervous about the result. Remember its already a producing commercial well. The frack only helps to stimulate it and increase the upfront production. The big prize remains the next well result. As a horizontal well it will be a much more significant to us as it would have a bigger drainage area and continues to help prove up the asset. Importantly a result here helps show a reduced capex requirement to develop out the field! Thus bigger NPV of the project. We have seen this type of share price fall before in Jan when the company had delays and let uncertainty develop in the market. Then it was an amazing buying opportunity. I believe we are seeing that again today with the only thing leading to the share price fall being uncertainty. Obviously it all depends on them getting the next drill result right (and to some extent proving they can get the frack right) but i am loving this fall as i can load up and take advantage of the market weakness.
05/7/2016
10:53
merie: Relax - bad news would be reported straight away.Long-term holders, when the Panr share price was sub-50p, barely nine months the ago, have seen this all before, when we awaited news on the first well. And as for 'folk fearing the worst and selling', it is as well to remember that the patient investor makes money from the impatient investor.
31/5/2016
16:40
chinese investor: Q How is the UT or Closing Price calculated? A The Uncrossing Algorithm performs a series of passes within an individual market, matching the best bids and best offers present in the price time sequence. When all crossed volume has been matched, an Uncrossing Trade Price can be determined for the market. This price is found by applying one of the following calculations. The calculation used is determined by the presence of residual limit volume within that market following uncrossing. The four possible cases are: • There is no remaining bid or offer limit volume in the market Uncrossing Trade price = the average of the bid and offer price from the last match. • There is remaining limit offer volume but no limit bid volume in the market Uncrossing Trade Price = offer price from last match. • There is remaining limit bid volume but no limit offer volume in the market Trading Uncrossing Trade Price = bid price from last match. • There is remaining limit offer and limit bid volume. To determine the Uncrossing Trade Price in this case: • Determine what the Best Offer Price is. Determine what the Bid Price is from the last match. Take the lowest of these. This is known as the ‘High Price’. • Determine what the Best Bid Price is. Determine what the Offer Price is from the last match. Take the highest of these. This is known as the ‘Low Price’. The Uncrossing Trade Price is the average of the ‘High Price’ and ‘Low Price’. If this value is halfway between two tick values the price allocated to all uncrossed business will be rounded towards zero (rounded down if the value is positive, rounded up if the value is negative). If no matches occur within a market there will be no Uncrossed Trade Price for that market. Alternatively :- First off too much attention is given to the "Buys v Sells" and the after hours reports, there is only minimal reporting after hours ( not trades ) usually late trades from earlier in the day some tidying up with the odd trade, look at the trade prices, this gives a clue as to when the deal was done in the day. Secondly, the exchanges do not give out any information as to whether a deal is in actual fact a "buy" or a "sell", the buys and sells are flagged by the system computer based totally on the share price of the deal, they are in fact computer "guesses" and not to be taken as gospel.... Thirdly, now we come to the crux of the usual mystery of after hours, the closing Auction...all stocks traded on SETS or SETSmm have an opening auction between 07.50 and 08.00 and a closing Auction from 16.30 to 16.35. It is in fact these Auctions that officially set the days opening and closing share price for any share, how does it work? Lets suppose that the last trade for B+B at 16.30 was £2 (it matters not whether its recorded buy or sell ).. end of trading for the day...... at 16.30, dealers/brokers/rsp's and even joe bloggs now with direct market access enter their limit buys and sells onto the SETS system, in the case of FTSE350 shares, these must be within 5% of the last recorded share price ie £2 ( 5% either side gives a range of £1.90 - £2.10 )..... NO trading takes place, just buy and sell bids entered. At 16.35, the auction is ended and for the next 30secs or so the "system" matches automatically buy and sell bids at a share price that gives the greatest weighted average volume of all the entries, ie the biggest amount of "matches" it can find.....whatever this figure is, that is the official closing price of the share........ so at a time of 16.35 + a few seconds you may see a trade of 1,110,432 shares @ £2.0835p UT.. UT meaning it was an Uncrossed Trade during the Auction process, it is wrongly labeled a Buy or Sell when in actual fact it is a volume figure of a lot of buys and sells, very misleading. Clear as mud eh? Check out a few shares trade prices and pick out the UT auction trades... hope that load of twaddle helps someone!
