Pantheon Resources (LSE:PANR) — Annual General Meeting and Management Presentation

0:01 Good afternoon, and welcome to the PANTHEON RESOURCES PLC Annual General Meeting and Management Presentation. Throughout this recorded meeting, investors will be in listen only mode. This meeting will commence at approximately ten past three UK time. Thank you for your patience. Ladies and gentlemen, apologies. The meeting will commence

7:42 later than expected due to unexpected delays. Thank you for your patience. I turn on my camera, that will be

11:39 the signal to IMC to start the meeting. David, we can hear you, sir, and you are live. The floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, and welcome all those online. Thank you for your patience. We got through this in five minutes rather than the seven. The reason we're a bit later than we expected is simply because there are lots in the room. That's somewhere less than 50, but more than 20, which is a standard lots as approved by the API. I'm delighted to introduce Max Easley, our new chief executive. To those of you who are not in the room, you'll just have to trust me when I say he's a fine outstanding fellow, and we're delighted to have him on board.

12:31 I'm not sure if

12:34 well, you've you've seen him on webinars. It on on interviews with Blaise Ray and others, so there's no need for us to show him. And, also, Justin Hondros is here with us. Don't let the video fool fool you. He's not that much talking on us. Unfortunately, they can't see the the video. Video. Alright. You've got to it's That's good, at least. It's like the banana in the exhaust pipe. It was working. We didn't need to. Right. So we're gonna move into the presentation, and I'm shortly gonna hand over to Max. But first, please, would you read the disclaimer at your leisure afterwards rather than now?

13:06 But it's important to recognize that that this presentation comes with all the usual disclaimers. There is no information in this presentation that has not previously been released through the regulatory news service. But during the questions, we may be able to help you to understand it better. With that, Max, maybe I can pass it over to you. Happy. I've been here three weeks now. It's great to be amongst you. I think most of you are familiar with this material, but this is me presenting material. It's also what attracted me to the company in in the first place was this material. And the first slide you see here is basically a grand summary of the business proposition that PANTHEON represents.

13:52 The first one and I've been doing this for thirty three years, and there's no adage in oil and gas that the company with the best rocks wins. So our starting point here

14:02 is a 2,600,000,000 barrel opportunity. It's probably beyond that, but that's certainly what we see today. And the the more we explore, the more we're going to find. So we're very resource rich, and it remains to be seen, to do flow testing and the commerciality of this. But it's very hard for 2,600,000,000 barrels not to be commercial in this industry, especially when you're sitting on top of one of the best petroleum systems in the world on the North Of Alaska. For the bulk of Alaska's industrial future, there's been a lot of headwind to oil and gas development despite it being one of the most world class basins in the world. We find ourselves now with a lot of tailwind. That tailwind is occurring in the state of Alaska and also the federal government with red hats like that.

14:53 Lovely red hats like this. Yeah. It's Alaska is becoming a point of strategic interest not only for resource extraction, but also balance of trade for The United States, with Asia. Again, the tailwinds are massive. The third one is Alaska is a very large place. The Arctic is a very cold place. I learned my trade on the North Of Alaska, so I can assure you it is very cold and very remote. And one of the criticisms of Alaska is access to infrastructure. Infrastructure can be very expensive, in remote locations in the Arctic. It just so happens where our fields are, is right alongside, a, the highway conduit to the North Slope and the primary oil egress to Trans Alaska Pipeline. So you could not be in a better geographic location on the North Slope than where we sit today.

15:45 The biggest difference between what we're proposing as PANTHEON in Alaska in the historic legacy development on North Slope North Slope is very, very capital intensive. You see pictures of giant sea lifts of modules and billions of dollars invested upfront before you achieve first production. To the nature of our resource, we can do this in a modular fashion. So first production to first free cash flow generation is very, very short, which, again, is a huge advantage for the shareholders and makes financing much easier than would be if it was a large conventional development on the Arctic Plain. Again, the balance of my entire career from day one in 1991 was when would gas be exported out of Alaska.

16:33 It's about nine BCF a day of gas that goes around and around on North Slope Alaska is reinjected into the reservoir. For for most of the history of Alaska, it wasn't possible to have a gas export route because the principal asset on the North Slope is the Bruta Bay field, and gas, cap expansion is the primary reservoir mechanism for oil production. So if you did a gas scheme too soon, you would lose more oil reserves than you would gain in gas revenue. So lots of pipe dreams early, but they were nonviable at first principle. You can't wait too long because for the gas export to be commercial, you have to have a viable oil business because of the North Slope cost structure. So Goldilocks can't have your ports too cold.

17:18 You can't have it too hot. You need to just write and we're in that window right now. We're not a Arctic plane producer. So so we're gonna be far south of that. So we could be the first entrant in that, and we have one huge advantage over North Slope producers, which is low c o two content. The c o 2 has lots of problems attached to it. And to have an export scheme off the North Slope Of Alaska, you have to strip the c o two out of the produced gas. In our case, we have a a lot less, which made us a natural first entrant into the proposed gas line in the state of Alaska, and we now have a gas precedent agreement for 500,000,000 a day to enable that to occur. And as an Alaskan, one of the tailwinds associated with that is the Anchorage South Central Alaska, bowl is deficient in natural gas.

18:09 Historically, all the natural gas would come from Cook Inlet, the ocean just to the South of Anchorage. Those fields are heavily depleted now to the point they cannot, meet the economic needs of Anchorage. Us being a sweet producer, no c o two, we can be the first mover to to supply the domestic market to enable that gas line to occur, which is huge for the state of Alaska, which makes us very, very friendly, with the government. Now I'd like to say the management team is really good. It's getting

18:37 better all the time. I've I would that was that was my line, if you remember, was I was meant to Oh, yes. Yes. Yeah. No. We Max, obviously, has joined us three weeks ago, and and we were joking about when do you switch over from talking about how many days ago it was to being able to talk about weeks. And so we're we're at at the weeks stage. Before we move on, I think it's it's well worth just saying, a huge thank you to Jay Cheatham who has been with us through thick and thin and has has really shown the grit and determination to get the company to a point at which it's capable of attracting people of Max's caliber. Jay was a key part of the search team along with another member of the nonexecutive board, and and I can tell you that it was a unanimous decision that Max was the right candidate. So I I can say with absolute confidence that Jay feels that he's handed on the reins to exactly the right person out of a out of a potential group of extremely high caliber people, honestly, any of whom would have been happy to have. So if he negotiated too hard, we'd have, you know, gone to but but the the truth is, you know, the it's it's almost like the script was written to attract someone like Max. It matters being Alaskan. It matters having had experience operationally and commercially on the North Slope, and that that allows us to move to the next stage of of development. But I I I hope

20:07 if if Jay, who I know is on the webinar, didn't hear it, let me just ask you to express your appreciation for him so he can hear it correctly. Okay. And Jay, for your benefit, they only stopped because I signaled them to stop so that we could keep moving through the presentation. It would have gone on.

20:30 The much of of what's covered here, I think Max covered in his introductory comments. So I'm going to move slowly through them to get to really the meat of of the discussion. I think this illustrates the point about proximity to infrastructure and being away from many of the environmental issues and and being on state land. Mhmm. And I know that one of the things that people have asked the question about is this new acreage to the east of us that was taken by Surprise Valley, the aptly named Surprise Valley because like the Spanish inquisition, no one sees it coming. But the it's it's really an endorsement given that they paid twice as much as the minimum bid.

