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
  +1.75p +3.59% 50.50p 50.00p 51.00p 52.00p 47.50p 47.50p 1,515,668 16:35:07
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -0.9 -0.5 - 119.94

Pantheon (PANR) Latest News

More Pantheon News
Pantheon Takeover Rumours

Pantheon (PANR) Share Charts

1 Year Pantheon Chart

1 Year Pantheon Chart

1 Month Pantheon Chart

1 Month Pantheon Chart

Intraday Pantheon Chart

Intraday Pantheon Chart

Pantheon (PANR) Discussions and Chat

Pantheon (PANR) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2017-08-22 16:14:1850.232,4981,254.64O
2017-08-22 16:14:1850.232,4981,254.64O
2017-08-22 16:07:0350.504,0002,020.00O
2017-08-22 15:52:4450.7126,02613,198.79O
2017-08-22 15:35:0750.50710358.55UT
View all Pantheon trades in real-time

Pantheon (PANR) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
22/8/2017
09:20
Pantheon 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 was 48.75p.
Pantheon Resources has a 4 week average price of 40.25p and a 12 week average price of 40.25p.
The 1 year high share price is 153.25p while the 1 year low share price is currently 40.25p.
There are currently 237,499,552 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 949,411 shares. The market capitalisation of Pantheon Resources is £119,937,273.76.
17/8/2017
09:42
btgman: Nice post BB Must admit I'm with rvsy no real expectation for Vob#2 the well could be anything with skin damage etc results may not result in a stonking well. Commercial or better is goodness. Shareholders should look at the big picture:- What I would say is that I take Polk county as a given regardless of results on Vob#2 this alone more than supports current share price. They have hit hydrocarbons on 3 out of 3 wells in Polk and going forward this should be straight forward development with vertical wells to prove up for disposal. Production facilities should commence in the near term and move to producer its a whole new ball game. The time and effort they are putting in to the Wilcox and activity in surrounding area would suggest that this should be good and I do expect a commercial field. Excitement will be around the size and potential it may even support the current share price on its own, not long to wait to find out. Then we come to EFS in Tyler County first well being commercial and the fact that centre basin appears to be stacked does certainly increase the probability of success. Centre basin does give massive upside from on already undervalued share price. Not forgetting the scenario where we increase our interest to 75% Austin Chalk zone was previously valued at 50p per share alone which I don't see any reason to suggest that is not still the case and we also have the Navarro to look at in the future. Last presentation is a great source of information I can't wait to see the next one with Wilcox added all being well. Look at the NPV's they are staggering and shareholders must not forget they have the benefit of Vision's well for information purposes which has produced for years effectively on our acreage. Http://www.pantheonresources.com/index.php/investors/presentations/530-investor-presentation-2017/file Good look to all shareholders an exciting couple of months ahead with a fully funded cash generating company. BTG
27/7/2017
19:29
scot126: Dear All - decisions by the BoD since late January of this year are not necessarily ones I would have taken but "we are where we are" so let's deal with the issues all us LTHs face as we digest this RNS and prepare for tomorrow's opening. In no particular order: 1) The two executive directors are subscribing to the issue - good, and quite right too. Also worth remembering that new non-exec director, Phillip Gobe, bought 50k shares at 89p and 25k shares at 74p in the last 7 months. Some contributors to the bb dismiss this activity as invalid but there is a multitude of peer-reviewed academic work which suggests that following "insiders" (US terminology for company officers) personal investments in cash (rather than options or LTIPs) is, on average, a forward indicator well worth following. 2) Settling the legal issues: de minimus. Allows the JV to forge ahead without the annoyance of trailing paperwork associated with legal proceedings. It amounts to two-fifths of b^gger all...and before anyone gets tetchy, eagle-eyed readers of the annual reports over the last couple of years will have read the company had noted legal proceedings in the risk paragraphs. Both Marmaris and I noted it, for example. Reads like it affects a couple of wells, but then they pay their share of costs in future wells in that area. Fine - this ain't going to affect PANR shareholders until the JV is sold and the daily exchange rate movement between £:$ is likely to have a far larger effect during the end game than this legal settlement. 3) Major maintenance on Gulf South Pipeline: right, this is rather annoying as it will allow the naysayers another few months of exclaiming "show me the money!!" from production from Polk. I'm sure a number of us will attempt to independently verify whether this maintenance programme is indeed taking place and I'll be doing the same. If anyone else is able to provide confirmation on this matter, I'd be grateful if they would share it on this bb. All that said, if it's exactly as stated, there's precious little we can do and we'll just have to be patient (us LTHs are having to develop this personal character trait if we didn't already possess it, eh?!). But it does serve to add to the Board's decision to raise fresh funds as PANR doesn't sound like it'll be receiving first cash inflows in September as previously guided. 