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
  -2.50p -4.72% 50.50p 50.20p 51.90p 51.50p 49.00p 51.00p 752,349 10:27:31
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -1.7 -0.8 - 119.94

Pantheon (PANR) Latest News (1)

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
10:27:1850.502,6251,325.63AT
10:27:1850.5010,0005,050.00AT
10:27:1350.4420,00010,087.08O
10:27:1051.002,3931,220.43AT
10:27:1051.003,8271,951.77AT
View all Pantheon trades in real-time

Pantheon (PANR) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
23/2/2018
08:20
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 53p.
Pantheon Resources has a 4 week average price of 39p and a 12 week average price of 39p.
The 1 year high share price is 95p while the 1 year low share price is currently 39p.
There are currently 237,499,552 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 1,472,413 shares. The market capitalisation of Pantheon Resources is £119,937,273.76.
20/2/2018
18:49
doublestexan: LTCM, it seems when the share price drops, some people talk about leaks. I don’t agree with that thinking but when one looks for a reason that will come up. When I see derampers suddenly appear and some try to cloak themselves , some don’t and at the same time I see the share price dropping due to sell overload, my suspicion is there is a concerted effort going on to lower the stock price. Not a theory I’m in love with but that’s where my thoughts lead me.
17/12/2017
16:05
scot126: Response to post #18941 from John Henry. "TS simply traders and weak shirts leaving. Would be good to see some further institutional interest after the presentation. However im guessing they have had their fill. The company have still to build bridges with investors, sentiment remains poor although improving. The full value of the asset imho will never be reflected in the share price due to past history. However im still expecting a sale north of £3.00 a share." Hi John Henry - Agreed about sellers except I'd add in the index-relating selling following the MSCI demotion of 30/11/17. Let's just say you're guessing wrong that UK institutions have "had their fill". Take your point about sentiment, fair play. Disagree strongly with you when you state the "full value of the asset will never be reflected in the share price due to past history". As the company strategy is to prove up and sell on, at the point of asset sale and value crystallisation, by definition the share price will reflect the full value of the asset. At that point, it depends on the economic tension between our Board and a motivated acquirer(s). So, yes, historical operational difficulties affect sentiment right now but will have a tiny effect, if any, on the asset value and thus share price on final exit. Thanks for all the kind words posted this afternoon - much appreciated at this end. To be honest, putting my notes in order is a good discipline for me anyway! It helps me in re-assessing the risk/return inherent in any decision to invest in a stock. Integrity is important to me so forgive me if I remind fellow shareholders to DYOR and not to rely exclusively on my interpretation of the facts as I understand them. Remember, as a shareholder, you're entitled to write/email the management with any questions or concerns you may have. Be patient if they don't respond straight away as PANR only has 5 or 6 employees in London and Texas! But my experience is that they try their best to respond when they can. GLA
17/12/2017
15:37
scot126: Dear All - Please find below a list of the questions which non-attendees of the AGM requested attendees pose to management. I THINK Jay dealt with most points (see post 18972 above) but I'll go through them and attempt to answer them where appropriate. Q. “I would like to know what management make of the Cain Carter 1 drill and why given its location it failed?” A. An attendee asked this question. Jay said he was aware of the well but he didn't offer up a specific explanation as he wasn't fully aware of all the data/facts connected to that well. Perhaps the questioner can add to my response directly if he reads this bb? Q. “Just looking for an educated estimate of when the second rig could be put into play? Jay has mentioned it in the annual report and financial statement.” A. Please see my interpretation of the drilling programme for 2018 in post number 18972 and page 18 of the AGM presentation on the company's website. I got the feeling that we ought not to expect a multi-rig programme in 2018, but that it was far more likely in 2019 and 2020. Q. “If you could ask what monthly cashflow they are aiming at to enable them to complete the drilling in the timeframes that they want?” A. Please see post 18972 above. Q. “I would like to know from the AGM what has happened to VOBM#2. The last we heard was that it would be hooked up with 1&3 and that we would see if it is salvageable/what rate it can flow at? Since then it has been remarkably quiet which is not encouraging.” A. Please see post 18972 above. I think it's fair to say that Jay did not attempt to deflect any questions arising from VOBM#2. He explained in detail the effects of different pressures and the resulting eddies and backflows in the horizontal part of this well. It'll be what it'll be, I'm afraid. The jv will get a better picture of its flow rate and thus contribution to revenue once they've cleaned up VOBM#1 and VOBM#3, before beginning the clean up of VOBM#2H. Q. “Will there be an updated investor presentation from this week’s meetings?” A. Yip, see the company's website. The presentation gives more detail than previous presentations in my opinion and is well worth a read. Q. “I want to know about themes; are they going to focus on drilling and proving up wells or are they going to focus initially on building cashflow? Also, any plans for gas infrastructure upgrades? Just at Polk or Tyler too?” A. The answer is that it's a balancing act between generating sufficient cash to fully fund the drilling programme. Please also see post 18972 above for further detail. Q.