Pantheon Resources Share Discussion Threads

[evilblues] 13/1/2023 09:17

..'actually I've demonstrated incredibly high moral fortitude'. Hubris akin to Trump here and we all know about his truth pumping.

[bigdazzlerreturns2] 13/1/2023 08:51

forwood12 Jan '23 - 11:45 - 31521 of 31532
0 2 0
bigdazzler - you like to rubbish others' views and say they are deluded, or worse. How do you know it isn't you who are deluded?






Wow! Just wow.

[forwood] 13/1/2023 08:16

Greg Peck post 31525

'How on earth is this still over 40p. Very generous opp to get out being offered here.'

Even more generous,now its over 45!

[specialistwasagypsey] 12/1/2023 21:38

I have made loads of money shorting Pro’s shares.

It’s a get rich quick scheme when you smell his BS.

Happy New Year!

[bones698] 12/1/2023 21:29

References they looking how long I've been posting before making very stupid comments . Shows your level of research and why you should pick your battles more carefully .

Has the rig arrived yet

[rich2006] 12/1/2023 20:59

Jacknife
Truant and your false comment about “urgent funding required” not so urgent anymore, funny how that changed from last week.😂ԅ14;😂
Ignore the context and facts, just twist the wording a little here and there.


JakNife12 Jan '23 - 10:29 - 31513 of 31530
0 4 2
Re the video, the comment that made me laugh was at 1m44s:

"... we have plenty of money to prosecute everything we need to do at Alkaid and we don't have any current plans to go out to the market and raise funding ..."

He's telling the truth but deliberately obfuscating. They need to raise funds (it says so in the accounts) but they have no *current* plans to raise.

But this time next week it might be completely different!

[rich2006] 12/1/2023 20:48

The likes of truant and his side kick Jacknife have only one agenda. Making money at others expense, they have no morals and along with Pro would say one thing today and another tomorrow to make a penny.
Truth and facts are not on their remit, they deliberately try to muddy the water, over exaggerate and try to mislead investors.
Note the copied and pasted posts below as an example, regarding “urgent need of more finance”. Jacknife tried and failed to defend the comment when I pulled truant up.
If you go back further to December you will note jacknife’s posts will have been deleted. Trust anything these people posts at your peril and they have the nerve to call the BOD lying shysters.😂😂😂 oh the irony.
Truant and Jacknife please stop posting false misleading information.


Rich20064 Jan '23 - 23:06 - 31135 of 31529 Edit
0 5 0
Truant
Pease provide evidence for your biased comment in inverted commas of:-
C) running out of cash “ in urgent need of more finance “
Should be easy for someone of your calibre to copy and paste the section of the annual report where it says urgent finance is required..

What do you classify as urgent, 1 week,1 month,3 months, 6 months etc

Deliberately misleading comments like yours copied below give shorters a bad reputation, yer know.
If your argument is so strong why do shorters feel the need to distort the truth or even down right lie.

truant2tb14 Jan '23 - 21:09 - 31128 of 31132
0 0 1
Good old Forwood

Buying the dip like a good lemming. Nevermind:
a) the flow test has been demonstrated to be non economic
b) still no CPR from Schlumberger 3 months on from being engaged
c ) running out of cash and in urgent need of more finance - as per annual report
d) death spiral whirring to issue more confetti’s at a 10% discount in 2 months

At least you’ve got the memory of your precious flare cooo xx


JakNife4 Jan '23 - 23:31 - 31137 of 31529
0 1 0
rich2006,

"Pease provide evidence for your biased comment in inverted commas of:-
C) running out of cash “ in urgent need of more finance “
Should be easy for someone of your calibre to copy and paste the section of the annual report where it says urgent finance is required..

What do you classify as urgent, 1 week,1 month,3 months, 6 months etc"


I hope you don't mind if I take this one.

"Urgent" is within the next three to six months.

And:

"The Company intends to complete either a farmout and/or funding in the first half of 2023 in order to fund an active 2023 drilling and testing campaign and for ongoing working capital. The Company has sufficient cash on hand to fund certain operations in the forthcoming 12 months, but would likely require additional capital through a farmout or other funding, in order to drill new wells requiring ice roads on a 100% basis."

And that's specifically because cash at 28 December 2022 was a mere $16.6m versus it was $57,784,121 as at 30 June 2022, hence they've burnt $41.2m in the last six months of the year, ie $6.7m a month.

IF they continue to burn cash at that rate then they will run out of cash by the end of March.

JakNife

JakNife5 Jan '23 - 01:41 - 31141 of 31529
0 2 0
rich2006,

"I see no mention of “urgent financing required” could you please point out where that is stated."

Do companies ever admit that they are desperate and need funds urgently? Especially when they’re companies with a reputation for smooth talking promotion? It’s down to you, as an investor, to interpret the facts that you’re presented with in order to come to a sensible conclusion. PANR need to raise funds and they need those funds within three to six months (in what’s a terrible market for fund raisings). Personally I think that that’s “urgent” but I can understand that you might have a more optimistic view point; even though optimism has proved to be an expensive bias with PANR.