21:18 It's it it suggests that people are seeing more as a result of what we've been doing. And and to be honest with you, we wish them and ATH Energy and anyone else in the region great success. It's not necessary that others should fail so that one person can win. In fact, we

21:33 all benefit from from a strong and and robust activity set. Mhmm. Was there anything you wanted to add? Just my usual analogy on this is I spent a lot of time in West Texas, which is why I learned the unconventional business. If you would have flown into West Texas fifty years ago, the first development you would have seen would be the Central Basin Platform, which was the original Permian set of reservoirs. Now when you fly into Midland, Texas, you start seeing development 200 miles west and east because the industry has expanded beyond the original reservoir and found enormous economic targets. Our Central Basin Platform is that that Arctic

22:11 Plain, Prudhoe, Kuparuk, Endicott, etcetera, etcetera. And I I would predict in fifty years' time, you'll start you if you flew to Dead Horse Alaska, first thing you're gonna see is us, but you'll probably see 200 miles with development just because we're sitting on an incredible petroleum system. Wherever you have incredible petroleum systems, development never stops. And and what you're seeing out to the east is Lanayapi, which is the Armstrong Santos Apache joint venture. You're seeing further exploration happening to the West as well. So I I I suspect whether whether the scale would allow 200 miles in each direction before you run into, but but we'll we'll certainly try and get a 100 miles. We have the ocean. Yeah. Exactly. That's that's the boundary. You're all familiar with the the resource estimates that have been produced, and and we'll talk more about the eastern portion and and the mega as well in a moment.

23:08 And as you know, it's a stacked system, and that's what creates the resource density that gives us confidence in in the commerciality and the continued development over decades to come, honestly. Mhmm. Maybe this is the point at which to hand over back to to Max. So MEGRCES one, so very successful exploration law at the tail end of last year. I encountered a lot more pay than one would have expected. Certainly more than we expected. Telling how big of an optimist you you are. Again, I get a lot of static hydrocarbon here top to bottom. The question is how commercial is it?

23:48 So the first step to that is to do flow tests on this well. So we have core data. We have log data. So on paper, this is a 1,400 feet or so stacked hydrocarbon. So we're now entering the well, and the objective is to flow test six discrete zones one at a time so there's no ambiguity of each of these individuals. We have to go from the bottom up. So we'll do the lowest permeability ones first, and we'll complete the highest permeability zones last. Given this is incredibly important information for the market, for shareholders, and ourselves, we're not going to wait until the end of the testing program to release results at each individual zone. After a two week flow period, we will give the results of each zone as we go. What you should expect is rates getting bigger and bigger and bigger as we go because the nature of the reservoir properties improves as you go from the deepest part of the well to the shallowest part of the well.

24:48 And here they are. Indeed. A lot of people have asked, why can't you tell us how much volume there is? Mhmm. And we've really put this here. You'll remember this slide because I know you all will take our slides and commit them to memory. Roger Young presented this back in, I think, September before we drilled the well. And what it's really showing is that the you can auto pick using the AVO, and you'll remember Roger gave a quick teach in. There will be an exam paper passed out in the room. And for those of you online, email us, and we'll send you the exam paper. But the point about it is that you can see that the resolution at the level of the top set one and below is very good resolution. But the frequency of the data, the angle of offset of the data, etcetera, means that once you get above that, it's really very hard to see. And don't forget, we're under the river.

25:41 And so shooting seismic under a river is is a challenge in its own it's in in its own right. So right now, what we've got is a team who are going hard at trying to see what we can extract. Now we know what we've got. What can we see and try and back rationalize? But it's gonna take a while to have really good estimates. All we know, and we announced, you remember, in January that for the bottom you know, from from the Prince Creek down, all of the zones there, we thought was about 15 to 50% more than our predrill estimate of 600 odd million barrels. I don't think that we are expecting it to be less than that when you add the next three zones on top of that. But if we are if if we appear to be avoiding giving you a specific number, this is the slide that shows you you know, if any of you can interpret it and tell us what volume is there, we'll we'll welcome your input.

26:37 There are many who haven't needed to be asked to provide their input, and we thank them for that as well. You wanna cover this one? Mean, think we covered most of this already. You've already covered most of it, I think. Yes. I know there were some people who asked the question, where did this all come from?

26:56 I'm going to to say after after this is all done and the story's written, the true heroes will be known. I can tell you that it's often said that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. I can tell you that that that's absolutely true in this particular case, that there are many people in in a number of different organizations who came together to make this work. What's critical is that we've been able to provide something that Alaska needs that that we are delighted to provide because it's good for us as well. And many of you have seen the headlines and and the tailwinds to which Max was was referring. It's it really is just a function of of all these things coming together.

27:45 And I can't remember which golfer it was who said, you know, the more I practice, the luckier I get. The the other side of that is that you you'll get lots of opportunities during the course of of a development of this nature. The skill of the management team and the reason no single person can do it is because it's recognizing the opportunity when it's come and bit new in the backside. And it's it's it really is a tribute to a number of people for for recognizing that a number of factors would come together at the same at the same time. And the critical realization was that we had sufficient resources at a quality that allowed the the low cost provision. So we we were quite happy to to treat on the basis that we did.

28:34 Back to you. Timeline. So quite a lot on this slide. I think you've looked at it. The most important, I think,

28:43 bit of color on your most people interested in is the Alpoon FID because that is the beginning of cash flow generation for for our company. From a petrotechnical point of view, this this could be, quite soon. Once you drill a commercial demonstration well, if this was West Texas, you do development well next day because permitting in West Texas is really three days to get a a drill permit. In our case, because we are putting gravel pads onto the tundra, we have to have, various impact studies completed, which can be short or long. This is a long version here, which take eighteen months plus, but there's a possibility this could be quite a bit shorter. So what we'll we'll do in the meantime is, first of all, we're likely to delineate this MedGras well if we have a a oil top to bottom through flow test because that could be a material resource for the company. And then we want to do a flow test long horizontal well, so we're not relying upon studies and analog to have a definitive commercial demonstration.

29:51 Then there's a period of time while we're completing all the regulatory approvals. In that period of time, we can do further exploration, further testing. But, really, at that point, we're on the path to commerciality. And there is a gap, as you see here, between our first development and ostensibly when the, gas line is in service. In that period of time, we will be injecting the gas back into the reservoir. Indeed, we will always maintain the ability to do that. It'd be like having one, electric plug in cord to your field. If it gets unplugged, everything shuts down. So if there's ever disruption to the gas line, we would want to shut down the field. So we always have that ability. But the most important thing here is the regulatory approval really is a critical path. We have increasing confidence in our resource base. Once we have a commercial evaluation of a horizontal well, we'll be extremely confident, And it's just a matter of getting everything aligned and the financing in hand to do our first major development.

30:49 And the reason that we're we're talking about the potential for it to be shorter is that the gravel footprint we require is about a tenth of what's required further west. Now that's, again, luck, but you take the opportunities that arise. Someone already built a road from Deadhorse all the way down to Fairbanks. Someone built an airport in Deadhorse, whereas the developments out to the West have to build their own roads and airports and stuff. So we we just have the advantage of preexisting infrastructure. That means that we could end up in a situation in which the Army Corps of Engineers agrees that there is no significant impact and can give us a shorter permit. But it would be foolish for us to plan and assume that that was the case. So so all of our planning is always done on a more conservative basis. Similarly, we assume there is no gas pipeline.

