Pantheon Resources Share Discussion Threads

[olderwiser2] 22/11/2022 21:10

Rubbish JakKnife, you have chosen to misinform, it is clearly your agenda.

Also of note you now think, rather than know, so just your opinion

More interested in the motive question which you have ignored.

Simplified, are you a buyer or a shorter

[probabilityofsuccess] 22/11/2022 21:07

“It sounds as if you're describing a cult!?!?!”

typo?













All those !?!?!?

[olderwiser2] 22/11/2022 20:43

Dear me, JakNife, you are bending the truth here and misquoting, adding an A and Quote marks shifts the meaning just enough to make the FUD case

A question for the bulls. Lee Keeling & Associates have prepared an "Independent Expert Report" and a "Resource Statement",

Here is the actual wording I saw, in which it can be read as a single report with resource statement included. There is no a before "Resource Statement"

"Pantheon confirms receipt of an Independent Expert Report and Resource Statement from the International Petroleum Consultants Lee Keeling & Associates, Inc"

All of which is now a little moot as the Alkaid 2 vertical drill has shown new data, which improves on the original Alkaid anomaly flow tested at Alkaid 1.

Time to catch up with the present, that is what matters, not a currently out of date IER

Could you also answer a question, are you actively supporting the short campaign, or alternatively supporting the purchase of cheap shares as a long position

[rabito79] 22/11/2022 20:33

Just one, JakNife? Endless possibilities?

[probabilityofsuccess] 22/11/2022 19:28

Lol JakNife! Thought you were trying to help others understand by providing your insight, but won’t answer questions you don’t like 🤣

Feels like you are just another of those ‘believersR17; who, ironically, doesn’t consider the other side of the argument and can’t see themselves being wrong………you’re no different to the other shorts! Blind faith!

You portray the exact behaviours you berate the longs for, even though WE all accept there is downside risk! You couldn’t make it up! All the best 👍

[rabito79] 22/11/2022 19:23

Cool, name just one.

[rabito79] 22/11/2022 19:19

Jaknife, no


No can you point to what could be in the report which would negate them agreeing Alkaid is a discovery and that the measured poro/perm data and development plan won’t deliver the NPVs modelled?

[padamster] 22/11/2022 19:04

Jaknife - put the spade down. I gave the same advice to unhelpful. Then again carry on as you muddy waters cronies get exposed the more you spout.

Be very careful 😂

[probabilityofsuccess] 22/11/2022 19:02

Hi JakNife - Perhaps all the other O&G explorers are are more keen to ‘market’ themselves. Given a lot of the shorters argue that most AIM O&G explorers fail commercially, yet they publish CPR’s, perhaps there’s an inverse correlation between producing a CPR and a successful company……;..so good news! 😉

Any chance you could answer my question from some time back please - what positive news would it take for you to consider closing your short because you consider it to rebut your thesis on PANR (and then possibly go long?)? Thanks

[rabito79] 22/11/2022 18:54

Bingo! Ask for the reason they didn't publish it, get an answer and say they are lying. I assume flim flam is French for lying.Bof!

[forwood] 22/11/2022 18:44

Handy link you found there. Seems companies have soem latitude in how they describe what they think they've got!

[forwood] 22/11/2022 18:40

There are a few web resources for what constitutes a CPR. Most tend to differ slightly but generally appear to be a requirment in specific circumstances such as an IPO. I gave you a link to one in post 30244. Page 19 there has requirements for AIM, as follows:

AIM Requirements for CP (Minimum)
▪ Be professionally qualified and a member in good standing
of an appropriate recognised professional association
▪ Have at least five years relevant experience in the
estimation, assessment and evaluation of the type of
mineral or fluid deposit under consideration
▪ Be independent of the applicant, its directors, senior
management and advisers
▪ Not be remunerated by way of a fee that is linked to the
admission or value of the applicant
▪ Not be a sole practitioner

[forwood] 22/11/2022 18:30

JakNife, the company made the assertion in one their webinars, somewhat loosely perhaps. My understanding from web research (and please note I am not an expert - there may be differences in the US and UK definitions)is that the Reserves classification requires they must be commercially recoverable and that needs a costed investment plan. Once the flow test has established commerciality they may be able to move up from Contingent Resources to class them as reserves. Commerciality, as far as I can tell, requires that 'someone / the company' is prepared to invest in the exploitation of the asset. So in theory, even if the flow test is less than wonderful, so long as it is enough to allow them to proceed with a costed development plan with allocated funds (they'd need approval from the Alaskan DNR), then it could be classified as Reserves.

[rabito79] 22/11/2022 18:26

Whilst you are there, ou est le cinema?

[fordtin] 22/11/2022 18:24

@J n - perhaps you could also enlighten as to why you chose to post a link to the 16 March 2006 version of AIM regulations in preference to the latest publication.

[rabito79] 22/11/2022 18:23

Okay, perhaps they assumed the wording on page 2 'not be a sole practitioner' meant not be a sole practitioner. I will check with them.Funnily Pantheon have also stated they used LKA at the recommendation of Halliburton. However it is likely that LKA have been paid, so we may need to put this in the 'their lying bucket', or the like everyone in the oil industry in the 'they have been paid and can't be trusted' bucket.Can you confirm who at Pantheon has told you this years leases will be the last purchased? Merci.