4) Fixed capex: top part of table of use of proceeds. That all looks to be about right. I had communicated with the company on forecast costs over the summer months and nothing has changed much there, maybe a wee bit more in lease renewals and G&A but reduced costs of the gas plant and sidetrack of VOBM#4 squared it all off. Fine with fixed capex table as far as I'm concerned. 5) Option on increased WI in Tyler. We've got to outsource our trust and faith in management here as they're making a call on the prospectivity of the Wilcox and Navarro. Based on MY EXTREMELY rough calculations on the size of the parcel of land, and a company-aided reply to previous questions I posed about their knowledge of the Navarro and the possible implications of the VOBM#4 logs and amplitute reports, there is an argument that they are paying a tenth of the price they could expect to realise for that increased share of WI in Tyler if their geological modelling is correct. It's far from being a "sure thing" but they're only investing $2.2m with a possible 10x upside so I'm comfy with that - up to everyone else to make their own call on that for now. What I can declare as being attractively noteworthy is that the principal of Vision, Bobby Gray, is dipping his hand into his own wallet and is increasing his WI at the same time as PANR proposes to act. That's good enough for me - up to others how they view this. Worth noting that the option can be exercised AFTER sidetrack so presumably there'll be heaps of further incoming data to analyse prior to Bobby and the Board taking up the option. 6) Optional capex table: I see a few people have noted that the use of proceeds total comes in slightly above the net funds post-fundraise. I'd encourage them to look up the work "optional" in the dictionary (!) but what we do appear to have here is an attempt to reset expectations and to get back on the front foot on the future drilling programme and the JV's ability to execute that programme. That is surely no bad thing and gets the market, and vitally, potential new investors, looking forward at potential upside rather than the navel-gazing and (understandable) focus on past operational difficulties which many of us on here, including me, have dwelt on for the last 6 months or so. Net, net, net? All appears logical and rational to me and, all things being equal, I would expect the share price to react positively tomorrow. Now bit coin/canafordcl1ffs (for they are one and the same) et al. No red face on me, I can assure you....not at this stage anyway. Zak Mir's article proposed a rights issue....utter nonsense, takes ages, costs heaps, opens up share to greater volatility in the mean time, no guarantee of success leading to missed opportunities....and doesn't recognise the flexibility of being listed on AIM in the first place. Yes, he may very well have heard some rumours or been tipped off (we'll never know) but his article was nonsense. Keener-eyed readers will have noticed he had to amend his original article as it referred to a "dry hole" - poor journalism at best and naughtiness on his part at worst. As the RNS states, 5 out of 5 wells have encountered hydrocarbons - fact. What about all the stuff about Copper Rock selling down? It's a statement of fact that they started selling their position on 22/5/17 at 74p....and they continued to sell in breathtakingly poor fashion since then ref. the selling from 62p on the afternoon of 14/7/17. I repeat, why they wouldn't let the stock breathe and find a new level following a positive RNS that morning, I simply will never comprehend. Some people are wondering whether they'll have been offered stock in the placing at 43p? Absolutely no chance - the market simply doesn't work that way and the brokers and company would never accept their request to join the bookbuild even if Copper Rock had the balls to try. Another perfect storm? Yip, afraid so. A couple of decent RNSs were swamped by Copper Rock's clumsy selling and then faced with the pipeline maintenance news and the option on Tyler opportunity, the PANR Board reacted. Naturally, along with most readers here I suspect, I wish they had raised some money at higher levels AND/OR taken the decision to compromise on the size of the gas treatment plant in February this year (holding out for 20mmcf v's eventually deciding on 15 mmcf) but we are where we are. Yes, had the pipeline news and Tyler opportunity not come up, I do believe the company had sufficient funds to get us through to first production BUT.......it hasn't turned out that way. So I'm a bit frustrated with some of the decisions taken since Sept last year but our Board aren't crooks, they don't pay themselves an egregious salary, they're utterly aligned with fellow equity holders......and the potential of the geology looks awesome and as Jay says, "It's still all to play for." GLA edit PS Along with a few others, I've been able to independently verify the difficulty in contracting rigs and personnel in East Texas. Perfectly understandably, nearly all the rigs have headed off to the Permian Basin on multi-well programmes. Why wouldn't they? Having some extra cash in the bank, and the ability to put down a decent deposit, together with formal plans for a multi-well programme may just see the JV attract a decent rig and crew? Worth remembering that Tyler and Polk are only 100 minutes drive from Houston for the personnel, get to see the family more often than out in the Permian? GLA
05/6/2017
09:34