31:41 All of our planning assumes no gas pipeline. Now I think there's been some confusion about gas injection wells, so let's just deal with that right up front. Max, quite right when he says we're gonna have to have gas reinjection capacity for the full gas production no matter what because you don't want to shut down the oil export just because the gas pipeline tripped. But that doesn't mean that we will always be drilling gas injection wells because if you do the math, it's simple. When the remaining oil in a production well is worth less than the cost of drilling a new gas injection well, you'll convert a well. So that's, you know, that's step one. Step two is that the quality of reservoir we think we've encountered in the Meggres Well suggests that we may be able to get away with far fewer gas injection wells because the permeabilities are high enough that we can potentially put away more gas with fewer wells.

32:32 So that's a moving situation. It's please don't treat it as axiomatic that we will either be drilling no wells because of the gas pipeline or wells forever. The truth is somewhere in between, and it's purely an economic and operational. And we've assumed the most conservative case so we don't overpromise. Yeah. Mhmm. What a fine looking bunch of people those are. So let's let's finish off here and then and then take questions. I'll leave the summary to the chairman. Alright. Basically basically, I said in the start. So Yeah. So our our contention, if if we if we take as read because as as indeed Max has said, a year ago, we're sitting at, in round numbers, a $250 $250,000,000 market capitalization.

33:23 Why, given the resources that we've got, would we be doing so? And and a lot of legitimate questions and a lot of requirement for ShowMe. What were the two things that people really wanted to see? The first was they were worried about excessive dilution. That if if it was I think I think we were very candid back in September 2023. To get to cash flow self sufficiency, we need to spend $300,000,000. I think a lot of people did the math and said, well, that's 79 to 90% dilution. Why would I want to earn those shares? And we explained that we would develop a strategy geared towards minimizing the extent of that dilution. That's the reason that a lot of management put money into the shares before dilution in order to, you know, burn the boats on the shores of Troy. Or maybe I don't know what the country was called, but Troy was definitely there somewhere.

34:13 The the end result is that, you know, we're aligned with you in seeking that path. We we signed the gas sales precedent agreement, which gave us visibility towards at least $250,000,000 of project finance, and that's the reason that we were confident in our ability to limit potential dilution. Now, obviously, we knew more at the point that we signed that in terms of the the background conversation than probably shareholders did. So it took a while for people to move from seeing a a gas sales present agreement to connecting the dots as to how that might turn up as money. And thanks to the new administration, but also the old administration was pivotal in in transferring the loan guarantees to the project. You know, it was already pushing forward regardless of who's in power in Washington.

35:04 And so I think we've we've we've demonstrated progress. There's more to do, but I think it's now clear to you all the shape of how we're going to fund the development on a go forward basis. Second thing was to address skepticism about the qualities of the reservoir and whether there really was an economic development that would underpin the initial infrastructure. Testing of the mega as well, you know, don't forget,

35:28 September 2023, we didn't own the acreage that we've drilled this well onto. You know, there are lot of people who say, oh gosh. Strategy pivots. No. There's there's things that you do in the order you do them, and you get the acreage first and you drill the well second rather than drill the well first and then apply for the acreage. I hope that's sort of self explanatory. So I think that's moved the the story forward quite considerably. Our contention would be that today sitting at whatever it is, 67 at lunchtime anyway, the that that there is, on a risk reward basis, probably better value today to be had than than a year ago. And I know looking at how much more relaxed the number of you look today than you did at the last annual general meeting,

36:15 That that that's not a controversial assertion for me to be making. The don't worry, Richard. It'll grow back. The so the end result is is we're set fair as long as we keep executing on the things we've been doing. A lot of what we've done over the last year, and Justin can attest to this, has been pretty unsexy. It's been about plumbing and getting to a point at which we had a credible story to tell. In the second half of the year last year, we began talking to new investors. And you can imagine, it's not the most appealing pitch to say, you're wrong about us. You need to be more optimistic. It's a lot easier to say, here's what's changed, and here's why what you might have legitimately thought can be amended to what we think you should now be thinking.

37:01 And so it's a process. And so I guarantee you, there will be times in the coming year when you will be as frustrated as you were in the last year. You will be as forthcoming with your advice on how we can address your concerns, and we welcome it all. And, actually, I don't want to sound as if I'm being dismissive. It's exactly the opposite. We've had a lot of high quality input from people, and what's absolutely critical to us is that we continue to receive the authentic voice of the market because it would be easy if you start telling us what you think we want to hear. Well, we've got a pretty good idea of what we want to hear, so you're never gonna be as good at telling us what we want to hear as as we are. Much better for you to tell us what you really think. And so please don't hesitate to continue doing so. I would ask as the number of shareholders and as the scale of the operation moves up to use the contact at pantheon resources dot com because it's much easier for us to take a good question and transmit it broadly by adding it to the q and a page on the website than to run the risk of a accidental selective disclosure by talking to people individually.

38:07 Much better for us to police it by providing one answer to all than to try and answer everyone at the same time. So it doesn't mean that Justin no longer loves you if he says, could you put it on a on a on an email so that we can provide an answer to everyone. It's actually it's it's gonna be required. If we become a US listed company, it's gonna be required as a process for for regulatory compliance. And so why don't we start practicing today on that? Now with that, we're then gonna break that rule and answer questions that have been asked without posting the answers to the q and a. There'll be some very general ones, I'm sure, come out of this. But if we if if we kick through some of the questions that were preaddressed, at the same time, if you've got a question that you think is better than the ones that people sent to us beforehand, then put your hand up, and and we'll we'll capture people in the room just as as much as we capture the people who's presubmitted questions.

39:07 But, Ezra, you can't put your hand up because I think some of these questions came from you. The so the first question was, can PANTHEON benefit from any government federal state funding given the pipeline is in the best interest of the state and the PANTHEON is agreeing to give them gas at below market rates? Max, maybe you can speak to to that particular question. It'd be unlikely to have a direct investment from the states. They've never done that in the past. So I I can't imagine them being a workers working interest owner, for example, in our assets. But, you know, as the question suggests, this, it is in the best interest of the state, and, our relationship with the state is very founded on mutual advantage.

39:53 I mean, entering into agreements with the state allows for advantage financing. They can backstop some of that and things like that. They're gonna do whatever it takes to make this attractive to us because it's attractive to them, but I would not see any direct contribution from the state to be a owner of the company. And and quite specifically, in terms of federal funding, the the relevant legislation makes it very clear. It's infrastructure, not production. Yes. And and that's not a surprise because the returns for upstream investment are appreciably higher, whereas regulated assets have a limited rate of return, and therefore, cost of funding is critical to that going forward. The funding requirements to key milestones, no change in our guidance. Our estimate is broadly a $150,000,000, and you remember at the time we gave this guidance, it was a $150,000,000.

40:44 I think at the time, I I I think we said plus or minus a 150, although I doubt it was minus a 150. The point being, it's this is to to, you know, one and a half significant figures on that. To get to cash flow self sufficiency, we still think it's about $300,000,000. Success in Meggres might reduce that, but marginally rather than than at a gross level. And so we are still developing a capital stack that will provide the $300,000,000 we need. You'll have seen that we just raised $35,000,000 from. That's been tremendously helpful and certainly counts towards that 150 that we talked about. In fact, it leaves us in a position depending on on how closely we want to squeak to be able to drill the next well in any case. So, you know, we we've funded in a in a very strong position as things stand right now, and and I can I can imagine circumstance in which we can complete our program from where we are today without having to come back to the market?