“My questions would be the obvious ones about the drilling programme, which will likely be anticipated by JC. I would also be interested to know if "Prospect D" is on the list for early drilling activity, i.e. validating that prospect? Also we have nothing of substance to lift the original 150m boe attributable to PANR other than a bit of tweaking of the % shares with the JV. A good question would be whether the next well in Polk (West AA) is going to be positioned to test the extent of that prospect so as to try and work towards a maiden resource calculation and when could we get that? I understand that PANR might want to keep its counsel rather than publish predator-attracting headlines too soon but if that's the strategy I would like to hear JC say so.” A. I didn't pick up on any early intended activity for Prospect D. Perhaps it makes more commercial sense at this stage to drill the two Polk wells planned for 2018 around the existing hub of the gas treatment plant in the West AA basin? Please refer to the paragraph in post 18972 which details that an updated CPR report is unlikely to be commissioned any time in 2018. I do genuinely believe the Board is trying to protect the economic interests of all long term shareholders by seeking to limit the disclosure of commercially sensitive data which could be exploited by competitor companies active in our area. In fact, Jay said this explicitly at the AGM. Where I personally have a criticism of the Board is that they also have an obligation to ensure an orderly market in their stock in the time up to the decision to sell the asset. My view is that having the CEO spending 2 weeks per annum updating shareholders in the UK and, vitally, educating potential institutional investors about the PANR investment case is insufficient. Justin Hondris is a finance guy, whereas Jay brings with him a wealth of O&G experience and it's that expertise which potential investors need to interrogate to assist in coming to an understanding of the risk/reward inherent in PANR's equity. Operational priorities must ALWAYS come first....but two weeks per year? Insufficient in my opinion. Other shareholders may wish to write to the company, as I have done, and put forward their opinion on this and any other questions or concerns they may have. Q. “I wonder if we will get an update on the flow rate through the sales pipe at the AGM?” A. This was answered in the AGM statement, ie. currently running at c.5mmcf per day with ramp up expected over the coming days and weeks. Q.“Now that we have cash flow coming in, and have significant experience of drilling our acreage and of calibrating our models with real drilling data, are we planning to accelerate our drilling programme with multiple rigs? A. Please see the AGM presentation and post 18972 above. Q. “For years now, the corporate presentations have had a slide detailing the potential number of wells which could be drilled on our acreage, in the Austin Chalk and Eaglebine. Will we be getting an update to include the Wilcox?” A. Yip, the answer is the data suggests the potential for 20-30 Wilcox-only wells in Tyler. Q. “I am the same age as Jay. Based on what he said a few years ago, I had high hopes of us achieving a trade sale by the time I was 70. What's the current prognostication?R21; A. Let's face it; we've lost a year this year which, together with the extra drilling required to scope out the two "bonus" zones (Wilcox and Navarro), means that there's a drilling plan going out into 2020. My personal view is that the jv will have sufficient data to prepare the asset for sale in mid-2020 (usual caveat of drilling going ahead "on a trouble-free basis"). Q. “I wonder if we can get an update on "The company will expedite arrangements for first production in Tyler County." A. See post 18972 above. Sounds like management are already taking the first steps towards such a solution for Tyler. Good. Q. "To what extent is the geophysics indicating the presence of the Wilcox zone in other parts of the Tyler or Polk acreage?" A. There's only evidence of the Wilcox formation in Tyler so far, as I understand it? Please see post 18972 above for further information on the potential extent of the Wilcox formation in Tyler. Q. “Would you please ask the board what they know about the Short that's been open since the dreadful drilling news in Sept 2016 and has there been any contact between YOST and the company?” A. That question isn't really appropriate to be posed to the company. Following established market etiquette, it's more of a question which should be directed towards the company's house broker. That said, I do have some knowledge on this as I have, myself, spoken with Yost in the past. The company's house broker and a non-house broker have offered to set up a meeting for Yost to meet management. On each occasion, Yost has politely declined the offer. Let's face it, Yost's short position has proven to be highly effective and profitable. How they arrived at their initial decision to open the short is their business but my personal view is that the market will be reasonably swift in discounting the avalanche of data we're about to receive in January/February of 2018 and the share price will react accordingly. Then it'll be up to Yost if they wish to close their short as the profitability of their position starts to diminish.