horneblower: The fundamentals in this case are; the amount of oil and gas, the ability to extract it, the price they can get for it and the amount of finance available to complete the job. The amount of finance needed is partly a function of the competence of the management, the speed at which they organise themselves, along with a certain amount of 'luck' factor. The share price is a function of all of the above and the chart therefore plots the changing relationship of the different components day by day. Over the past two years the share price has gone from below 20p to 180p and back to 60p. These movements are not down to one thing but a complex mix of many factors. So, what are the leading fundamental factors in play at the moment? Baring in mind the limited and reducing cash balance, it is probably the speed at which the management can get a sufficient revenue stream going and the ability to prove up the type, quality and size of reserve they own. Their history of achieving this in the past is, one has to say, mixed so, the share price could go up or down depending on whether they begin to perform better than of late. Time will tell. The chart has a view.
03/5/2017
08:45
brian boru: this is what JUSTIN wrote to a member of this board on 21st February...........he ought to quit his job and start writing children's fairy tales, Aye; 1.We will report results of flow tests at the conclusion of those tests. I am limited on what I can say, however we hope that it shouldn’t be too far away. If there were material, price-sensitive news to date, then it would have been announced without delay. 2.Gas processing arrangements: This has been more complicated than we could have expected. On Polk County for example, there is an existing gas plant nearby, with plenty of surplus capacity. It seemed obvious to us that they would be aggressively chasing our business. Quite surprisingly, the terms they offered we considered to be too excessive and too restrictive to us, given our stated strategy to prove up and sell. We need to be prudent and forward thinking in our decision making to avoid paying the price (like so many in the industry did over recent years) for poor decisions. Therefore, we have initiated discussions to process the gas ourselves or with another party. These discussions are well advanced, but seeing that we are so close to flow testing results, it is obvious that that flow testing information may be very important to us in making the correct decision (for example, scale/capacity of plant, volumes etc). 3.Forward drilling plan – We recognize the desire by shareholders for such information, however you would also recognize that we get highly criticized should we miss those timelines. Further, it is impossible for us to know this information ourselves at this point given recent events. As reported in late Dec, we encountered potentially significant hydrocarbons in 2 new zones, none of which have previously produced in the immediate vicinity of our acreage. We are testing one of those zones (Wilcox) in VOBM4 well. What if that is a success? How does that impact the drill plan going forward? How does the deeper Nabarro zone impact planning? Likewise, what about the EF sandstone target in this location?....Oil and gas exploration and appraisal/development is an iterative process, always applying recent learned information/experience to future wells. We can only make these decisions once the outcome of testing operations is assessed. Also, look at VOBM2H as an example. The market was very quick to conclude that the location was a failure (judging by the share price reaction following the decision to terminate horizontal drilling). We have now re-entered vertically and have encountered promising logs. What if that well proves to be a success? All these data points impact future drilling plans. Finally, for the avoidance of any doubt, we have a very clear view on what we are trying to achieve here. As a board we are all shareholders. However, we are focusing on the long term value creation process, not short term share price. You must remember however, that as shareholders you will never be privy to the information that we have because when we release an RNS to shareholders, we also release that to the world (including competitors). As the old adage goes “A good fisherman never tells his secret spot…”. Because of reporting requirements, we need to disclose certain information, but at the same time need to keep as much “intellectual property” to ourselves to allow us maximum future opportunity, rather than advertise it to the world, in an attempt to focus on the share price.
23/1/2017
13:05
trigger blade: tom111 must be bonkers, filtering you BD. How's he going to work out what the PANR share price will do without your wise words, which as far as I can tell from your earlier post, suggests that it might go up or down, depending on what happens next.......
20/12/2016
17:05
