Member Info for GreyPanther

Hello HDT. I'm a long retired geologist with some experience of the area around Serenity. I've also posted this on ADVFN's board today in response to a similar query there, so here goes. Serenity's technical chance factor (which is usually taken to be the chance of finding SOME hydrocarbons in a prospect) is probably similar to most North Sea appraisal wells and is around 50% or perhaps slightly better here. What's more important to us, and what would be very useful to know, is i3's estimated chance factor for a COMMERCIAL success at this location. In my opinion the local geology is unusually important as there is a major fault between the Halibut Horst to the north and the Serenity structure situated immediately adjacent to, and south of the horst. IMO this fault doesn't act as an effective seal along its entire length. This is because the horst block contains many separate sands within the Devonian Old Red Sandstone which may in places be in contact with the Serenity reservoir sands, and this could allow migrated oil to leak out of the structure. So, if the fault doesn't act as a seal along the whole length of our rather narrow structure, the oil column could be much smaller than the mapped structural closure. I suspect i3's estimated reserves are based on the entire structural closure being full of oil. However, I could easily be wrong about this, and also about how good the seal is where it matters most. EOG won't know what the exact situation is until they see the logs over the reservoir interval. So we can only wish them the best of luck. It may, however, be the case that the oil that's already been discovered at Serenity is commercial if it can be tied back to the nearby Tain field, and this could be their "fall back" position. Also, we mustn't rule out the possibility that, in the event of success, further wells will be needed to evaluate the entire length of Serenity. In any event, IMO it's worth a shot so long as it doesn't cost an arm and a leg several time over!

Malcolm G W / Malcy 's remark below that we "would achieve at least the NPV10 figure" for Victory is probably more of the same operators' views that usually constitute his daily blog. IMO we should take getting NPV10 with a large grain of salt. I think it's more likely that the Victory "consideration" - when we finally hear about it - will be some cash, but not very much, up-front, and further staged payment, perhaps depending on the buyer's progress in developing Victory and perhaps even the actual production rates over time.

Sorry about that. What I meant to say was that Reabold technically control Rathlin , not us (UJO)

Regarding Reabold's interest in Rathlin, the last time I looked at their info on Companies House website (and I don't think it has changed since then) Reabold owned 9,832,727 of Rathlin UK’s 16,530,700 shares. That's about 59.5% of the company, so I sincerely hope that Rathlin still have plenty of cash. If they don't it will probably be us, since we technically control Rathlin UK, who will be funding quite a large portion of the next well at WN, and not just our direct 16.665% interest.

Does anyone have a link to Winnifroth) piece of so called financial journalism that someone could please post? If it's mainly about us, though, I suspect it will be one of his usual bitter and twisted pieces of absolute garbage. Please show me I'm wrong!

Hi Wats. is there a summary of Daybreak's report that you could post please or, if not, the link to it.. Thanks. GP

TAC and JustBe. Thanks for your thoughts. For myself, I'm not at all sure that (in Just Be's words) "There is nothing stopping the company from informing shareholders that indeed the findings of the investigation had been lodged with the FCA." That may sound like common sense but we can't possibly know what advice the company received from its lawyers. So how can you know for sure that this is the case? Over and Out for the time being!

Hi JustBe. Can you please explain to our long term shareholders why you are so concerned about UJO and its management? You've said below that you "would be tempted to invest again myself but my investing rules won't allow with the leak situation as it stands now." I don't mean to be rude, but I can only assume from that statement that you aren't currently a UJO shareholder. So why do you keep banging about the placing leaks and the lack of a report about them? For myself (as a long term holder) I suspect that a report about the leaks went to the FCA long ago but, for legal reasons, Mr Bramhill isn't able to give you chapter and verse about it or its contents. My own take on this morning's RNS about Shore Capital becoming a joint broker to UJO is that' it's good news as Shore were one of the company's original brokers. It might, perhaps, be the company's subtle way of pointing a finger at SP Angel about the leaks but without being too obvious. Well, that's my take on it , for what it's worth.

Hi JustBe. Can you please explain to our long term shareholders why you are so concerned about UJO and its management? You've said below that you "would be tempted to invest again myself but my investing rules won't allow with the leak situation as it stands now." I don't mean to be rude, but I can only assume from that statement that you aren't currently a UJO shareholder. So why do you keep banging about the placing leaks and the lack of a report about them? For myself (as a long term holder) I suspect that a report about the leaks went to the FCA long ago but, for legal reasons, Mr Bramhill isn't able to give you chapter and verse about it or its contents. My own take on this mornings's RNS about Shore capital becoming

Hi there boom.boom. I can't argue with your potential resource numbers based on various potential pay thicknesses. However, if Sereneity's current 10-15 million barrels recoverable are thought by i3 to be commercial as a tie back to Tain, then one might conclude that they've farmed out to us on extremely favourable / too generous terms. It's not as if i3 is short of cash, judging by the monthly dividend they are paying. Maybe it's merely i3 wanting to reduce their risk, but I would have expected them to get better terms for a commercial discovery. All the best.