17/12/2017
12:55
scot126: Dear All - please find below my notes from both the AGM and an institutional meeting I attended last week. I was invited to the institutional roadshow meeting because I had introduced this particular institution to PANR about a year ago and they kindly invited me to sit in to "sense check" what they were hearing from Jay, Justin and Phillip. A big thank you to that institution (which, for the record, was already a shareholder) for allowing me to sit in on the meeting. Ok, here are the points I noted down in no particular order. Please forgive me if I have transcribed anything incorrectly and happy to be corrected if I misheard or have misrepresented any statements as detailed below. 1) At the AGM we received the most detailed explanation so far for the rationale behind George Kaiser's reduction in interest in Vision. George Kaiser has worked with Bobby Gray for "over 20 years" and has partnered Bobby in a number of ventures over the years. George Kaiser has stepped away from running Kaiser-Francis Oil Company (KFOC) and it is now run by different executives who do not have any personal history with Bobby Gray. KFOC are concentrating on exploiting 300k acres in the Permian Basin and their assets in Oklahoma which, as a result, means that our East Texas project is a barnacle on a barnacle in terms of their day-to-day priorities. Thus we have KFOC's decision to reduce its interest in Vision. You can check out George Kaiser's personal priorities fairly easily as these days he appears to be very active with his philanthropy and his charitable Foundation. In fact, if like me, you've become an avid consumer of US cable news (no, not Faux News) you may have noticed the Kaiser Foundation being very active in providing empirical data and analysis on socio-economic issues which serve to act as a counter-point to Trumpism. [Kaiser gets a tick in the box from me for that alone!] 2) See paragraph 1) above. This gave rise to the option agreement which permits PANR and Bobby Gray (personally) to increase their working interest in Tyler. From memory, PANR moves to 75% on the parcel of 7800 acres of land surrounding VOBM#4 and Bobby Gray increases his interest from 16.6% to 25%. Jay was careful to emphasise that this option was over ALL hydrocarbon-bearing formations at their separate depths. I asked him if PANR and Bobby were obliged to exercise the option (cost to PANR was $1.5m) before the flow test had been conducted on the sidetrack and he said absolutely not and that they'll be waiting for the results of the flow test before making a decision on exercising the option in Tyler. All makes sense to me, happy with that. What is worth thinking about at this stage is that we ought to be very excited to hear that the option has been exercised following the sidetrack flow test. Looking at my notes, the jv is hoping to conduct the sidetrack flow test in January. Worth looking out for that news, for sure. 3) As I've just referred to the sidetrack, let's discuss that. We know it was drilled on time and on budget but there were 5 days of delays during that drill. At this point it's worth highlighting that both Jay and Phillip Gobe confirmed that it is difficult to retain external service providers in our area of east Texas as so much of the industry is understandably focussed on the vast amount of work available currently in the Permian Basin. I know some shareholders have been sceptical about a number of operational failings we've experienced and which the Board has "blamed" on external contractors. Marmaris and I have talked at length about this, and I know Marmaris has been in communication with Jay on this issue. In addition, I was able to pose this question to Phillip directly during my other meeting. He did confirm that he'd reviewed the operational progress of the jv thus far. He confirmed the veracity of Jay's statement that the contractors had made a bad error when drilling the original VOBM#4 well. For what it's worth he did also say that the horizontal "experiment" on VOBM#2 was worth doing, that he could understand the logic behind that decision. I did not go on to debate with him the wisdom of the Board's PR strategy around the events of last September, and the subsequent collapse of trust in management. We know from last year's AGM that lessons were learned at that time. I don't know about other shareholders, but I have noticed an appreciable improvement in clarity and guidance in the RNSs published throughout 2017 v's prior years? Both Jay and Phillip did point out that mistakes/equipment failings do occur when drilling wells and that shareholders need to accept that as part of the industry, especially when drilling deep wells at high pressure, high temperature. It has become evident, to both Marmaris and me, that Phillip Gobe has injected into the jv a greater degree of operational experience and know-how. Phillip Gobe knows, personally, the CEO of Sierra Hamilton and it was Phillip who introduced their services to the jv and we heard at the AGM that they have now been retained formally. Excellent news. Staying with the sidetrack, it was only at the AGM that I learnt about the three distinct layers of Wilcox encountered in the original VOBM#4 well. When flow tested, only 