I would not classify 3-6 months as an urgent financing requirement, more like 1-3 months would be a normal view and that would be if a company required funding to keep the lights on which clearly Panr does not.

Did you not read the accounts? Yes PANR does need “keep the lights on funding”. Look closely again at the excerpt and you’ll see that they admit that not only do they need funds to carry on their raison d’être (to drill) but they also need to fund “ongoing working capital”. How else is Jay going to pay himself his massive rewards for failure remuneration unless shareholders pony up more cash?


”The company has cash on hand to fund certain operations in the forthcoming 12 months.
How would that translate into urgent finance is required.”

It’s almost as if you’re denying the existence of the words from the accounts? Do you deny that “the Company intends to complete either a farmout and/or funding in the first half of 2023”? You seem to be suggesting that you know better than what the directors have written in the accounts!


”Why would their cash burn be the same as the last 6 months, will the company be completing the same work program. That is a no by the way.
Why twist the truth to suit your agenda, if your argument was as strong as you would try to have many believe there would be no need for misleading and posting inaccurate information.”

Look again at the sentence, it starts with a deliberately emphasised “IF”!


”Panr intends to complete a farmout or funding for a new drilling program in the first half of 2023, this does not state or even suggest “urgent funding” is required.

Truant is deliberately misleading and dramatising to scaremonger, judging by your reply I assume you are backing him up, is that assumption correct.”

It’s a matter of interpretation. That PANR needs to raise cash in the next six months is clear. Specifically, they intend to blow cash on another rig to clean out the blockage at Alkaid #2, which will heavily deplete cash. And they also want to drill another well for which estimates vary from $30m to $40m. And they want to raise those funds before the end of June. Personally I think that it’s reasonable to describe that as an “urgent funding” need. But I accept that opinions can differ. I’m happy to revisit the topic in say three months?


”You have proven his post is inaccurate and misleading as there is no mention that “urgent finance is required” in the extracts you posted from the report.
If read in context there is clearly no urgent funding requirement.
Furthermore it makes you look silly by trying to argue the opposite is the case when it is in black and white.”

I disagree and I think that you’re incredibly naïve to believe that PANR would ever admit that “urgent finance is required” given what spinmeisters they are. Personally I think that it’s plainly obvious that PANR need to raise cash and that they’re going to have to raise it in an urgent manner from a position of weakness. I even wonder if they’ll be able to raise what they need at all given current market dynamics and how they’ve massively disappointed recently.

So, to be clear, I agree with Truant entirely on this specific point. I’m rather suspicious that, when you laid down the challenge to quote from the accounts, that you probably hadn’t even read that specific part of the accounts.

But we don’t need to argue about this now. I find it’s much easier with investors like yourself (who struggle with the basics such as forecasting a cash position three months from today’s date) that we should simply wait three months and then discuss the topic. By then PANR will probably have had the fund raise and, if it’s a rip-roaring success, then you can laugh at me. On the other hand, if it’s failed then you will still be here telling us all why PANR is still a compelling investment even though it’s had to raise funds at a massive discount.

JakNife

[mlf51] 12/1/2023 15:58

Also a very generous op to buy more, thanks.

[hpcg] 12/1/2023 15:46

I too don't think the options are especially relevant. It wasn't an enormous award and they were awarded at the price of the fund raise. What was cute though is it meant they had a free ride as they could sell shares as they did in the summer, protecting their downside, while still being able to participate in the upside. A true option, a free call at a 67.1p strike. In other words a much better deal than share holders who have their entire holding at risk.

[madd_rip] 12/1/2023 15:41

Narcissists cannot admit that they are wrong in any shape or form

[forwood] 12/1/2023 15:04

Pro, the answer to your query about options is no, they weren't awarded 27m options on drilling Alkaid.

21.7m options was a total sum of options before the recent exercise of 4.2m options. As you can see from the RNS, 50% of those are subject to vesting 12 months from grant, and 50% subject to penetration of a primary target in the Talitha #2 well. Exercise price is 67.1p, so out of the money. There's a question in the webinar list about whether that grant will be disapplied in the circumstances.

[gregpeck7] 12/1/2023 13:44

How on earth is this still over 40p. Very generous opp to get out being offered here.

[padamster] 12/1/2023 12:50

Jaknife - you and I both know the raising of funds is on the back of A2 results - do you sgree? Y for Yes and N for No

[forwood] 12/1/2023 12:25

I did 2 years of an LLB when I was quite young covering British Constitution, Contracts, Criminal law and English Legal System, so I do understand how the courts and system works.

You really have difficulty acknowledging you're wrong don't you? It's very clear from the legal firms I referenced that internet defamation is libel. It's also v clear that the judge in your case said his ruling applied only to the limited circumstances of that case.

Like many of your oh so confident statements, they do not stack up in reality.