Pantheon Resources Share Discussion Threads

[officerdigby] 06/12/2021 14:01

Yes. I mean the previous fundings.I guess if they were going placing suddenly for whatever reason. There would suddenly be a dropoff in posts on BB.

[michaelsadvfn] 06/12/2021 13:59

johnswan conveniently disappears when asked how he came across the(his) blog.

Then we have the resident nitwit, ngms, ‘may the force be with you johnswan’ egging him on.

Sad.

[ngms27] 06/12/2021 13:45

Yes, I think he wants to know if some on here are well connected to the BoD.

PS I already know the answer.

[dhb368] 06/12/2021 13:11

OfficerDigby, I added at the last raise through PrimaryBid, but I suspect that you are interested in bigger fish.

[adxwasere] 06/12/2021 13:09

Oh , lol 🤷🏼‍♂️😂

[ngms27] 06/12/2021 12:55

I think he means previous Fund Raisings...

[adxwasere] 06/12/2021 12:30

If you mean raising as in up-votes, it was me. I thought a firm rebuff should be up-voted as it had 3 down votes already.

[officerdigby] 06/12/2021 12:28

Here's a question for this thread.Forget the wrote she wrotr stuff...Anyone prepared to come clean on being part of previous raisings here? (Thanks for doing so BTW)..Just interested is all! :-).

[probabilityofsuccess] 06/12/2021 12:00

Dhb asked the question of you johnswan - why the obfuscation? Do you believe dhb is insinuating something? If so, why would you come to that conclusion?

Simple question from me (and in the interests of openness for all readers on this thread), as you are the person that posted the link - please could you let us know how you came to be aware of it? Thanks.

[dhb368] 06/12/2021 11:59

I directed that question at you johnswan because you posted it on this board.

I thought that it was straightforward enough for a simple answer, if there was nothing to hide.

[johnswan193] 06/12/2021 11:40

"Exactly how did you come across this new blog post, on a brand new site with no previous posting history ,within 4 hours of it going live johnswan?"

Maybe you should redirect that question to Scot given he claimed to have seen it before me?

[dhb368] 06/12/2021 11:33

Spot the contradiction here on the SeekingAlpha version of this article.

Conclusion
After listing all the above caveats, I still believe there is *UPSIDE* for the share price, but I just cannot emphasize enough that looking at the dark side is equally important as looking at the bright side when it comes to investing.

Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, but *MAY INITIATE A BENEFICIAL SHORT* position through short-selling of the stock, or purchase of put options or similar derivatives in PTHRF over the next 72 hours.

Also on SeekingAlpha this,
"Rehoboam is a research firm that focuses on US and European public equity across a wide range of industries including but not limited to energy, shipping, semi-conductor, and fin-tech. Since its inception to Q1-21, the fund has generated over 400% absolute return with a maximum drawdown of less than 18%."

I think we can safely assume that scott7pan, now calling himself Rehoboam Research, as linked by JohnSwan, is more a dreamer than a research firm.

Exactly how did you come across this new blog post, on a brand new site with no previous posting history ,within 4 hours of it going live johnswan?

[scot126] 06/12/2021 11:26

Saving this space for rebuttal. Just getting started. If anyone wants to sell today, no worries whatsoever. However, please, please do not use scott7pan's article as the basis for any decision whatsoever. GSAM he says? F^ck, they've gone downhill since I dealt with them!!

Fact check for @scott7pan, more like "Stretcher for @scott7pan!":

1) Factually incorrect number of shares issued to Farallon/GB/CHONS side of the merger in January ’19. “Pantheon issued 202 million common shares…”

2) Factually incorrect cash sum paid to Farallon as a result of the merger of GB and PANR in January ’19. “Aside from the $6.1 million cash payment…”;

3) “we can see that Farallon has been selling down its shares ever since the GB transaction.” Factually incorrect. CHONS began selling in January ’21 after the lock in arrangement expired a full two years after the merger was executed.

4) “….is that Farallon is only the investment manager of CHONS’s and takes orders from CHONS.” Factually incorrect. The intra-party contract between Farallon, the GB founders’nR17;funders and the Riverstone folk governs the conduct of CHONS, as managed by Farallon. In effect, Farallon has been in the driving seat giving instructions *to* CHONS (other way round from the author's understanding) as the original debt owed to them by GB is paid down via share sales.

5) “ we can conclude that the original GB vendors indeed have been selling all the way…” Yes, Farallon has instructed CHONS to sell shares throughout 2021 from the GB portion of the CHONS holding. The explanation for this is widely known by all apart from the author of this article. Farallon bought the corporate debt of Great Bear from BoAML, secured against the assets (leases) and the cash due to be repaid to GB as part of the State of Alaska’s exploration tax rebate scheme. When the SoA reneged on their commitment (H2’15 I seem to recall), Farallon continued to finance GB until the merger with PANR at which time there was a debt for equity swap. PANR received the (unhindered) leases, and CHONS received shares and warrants plus Farallon received some cash. The GB founders’nR17;funders were unable to repay Farallon in cash by the end of the lock in period so Farallon proceeded to sell shares from the “GB portion” of CHONS in an orderly manner beginning in January ’21 up until the latest TR-1 dated 2/12/21.