2 of the 3 zones of the Wilcox flowed. Did Jay explain that the non-flowing zone had been closed off as a result of attempts to remediate the well (is that correct? or was this third zone what Jay was talking about when he said one of the Wilcox zones may respond to fracking?). Either which way; we know that the flow test of VOBM#4 indicated net pay of 35ft; we know that only 2 out of the 3 zones flowed.....thus is it not reasonable to expect that as the sidetrack also encountered three distinct layers of the Wilcox, and the sidetrack is only 200ft away from the original well, we ought to expect a net pay figure of a minimum of 35ft when the sidetrack flow test results are published some time in January? I asked Marmaris about this and he confirmed this is the logical assumption to make. 4) Implications of the Wilcox. Since encountering the Wilcox this time last year, the jv has re-visited the 2D seismic data for Tyler. They believe that they have isolated an anomaly at the relevant depth which suggests the Wilcox extends over c.6000 acres. Vitally, this area of land falls within the terms of the option agreement with KFOC. In addition, and this is where Bobby's personal contacts are assisting the understanding of the geology, it turns out that George Kaiser owns/owned (?) 30% of Unit Petroleum which runs the nearby and analogous Jazz field. The jv was able to access the complete records of the Jazz field (6 miles south of our Tyler acreage according to my notes?) which the jv has compared with the data they have on the Wilcox in our Tyler acreage. We were informed that, at this stage, the data suggests that the jv's Wilcox formation in Tyler is a "thicker formation" than that found in the analogous Jazz field. The flow test on the sidetrack will tell us if the jv is interpreting the seismic data correctly. Jay also told us that if the Wilcox turns out to flow as a commercial zone in Tyler, the area could support approx 20-30 Wilcox-only wells. Using Art Berman's CPR numbers, that means the total number of potential wells over the acreage rises from 209 to 229-239. Jay was careful to couch his language when describing the impending flow test of the sidetrack but he did state the following at the AGM: "the sidetrack is looking better than VOBM#4"...."it looks very good"...."logs are very encouraging". Jay went on to describe the economics of a Wilcox well. He said that each well will cost c.$3m gross to the jv and ought to be "relatively easy to drill" (let's hope he hasn't jinxed us there, eh?!). 5) Gas treatment and sales in Tyler. Management has already begun initial negotiations in order to provide a solution to this issue. We learned that the Wilcox gas is "very sweet" and indeed so sweet that a nearby pipeline operator is talking about accepting the jv's Wilcox gas directly into their pipeline such is the deficit in their supply v's demand of gas in that particular pipeline. This could have a material impact on the economics of the Wilcox wells and, perhaps even more importantly for PANR shareholders, means that we could be generating revenue from Tyler far more quickly than anticipated. Now obviously this would be tremendous if the above came to pass but Jay emphasised that should it not prove possible to hook up directly into the pipeline we have many more options available and we'll be negotiating from a position of strength unlike the historical negotiations surrounding gas solutions in Polk. I heard in both meetings last week that the jv can now point to the already operating Kinder Morgan plant in Polk in order to prevent the gas treatment companies from seeking to charge egregious tariff rates to process our gas. Jay also told us that they'd already had loose discussions with Kinder Morgan about replicating the Polk set up in Tyler. Management sounded very happy with their relationship with Kinder Morgan in Polk and I got the impression Kinder Morgan are keen to partner the jv in Tyler also. They've even been able to set out for Jay the likely time frame between the jv ordering a new plant from Kinder Morgan to its delivery and construction in Tyler. 6) Drilling plans for Tyler. There was a great deal of time spent at the AGM describing the various options and priorities for the jv when drawing up their drilling plans for 2018. The first well to be drilled will be in Polk - expected to spud in early January (VOBM#5....more on that in paragraph below). Looking at Tyler, I don't know about other attendees, but I got the impression that they're planning a 3 well programme (to follow VOBM#5) targeting the Wilcox in Tyler. The jv needs to balance off its desire to get moving on the drilling programme with its ability to fund those operations. Internally generated cash is going to be key so I can certainly see the logic in drilling three Wilcox wells from, say, February to May, using the same rig and crew and then proceeding to hook up and start production in those three wells along with the sidetrack asap (amended 19/12/17 as follows: no production will ever occur from the original VOBM#4 well bore as it is now shut off. Production will only come from the sidetrack should the flow test on the 3 Wilcox zones be successful). By moving to production as quickly as possible in Tyler and adding it to the cash inflows from Polk, we ought to comfortably be able to afford a centre basin test well in Tyler in H2 2018. To repeat, Jay guided each Wilcox well to cost c.