scot126: Dear All - many thanks to all who shared their notes from the AGM. Sorry for the delay in writing. Please find below some notes transcribed from the AGM, in no particular order, and do forgive me if I repeat points made by earlier posters. - Uni of Texas/Bureau study completed in 2014 (and not publicly available, remember) was described by JC as "the most complete, biggest and best study I have seen in my career." JC reminded the audience that the study has no "institutional bias", rather the geologists seek, in time, peer reviewed analysis of their findings, ie. no financial incentive one way or the other. - JC estimated, based upon tested flow rates, that "VOS#1 pays for itself, at current O&G prices, in under 12 months." - JC estimated, based upon tested flow rates, that "VOBM#3 should pay for itself, at current O&G prices, in just under 2 years using the number at the lower end of the range and in just under a year using the number at the higher end of the range." Like LOTM suggests (I think?), sceptics have not appreciated or are not prepared to countenance the possibility that the depletion rate will mirror the characteristics of those superior wells in the Double AA which the U of T/Bureau study has sought to identify within the JV acreage. JC also noted that the wells would be produced at larger choke sizes than those used during flow testing. Sceptics are also not willing to give any credit for a gas treatment solution where the net back results in higher than expected cashflows to the JV. Attendees will recall from last year's AGM presentation by JC in Dec '15 that the JV could have set a far larger choke size on VOBM#1 to deliver a flow rate way in excess of the 1500 boepd formally announced. Just luck that the study identified such a location??? Future "vanilla" vertical wells in Polk will provide further evidence of the efficacy of the study, I would contend, especially when the decision on siting of the various drill pads will not have to incorporate any horizontal drilling element within the calculations. - Gas processing arrangements for Polk; JC admitted that he had signed a Confidentiality Agreement with the 3rd party firm currently negotiating with the JV to treat the gas produced by VOBM 1,2 and 3. It seemed clear to me from body language and tone that this is the preferred option ("hopeful of concluding a 3rd party solution" - JC) but that, if need be, the JV will order and commission its own skid-mounted solution. He admitted that gas processing was not the core competency of the JV but that, if necessary, they would hire experienced personnel to ensure an in-house solution worked. He confirmed that both the 3rd party and self-processing solutions ought to take c.60 days from making the decision to delivery on site. He also confirmed that the capital cost to the JV would be "less than $2m" if they decide to go with the self-processing option. I agree with other contributors who noted that JC said processing could reasonably be expected to commence in Polk in the Spring. - JC stated "Vision has the largest data set of anyone on the Double AA Wells field." - When commenting on a diagrammatic slide showing the JV's acreage, JC stated that you could "fit two Double AA Wells fields in the LP2 offset basin using the distance from LP2 to VOS#1 (4.5 miles) only" and reminded attendees that VOS#1 looks to "have 3-5x the net pay of LP2" although did note that there were variations in believed permeability throughout this expansion. JC believed that VOS#1 had the potential to be a "huge, huge success but for the mud weight problem and subsequent skin damage" - Based upon the result of VOBM#1 and the expansion in reservoir sand at VOS#1, JC believes there is potential for the recoverable P50 Prospective Resource to increase – however this is only an estimate based upon limited flow information and a more accurate evaluation could only be made after a sustained period of production. - The distance between the site of VOS#1 and VOBM#4 is 4.6 miles. - The total cost of a vertical well to the JV is expected to trend downwards from $3.75m towards possibly as low as $3m ("on a trouble free basis" to use that thorny old phrase!). - JC estimated "A medium case P50 well payback is c. 4 months." From the slide, the low, medium, upper case scenarios are based on the following prices of WTI oil/HH gas: Low $40/$3, medium $50/$3.50 and upper $60/$4.50. A P50 npv per well using those scenarios leads to npv's of $14.5m, $18.2m and $24m respectively. And for Pmean wells, the npv per well using those O&G prices is $32.6m, $40m and $51.3m respectively. A Pmean well at today's prices was described by JC as possessing "extraordinary economics". - When describing the range of kit required for gas processing, and referring directly to the amine plant, JC described Polk gas as being "very sweet gas" with 4.4% CO2, and 0.1% nitrogen. A Joule Thomson plant and NGL stabilizer will also be required. - When explaining why the obvious solution of hooking up Polk's gas to the nearby Enterprise facility had not come about, JC explained that Enterprise felt the JV had no other options and as a result had set a processing fee that was too high to accept. In addition, Enterprise was seeking an undertaking on the pace and number of new wells in Polk which did not complement the JV's core strategy of scoping out the acreage and selling the asset to a larger operator. The JV felt it was imperative to keep complete control over the acreage. - JC stated that he had cause to believe VOBM#1 "could materially exceed P50 numbers" and VOS#1 "could also exceed P50" numbers. - If VOBM#4 proves to be successful, it is "likely that processing plant and further wells would be clustered around that location." This explains why they have not yet hooked up VOS#1. The objective in locating gas processing facilities is to minimize operating/transportation costs. - I'd like to correct Caveat Emptor's notes in one respect, and I have checked this correction with the company. JC stated that "if the vertical re-drill of VOBM#2 is successful and corresponds with the data from VOBM#1 then shareholders could take it as read that the JV fully understands the geology of the Polk County acreage". - JC was asked if he was prepared to revise his opinion (not formal guidance but personal opinion) on the likely dollar value, at sale of the asset, he would