6) “hearsay”;. Factually incorrect. See merger documents and personal testimony from original founders of GB and now PANR employees. Outrageous statement. Lazy research.

7) Otto Energy paragraph. Factually incorrect. Otto were bid for some of their stock in an unsolicited approach by an Australian institution. I know the identity of that institution and it’s a well-known Australian fund manager. The author has omitted to investigate Otto with sufficient depth to know that their GoM asset requires extensive repair and refurbishment and Otto did not have the necessary cash at hand to fund their share of that GoM work.

8) Sir Michael Spencer. Factually incorrect. He has added to his holding since the merger and has supported every subsequent fund raise. His percentage ownership will have changed over time as more non-voting shares were converted to voting shares, with the voting shares total being the denominator to calculate ownership percentages for the purposes of TR-1s. The author does not appear to be aware of this stock exchange rule.

More to follow, lots more.



PoS - I've crossed swords with this author in the past. I can't quite put my finger on it right now, but I recognise a large number of phrases. Prolapse is a possibility? A couple of posters on lse maybe? I'll have a proper think once I finish fact checking.

9) Management buying stock. Factually incorrect. CEO Jay Cheatham has not sold a single share in PANR since joining the company. In addition, the directors have supported fund raises over the years with their own cash. As to salaries, that’s subjective but they do not seem out of order v’s their peer group. Since listing, PANR has raised approx. £150m from the equity market v’s a mkt cap currently of £470m. It’s not Tesla but it’s not disastrous by any means. The author does not appear conversant with E&P strategy, modelling or terminology fwiw.

10) Option filings conspiracy inference. At least one and possibly both filings were linked to a deceased estate of a former director. There’s a reason no reporting persons were mentioned because that rule does not apply to a deceased estate or to the beneficiaries of said estate.

11) “The question we should ask is why didn’t GB proceed with the drilling after the flood was cleared considering all zones in the vertical well were logged and sidewall coring of the deepest zone was finished and showed good results?” Factually incorrect. The SoA would not allow any further activity in the location at the time of the flood. This is all publicly available information.

12) Halliburton insinuation. Change of regional management plus a global shift away from direct investments in projects lead to this decision.

13) Leasing strategy and seismic. The author doesn’t appear to value 3D seismic data, which is a shame as it's considered best practice in the industry. Also appears to have forgotten or is unaware of the subsequent results at Talitha #A. Also omits to mention PANR's seismic consultants are experts in their profession, having been credited with the discovery of the Alpine field in Alaska, the 3rd largest oilfield in the state.

14) Well testing, first paragraph. This is getting painful now. The author is arguing that GB ought to have drilled a lateral production well at Alkaid in 2015 rather than a stratigraphic well. The author must be a very, very wealthy individual because no E&P company in their right mind would plan to do so without first assessing if they had made a discovery!! Drilling a horizontal production well without knowing there's movable oil in sufficient quantity would seem to me to be (i) the opposite of best practice in the industry (ii) suggests a lack of knowledge or experience of the industry and (iii) suggests the author has no concept of E&P risk/reward calculations and must, himself, be swimming in cash such that recklessly spending quite a few million bucks extra on drilling a lateral production well is a mere bagatelle.

Right, I have other things to do now. I’ll come back to this piece of garbage later on. I don’t know what this guy is up to but he makes a multitude of easily spotted factual errors and doesn’t understand E&P strategy or modelling. So I repeat in the strongest possible terms that this is not a document about which anyone should attach any credibility or authority.

[probabilityofsuccess] 06/12/2021 11:24

I wonder if any of our, let’s call them, ‘more negatively biased’ posters has made the same spelling mistake previously?

[chris0805] 06/12/2021 11:24

Did he actually sell down? From memory the reduced % was as a result of a conversation of non voting shares by *F* which then meant the same number of shares were a smaller percentage of the total shares in issue. Hence the TR1 that looked like a sell had occurred. Again that is from memory so could be wrong but that is certainly what I recall from that period... GLAC

[michaelsadvfn] 06/12/2021 11:09

Good to see Darcon posting his thoughts on the adults thread.

Well done swendab.

[rideacockhorse] 06/12/2021 10:58

Agree unlikeley. It always happens as soon as you get near to the big RNS's; out come the woodworms.

[probabilityofsuccess] 06/12/2021 10:58

Scottpan! (smoking the wacky baccy) in the netherlands currently, if I understand twitter correctly.

[unlikely2] 06/12/2021 10:52

Rehoboam Research
@scott7pan

My unscientific rule of thumb - treat anyone who chooses a moniker from the old testament with great suspicion.

[dhb368] 06/12/2021 10:47

Interesting effort for a first ever blog post.

Who do we know that is "currently based in Shanghai"

Fundamentally disagree with his valuation model with 'Armstrong's oil not so far from Pantheon' ignoring the $billions of infrastructure required to get it to market and his 'should be valued like coal' actually made me laugh.