$3m gross to the jv. Marmaris questioned Jay about the engineering parameters for the centre basin drill. Readers will be aware I'm no engineer but as Marmaris told me afterwards, he was most reassured by Jay's response. Marmaris has always been concerned about starting off the centre basin drill with sufficiently large/robust tools and equipment to increase as far as possible the odds of successfully drilling all the way down to the Eagleford sandstone - the potential jewel in the crown we're all waiting to hear about. Marmaris has drawn up his own ideas for that particular well and, if I understood the verbal exchange correctly, the jv is planning to employ a well design that is even larger in diameter and robustness than Marmaris had expected. Jay gave out guidance for the cost of a centre basin drill which was c.$6m gross to the jv. My interpretation arising from both meetings is that we can reasonably expect the centre basin test to occur in H2 2018. 7) Drilling plans for Polk County. VOBM#5 is due to spud in early January. This is a welcome acceleration from the relative stasis of 2017!! VOBM#5 will be sited approx 1500ft to the south-west of VOBM#1 and is expected to cost $4m gross to the jv. I've taken notes suggesting the drill ought to take 3-4 weeks to reach TD, does that make sense? Obviously the plan is to hook up VOBM#5 to the gas plant in Polk as soon as possible thereafter. And that brings us on nicely to the Polk gas treatment plant..... 8) Polk gas treatment plant. The plant has a capacity of 15mmcf per day and it's currently running at c.5mmcf per day. Kinder Morgan personnel are managing the clean up process on VOBM#1 and VOBM#3 which involves heat treating the gas and the use of a delightfully-named piece of kit called a "slug catcher". I knew this was a job for Marmaris as soon as I heard these terms. Marmaris explained that the gas will be relatively cold having sat in a shut off well for a year or two and it is completely normal to heat the gas as a well is brought on to production. Now to the "slug catcher". Marmaris said that Kinder Morgan will not want shards of drill bit metal, mud, cement and other well detritus to enter the gas treatment plant. The slug catcher effectively filters out all this stuff. I asked Jay how long it would take to clean up the wells. He answered it takes as long as it takes but we're not looking at July 2018, more like by February 2018 for the wells to be fully cleaned up. Our least favourite problem child well, VOBM#2H, will be turned on once VOBM#1 and VOBM#3 are cleaned up. I think we must now all accept that VOBM#2H well will never be a massive contributor to sales due to the operational difficulties the jv has experienced in drilling, re-drilling, remediating, etc, etc, this well. Expect VOBM#5 to "fill up" any shortfall in supply of gas to the Polk gas plant such that we move up close to capacity by the end of February (personal view there). But all is not completely lost when looking at VOBM#2H, oh no! Jay said that the logging data and seismic suggests that the area which VOBM#2H was targeting looks so exceptional that the jv will quite possibly drill a vertical well targeting that same sweet spot at some point in the future. Hmmmm....interesting. 9)I haven't written anything about the second "surprise" formation encountered by VOBM#4 late last year - the Navarro. In truth, I got the feeling that whilst management are delighted it's present, there simply isn't sufficient data available at this stage to be able to give any meaningful guidance to shareholders about the potential of the Navarro and the effect on the end point valuation. There was some talk about obtaining more data about the Navarro by undertaking a "coring" operation as the centre basin test drill in Tyler passes through the Navarro on the way to the Austin Chalk and Eagleford. I asked Marmaris what this entailed and he told me that the front assembly of the drill is changed such that the core rock remains intact and can be transported up to the surface for analysis. He said to think of it like the ice cores you see on documentaries when scientists look at the thickness and layers of ice in glaciers. I have to say that Marmaris expressed some doubt about the wisdom of this strategy as he felt that the tools used to carry out "coring" are not as robust (as by their nature, they have to be hollow) as the normal assembly. Marmaris said he planned to write to Jay to question him further on this matter. Come on, Maramris, it's time you returned to the warm embrace of ADVFN! I know for a fact many on here would value your input. To sum up the Navarro, Jay was clear in stating that it should be viewed as a "bonus" discovery at this stage, albeit a welcome one. 10) A few single sentences I thought worth transcribing: "The jv is managing c.4500 mineral leases in Polk and Tyler Counties." Jay confirmed for the second year in a row that, "We believe the Tyler basin is approx 20-21 miles in length." "VOBM#4 is the only well drilled >10,000ft in depth in the surrounding area of roughly 50 sq miles." Phillip Gobe stated that, "I understand there are only 6-8 rigs currently operating in the East Texas area v's a total of c.500 rigs operating in the whole state of Texas." [This information was offered to support the management's belief that the vast majority of oil services firms were concentrating on the Permian Basin] 11) Jay was asked if the Board planned to commission an updated CPR. He replied that he felt it was too early to undertake such an exercise as there is insufficient data to move the resource estimate in a meaningful way. I don't know about everyone else, but I think it would be unwise for fellow shareholders to expect an updated CPR any time in 2018. 