41:50 That's it it's really a question then of the value of acceleration. Can we do some things quicker that would bring value forward? And that's a decision. It's great to have the opportunity to make a decision based on what would be nice rather than what would be essential. How much money do we have on hand? Actually, there's a simple answer to that, which is we will be publishing our media results in the relatively near future, But we are you you can you can probably do the math on the basis of what we last announced, how much money we've raised since, and how much we've spent. The answer is plenty. That's that's the reason that that with the with the addition of 35,000,000, I I can confidently say that we're we're funded going forward.

42:40 What are PANTHEON's plans for future funding? I think we sort of Yeah. Covered that. What are US investment banks tasked with doing for PANTHEON? The answer is to advise us on potential strategic transactions that would lead to sufficient funding to fulfill our entire program. And in the event we move forward and the timing of moving forward, our intention is definitely to move forward to listing on a senior US exchange. But the, you know, the the only commitment to the banks is that they would probably be a part of the team if we all agreed, you know, if they want to work with us and we want to work with them. But for the short term, they're working on strategic funding initiatives.

43:27 I don't think we're gonna get into the details of the plans for specifics on how we're funding different activities, what the state of play with Heights and their bond. We made it very clear in the announcement that we would hold the money to pay Heights in cash as our backstop arrangement. So not I don't want to get too specific on speculating on things that are ongoing. So maybe, Max, if I can turn over the questions on Meggers to you. All all the answers to almost all of these questions are was part of the RNS we issued. But in summary, the timing kinda starts now. So we're into we've already entered well as we indicated we would in mid March.

44:16 And so based on operational factors, over the next two months, we'll be completing testing again bottom up. And as I mentioned, every individual Zoom will be released as they occur rather than waiting until until the end. The flow rates were were in the release. We said 200 to 2,000, shall deeper to shallow. We shall see. You may see some lower than that. I doubt it. You may see some quite a bit higher than that because it was all based on analog, and every reservoir is different. I will certainly release those as they occur. We indicated the deepest horizon. There was no economic benefit to doing that right now, top set three. We had a whole core in that interval.

45:03 We understand the reservoir properties. It wasn't a good use of shareholder funds to to test that one. We'd still we'd still drill development wells into it. You know, it's not it's not that top set three is gone. Mhmm. It is just there was no point in spending money to learn Yeah. Very little incremental information that we couldn't learn from drilling a development well in it. Okay. Read the questions out. Yes. Why do you not core the entire horizon? Always tricky when you drill an exploration well. Do you know what you're gonna find before you find it? So we don't we don't have a full core in the entire reservoir, but we found lots of oil. And in retrospect, you always say we really should record that. But until you discover the oil, it's hard to make that decision. Easier It to pick coring points with the benefit of having the logs and all the cuttings and everything. You know, if this reservoir lives up to the potential we think it may, there will be a whole core taking this for development decisions in the future. But the key to this well is it's a major discovery.

46:03 And so we have all the log data that tells us what need to know for now, and the flow test will confirm that here in in coming weeks. I think the how to compare with Pika and Willow, we we've issued on the website a table. My guess is this question was submitted submitted by someone who didn't realize there was a q and a section on the website, but but we've we've tabulated from public data sources, including the the Department of Oil and Gas, so you can see what the range of of potential outcomes is. K. Other gas? We'll see. Yeah. So the the question is, yeah, the question is, will will the gas in Meggros be low carbon dioxide and therefore able to until until we've got flow tests, Apparently, how can we not know if VAS was part of the logging suite at Meggros one?

46:57 The answer is there are lots of ways in which we could not know, not least of which is that that's that's not what VAS would would be telling us. What it's telling us is that we've got good hydrocarbon saturations. And what is the cost to drill a delineation well? It depends on the scope of the well. We drill a vertical well, it'd be a lot cheaper than a deviated well, but rule of thumb, 10,000,000, broadly. K. What are the plans operationally beyond Meggiras? One, does success or failure at Meggiras determine what well you'll drill next? Yes is the answer to that. Simple answer. Yeah. But it begin. As I mentioned earlier, we have two objectives from here in the near term. One is to delineate this discovery if the flow test is successful, and two is a commercial demonstration well and low perm a low perm horizon to demonstrate the commerciality of our first development. So that's what will drive us in in the near term.

47:57 Short term drilling at Theta West near the chimney. Let me turn that into how the company terminology would cover it, which is, will we drill a Kodiak appraisal well up dip to the north and west? The answer is yes, but the timing of that is not critical to the development decisions and the development planning we have to take. And so that will be a target of opportunity depending on how our funding stack begins to shake out rather than something that we need to do in the immediate short term. Question, is there a traction? The answer to that is. Yes. Yeah. But it needs some context for the for that. The so so on on the the question about do we need to drill any more wells for the Alaska LNG phase one gas pipeline to proceed?

48:46 The the answer to that is it depends, but the but probably, yes. And the the reason for that is that if we think about what we would have to risk versus the reward to make a decision to proceed with development, we're talking about a $150,000,000 at risk before you know whether or not you made a good decision. And we're already better than 90% confident in that regard. So drilling an additional appraisal well purely for development planning that might move you from 90% certain to 93 or 95% certain, that's a harder sell in terms of risk you know, money to risk for that degree of improvement. On the back of having to spend 10 or $11,000,000,000 on a gas pipeline, the extra the value of of being three percent or 5% more certain is considerably higher.

49:40 And so there will be discussions as we finalize the gas sales agreement about what level of certainty is required for financing of the gas pipeline, and that will be what dictates the necessity to drill it. Do we want to drill an additional appraisal well to demonstrate producibility? Absolutely. And that's the reason you saw it on development timeline as a potential well that we would consider. Without so without cores, how can we be confident of flowing oil in the shallow horizon? We're going to flow test it. I'd say if we had chosen not to flow test it, that would have been a serious question if we just determined it was commercial. In this case, we are going to flow it. The cores are very, very helpful for direct measurement of reservoir properties.

50:33 So if you go to an ultimate field development, you wanna know detailed information on the reservoir properties. We have enough log properties here to demonstrate why we would flow test it, and that's why we're choosing to flow test it. And does our estimate of 15 to 50% increase still apply? I think we were very clear that our guidance wasn't changed for the for everything from the Prince Creek Creek down. That guidance still applies, and we expect addition from the upper zones if they flow test successfully along the way. Who is Surprise Valley? If you are Surprise Valley, put your hand up. Apparently, no one here is Surprise Valley. The we talked a little bit about the ability to accelerate the process, and it's really the critical path is more regulatory than anything else.

51:27 If we if we had a billion dollars today, we probably couldn't bring it on production any quicker because you've still got to go through the regulatory process. I I think we described in the presentation why we've modeled an EIS rather than an EA. Do we has president Trump made a difference? This all sounds very oh, the question. Are we confident? We think that the odds of the pipeline moving forward are higher today than they were before, but but we were already pretty confident that it was moving forward. That's the reason that we've invested the time and effort in in finding a mutually beneficial deal with Alaska. Do you want to take d?

52:19 We understand your gas meets pipeline specifications. For for those of you Oh, yeah. Not in the room, Matt Max has had to put on his glasses. He's human like the rest of us. Yes. The question is, we understand your gas meets pipeline specs while the projects do not. What advantage does this provide in practical terms? We're a huge one. We don't have to extract the c o two before we export it. Just put into context, the proposed c o two stripping infrastructure on North Slope is a $10,000,000,000 project. And ours would not be that scale, but it's a huge advantage for us commercially not to have to extract c o two, the immune systems, or other mechanisms to export our gas. That's a huge advantage.