ascribe per boe in the ground in the light of the increase in O&G prices since the AGM in December '15. He replied that the price rises in the O&G market lead him to believe that a value of $12-15 per boe in the ground is reasonable in today's pricing regime. - Happy to be corrected here as I think there have been other contributors who have transcribed the following differently but I thought that the JV felt a total of 15-20 wells would have to be drilled to accurately scope out the combined acreage in Polk and Tyler....we've already drilled 4 and the 5th is being drilled currently. I understand that others believe JC was signalling the requirement for a FURTHER 15-20 wells over and above the 4-5 already drilled? Edit: please see rvsy38's post No. 11601 for clear transcript from AGM on this question. Thanks rvsy38. - Like other attendees I was impressed by the appointment of the new NED, Phillip Gobe. His CV is certainly impressive as evidenced by his stint as Operations Manager of Prudhoe Bay (the largest oil field in North America) and having been in senior roles in three businesses which were sold successfully. I, too, am looking forward to his influence being brought to bear in guiding his fellow Board members as they continue to manage operations within the JV and in any guidance he may proffer on communications with the market. He is based in Houston, close to Vision and to the assets, which is important. - The Chairman shared his view that the current market cap of PANR effectively valued PANR's 159mmboe (ref. Art Berman's report) at c.$1.10 per barrel. If he was using 214m shares on issue, cable of $1.25, a 65p share price from the day before the AGM then he's just about on the money. This is all gross of course, and the 159mmboe incorporates PANR's extra percentage ownership of Polk. Hmmmm.....and Jay thinks $12-$15 per boe would be a reasonable sale price “in the ground”, that the expert's report P50 number has potential to be increased from 301mmboe should they enjoy future drilling success, and we haven't even begun to fully uncover the potentially massive scale of Tyler. - Many shareholders will be aware of the importance of VOBM#4, and there's no getting away from it, we're all eagerly anticipating news from this well. However, there was a clear message from the BoD that the expert's figure of 301mmboe was not predicated solely on the success of that particular mini-basin, into which VOBM#4 is currently drilling. - The mini-basin into which VOBM#4 is currently drilling (the Core Offset basin) was described as being 15 miles in length. To be clear, this length was separate from the LP2 Offset basin as there appears to be a saddle between the two basins. I think, but am not certain, that Jay said the Core Offset basin was 2-3 miles wide? I think, but am not certain, that JC said the JV did not possess all the acreage in this area? - I had a great chat with Marmaris after the AGM. I'll leave him to contribute as he sees fit on here or on another bb. He asked a couple of pertinent questions especially about the attempt at the horizontal in VOBM#2. I have genuine sympathy for his view that a Contingency Plan B ought to have been in place for an immediate re-drill of the vertical element of this well, bearing in mind that the Nabors rig was on site. That said, it was heartening to hear that Bobby and Jay feel that the added data they've received from VOBM#3 has already been interpreted to such a degree that the vertical re-drill of VOBM#2 has been tweaked to allow for maximum chance of success and identification of the sweet spot. - I hope we hear from Marmaris soon as he can give fellow shareholders far greater insight than I can on the following issue. We saw a slide during Jay's presentation which compared the seismic amplitude of the LP2 and VOS#1 wells. I asked Marmaris about this and he said it was an extremely impressive slide, and that the differential in amplitudes was substantial. Marmaris - I hope I have not misquoted you....please correct me as you see fit?! Summary: there was more than a degree of humility on the part of the Board at the AGM. There's no getting away from it, PANR has suffered some operational reversals in 2016 and the timeline to execution of the "scope out and sell on" strategy has surely slipped a good 6-9 months. My own view is that shareholders ought to be pencilling in Q4 '18, Q1 '19 for the end game to be played out. The Board did, however, display a steadfast belief in their progress towards a complete understanding of the geology and that the JV had already accepted and digested the lessons learned from the 2016 drilling programme. JC was able to describe in broad terms the potentially huge upside which could be delivered to shareholders and we were definitively assured of PANR's financial capability to deliver a fully-funded drilling programme. Where does that leave me? Of course the drill bit will ultimately decide PANR's fate......but I suspect we will look back on Q4 '16/Q1 '17 as the time when the market had least confidence in PANR, thus offering a period of maximum opportunity. Usual health warning: I have been a long term holder for c.5 years and have purchased stock in a range from 14.5p to c.170p. I have added to my position since the AGM. GLA
28/10/2016
01:37
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
22:03
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
06/7/2016
14:47
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
11:53
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.
Pantheon 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:33 V: D:20170823 02:21:43