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 Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.20p -1.14% 17.40p 1,253,732 16:35:28
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
17.30p 17.50p 17.62p 17.20p 17.62p
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -1.7 -0.8 - 41.32

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
2018-06-19 16:07:0917.405,000870.00O
2018-06-19 15:52:4017.2423,2394,006.82O
2018-06-19 15:43:2917.203,662629.86O
2018-06-19 15:29:4517.304,200726.60AT
2018-06-19 15:15:3617.40508.70AT
View all Pantheon trades in real-time

Pantheon (PANR) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
19/6/2018
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 17.60p.
Pantheon Resources has a 4 week average price of 17.20p and a 12 week average price of 17.20p.
The 1 year high share price is 69.90p while the 1 year low share price is currently 17.20p.
There are currently 237,499,552 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 994,968 shares. The market capitalisation of Pantheon Resources is £41,324,922.05.
17/6/2018
10:10
monkeechops: Networksnail, I agree those were big current issues, mainly because both were prayed on by shorters and had therefore been the subject of a lot of recent debate. Jay had said in his latest interview that they were not looking to do a placing and he discussed other funding options, so I’m not sure the placing issue affected the share price too much -I’d have thought most people knew there was enough money to do at least the VOBM1 remediation. I’m surprised confirmation about the water ingress didn’t raise the share price at least a little. The first RNS about that didn’t make it very clear about VOBM5 prospects, but now the most recent RNS has said there might be a re-drill, I did think that might help lift it. As a LTH, I for one saw that as extremely welcome news. I think it is languishing just because there seems to have been several operational issues, and people have lost confidence. We need some actual operational success to turn this around, and I think it’s coming. IMO it’s only going to take a successful sidetrack on VOBM1 to get this moving back upwards. Finalising the deal at VOS1 will add still more financial assurance. Once it starts moving back up, the current shorters will probably change tack and start ramping up the share price and it will shift upwards very quickly - again, IMO. Any more failures will knock the price down further (obviously), but I for one won’t be selling because I still believe Pantheon have a number of options available to it in terms of farm-out deals to prevent it from going bust, and literally one successful well could easily make this current share price a bargain. I’m not sure the economics of the play are fully understood by the vast majority of on-lookers, especially with the current oil and gas prices.
15/6/2018
15:24
networksnail: A couple of weeks back the share price was languishing at 18p and the most team important thing was (apparently) to find out if the water was localised or across the mini basin....rns appears and tells us it's localised, let's rejoice, oh and share price is still 18p. Ok so next most important thing is the prospect of a placing....rns appears and tells us no placing, let's rejoice, oh and the share price is (yes 18p). So the two most important factors are explained via rns and the share price does nothing but remain in the doldrums, people have clearly lost trust. Jay is having a terrible time at the moment (work and personal) and can probably empathise with his long suffering shareholders!
13/6/2018
07:47
rossannan: hiddendepths "The situation that I hate is where a company is in a delicate position for some reason. They can be driven out of business by a dramatic share price plunge for a variety of reasons. They can lose suppliers or customers, they can have their credit withdrawn or they can be unable to raise capital because the share price makes people think the risks are far higher than they would be without the vicious shorting."Can you give even one example of this happening? Is it not the case that those who shorted PANR, for example, who seem to have been quite open about it, were simply ahead of the game in perceiving some problem with the geology/flaw in the JV's business model/lack of operational competence that all PANR's cheerleaders missed or, like Malcy, turned a blind eye to for far too long? Ramping or deramping that involves market manipulation is clearly wrong, but often, whether they are short or simply have no position, BB skeptics are merely telling folk what they need to hear.