12) Jay gave an explanation for the historical delay in moving to production and gas sales in Polk. He explained that Enterprise was seeking to levy "egregious tariffs" to process the gas. Indeed so "egregious" were the terms offered by Enterprise that he calculated a net benefit to the jv of c.$1m per annum with only three wells in production. Furthermore, he told us that Enterprise wanted the jv to sign a contract that would tie in all future gas processing from the whole of the jv's Polk acreage which he said "would have greatly impacted the exit sale negotiations". On the face of it, deciding not to proceed with Enterprise was absolutely the correct choice. Where I have less sympathy is the time taken to move on to an alternative solution with the resulting impact on an effective suspension of our drilling programme in 2017 and the, in my opinion, ridiculously low price at which we had to raise fresh capital. Oh well, that's all in the past now and the stockmarket quite rightly is only interested in the future. 13) I, once again, felt the welcome influence of Phillip Gobe when management described to me in the institutional meeting their plan to insert some extra PANR resource into Vision's office. Behind the scenes, a number of large shareholders have been urging management to consider this matter for some time. I don't think shareholders should expect PANR's central costs to blow out in any significant way but to hear, at the AGM, that "one or two people" would be hired to assist Vision as plans are finalised for 2018/19 was good to hear, IMHO. 14) Drilling required to scope out the asset for future sale. Shareholders will recall Jay's previous guidance that it would likely take a total of "15-20 wells" before the jv considered they had sufficient data to present to potential acquirers. Jay has now formally increased that guidance to "20-30 wells". I was able to question Jay and Justin further on this and Jay stated that their financial modelling suggested a drilling programme of "6 wells in 2018, 9 wells in 2019 and 12 wells in 2020 was achievable and supported by the cash at hand and cash generated by sales of O&G." This is important for shareholders to digest and accept. I immediately questioned this revision and Jay responded that the increased guidance was purely a reflection of the discovery of the Wilcox on our acreage (and Navarro implied) and the desire of management to extract maximum value for shareholders on exit. Jay has always been forthright in stating he is 69 years of age and Bobby Gray is 73 and that they have no desire to continue running the jv into perpetuity. The strategy to crystallise value once the jv has scoped out the acreage remains utterly intact and achievable. Of course it's Justin Hondris' job to model the cost of the drilling operation v's our cash position and we spent some time going through those calculations. Jay confirmed at the AGM that there is land in Tyler which he, as an oil executive of many years standing, he would be "tempted to acquire" but that the jv "already had more than enough on their plate to be getting on with". I guess it's a balancing act, but the fact he repeated to the audience his and Bobby's ages suggest, to me anyway, that their primary focus is to crystallise the value inherent in the existing acreage. 15) Cash flow guidance. This, to me, was the most welcome updated guidance we received last week. Jay stated "If the jv drills the 5-6 well programme outlined for 2018, on a trouble-free basis, PANR will exit 2018 generating $3m of free cash flow per month. Based on this, the company should not have to raise any fresh capital before exit sale." Waoh! How do we get there? Polk is forecast to generate $1.5m per month net to PANR as we ramp up to the full capacity of the gas treatment plant. He then went on to suggest that they expect two Wilcox wells to generate $800-900k per month net to PANR and if they decide to drill a third Wilcox well in Tyler, that moves them up to within a hair's breadth of the $3m per month figure. No margin for error? Not really the case, as this calculation does not recognise any revenue contribution from the 1 or 2 other wells outlined in the 2018 drilling programme (eg. the centre basin well or another well situated between VOBM#4 and VOS#1 - both in Tyler). 16) Valuation. I was sitting at the back of the room in the AGM and thus wasn't able to follow Jay's flip chart calculations. I'd be grateful if someone else would transcribe them fully on to the bb? Let's examine a couple of other ways to attempt to place a valuation on PANR. Accepting the guidance on fcf above, 12 months out from now the company will be generating c.