Hi Serif. You're absolutely right and I hoped that was what I was saying below. However, some posters give me the impression that they believe Serenity will be a commercial field if we find oil in the forthcoming well. Bearing in mind the regional geology, I don't. Well, not yet, anyway. All the best. GP

Serenity's technical chance factor (which is usually taken as the chance of finding at least SOME hydrocarbons in a prospect) is probably similar to most North Sea appraisal wells, and is historically around 50%. However, what's probably more important to us, and what it would be helpful to know about, is i3's chance factor for COMMERCIAL success. IMO this is a more important consideration because of the local geology. The boundary fault (which lies between the Halibut Horst to the north and the Serenity prospect) is not always a sealing fault because the horst contains numerous sands in the Devonian Old Red Sandstone. If the bounding fault doesn't act as a seal along the whole length of what is a rather narrow prospect, then the oil column will probably be smaller than the mapped structural closure. And it's presumably the latter that the estimated reserves dare based on. The partners in Serenity won't know what the situation really is until they see the logs over the reservoir interval. We can only wish them the best of luck until then!

Corallian's board, and ours, seem to be taking a their time to announce the closure of the Victory sale. This isn't a big deal in itself, but I'm concerned there may be only one potential buyer out there. IMO it's likely to be Total as the owner of relatively near-by gas infrastructure. Total are a canny bunch and Victory isn't a risk-free project, particularly as it's only a one well development. I can see any buyer wanting to structure the deal so as to consist of not that much cash up front, and then a series of staged payments as various development milestones are reached One such payment might even include the actual gas production rate. Some of our keenly awaited cash might be paid well into the future, and we may not find ourselves suddenly rich. Regarding WN we can expect each horizontal well to cost not much less than £10 million (gross), including the extensive testing programme that's likely to be required. Any thoughts?

Selfish. I still have some good oil industry contact but, as I said in my Sunday 10:47 post, it's only my opinion, and anyone is free to disagree. However, I think it will be interesting to see what happens next at Parta, and preferably before the licence expires!

Thanks Selfish. As suggested, I watched the recent RBD presentation again and this time listened more carefully to what Oza said about Parta. I still can't accept the reason given for the delay there because it hasn't, IMO anyway, been caused by RBD's concentrating on monetising other assets. They are not the Parta operator, so it's more likely due to ADX concentrating on their other assets in Central Europe or, even more likely, due to the lack of any serious third party interest. It seems to me that RBD's management have ignored the last mentioned elephant in the room. I tend agree with what persimmon says below about ADX and the likelihood that this licence will expire or be relinquished before the end of the year. Another prospect will probably bite the dust, I'm sorry to say.

Hi deemule. Can you say a bit more about why you think that "Parta will kickstart again once the cash is in the bank"? We are not the operator there and, as far as I can see, the operator still has no plans for it. I think this is probably because Parta has never tested gas at anything near a commercial rate, which I think was due to reservoir damage

Hi Antc1. If you decide not to purchase any more Rockhopper shares via their open offer, all of your existing shares will remain in good standing. The only thing that will happen is that you will own a slightly smaller percentage of the company's shares than you do at the moment. Can I suggest, before you make a final decision, tat it would make sense to compare the open offer price (7p per share) with what you paid per share for those you already own. If the 7p offer price is cheaper than what you paid and you like Rockhopper's Falklands interests and -most important - you can easily afford to do it, you might want to think about adding to your holding. Not that this is in any way a recommendation. All the best, GP

IMO there's at least one good reason why the WN-B2 horizontal well won't be drilled until next year. This is because the Environment Agency requires a permit to be in place to drill with an oil-based mud (which they've not used before at WN) when drilling the Zechstein section. According to today's Community Update Note from Rathlin Energy - but not mentioned in today's RNS or the WN presentation as far as I can see - an application was made by Rathin to vary the relevant EA permit in July 2021. The EA are notoriously slow in dealing with matters like this because they've so few suitably experienced staff. Unfortunately we're in their hands over operational matters like this.

There's at least one very good reason why the WN-B2 horizontal well won't be drilled until next year. This is because the Environment Agency requires a permit to be in place to drill with an oil-based mud (which they've not used before) when drilling in the Zechstein. According to today's Community Update Note from Rathlin Energy, an application was made to vary the relevant EA permit in July 2021. The EA are notoriously slow in dealing with matters like this because they have very few suitably experience staff but very unfortunately we're in their hands over operational matters like this.

Hi Uggy. As well as using a lighter mud and / or under weight drilling at West Newton, I hope Rathlin will investigate using oil-based mud. Such a mud system would normally do much less damage to a limestone / dolomite (carbonate) reservoir like the Kirkham Abbey Formation. They would need to get EA consent to such a change, but I reckon it might be a good option to improve deliverability. I've seen it done in Canada in a carbonate / salt sequence, but does anyone know whether this is still done in the UK?