12/6/2018
17:39
hiddendepths: Many threads on this site are absolutely fine - with the worst transgressions being silly ramping by punters. These are easily spotted and laughed off, as are most of the antics of shorters. Just occasionally, though, it gets serious and then it can start to have an effect on the share price and the BB actions are clearly illegal if it is based on outright lies. It's market manipulation however you look at it. It is natural for people who own shares to believe they'll go up and to put a rosy glow on what they believe and what they say. Why be in the share otherwise? I suppose it's natural enough for shorters to put a more jaundiced view on boards too. In the normal run of affairs, even nasty manipulating activity matters little. The shares go down or up, positions are closed and the shares get back to some sort of reflection of reality, where buyers and sellers are in balance. If you play the markets with leveraged positions, then you can be royally screwed - but if that is the game you play, you should be fully aware of the risks. The situation that I hate is where a company is in a delicate position for some reason. They can be driven out of business by a dramatic share price plunge for a variety of reasons. They can lose suppliers or customers, they can have their credit withdrawn or they can be unable to raise capital because the share price makes people think the risks are far higher than they would be without the vicious shorting. I do hope that PANR is not in this position. It ought not to be. Decent cashflow is liable to be reasonably close, both in time and in spending terms. Moreover, the assets are likely to be attractive to the industry. In a crisis, they might have to be sold cheaply in terms of the underlying value but in all likelihood that would still be at a substantial premium to the current depressed market cap. The only real issue is whether the company has been lying through its teeth from start to finish. No doubt people will make up their own minds about this but I for one don't believe it. What I do believe is that some malicious shorters have sensed an opportunity here and are playing their nasty and illegal games to drive the shares down sharply and no doubt hope the company will go belly up. Sometimes they win but often they don't. I know that shareholders' credibility is being stretched but, as long as the company's operations are even a quarter as good as they believe, there is good integral value in PANR at this level. I ain't selling!
04/6/2018
00:08
hpcg: PANR listed in 2006 to explore around South Padre, which is ironically a year after gas production in the area ceased. There had not been any significant oil production. Their proposition was that drilling deeper targets would tap new and unexplored reserves. Which sounds kinda familiar. Is it factual enough to say that in the twelve years since they have achieved sweet FA. The company is not running out of money as a going concern but it doesn't have enough to drill another well. The current wells aren't going to make anyone rich; I think we can safely say that is factual and not speculation. The share price is going down as much as anything because why would anyone back an asset team with this record of success? The question I would pose is why did the share price ever go up to where it did in the first place? And it did it during a period of collapse and chaos in the industry - one where people are still being laid off. Crazy. In my opinion the company is worth its cash and the discounted cash flow of its one flowing well. If that is the opinion of potential providers of new funds then the share price has a long way to fall. At the end of the day nothing that I write, or Scot126 writes. makes even the smallest difference, the long term share price is governed by the performance of the company. I'm short because in my opinion the share price has further to fall. If I'm wrong I'll take my losses and move on, or even reverse my position. The only right or wrong for any investor is the value of their portfolio. That is the one and only true measure and any other measurement is delusion. So fair play to the people that bought in at 30p and sold above 150p of which there is at least one because I know someone that did. Ultimately other people's successes and failures don't effect the value of my own portfolio so my message is make your own decision and take responsibility. What I write is for my own benefit as a record to call myself to account on my thought process. Hence what I suggest about the probability of a farm-out on any terms which are not effectively a significant dilution, but more likely not at all. Here's another fact to base that proposition on - in Dec 2017 PANR increased its interest in VOBM5 for bearing the cost of drilling that increased interest. That is a real commercial transaction where someone sold there interest for a million or so bucks. So if they farm out on that measure the best they will get is drilling costs. If I'm dramatically wrong I'll lose money which will be the one and only pertinent critique of my analysis.
30/5/2018
21:40
hpcg: Factually the only valuation we have for the acreage has been determined by the cash transfer of interest. Factually that informs us that the seller did not think it was worth much at all. Your words are wasted here Scot. Whilst your well structured and coherent passages might work when the share price is rising it really doesn't when holders have to take sensible risk management decisions in order to protect their capital. It is the same when oil and mining companies give detailed descriptions of the process and measurements around pitiful exploration results. They aren't fooling anyone but the most callow investors. Hope no longer works for PANR; investors are no longer interested, and won't be until there is a genuinely successful well. To even get to that they need more money because they don't have enough for another well. So the choice is either raise fresh money sufficient for a well with a large built in contingency at an attractive risk reward level, or do nothing. With do nothing one also has two choices - liquidate and return whatever is raised to investors, or run down funds until the liquidator is called in. A farm in partner is going to want the same as any other source of new money; and 80 or 90% stake. This isn't factual but it is real, it is an opinion which discounts the likely future, it is an investment process. That's what investment takes, an investment process. There is no investment process in what you write. It matter not one iota what pronouncement the company makes about the source of the water ingress, it is about the terms they are forced to accept to even get another chance. The reason it is taking a while to sort is its tough. In theory with the market cap as it is raising 10mm USD would leave a lot left for existing holders, but if I were risking that money I would want a minimum of 50% interest in the well I was funding, and as I say given the probability of success 80 or 90%. So the best way would be to raise from existing shareholders, but with the broad PI base, and securing an underwriter expensive, it is difficult to even get a raise away. In the mean time oil investors have no shortage of companies to buy shares in where the prices are going up and they can make money. My investment process here. I'm short, the acreage is high risk and worse than unproven, the company needs cash, other investors have better places to put money, the share price is likely to work its way down over time until the next event which either values the acreage or values the company, at which point I will close my short at a decent profit.
