Thread by @Scot126126

#panr $pthrf
I've read a disappointingly large number of dreadfully ill-informed commentary following today's RNS, especially as it pertains to the differential between $panr's OIP figure of >23bbo and Schlumberger's 17.8bbo. 1/

The RNS spells out the primary reason for the differential: "Schlumberger's OIP estimates for Theta West were constrained to the project's 3D footprint with more conservative reservoir parameters than Pantheon's at the lease boundaries. 2/
#panr $panr $pthrf

With additional drilling data points, potential exists for Schlumberger's modelling estimates to increase in the future."

On a higher level, it is uneventfully mundane and utterly bog-standard for external experts in the O&G industry to publish reports which...3/
$panr #panr

...come in with headline figures below internal company calculations. An excellent example of this was the first Lee Keeling & Assoc IER of January '20. Examining the Alkaid anomaly (currently producing an impressive flare at the Alkaid-2 pad) the Lee Keeling IER...4/
#panr $panr

..classified a 76.5mmbo contingent resource v's #panr's estimate of "900 million barrels of oil in place, and a P50 Technically Recoverable Resource estimated at 90-135mmbo."

I was able to have a brief chat with management today and they are absolutely delighted..5/
$panr $pthrf

...with the Schlumberger analysis and genuinely puzzled that some commentators are focussing on the differential in OIP v's the *fact* that the largest oil services firm is confirming 17.8bbo OIP on $pthrf's Alaskan acreage.
Re-read the RNS and have a think! /end
$panr #panr