53:06 We've already addressed the question about investment banking advisers. There's a question about whether BP's strategy pivot means that that there was someone speculating that that, Max, you coming on board as CEO was all part of a pre choreographed move to have BP gloriously return to Alaska. I would say that's a better question for for the BP AGM rather than our AGM. Indeed. And I'll dispel that rumor right now. I left BP some time ago. The when do we intend to report results? You've talked about that already. Governor Dunleavy has suggested the pipeline could be operational two years after construction begins. I think that that this is a question better put to governor Dunleavy.

53:55 The will AGDC Glenfarm Alaska utilities demand PANTHEON drill production wells? The answer is yes. If we sign a gas sales contract, we will be committing to drill production wells on that. Sorry. That's the previous question. There's there's there's a question about the ramp up of the heating volumes. Yeah. I I mean, we will we will have gas. The when the gas pipeline comes on stream, it's going to need between a hundred and two hundred initially. Each well that we drill will probably produce around 10,000,000 cubic feet of gas per day. I mean, this is an old number from from last year we talked about, and nothing nothing would convince us in the absence of information to the contrary that that wasn't still the case.

54:44 So we we will have plenty of gas deliverability for the initial ramp up. Exact question is posed as a risk. That's really an upside question. Yeah. Because right now, there's a number of years we would be injecting gas into the reservoir. Yeah. If indeed that pipeline came a bit sooner, that's more capital efficient for us. Yeah. And just just to be clear, we are as keen as the state of Alaska and others to move things as quickly as they can without cutting corners. The you see now there's questions you're wishing you'd asked, Ezra. Go ahead. Yeah. What you see is the key risks to your geological understanding could result in a an adverse Not repeating questions. Yeah. No. I will. Yeah. So so the question was, what do we think are the key geological risks to our interpretation that would result in an adverse outcome?

55:37 I mean, the good news is you've got no geologists here. So so any answer that we give is going to be preconditioned by saying there are no geologists here. Max? You know, that's a great question. At this stage, reservoir quality is what we're trying to derisk here. And that that's in both in terms of geologic structure as well as reservoir parameters, the petroleum engineering view of world, which we represent. That's why we're gonna do the test. There's an enormous amount of drilling inventory here. So if this was 10,000 acres as a post stamp and we had 50 wells to drill, that'd be a very significant risk. But our inventory is so vast that if you want to break this into tier one, tier two, tier three based on reservoir quality, your grandchildren are probably the ones worried about the tier three inventory.

56:28 So up front, based on all the data we have, the reservoir parameters are such that our type curve is triple four, five times at Permian analog. That's what we're gonna be testing with the commercial evaluation. But there's old saying in in The United States, there's a reason they play the games on Sunday because on paper, you can come to conclusions. So we're gonna we're gonna learn a tremendous amount, when we do this test. But it's not just a standalone well. There's a question coming up about how you drive innovation into the development plan. So for any reservoir quality you encounter, there's a very capital efficient way to develop that and a very capital inefficient way to do that. And our mission is to get to the most capital efficient as soon as possible.

57:15 It wasn't that long ago. I'm gonna opine for a minute. Yeah. It wasn't that long ago. I don't if I just say it by name in an EGM, but a significant CEO of a very significant company said that oil will never be commercial in shale. Shale, not shell, just for the avoidance of doubt. Yeah. Shale's not relevant. Yeah. And you go there to where we are right now in tight reservoirs over a couple of decades has been unbelievable. In the face of learning has been unbelievable to get to that. We at PANTHEON are not gonna start from day one of the learnings of the unconventional world. We're gonna capitalize on all of that. And for me as an individual, that was the attraction to PANTHEON. Having done this in the Permian and the Montney in Canada, we'd have to learn that all over again, how to get the most of capital efficient development of our reservoir. I would like to think that was the attraction of PANTHEON to me.

58:06 It was it was your your brooding good looks more than more than anything else. But that really is the question. Look. It it really was. The we we had a template of what what the right candidate looked like and having experience in the unconventional field in terms of assembling logistics and supply chains. We we cannot rely upon the goodwill of others to cut us a break on the North Slope. What we need is people who've shown ruthless execution. You remember I there was a time before I joined PANTHEON when I talked about, you know, the what shareholders want is less a a plucky upstart taking on the world and more a bit of of technique. Although now the German automotive industry means I probably want to cite, quote, the borg and say resistance is futile.

58:56 But, you know, I mean, we we need to overmatch ourselves against the the job at hand, and and part of the attraction of Max was having done it at Apache or now APA Corporation. Not allowed to call them Apache. The you know, they they were among the most capital efficient in the Permian Basin at Petronas up in the Duvernay Shale and the Montney and actually, was only Montney doing Montney. But but the shales up there meant that we knew he could do it in the cold. So it's not it's not a big step to assume that that an Alaskan who's used to doing it in the in the warm and the cold can do it on the North Slope. And so so that was a big part of of why we were delighted that that we could get And that's a foundational question.

59:42 I remember the geology always matters. In Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, you would hear companies say we've cracked the code in the Wolfcamp shale, the six by spacing with these completions. Either they don't know anything about geology or they're misleading market. In our case, regardless of what geologic diversity we encounter, the mission will be what's the most capital efficient way to pad drill that to maximize value for the shareholders. And the sooner you get those conclusions, the better call it the secret sauce, which is for any bit of geology regardless of its properties. What's the right density of wells and what's the scale of the completion? If you get one of those wrong, you're less than optimal in capital efficiency.

1:00:28 And so that is the mission for us now as we pivot to commerciality is how do we make this most capital efficient development we can. And it's it's nice to start with rock that in our worst rock is about a 100 times better than the Permian Basin. Correct. And in our best case is is, you know, another two orders of magnitude better. Yeah. I think that the latter is more important one. Is it commercial? It's one question. The second one is how do you make it the most capital efficient? I think bucket two is what's gonna be driving us Yeah. From here. That's for sure. Other questions in the room? It's a great question. Yeah. David and Max, just looking at the one result. When we looked at the top sets, we're expecting basically conventional as well properties. We'll be fine.

1:01:15 Be interested to get your views on why that was and, obviously, a bit more confidence about commerciality shelves? Because I I don't know whether there's any analogs on the North Slope ground that you can draw. Well, I can tell you I can tell you what the geologists have told us. And, again, with the pre understanding that if I garble it, we'll let a real geologist reanswer the question properly. But it is that it would appear that the depth of burial of those lower topsets is greater than we'd expect, and there are a couple of of large growth faults that you obviously see on that seismic line I showed you. The and if you couldn't, don't worry. You're not alone. But it looks as if probably those the Upper Schrader Bluff was probably buried a bit deeper than than the predrill model would have suggested.

1:02:11 Other other explanations are possible. In terms of why are we confident about the shallower zones having better quality properties, that's because we've logged it, and we've got some cores, the sidewall cores up into those shallower zones, and because we've got a variety of of different logs that in aggregate would lead to that conclusion. But the proof is in the pudding. It's it's the testing. We'll we'll demonstrate it. But but I can tell you that that all of the scientific data is pointing to that result. It's always much easier to tell the rock properties after you've drilled it than before. If if a geologist had his way, what he'd do is say, give me the money. I'm not gonna tell you what you get for it, but I'll tell you afterwards what you did get for it.

