Member Info for GreyPanther

I hear that the suspended Bisc-2 well was abandoned a few weeks ago by Egdon and maybe they've already been paid. However, it usually takes some time for invoices to arrive for a previous month's work.

There will still be a significant Biscathorpe abandonment cost. Although the land owner wants to retain the wellsite, the suspended well must be abandoned and this has already been done, with the rig they used going on to do some work at Keddington. So UJO will already have incurred some costs for this, but I've no idea how much.

I hear the land owner wishes to retain the Bisc well site for agricultural purposes and Egdon are helping with the application to the local council . In any event, if successful, not only would it significantly reduce the abandonment cost, it would also require many fewer truck movements to and from the site.

It's extremely interesting that most of the UJO directors are against Craig Howie, except for the one director (John Americanos) who has a decent holding in the company. What does that say, I wonder, except that it seems to show signs of desperation at board level. It would be timely, though, if Howie would set out his plans for the company in a similarly public manner to this morning's RNS, so that we can judge for ourselves.

Here's what UJO said about this prospect in an RNS on 30 January '26:

"Crossroads (43% interest) The Crossroads well, following regulatory delays, is now scheduled to be drilled in Q1 2026.Crossroads is a structural prospect with an area of 100 acres and 50 feet of vertical closure, mapped by Reach from 3D seismic. The main objective of the well is for oil in the middle Ordovician age Oil Creek Sand. The James Thompson 1A well, located 1.5 km north-west of Crossroads tested 124 bopd from the Oil Creek formation. Other potential reservoirs exist in the Tulip Creek and McClish formations. In addition, Pennsylvanian Sands remain a viable target.

The mapped closure at Crossroads is the largest undrilled feature in the area and has the potential to yield up to 1,800,000 barrels of oil. Success case NPV10% is US$11,000,000 based on US$60 per barrel oil price"

I note that there's no mention of the primary target in today's RNS "the main objective of the well is for oil in the middle Ordovician age Oil Creek Sand" so either that objective wasn't found or, if it was, it contained nothing of interest.

Why hasn't there's been an RNS with the EGM voting outcomes? The meeting was due to start at 10.30am this morning.

As a former geologist, I've not beenexactlt impressed by the expertise of either Rathlin or Reabold up to now, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them screw up the proppant squeeze. But Corelab and RPS are in another technical league. However, If you look at the WNA-2 core log by Cambridge Carbonates (it's still available on the Onshore Geophysical Library website (UKOGL), you will see that there's only a thin interval at the top of the core that has any real permeability. Even then, it's within a low porosity / permeability interval. Unfortunately we don't know for sure if that's where Rathlin will perforate the well for the squeeze. So what's the betting they'll select the much thicker interval lower down the core with far lower poro-perms? If they do that, they will be very lucky to get a flow, and probably not even 500,000 cu. ft /day IMO.

Hi itsawrap. I suppose 500,000 cu. ft / day COULD be enough for a server farm, but they aren't a topic that I know anything about . However, 500,000 cu. ft / day is about 86 barrels / day, so not insignificant!

So far I haven't been impressed by the technical expertise of Rathlin or Reabold, so I wouldn't be very surprised if the proppant squeeze is a screw up. Please take a look at the WNA-2 core log by Cambridge Carbonates. It's available on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library website, where you can see that only a very thin interval at the top of the core has any real permeability. Even then, it's in a very low porosity / permeability interval. We don't know for sure where Rathlin will perforate the well for the squeeze, so what's the betting they'll select the much thicker interval lower down the core with the lower poro-perms? If they do that, they'll be very lucky to get a flow of even 500,000 cu. ft /day.

Hi Lesh8. Regarding your "Wressle cash machine lets say oil is $100 a barrel so from that UJO gets $40 before tax. After tax it's around $20 to $25 a barrel in revenue at 267 barrels a day ". You seem to have overlooked the fact that UJO owns only 40% of Wressle, so it's nearer 107 barrels a day for the company.

"The way oil and gas ...... is simply not reflected by our SP". I'd be more inclined to go along with oldbutnowisa's comment if RBD was actually producing hydrocarbons, rather than having just a few, mainly undeveloped prospects.

Hi there willhi02. My broker (Killik) originally said that I would get my full application for 2 million shares, but I only received 1.1 million in the end, and that number is showing in my account today. I guess you can't be lucky every time - I should have applied for twice the number that I wanted.,

HI Smythery. Up to now, I've not been impressed by the technical expertise of either Rathlin or Reabold, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them screw up on the proppant squeeze. If you look at the WNA-2 core log by Cambridge Carbonates (it's available on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library website) you can see only a thin interval at the top of the core that has any real permeability. And even then, it's within a very low porosity / permeability interval. We don't know for sure if that's where Rathlin will perforate the well for the squeeze. So what's the betting they'll select a much thicker interval lower down the core with the lower poro-perms? If they do that, they will be very lucky to get a flow of even 500,000 cu. ft /day.

The postponed EGM is at 11.00 am on Tuesday 3rd March. I've asked my broker to vote in favour of the single updated resolution.

Hello Heid. What "man turned up doing stuff" please?

Many thanks Manwell02. I'd heard about the Pensacola well flowing a significant of gas post acidization. What I don't know is if it was from the the same Zechstein carbonate formation as we're attempting to stimulate at WN. In any event, the Pensacola well seems to have flowed without too much trouble, whereas Rathlin seem to have "thrown everything except the kitchen sink" without getting a significant flow of gas. So I'm quite nervous, but still hopeful ..... I guess!

I dimly recall that an acid wash may have been tried previously, but I don't know on which well. The problem with an acid wash, though, is that while it might increase the porosity near the well bore, it won't have any effect on the non-linked porosity where there's no permeability at all to connect with any of the more distant porosity.

The proppant squeeze could open up the existing permeability, even if it's quite limited.

Hi Smythery. I wasn't able to find the work done by RPS and / or Corelab on the WN-A2 well on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library's website, so maybe it hasn't been released yet. However, a core log compiled by Cambridge Carbonates on WN-A2 is available there. This indicates that the upper (presumably gas-bearing) section of the Kirkham Abbey Fm. consists mostly of very low permeability carbonates. However, there are some very thin streaks of better permeability and porosity rock, so maybe we are in with a chance.

Hi Manwell02. I've already looked at the released logs and reports for all the WN wells that are on the UK onshore geophysics library web site, and there's little there about permeability. My comments are based on what I know about the Zechstein from working offshore many years ago. Maybe Rathlin / Reabold will be proved to be correct at WN, but I wouldn't put a lot more of my own money on it at the moment. Only time will tell, and IMO it could be a while before the squeeze takes place.