Member Info for GreyPanther

Ivans. In what way do "we know serenity is producing". It's an appraisal well we are farming into, so please don't spout this tripe.

I can't see Egdon needing another placing at the moment. With our Wressle production at maybe 600 to 800 bopd gross, or 180 to 240 bopd net to us,and an oil price well above $100, why would we need one? If the Egdon board needs extra funds for an additional field development well or two, then fair enough. But maybe they should borrow it. IMO a bank loan would probably be a better deal for them and definitely for us.

Hi chromeinvestor. Welcome, and I'm sure we all hope that Egdon will do well for you and, of course, for all long term shareholders. It's certainly looking good with Brent oil about $110 today, but this comes at a completely unacceptable cost to many, especially to Ukraine. One other thing, and I hope I won't sound too unkind here, but wouldn't have been a good idea to do your research (or ask others to do it for you) BEFORE buying your shares. All the best.

Hi Wiltshireman. Thanks for your interesting write up on the Wytch Farm and Kimmeridge areas. I worked in this area in the 1990’s and I'm still interested in it, so I'd like to add a few words, if you don’t mind. It may sound odd, but the Kimmeridge oil field doesn't actually produce from the KImmeridge Clay, but from deeper down in the Lower Jurassic. Both the oil field and the KImmeridge Clay get their names from the village of Kimmeridge. Some of the shale at KImmeridge Bay can be made to burn if you make it hot enough, but I've never seen any oil seeps there. However, seeps are seen farther west at Osmington Mills and Mupe Bay. It’s now thought that the oil found in the Kimmeridge and Wytch Farm oil fields was sourced much deeper than the Kimm. Clay, in the Lower Jurassic. The Liassic source rocks occur in the offshore area, where they are mature and have generated large volumes of oil. This is in contrast to the North Sea, where the KImmeridge Clay is the main source rock for the oil as it’s much more deeply buried than on the Dorset coast.

Good point, Serif. IMO there are a few tunes that might be played with variable choke sizes etc to maximise the daily production rate, and field revenue of course. It would be good to know the actual number of oil tankers leaving the Wressle site each day, rather than my just guessing. If it's about three, then we are seeing an average production rate closer to 600 bopd. But if it's nearer four, then 800 bopd is more like it. Time will tell, I'm sure.

I've just posted what follows on Egdon's LSE board. I'd be really grateful if someone could share what they knw about Wressle's "sunk costs" / capex to date. Thanks, GP.
"I'm not certain that a sustained 1,000 bopd rate is all that conservative, although it would be very, very nice for the Wressle partners and their shareholders. But, even if the average rate turns out to be only 650 bopd but is sustainable for several years, I'll be more than happy. In any event, we can expect to know a lot more about the plateau rate and the length of the field life when Egdon's development plan is finally approved by the OGA. At a very conservative (IMO) production rate my arithmetic looks like this using the assumptions shown:
650 bopd x Egdon's (or Europa's) 30% = 195 bopd net
Operating Efficiency about 90%, say 330 days production pet year
Average oil price: An optimistic $90 per barrel less operating costs of (say) $10 per barrel = $80 per barrel. This comes to $5.148 / £3.84 million per year, and I'll call this as the post- Opex net income. I've no idea about the sunk capital cost (Capex) to date and it's presumably still being incurred. However, this will presumably get taken care of in the next annual accounts under the Depletion Costs."
It's interesting to note that £3.84 million is about 21% of our current £16 million market cap.

I'm not certain that a sustained 1,000 bopd rate is all that conservative, although it would be very, very nice for the Wressle partners and their shareholders. But, even if the average rate turns out to be only 650 bopd but is sustainable for several years, I'll be more than happy. In any event, we can expect to know a lot more about the plateau rate and the length of the field life when Egdon's development plan is finally approved by the OGA. At a very conservative (IMO) production rate my arithmetic looks like this using the assumptions shown:
650 bopd x Egdon 30% = 195 bopd net
Operating Efficiency about 90%, say 330 days production pet year
Average oil price: An optimistic $90 per barrel less operating costs of (say) $10 per barrel = $80 per barrel. This comes to $5.148 / £3.84 million per year, and I'll call this as the post- Opex net income. I've no idea about the sunk capital cost (Capex) to date and it's presumably still being incurred. However, this will presumably get taken care of in the next annual accounts under Egdon's Depletion Costs. It's interesting to note that £3.84 million is only 24% of Egdon's current £16 million market cap.