12/4/2018
16:50
scot126: Dear All – a few points in no particular order. I accept a few posters’ views about taking responsibility for personal investments and making our own decisions. However some of the “derampingR21; posts are definitely illegal, in my view. For example, how can an alleged city worker continue to claim a placing is being organised after TS provided the company’s telephone number and a direct quote in quotation marks saying that such activity was not happening. I also provided a direct quote from one of the directors. At the very least, people like highasakite were obliged to desist from their posts about a placing until they’d made a reasonable effort to verify their claims. As for the claims that rampers were lying in the past and are equally as culpable (funny argument that, “what I’m doing may be illegal but what others did was far worse”...good luck with that as a defence) there is a fairly large group of sophisticated investors/shareholders who believe the equity value per PANR share is as Jay answered in the interview, ie. 300p to 800p per share. The difference is that we “believersR21; don’t pepper the bb every 5 or 10 mins saying “private equity group just indicated they’d buy in at a valuation equating to 250p per share”.....or “local operator want to buy in to JV at value equating to 400p per share as even at that price they see massive upside”....or “rumours in City of takeover at huge premium tomorrow” etc, etc. To me there really isn’t the moral or legal equivalence between the two positions some are seeking to draw. Malcy is not retained or paid by the company. Fact. btgman - great post, many thanks. Market always being right? Yes and no. I know an extremely successful fund manager who sold a huge amount of stock in ASOS at around 300p after the company announced they were to offer free returns to all customers. At that time, he just couldn’t see how ASOS could continue to be profitable or to generate sufficient cash to fund their plans for growth, as outlined at the time, by introducing the free returns policy. ASOS share price today? £65 per share and it offers free returns to all customers (I understand, far too trendy for me!). Why do I make this point? I am convinced the market has not been fully informed about the extent of the JV’s IP as it relates to the asset. For understandable reasons of commercial confidentiality, the JV hasn’t published their Uni of Texas analysis, made their seismic amplitude reports public, etc, etc. Attendees at recent AGMs will have seen a couple of those slides and people with decades of experience in the industry such as marmaris and yoghurt73 describe such reports, especially in Tyler, as “genuinely world class”, as “impressive as I’ve ever seen”. Which is why I raised a metaphorical eyebrow when reading Malcy’s blog and he mentioned the company was considering publishing “the Eagle Ford report”. Worth consideration, I’d argue, as I believe inviting external parties (private equity, local operators such as Unit Corp?) into the play will likely occur and the data will be made available during that process anyway. To repeat my opinion from yesterday – I think there is absolutely no chance the company will tap the equity markets any time soon, if at all. They are far more likely to seek a farm in partner(s) and explore debt v’s specific well production options rather than a placing at current prices. Those praying for a placing at or around the current share price are going to be bitterly disappointed, IMHO, and would do well to re-read Monday’s RNS. Even if I’m 100% wrong about the company not seeking to tap the equity markets, why on earth would the company elect to do so before they finish analysing VOBM#5 and drilling the VOBM#1 sidetrack? gregpeck7 - your post #21254.....yip, a few shareholders have also kicked this idea around as an option. Fair point. thetoonarmy2 - disagree with your assessment of behaviour of recent professional trolling/deramping/rumour broking posts. Disagree with your assessment about VOBM#5 - the market has "intellectually and mathematically" written it off, and then some. Don't have any view on Malcy's capability as I don't know the fellow. Think I met him once about 10 years ago and that's it.
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
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.
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.
Pantheon share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
add chat code
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:42 V: D:20180620 01:20:31