Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
You'd think, looking at the Energy Agency's consent, that Rathlin had already covered all the bases when it came to testing oil and / or gas. Since what you recover on a well test depends on the interval perforated, and Rathlin knew there was a gas-bearing section over the oil / condensate section when they perforated the well for the EWT, I assume they would have perforated the oil / condensate part. If they didn't do this they would have risked "Blowing down" the gas cap which would normally help keep the reservoir pressure up when the field starts commercial production. Maybe they didn't find what they expected in the first stages of the EWT, eg black oil rather than condensate, or a reservoir pressure much lower than they anticipated. If this was the case, they would almost certainly have needed some extra equipment, such as a well head pump, which would have meant going back to the EA again. Looking at the EA's website it seems that variations to consents are taking 3 to 4 months to process. Now I'm only guessing, and I don't know why we wouldn't have been told this. I have read somewhere, maybe in a Rathlin briefing to local residents, that the reservoir pressure was quite low. So I suppose it's just possible that we still waiting on a consent variation which hasn't been publicised. But why not, I wonder?
PDMS, RBD hold 59% of Rathlin shareholding. So, basically RBD controlled Rathlin now and indirectly they also control news.
Fair enough PDMSP but it sounds a bit arrogant IMHO. Maybe I won't be able to find out anything new or useful, but I don't understand what's wrong with trying since we've been given so little info about this. Should any new info - and there will probably be none - be ignored just because it's regarded as immaterial by some members of this BB? I think everyone should do what research they think might be useful. Other folk can make of it what they will.
WNA2 flowed, so they say. But there’s no data. The point I’m making is that a CPR was produced and signed off by Deloitte before a definitive flow test was conducted. There is no flow test data in the WNA-1 CPR. That is the pertinent point. I don’t care if they flowed it for a few hours before shutting it in. That’s immaterial.
Regarding PDMSPiper's comment below that WNA1 has never been flowed,I'm pretty sure that I have read somewhere that the Kirkham Abbey had a short flow test from the gas zone, and that the Cadeby was cored but not tested. It should be relatively easy to find out. The WNA1 well is now more than 5 years old as it was drilled from June to Sept 2013. I think this means that it should have been published by the OGA or somewhere similar. I will do a bit of digging and see what I can find out.
There’s a lot of bull on all the websites, Reabolds and Rathlin’s. RBDs presentation also says that the EWT is scheduled to resume in Q4 2019. That’s not now going to happen as no permits have even been applied for. Rathlin obviously have different ideas and a different schedule than RBD. You can forget everything RBD have told us. They aren’t in charge. Rathlin are. The penny will drop eventually. You’ll get it.
The CPR for WNA-1 wasn’t ignored was it? Even though there was no flow data in it, that CPR has resulted in almost £30Million being invested into Rathlin for West Newton. I’d say the strategy worked out pretty well for them.
Who told you that? That isn’t what Rathlin and Connaught did with WNA-1. They commissioned Deloitte to produce a CPR without flowing WNA1. That well has never been flowed. Do some research instead of just flapping your gums. The Deloitte CPR for WNA1 has worked out pretty well for Rathlin. It attracted RBD, UJO and Humber. There is no reason to suggest they won’t go down that same route again and commission Deloitte to produce a CPR without flowing WNA-2, just like they did with WNA-2. That is my rationale for drawing that conclusion. What evidence do you have to say it won’t happen or are you just stamping your feet? Back it up. I’ll be waiting.
"The EWT comes first. No CPR until EWT complete"
You can do a CPR at any time - sometimes one has to be done as a major shareholder or lender requires an update for internal reasons. The point is that one done without any new hard data is just another expensive (in time, angst & cash) arm waving exercise that the professionals will ignore
Backwoodsman;
“You’re wrong with this statement Piper, ‘ My guess is that next news will be an updated CPR with a paragraph informing that the Kirkham Abbey oil discovery will now be tested and appraised from WNB-1.’
The EWT comes first. No CPR until EWT complete.”
BWM; Rathlin and Connaught will be in charge of that decision. I based my conclusion on the strategy they followed with their last well, how that worked for them in attracting investment and the likelihood of them employing that strategy again. Only by answering these questions can you make a reasoned assessment as to whether or not a CPR will be commissioned without a flow test. DYOR.
We must bear in mind though, this is what Cali Joe said only days before UJO issued the RNS stating they were sounding out the market for a placing....
************** on Twitter: "#ujo. For anyone thinking there may be a fund raise, please note the post below. Also note that as of two weeks ago, there was £2.8m in cash in the bank and the EWT paid in advance. UJO are one of the few darlings of AIM and the only institutional door still open to West Newton?? https://t.co/GsIbIO8sUm" / Twitter
https://twitter.com/*************01/status/1182588630092734465
Now he says all’s well at WN and the WNA2 EWT will go ahead even though there is no evidence of the necessary permit applications anywhere.
No idea GP. Nothing filed at Ryde Council. Nothing filed at OGA. Nothing filed at Health and Safety Exdcutive. But on the plus side Cali Joe reckons we’re inventing monsters in our own minds and Mighty belle and Snide reckon we’re all just numpties. The have Bramhills number and all the info so they must be right and we’re all just numpties. It seems strange though because only a few days ago mighty belle was saying it was all held up because we were waiting for permits. When it was pointed out that there is no evidence of permits having been applied for he now says it’s because everything is on track and Rathlin are in full compliance, so no permits necessary. Ya couldn’t make it up. They’re having a good go though. Lol.