1:02:58 Unfortunately, that's not how the real world works. And so you have to take the risk of being wrong. In this case, the geologists were horrifically wrong because they missed five additional zones above the the one, and I mean horrifically wrong in the best possible way. Yeah. We'll we'll take that kind of mistake every day. Is this maybe too basic? If it is, I apologize. But to find a conventional reservoir like those, five things are required. A source rock. We have no shortage of source rocks around here. A transmission path, which we can see. A structure, which we have, and a seal. That was the real question. And the last one is the reservoir capable of commercial quantities. We believe so. So all five of those seem to have been in place here, but we're gonna flow test to make certain of that. But it looks like all five of those occurred, and we have a conventional reservoir.

1:03:52 But early prognosis precedes me, but one of those five probably seal was the the issue. And there was a penetration above us historically by a different operator that fell short of our horizon, and it was water wet. And so that paradigm probably was applied to these intervals as well, which turned out not to be the case. Yeah. I and and the reason we showed you that slide is is the data is pretty equivocal above the the top set one. So, you know, it's it's a it's a risk until you put a well. Yeah. I've pretty brave to assume the CEO based on that side of it. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Yes. I back there, and then we'll come to the front. So just following up on that question, I think you think you move up all those just phrases.

1:04:41 You're suspecting that, let's say, we get from number six, number five may or may not be commercial, but from number four onwards, likely to be ever increasingly commercial. It's a prediction. I well, I'd I wouldn't say even the first part of that prediction's right. We we predict that every zone we test is going to demonstrate commercial potential. Okay. Yeah. And and in indeed t s three, which we're not testing, we believe based on on what we've got, if you put a horizontal well in it with multistage frac, we believe that would deliver economically attractive returns on developing that as well. Brilliant. And so and so what do you see as as this the consequence of that as as you get better have a better commerciality?

1:05:31 What's what's the proposal? Well, we'll have we'll have increasingly economically attractive reservoirs to develop is is the consequence of that. Now does that mean and I think we sort of addressed it in the in the press release that there if you move from a reservoir that is of a quality that you develop using primary depletion drive only, that's the simplest possible well you could have. You literally put a straw in it and suck or let it blow. The the if you move into a higher quality reservoir, then you're starting to get water floods, potential gas pressure maintenance, etcetera, and that requires a lot more science to understand the optimal way of doing it. That requires a lot more appraisal.

1:06:18 I don't know. From your experience, what would you The unconventional or tight reservoirs, primary depletion, as as Dave suggests, you can develop piecemeal because the reservoir doesn't talk across miles and miles and miles. Every every one has its own field effectively. Basically. When you get to large conventional fields, you have to develop it as a field because you're conserving the reserves of the entire pool. And that's why you would need delineation wells, appraisal wells, maybe early water flood and things like that. This would be a really nice problem to have, having a large conventional pool. We'll have to evaluate the capital intensity and value of that as opposed to early production in the primary and what order we do those in to maximize value for all of you. Again, it's a nice problem to have choosing between two commercial pursuits Yeah. And which one makes the most sense temporarily as well as quality.

1:07:11 So I'm gonna offer the Bill Belichick answer, which is that how we move forward will be what we believe to be in the best interest of shareholders in the company. But I'm not gonna make predictions about who will be our starting cornerback for the the next Super Bowl. Thank you. And then, Steve? Go ahead. Yeah. For EOS to be 18. I mean, potentially, we don't know what it will actually be. Mhmm. But in terms of the scenarios you're looking at, I'd say you're looking at scenarios where it's shorter than that and longer than that. Yeah. And basically planning the capital opportunities around that. Yes. Would that be fair? So so the question for those not in the room no. That's fine. I I follow-up. Sorry. Oh, you know, I I would figure it. Terms of when the EIS begins, will you you'll get notification of that from the relevant federal organizations, are you? So it it yes. I'll I'll come back to describing how that that happens.

1:08:06 But the question for everyone's benefit was depending on whether it's an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement and whether the results of it are challenged, you know, leads to a range of potential timings for getting the approvals that would allow us to proceed. And so, yes, we are planning our program to be resilient to any of those outcomes. Clearly, it's easier to be resilient to a shorter outcome than a longer outcome as you'd expect. The in a second, I'm gonna hand it over to Max to talk about what are some of the nonregulatory lead times that you have consider. But in terms of the process so what we do is we're we're gathering a lot of the data and preparing what we describe as sort of an environmental report for want of a better description. It's it's aggregating the data in such a way as to help the regulatory body, in this case, the army corps of engineers, to be able to begin their assessment as quickly as possible. So when we talk about we've begun the process, it's not that the firing you know, the the starting gun at the core of engineers has been fired. It is that we're doing a lot of the work that allows them to do their work in the most efficient possible way.

1:09:23 And and so we anticipate during the course of this year and and probably, you know, before the end of the year, comfortably before the end of the year, to have provided enough information in terms of the layout of our planned development, where the gravel pads would be, how big they're going to be, how many pipe supports are needed, and therefore, how much impact on the tundra, etcetera. That's that's all the data we need to provide to them and then for them to start doing their work. In terms of nonregulatory lead times It's really in the same bucket as capital efficiency. What wells you drill and how you complete them is one part of it. The cost of services is something else. We cannot rely upon the traditional North Slope supply chains for this. There are no long horizontal wells with this sort of orthogonal fracs that occur. So we have to build a supply chain for this enormous quality, quantities of sand and water, and we want to develop our own supply chain purpose built for this so we're not in direct competition for services with the nurse producers.

1:10:28 That does not happen overnight, and that is the absolute key to managing your capital efficiency is not allowing escalating service costs. So we have a lot of relationships and contractual arrangements to be created with the right suppliers. In my experience, having done this for a decade, most of these services are not commoditized. A lot of the innovation that occurs in drilling faster or completing more efficiently, you do in concert with the suppliers because they they're the ones doing the execution. So I have to pick our partners, so to speak, very careful here. So we're in a long term relationship as mutual advantage and innovation because as much innovation will come from them as from us. That takes some time to do that. So we can't just do that overnight.

1:11:13 So over the next year, eighteen months, we'll build those out. So when we come to executing at scale, we have the supply chain that can make that occur. And in in start up, there's a bit of a trade off between finding the lowest cost provider versus time. And so using there's there are scenarios in which if we were able to start up sooner than capital purchases could be made, we can lease flow units and that sort of thing. So there's it it is it is a multivariable equation, and and we will as as coach Belichick would say, we will try to make the decisions that put the team in the best possible position to win. Well and if it's all of that, is the operating efficiency and capital efficiency to generate free cash flow Yeah. Not just put holes in the ground.

1:12:02 Yeah. Yep. Go, you know, go ahead there, then I'll go back to Gary. And then yeah. I've got a question in relation to the listing of the company's shares. Mhmm. I'm a private shareholder, and I've been a shareholder for six or seven years. And one of the reasons one, a factor in my becoming a shareholder was the attractiveness for a private investor of the shares being listed on AIM. Mhmm. Now if I I I it's been well flagged that you are looking at listing in The United States on one of the major exchanges, which not asking you for a definite answer, but would would the benefits of being an named listed shareholder be lost, or could there be some element of a dual listing whereby the advantages for somebody in my situation might be preserved?

1:13:03 So I I I I think you're referring to the inheritance tax break on AIM listed shares. Yeah. And and so the bad news and and there's there's, you know, a a facetious answer one could make, which is it doesn't benefit the shareholder in any way because for the benefit to be accrued, they must have died, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. So so having put having put that to one side, the the current government has removed half of that benefit. And and I'm I'm not in the business of trying to predict what they will do with the other half, but they haven't they haven't shown themselves to be terribly sympathetic towards people nearing the ends of their lives.

