Pantheon Resources Share Discussion Threads

[rafthorney] 13/2/2023 13:03

Whi note, cor blimey guv! Great read.

[madd_rip] 13/2/2023 12:25

Did you read page 6 though?

[mlf51] 13/2/2023 12:19

Did you read page 6, something about hats and chequebooks. Be careful.

[hpcg] 13/2/2023 12:09

I completely agree with this part of WIHs marketing document:

Focus on the decline curve: We had been, and remain, focused mainly on the decline curve and we have yet to even establish a high-quality (peak) initial production rate. We are focused on the decline curve because we believe a large oil company that would farm into Pantheon Resources’ assets will look to the decline curve in conjunction with an assessment of its ability to increase the initial production rate by applying more muscle and optimised engineering – longer horizontals with optimised/higher intensity fracking.

And of course I completely agree with this part:

This research report is marketing communications and is produced in accordance with the FCA’s Conduct of Business Sourcebook. It has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and it is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research. However, WHI is required by the FCA to have policies in place to identify and manage the conflicts of interest which may arise in the production and
dissemination of this research report , such management of conflicts include a firm wide ban of PA dealings in any issuer under research coverage.

[mlf51] 13/2/2023 11:51

Is it normal to reference short positions in these communications.

[padamster] 13/2/2023 11:30

The reference to Muddy Waters is excellent!

[madd_rip] 13/2/2023 11:01

Page six has a very telling statement about scummy shorters.

[chris0805] 13/2/2023 08:08

New WHI note out.. Current fair value 199pUnrisked NPV 1037.5pFull report available via research tree if you would like to read it yourself GLA C

[shanig] 13/2/2023 08:06

That's your best to date..very amusing.

[rabito79] 12/2/2023 22:11

It's much quicker just to make up numbers POS, to go along with his made up scientific theory.

[probabilityofsuccess] 12/2/2023 20:53

Thanks hpcg - it’s a view.

…..to your statement “Yes the NGLs are on top and I'm not attempting to model those or do monte-carlo simulations or anything”̷0;……R30;……why not, out of interest?

[hpcg] 12/2/2023 16:55

PoS - 50% or worse after 9 months for the SL and condensate, and maybe with the rate of decline actually accelerating rather than being constant until the hyperbolic part of the curve. That about 0.125/ month. Gives 18 month revenue of $8.5m at @ $80 of $14m @ $130, for the liquids part.
I find it quite conceivable that the baseline is less then 500bl. The EI discount the first month in their calculations just because they don't know the date of first oil was. I don't think it is feasible to run Alaskan wells as strippers so when it gets to 3bl an hour I have cut off (18 months).

I'm sceptical of the effectiveness of the frac as the distance from the horizontal increases and I'm sceptical of the pressure support, but ultimately everyone is guessing because there is so little flow data.

It will take 3 months, i.e. 3 clean data points, for the decline curve to separate out enough for whether 35% after 9 months or 50% after 9 months is closer to the "truth". Even then that is only 13000 barrels difference over 9 months, or approx $1m dollars.
Yes the NGLs are on top and I'm not attempting to model those or do monte-carlo simulations or anything. It doesn't take much for the economics to enter questionable territory and even the current NPV from a pure equity consideration doesn't look compelling with the risks involved. In my opinion; different investor have their own risk adjustments.