PDSMPiper: One more query if you don't mind. When you say you can't find a planning / permit application to reconfigure the EWT for oil, I think that's very significant. However, we know that the EWT consent was granted ages ago for a gas test. Do you know if a revised EWT of the oil zone would require a completely new consent from the relevant authority? Is it possible that the EA / OGA might grant it under some form of variation order? If so, it might not show up in a list of applications. Maybe I'm clutching at straws here but I live in hope!
Well all I can say PDMS is that if I really believed there would be no flow test at WNA2 I would have sold up. That would be the last straw for me. I'm still hoping that something will happen this year and knowing the communication from this lot probably the first we will know of it is equipment arriving on site.
Yes you’re right of course. It isn’t a fact until it’s RNSd of course but seeing as I’ve totally failed to find one planning or permit application to reconfigure the well for oil, I have now filed it under “Facts” in my mind. But time will tell.
Hi there DMSPiper: When you say "The fact remains: there will be no resumption of flow testing at WNA-2". Is it really a fact? Or is it just an enlightened guess based on what's not happened so far with the WN-A2 EWT? My view is that they will recommence the WN-A2 EWT once they have all the necessary consents. After all, there is no guarantee that the wells to be drilled at the WN-B site will be successful. Maybe they should also consider going back to the WN-A1 well and testing the gas zone properly . That way they would gain useful information on both pay zones before spending a bundle of cash on the B site wells. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see since we aren't being told anything. .
I agree Sting. The only people who weren’t unhappy with the placing are the same ones desperately ramping the resumption of the EWT on twitter. They obviously took the placing and want to get out with a profit.
I make no recommendations as to risk and no predictions as to the future share price. The fact remains: there will be no resumption of flow testing at WNA-2. The only question now is when, and how, will they tell the market.
They’ll want to soften the blow. My guess is that next news will be an updated CPR with a paragraph informing that the Kirkham Abbey oil discovery will now be tested and appraised from WNB-1.
That's why a certain investor bailed out .
I was watching for the rise to bail out on the news myself and was to busy
Mind I didn't think it would drop as it did so quick on the day
I had a plan and did not stick to it lol.
Any way they all knew this EWT was never going to happen and they will all be back for the next Catalyst which will be a EWT from WNB which I even don't think that will go ahead as again once they have wire logging why throw more money at it just get rid.
My only out is for them to get rid of it now with out drilling WNB and that the money was only needed to persuade OGS,EA ,that they have the funds to drill and make good.
Failing that I wait as others for what I believe will be inevitable rises but with the risk of large investor drag back again.
Viva Ujo for Ginger
True Sting. There is no evidence of further applications for variations to permits for WNA2 on the OGA website.
WNA2 is still only permitted as a gas well.
The last variance was merely a gas test plan and temps allowable in the flare stack. This variance was approved on 6/8/2019. Three weeks before the EWT at WNA-2 was terminated. No further variances have been applied for or approved. No application to flow oil, test oil or flare oil from WNA-2 has been made.
I don’t see how they can commence an oil based EWT at WNA-2 in January when they still haven’t applied for any permits for it and it’s still only a gas well according to the OGA...but what do I know?
See for yourselves. Date of the last variance approval document is in the bottom left corner of the first page of the pdf doc, 6/8/19. Nothing since.
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/hu11-5da-rathlin-energy-uk-limited/
I started the Thread with :-
"There isn’t gong to be an EWT at WNa
Nothing to prove there
Got all the info they need
Reobold and ujo aren’t interested in production
Ujo will never go the ukog route takes to much time and patience
Money raised was for regulatory approval proof of funds in place to prepare WNb
No point wasting money on anything not needed they have to go to WNb to prove up the field any way so one EWT spent on WNb if even required is better than throwing money at wna
Hope people understand what I am getting at
Viva ujo for ginger"
Its very basically down to cost and best option minimal cost.
Some good technical comments as for why but its all down to Pounds ,Shillings and Pence
Also Dollars
Viva UJO
PDMS, there's a difference between 'testing' and 'checking out'. The Cadeby Reef formation showed oil smears during drilling WNA-2, but will be tested from WNB. The gear onsite at WNA-2 was set up for the Kirkham Abbey Shoal formation and gas only. The EWT of the Kirkham Abbey Shoal formation will still take place at WNA-2, and quite soon in my opinion.
It is my understanding that oil was burnt through the flare stack, which was why operations had to be suspended.
Piper,
Excellent and rational posting with your appreciated professional experience.
S&S take note and provide an RNS to the effect combined with solid figures for California and timelines on Romania.
Unless, of course, all of these raises are a double bluff to the Majors.
Harry
GKB, To clarify, I’m not an oil expert, I’m not a driller or an exploration or a well expert. I’m a piping design and equipment layout engineer. I do mostly downstream process installations, oil production platform topsides, onshore refineries etc.
My assertion that WNA2 will not be flow tested for oil is my opinion based upon the evidence now available.
It is a fact that no oil could be put through that fan on the flare stack during the WNA2 test. That’s a fact. The rest is my opinion.
PDMSPiper,
It's good to see you getting back to oil fundamentals, for which I respect your opinion, rather than conjectural thoughts of sleight of hand transactions. ATB.
No. It was always planned to check out the possibility of a deeper, lower CoS oil play from the WNA-2 well.
There are now two drills from WNB. One into the separate Cadeby formation as was previously planned and a new one to sidetrack into this new, unexpected oil discovery in the Kirkham Abbey. They’re not drilling it for nothing. It will be tested from there IMO.