03/3/2016
15:12
scot126: Dear All - I'd like to lay out a scenario concerning the finances if I may. We've read Monday's RNS and listened to Jay's responses (when he could get a word in!) from Malcy's interview. Some readers will recall the debate we had in Q4 last year about the merits or otherwise of an equity raise? No need to rehash those points but indulge me for a moment and fast forward to a time when the balance sheet HAS BEEN re-capitalised....let's just say, solely for the sake of argument, there's been an equity placing to raise $25m, ok? Then remember back just a few short days/weeks when the shorters/traders/mm's were able to sustain a perfectly timed bear raid on the stock. Remember that knucklehead placingahoy@50p, etc, etc? The two planks they were able to use to sucker punch shareholders out of their stock were based on the blocked VOS#1 well and the balance sheet required to fund the 2016/17 drilling programme. It is my contention that the mere fact of a recapitalisation of the company (likely for the final time prior to an asset sale?) will in one stroke knock out all rationale associated with the financial side of the shorters' argument, for at least 18 months. It looks like Polk will be delivering cashflow in, say, May/June....the step-out in Polk may add to that cashflow in the summer....combine that with the $25m fundraise in the scenario outlined above and we shareholders would have a 15-20 drill programme fully-funded for the next 18-24 months. In my experience, that is NOT a time frame shorters will consider taking on, even if they have the strongest geological resistance to PANR's investment case. Other benefits of an institutional placing that I can see: I'll raise my hands, I have been extremely surprised that the share price hasn't reacted far more favourably to Monday's RNS. The 270ft hydrocarbon-bearing column, the horizontal well efficacy forecasts, the reassurance on costs per barrel and the increased confidence of the Board in their belief of P50 heading to Pmean all led me to imagine we'd be trading at levels higher then we are today....but there we go. The loyal shareholder base is chiefly made up of private investors, there's hardly any institutional ownership whatsoever (more on that later). I asked myself why the lack of a sustained positive reaction following the RNS on Monday and it's because most of us are positioned, exposure-wise, where we want to be as we're in for the long haul. The "hot" money at the periphery of the stock is having a massively exaggerated influence on the share price v's the capital they are applying to the market. Anyone who is short or who has lightened their position in the expectation that they'll be invited to recapitalise the company via a rights issue is, in my earnestly held opinion, taking a huge risk. If I'm correct, and the scenario played out above comes to pass, such participants are going to be chasing a price that will be far further north than the current share price. One of the research notes published over the last 48 hours noted that PANR is now the 2nd largest E&P stock on AIM. If that's the case, then it MAY be on the radar of some UK small cap fund managers but vitally, due to the almost complete lack of institutional ownership, there's no peer group compulsion to meet the company or consider buying into the stock. Why so? Because whilst these fund managers are of course incentivised on the absolute performance of their fund, there is also a large "performance v's peer group" element to the discretionary part of their remuneration, ie their bonus. Thus if (and I repeat again, this is a scenario only) a handful of UK small cap fund managers were to enter the register via a placing, the rest of their peer group would, at the very least, have no option but to add PANR to their investment radar for fear of underperforming their peer group. That means a vastly increased potential audience when our execs conduct interims/finals roadshows or ad hoc introductory roadshows organised by their brokers. Like the housing market, generally for a share price to appreciate in a stock with PANR's market cap, we need first time buyers.......where were they in the last two or three business days? The share register needs to be refreshed/reinvigorated, IMHO, and an institutional equity placing would bring just such a potential new audience. Marmaris - thanks for your operational input. I always read your posts with great interest. I'm told that Vision have very, very strong confidence that VOS#1 can be successfully remediated for what it's worth but I cannot qualify that belief in any way. Health warning - I've been a shareholder for nearly 4 years and until hard information is released which causes me to change my investment view, I intend to follow and support the strategy of PANR's board. GLA
04/2/2016
16:14
randowiggum: The blockage in the PANR share price has now been cleared!
Pantheon Resources share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:41 V: D:20161203 06:51:14