$3m per month.....annualise that and we get to $36m per annum. Our current market cap is c.£135m or approx $180m. Take off a bit of G&A/central costs from the annual fcf figure, shall we say that takes us to $32m per annum? That means we're currently trading on 5.6x (exiting) FY18 fcf for a self-funding E&P stock, with revenue being generated by a mere 10 wells out of a potential number of 229-239 wells over the whole asset. Incredible. Another way of looking at attempting to value the company is one that Jay has used on a number of occasions. Using Art Berman's CPR figure of 301mmboe, halve it for PANR's share (I know it's not 50:50 any more but just for ease) and we get to 150mmboe. Take off royalties, local taxes, etc and we're down to, say, 100mmboe? Jay confirmed once again that everything they are seeing from the costs of the drilling undertaken thus far combined with the initial results from Polk production and gas sales suggest that his guidance of capex + opex at or below $5/boe remains very much intact. When WTI and Henry Hub prices were considerably lower a year ago, Jay suggested that an exit sale pricing each boe in the ground at $10 was not unreasonable. That maths points to a valuation of 300p per share [100m boe x $10 per barrel in the ground / number of shares and options on issue / £:$ = 300p per share]. This does not take into account the increase in O&G prices since last year and thus price willing to be paid for each boe in the ground, the effect of the option on 7800 acres in the centre of the Tyler acreage, any movement in P50 v's Pmean and the recognition of value inherent in the Wilcox and Navarro formations. To be very clear, my personal valuation for PANR is a multiple of the 300p arrived at above but I've attempted to copper bottom the base valuation on the available published data. Make sense? 17) Anticipated newsflow over the short term? - RNS announcing spudding of VOBM#5 in Polk in early January. - RNS providing the result of the extended Wilcox flow test on the VOBM#4 sidetrack towards the end of January? - RNS detailing if PANR and Bobby Gray intend to exercise their option over 7800 acres in Tyler County to increase their respective stakes on that parcel of land. Perhaps in the same RNS as the sidetrack flow test? Perhaps in the days following as the jv analyses more comprehensively the data from the flow test? - RNS announcing VOBM#5 reaches TD. End of January/first week of February? Intention to immediately hook up to Polk gas plant and begin production from VOBM#5? An update on the clean up of VOBM#1, 2, 3 and plant's throughput? - RNS outlining a 2-3 drill programme targeting the Wilcox in Tyler beginning late February/early March? Hmmmm.....what a difference from 2017! 18) Share price over the last 4 weeks or so. Regular readers will be aware PANR was relegated from the MSCI Small Cap Index to the MSCI Micro Cap Index on 30/11/17. Many retail shareholders don't appear to understand that this index change has absolutely nothing to do with the company itself. To be clear, it's chiefly a function of the reduction in our market cap over the last 12-18 months. I'm in contact with a number of the larger shareholders in PANR and they have NOT been selling over the last 4 weeks since the index changes were published by the MSCI. I've received feedback from a number of institutions who met with management last week and there's no shorting going on that I can uncover - the FCA short register confirms this to be the case, and I monitor it daily. If you have been monitoring the increased volume of shares traded over the last 4 weeks, all of the index-related selling has been absorbed in a fairly orderly manner, in my opinion anyway. I am aware of the intentions of a number of institutions who met with management last week. Those who met management for the first time rated the integrity and experience of management and plan to add PANR to their watchlist, follow the course of upcoming news events and perhaps take action accordingly. I suspect some existing institutional shareholders mopped up a fair amount of index-selling last week and they may very well continue to buy more in the days/weeks ahead as they digest the fact the jv has moved into production and begin to factor in the effects of the 2018 drilling programme. My personal view and "health warning". I'm a long term holder and added to my position in PANR after the AGM. Hope the above is of some use to fellow shareholders? As I said, happy to be corrected where I've made mistakes. I plan on reviewing the questions posed by shareholders who weren't able to attend the AGM. I THINK most of the questions were answered by Jay during his 1.5 hour presentation but I'll have another look this afternoon and respond where appropriate. GLA PS First mistake?! Looking at page 18 of the AGM presentation on the company's website (well worth downloading and digesting IMHO), their guidance on the timing/location of the various wells being considered for drilling in 2018 doesn't quite correspond with my interpretation in paragraphs 6) and 7) above. However, taken as a whole, the message is consistent.