1:13:48 The secondly, it is far from guaranteed that even if there were no change in the legislation that the shares would receive that inheritance tax relief because the revenue has been very clear that they won't tell you beforehand whether it does. They will tell you that it might, but it will depend upon the circumstances as they exist at the time. And, therefore, that is a second risk factor to whether or not the inheritance tax is available. The third factor, which is in a sense more important, is I think the legislation is very clear that if you're listed on a senior exchange, then immediately you have a listing on a senior exchange, the pain benefit disappears. So the judgment we have to make and and will make but haven't made yet is, is it in the best interest of the company and its shareholders to go to a US exchange?

1:14:45 The answer is it may well be because if it exposes the company to a larger pool of capital and I'm just gonna make up numbers here. But if if the if the analysis was that that we believe that it'll double the value of the shares because of the greater liquidity of available, and and you could make that argument based on relative ratings of companies between those two markets. That is a good deal more than the inheritance tax saving, assuming that that I mean, we hope that our shares will do it well enough that every one of you is in the 2,000,000 plus estate bracket so that that it's maximum inheritance tax via and if you don't own enough shares to reach that, then buy some more today. Am I am I allowed to say that, Charlie? I'm not apparently, Charlie's looking at me.

1:15:30 This is this is Nomad. He's looking at he's looking at me in a way that says you shouldn't order or set that, so I take it all back. You make your own decisions about whether you should buy shares. Yeah. But that's that's the the simple answer. And then just to finish that and sorry. I'll come I've got Gary and then you too. The in terms of transitional arrangements, what we want to make sure is that there is no shareholder who is unreasonably inconvenienced by the decisions we make for the benefit of all shareholders. We are not going to make a promise that no individual shareholder will be disadvantaged because you will all have different personal circumstances. We will, however, be cognizant of who our shareholders are and what what drives them. That's why, again, as I said earlier, and I meant it sincerely, and I hope you can take it sincerely.

1:16:22 We need to hear the the true voice of of the shareholder and the true voice of the market in order to make sure that there isn't a perspective that we're missing on that. But we will absolutely be solicitors of that. Gary? Yeah. I just I've got some concerns about the the the commerciality of our unconventional, you know, up in West, how how it starts against other places. We often compare it to more more like shale, you know, sort of a reference and stuff. But it's Not shale. From from some of the breakevens that we've we've mentioned before, but I guess out of the corporate presentation. We think they could breakeven about 30, which actually makes it more, like, peak at conventional, and then I think they're talking about breakevens of thirty five and forty. So I I feel there's something we're talking about unconventional, and people are writing that offer being quite dismissive, but it can actually be just as profitable as some of the conventional stuff. So the the question for for people on on the webinar was how does our tighter reservoir I I think we've tried to avoid talking about it as shale.

1:17:26 How how does that stack up against other plays when you're benchmarking commerciality, when you're benchmarking breakevens, etcetera? The now so the first thing is there is there is a technical definition, Max. Over to you on on conventional versus unconventional. The technical answer for an unconventional is the hydrocarbons were formed in situ in the rock in question. So there's a shallow marine system, and it became a shale. It was formed there and never moved. That's really what unconventional means. People use it more generically for any reservoir that you develop with primary depletion with long horizontal wells with orthogonal fracs. But but there's a big range between a NANO DARCI shale in the Wolfcamp and what we're seeing here, several ores of magnitude more permeability.

1:18:19 We're choosing to develop it in the same manner, but the reservoir is massively higher quality than it has been proven commercial in West Texas and other places. And that's why we're doing the commerciality test, of course. It's the demonstration well. But the general rule of thumb is every well is twice as expensive, and the reserves are triple, which if you do that math, you get to a very commercial development pretty quick. I guess my point probably is that our breakevens, you know, and I know we've not put out breakevens, maybe getting more associated with breakevens or rather conventional breakevens anymore. Look. We've absolutely, we have we have not published formal guidance on breakevens partly because there are a number of assumptions that have to go into that. But what we've talked about in the past has been breakevens that are better than for the more remote North Slope developments and are certainly considerably better than in the in the four major basins, the four you know, the the super basins for oil in the Lower 48.

1:19:28 We're not we're not in a position to give specific guidance at this point on on what that is, but we've I I know that a few years back, we showed where it stood in the cost stack, and and nothing much has changed. We are certainly not the marginal producer of of tight oil in in North America. Stuart? Please should be down on this, but my understanding the question would be within IHT benefits does not apply to an oil exploration company. Well Totally wrong with that. I'm not No. No. I'm not I'm not gonna shoot so the question was, did the AIM benefit on IHT apply to oil companies? That is specifically the point I was trying to make when I said it is not guaranteed that it would because the the revenue will not provide guidance that says it doesn't.

1:20:18 What they say is we will assess every case on the facts at the time and that they in the same way as I think they did eventually rule that wine storage schemes didn't benefit from IHT and and that that so so, again, I don't know enough about the differences between oil production and wine storage. Or at least I I know a bit, but not not enough to the the bit I'm not clear on is wine storage. I I tend to store it here, but that's that's an entirely different an entirely different question. So, yes, I I I would I I I sometimes wonder whether the AIM benefit I I hope that even if you came to PANTHEON in order to protect your heirs, that you'll stay for the quality of the business that we're going to develop.

1:21:11 Where is it that they say, we we hope you'll come to somewhere in The Caribbean for the beaches, but you'll stay for the hospitality along the way? Yes. Far away. This is a question about pipeline and funding. As in pipeline, the basis of funding, gas pipeline. Mhmm. Is it possible that phase one of the pipeline can proceed without phase two? Yes. Yes. So the question was, is phase one of the Alaska LNG project, which is the pipeline on its own, viable without phase two, which is LNG export and carbon dioxide removal at the top? The answer is absolutely yes. That's what the WoodMac report found. It found that the economic benefit of doing that compared to importing LNG was a no brainer, and that that's without incorporating the additional value and the option on additional value that having the pipeline would would provide. The point being that there's so much talk about exports. There's some deal that the exports title is not about exports. That's that's exactly right.

1:22:18 Look. I I know there are some shareholders who've been unafraid to tell us that we should be asking mister Trump to say that without PANTHEON, none of this would happen. The our view is that, firstly, no one tells mister Trump what to say. You know, was it nobody sits baby in the corner, I think, for those of you old enough to remember footless or Footloose. The number one. Number two, you know, there's an awful lot or is it Dirty Dancing? Sorry. I yeah. Do you know what? I love the fact that we've got shareholders who are more focused on my being wrong about footloose versus dirty dancing than on the viability of the pipeline.

1:23:05 Yeah. You know who you are. Anyway, the the point about it is that there is an awful lot more that we can achieve that will benefit shareholders by not being out front in the public domain on this. The and and to be honest with you, I said at the start, this is going to be the result of many people putting in an awful lot of effort to do an awful lot of things. And one thing that will absolutely guarantee to upset the apple cart is if people start arguing about credit before you've got something to take credit for. And so we will we will allow the people who need to do their jobs to do their jobs. We will support them in whatever way we can, and we will try to make sure that the outcome is good for PANTHEON shareholders, good for the state of Alaska, and good for the consumers of Alaska. And and if you don't hear a lot more about how we're involved in it, then, you know, you'll just have to accept that there are good reasons for that.

1:24:03 Incidentally, I think that senators and Sullivan are well aware of the Twitter handles of many of PANTHEON shareholders because they have seen them cropping up. The you don't don't need to worry about whether they know who you are on the basis that, occasionally, we've been asked. Ezra, you yeah. So the company started the production phase, and The US market doesn't have any preproduction oil companies on the market. So why does it make sense to not rush with The US IPO or at least wait until company's much closer to production, and then there's a less lower risk of the market misunderstanding the PANTHEON story? I I would say that we have a number of high quality professional advisers from a number of different areas, and we will assess the advice, the board will take a decision as the great coach Bill Belichick would say that gives the company the best opportunity to win.

1:25:08 Yes. Yeah. Any other questions? Oh, we should probably quickly check whether there are a lot of you know, I forgot the There was online. Yeah. There are some online. Question for incoming CEO, Max Easley. Do you believe that CEOs should have real skin in the game, not just one-sided option grants, but actually buying shares? Okay. We we don't have to read the rest of that question. I can I can tell you that the there has it's and it's a fair question, and I'm not gonna put Max on the spot to to answer a question? I don't think anyone's employment should be conditional on their personal financial circumstances. What we should do is employ the person who is best able to deliver value for shareholders.

1:25:57 The as a matter of fact, there has not been effectively an open regulatory window since Matt has joined to be able to even have that discussion, let alone to actually even grant him options. Hence, the press release talked about a desire to grant options rather than that we had granted options. When are we back on the rig? I think that's been answered. I'm not gonna answer a question about the outside diameter of the completion. The yeah. We we know who's asked that question. No. It wasn't. It was not. No. It's someone else, but we know who it was. What's with the baseball cap? Hang on a second.

1:26:42 What we seen on video? These were make PANTHEON great again hats, which a grateful shareholder well, I'm assuming grateful. The maybe maybe if you don't like them, you'll you'll think differently. The what else have we got? When are volumetric evaluations expected? I think that we will be integrating a lot of data from the test. One of the key variables is actually the fluid composition. Mhmm. So we'll we'll need to get that. Due course. Yeah. Why are we not getting oh, I see. Well, we've sort of answered questions about press coverage and that sort of thing. The oh, I'm I'm hang on.

1:27:36 Oh, right. So so somebody has asked, given previous operations suffered significant delays due to errors, how likely is completing four months of flow tests? Do you have the money to fix the well when operations screw up? Thank you. Thank you for your support. I nobody in fairness in fairness, the person asking it has a long track record of having asked that question publicly. The and so and so what I can say is we have planned meticulously to try and avoid any kind of a screw up. We have managed to deliver the well to date at below budget and and within the time frame. We delivered the reentry and recompletion of the two well, again, without incident, and and we have, in Tony and the team supporting him, a a very capable operations group.

1:28:35 But as I said earlier, we definitely have the money to complete the well even if we accepted the premise that that we were gonna screw up. Son of pharma, can we come can we comment on the probability that Meggrows becomes the next Prudhoe Bay? I would say zero. Prudhoe Bay is 15,000,000,000 barrels and 27 tees. That would be an extreme outcome. We'd be extremely happy if if we were just a baby Yeah. Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe is fine. Yeah. Is the endgame a corporate sale or long term production?

1:29:20 The answer to that, you'll remember that that there is no way that you can have a strategy that relies upon a sale of the company if you don't have a valid alternative. The trashy pivot of of nearly two years ago was to say, we need to create a credible hold case for this. And if someone comes along and makes an offer at some point along the line, it will need to be of a value that it is better for shareholders to accept than to continue to hold. I will quote the great Bill Belichick once more. We will try to make sure that we put the team in the best possible position to win by having a credible backstop of of hold so that if and only if someone offers a price that it is better for the team to accept will we will we be prepared to accept.

1:30:18 But just to put this in context, our expectation you'll remember some time back, we talked about where we saw this growing to. We see it growing to around 300,000 barrels a day. That's the that's what we've got in our minds as the target we're trying to get to. That's about the same size that Pioneer Natural Resources was when ExxonMobil bought it. There comes a point at which the scale becomes irresistible to someone with with a need to fill a a production growth. Just as Pioneer had a valid future as a growing tier one Permian Basin producer, we intend to have a valid future as a growing tier one North Slope producer. But we we can't say no to the possibility that someone would eventually want to offer a lot of money. That's not our plan. Our plan is to build a serious oil company that that will be in shareholders' best interest.

1:31:16 I can't talk about target market caps. The where else are we? Can we clarify? Have the test started? We have reentered the well, I think, is what you said. We haven't started testing. Do you know what? There are quite a lot of questions. I think what we're going to do is there are some of these questions that it'll be easier for us to aggregate them and answer them as q and a on the website rather than keeping everyone online or or in the room forever. I'm gonna leave it to one last question.

1:32:02 Well, I'm gonna answer one question and then and then leave it with one last question. So guidance on a US listing to a senior exchange. The answer is we will move that forward. We talked about the earliest we could do it was gonna be in the middle of this year with the Megro's success and the fact that testing is gonna take an awful lot longer than originally had been contemplated. I I think it's a fair bet to say that we're not going to be in the middle of the year, but but we will move forward. We put ourselves in a position where we could do it. We've built the systems. We've got the restatement of of IFRS accounts to US GAAP, etcetera. The precise timing will be a function of the advice of of the many professional advisers that we've got working with us on what gives the company the best opportunity to succeed.

1:32:50 In terms, though, of a final question before we break, Max, on the presumption you were given access to PANTHEON's data as part of the recruitment process, what was it that gave you the confidence to move from I hope won't take this the wrong way, a relatively secure employer to to become I I think that's I in fairness, I think it may have been a comment on Max's ability to hold a job rather than patronas being relatively secure. The and and I know the individual who's asking it would definitely not wish to insult you or veteran us. What was it that, gave you the the confidence to make the move? Self confidence, I I would say. The, I've done this twice before, in the Permian and in in the Montney.

1:33:42 The only difference is the quality of resources here is higher. But I think, in my interview the other day, you may have seen it. It's quite rare for someone to say, there's 2,000,000,000 barrels in your backyard. So I started my career in Alaska. It's been very good to me, and I like to round off my career and get back to Alaska. Alaska has been hungry for something like this for twenty years, a new basin opener. And as we've been saying all day, this is for the benefit of our shareholders in the state of Alaska. And it's just a golden opportunity to achieve both goals. But at face value to me having done this for thirty three years, this is a very attractive proposition given the resource base and all the advantages we talked about. And for me personally, it's I can get back to Alaska at the same time.

1:34:31 So with that, thank you all very much for having joined us today, whether in person, and, boy, there are a lot of you in person and online, and there were quite a lot of people online as well. As I say, apologies, we didn't get to every question, but it'll be more efficient, I think, for everyone's time for us to aggregate and and answer them in the generality on on the q and a on the website. Again, please don't hesitate. If you got a question, odds are it's interesting to more than just you. So please, could you come through the the channel of contact at pantheonresources.com? Congratulations to the person who knew the Greek word for anonymous Yeah. Or the Latin word for anonymous. Anyway, some old language word for anonymous in order to submit some of your questions.

1:35:21 Kudos to you, which is itself an old Greek word. The and thank you once again. We look forward to whenever we next engage. Fantastic. David, Max, thank you very much indeed for updating investors today. On behalf of the management team of PANTHEON RESOURCES PLC, we'd like to thank you for attending today's meeting, and good afternoon to you all. Thanks, everyone.