15/12/2017
11:09
stephen2010: Check out ALBA. Huge multibag potential. ALBA currently trading at 0.39p target price 6p making a nice 15 bagger. Please read the following: MARKET CAP PUZZLE ❖ Alba (market cap £8.4m) is in a resources neighbourhood populated with listed companies with much enhanced market capitalisations, such as UKOG.L (£134m) and JAY.L (£172m). With either shared project interests or adjacent tenements to these companies, Alba should trade at a much higher valuation than its current token value. Like Bluejay, Alba owns 100% of its ilmenite project. Direct comparisons with UKOG are also instructive. While both companies own other projects, UKOG’s 49.9% of Horse Hill Developments Limited (HHDL), when compared to Alba’s 18.1% means that Alba has approximately one third of the value of Horse Hill compared to UKOG but only about 7% of the market capitalisation. Once the market recognises these disparities, the room for growth in Alba’s share price is undeniable. VALUATION RATIONALE - Our valuation in this First Equity Limited initiation note uses a risked valuation approach for Alba’s two main projects, at Horse Hill and TBS. The Horse Hill licences are valued using independent published technical data from Schlumberger, Xodus and Nutech on the oil potential of the licences, along with our own assumptions on recovery rates, oil discovery value, resource and development risks factors. From this a risked value of $127m net to Alba on a ‘Base Case’ basis is derived for Horse Hill. Given the similar geology and economic potential of both TBS and Dundas, we have adopted a risked closeology valuation approach, by computing an NPV for Dundas of $223m and then applying a three-tiered risked probability calculation to arrive at a value of $54.7m for TBS. Once Alba announce its JORC resource and exploration target at TBS and Bluejay its Feasibility Study results, this number is likely to be revised upwards very rapidly, possibly up to $200m, representing up to 7p per share in additional shareholder value. We compute a valuation of $185m (£139m) for Alba, equating to 6.0p per share, of which 4.1p is attributed to the stake in Horse Hill, 1.8p for TBS. Given this analysis and wealth of valuation catalysts anticipated across the project portfolio in the coming months, we recommend the shares as a ‘BUY, with a Target Price of 6.0p, representing a potential 15 times plus uplift from the current share price.
05/12/2017
18:26
rvsy38: Nervousness at this time is understandable. Almost a year since the unexpected encounter with the Wilcox zone, despite reminders in RNS's that nothing should be taken for granted,like many others I hope it will be a commercial discovery. However I think that the Wilcox has been exerting an excessive influence on the share price. If it is eventually proved to be a new productive zone, scot26 has opined that it could add about 20% to Pantheon's NPV, which would be great. However that might be seen a small beer if the centre basin well is a success. The current share price ( 52p ) is supported by 4 commercial discoveries and production from a gas processing unit with a capacity of 15 million scfd. Contrast that when the share price of 180p which was supported by only 2 discoveries. Share prices over react in both directions which allows investors to make profits and I believe the the current share price grossly under estimates the value of the company.
02/12/2017
12:34
merie: dim2602Many find ourselves in a similar position, with the self-same belief in a project that geologically has thus far proven accurate.As we await log results for the Wilcox, we find ourselves at a significant psychological crossroads, with much now staked on what was no more than an unexpected bonus: a freebie, like the Navarro zone belowThere will be an inevitable blip in the sp, should we draw a negative; though with the bigger story remaining very much intact, with on-stream production about to begin at Polk 1 and 3, and confirmation on Polk 2 to add to this revenue stream. However, if the Wilcox logs prove positive, the share price will, I believe, moved exponentially higher. Indeed, a more than passable Wilcox may well see us heading beyond the 80s come Xmas: the psychological impact now going into reverse, driving sentiment in the opposite direction.Such are the vagaries of the market that having confirmed the presence of the Wilcox, within the well-bore, earlier this week, the share price is down approximately 9%. At a current share price of c.50p, and with a geologically perfect strike rate, it poses an interesting binary bet. I myself are more than comfortable with the odds.
02/12/2017
09:31
dlm2602: It's a shame that the Index funds were forced to sell PANR because the company had slipped out of the relevant Index. However if the company does as well as we all hope, these funds will be coming back again to reestablish their weightings in the not too distant future. This should give an added extra boost to the share price. Thanks again scot126 for your contribution to this board. I am heavily overweight in PANR and always remind myself of the underlying geology and end game when the share price suffers. Your timely contributions are a great reassurance.
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
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:41 V: D:20180223 10:48:49