Hi VernetLes. The gas produced will always depend on the oil production rate, whatever it may be, and in proportion to the GOR.

It's maybe worth saying that at about 650 barrels of oil / day, and a GOR of 550 cubic feet / bbl, Wressle is currently producing about 357,500 cu. ft of gas each day. This is about 3,575 Therms which, at the current NBP (National Balancing Point) price of £2.20 per Therm, is worth maybe £7,865 gross per day. To put it another way, at 6,000 cu ft to one barrel of oil in energy terms, it's the equivalent of about another 60 barrels on top of the 650 barrels of oil per day,

IMO the Ashover Grit GOR won't have changed a lot over time. For example, Egdon's 21 Sept RNS allows the GOR to be calculated at 543 cubic ft per bbl and their 16 Dec AGM RNS 3 months later indicates a very similar 553 cubic ft per bbl. Based on the 2014/15 DST results I've also estimated a Wingfield Flags GOR of 2,505cubic ft per bbl so it's definitely quite a bit higher. What we don't yet know is how much gas is being flared each day. It's presumably all of the produced gas it at the moment.

Hi VenetLes. I'm sorry I missed your Tuesday post as I don't look in here every day. If nottoo late in the day to be any help, my thoughts are below. I must stress that I've no inside track here, just some rather ancient onshore experience.
1. I reckon an uplift to the Ashover Grit reserves must be on the cards. But will it be a big one? The excellent flow rates seen during the EWT may indicate that the recovery factor will turn out to be better than expected, even if the oil in place may not increase by much. There are also some other thinner, apparently oil-bearing sands which were not DST'd back in 2014 /15. These might possibly get a second look in the CPR but please don't hold your breath as Gaffney Cline are quite a cautious consultancy, IMO.
2. Regarding the Wingfield Flags: Maybe a proppant squeeze won't be needed if it's put on flow. Commingling with the Ashover must be a possibility but do bear in mind the original Wingfield DST produced 182 barrels of oil and 0.456 million cubic feet of gas / day, so the GOR (gas to oil ratio) is a lot higher than the Ashover, but not nearly as high as the P'stone Flags. This might be an argument against commingling as it seems that Egdon are having some problems handling the gas from the (apparently) much lower GOR Ashover reservoir. In any event, I'm hoping that we'll hear more soon. GP.

Cloves. I will own up, as it's a slightly embarrassing situation. I recently found a few more RBD shares tucked away in an account I'd forgotten about. So I've still got a few millions, but not too many to worry about over-much. Does this allow me to post here, your majesty?

No one has commented yet about the 2 month extension to the date for completion of the Daybreak agreement. The extension to 29 April suggests to me that Daybreak might be struggling to raise $2.5 million, a relatively small amount needed to see the deal completed. Should we be concerned? What little I have read about Daybreak doesn't give me an warm feeling about their fundraising capacity, even with WTI crude well over $90 in the USA. Any thoughts?

This is only a repeat of what I posted on the EOG board earlier, so sorry if you've seen it before:
UJO have today reported Wressle income of $3 million since the proppant squeeze, with the current production rate ranging “from 600 to in-excess of 700 barrels of oil per day”. This leaves me wondering why neither Egdon nor Europa thought it worth announcing their earnings as we should have earned 75% of what UJO have achieved, or about $2.25 million / £1.67 million over the same period. IMO this is slightly earlier than expected, so you might have thought it was worth an RNS. I’ve done some sums which contain quite a few assumptions. What follows is, of course, dependent on the actual oil price received, but let's assume it’s fairly close to the Brent price. I think this is likely to be the case because it’s a similar quality oil. Brent is (or was) 38 degrees API and Wressle’s Ashover oil is 39 / 40 degrees API. It’s also likely that our oil will be sold at a small discount to Brent because it's being delivered to the refinery in fairly small, ?200 barrel tanker loads. But, as it’s a bit lighter, presumably it’s slightly more valuable to the refiner, Phillips. We also don’t know how much down-time there’s been between UJO’s 11 January RNS announcing $2 million and now but, during this time, I reckon Brent oil has averaged about $92 per barrel. From these figures I’ve calculated an AVERAGE of 258.8 barrels of oil per day net to UJO, or 647 bopd for the whole field since 11 January. That’s 194 barrels of Wressle oil per day net to us. It will be more than this if the average price received was less than $92, or if the time taken was less than 42 days due to well site down-time, for example. However, this seems about right as there have been reports of three tankers per day, and occasionally four, leaving the Wressle site. Any thoughts or comments welcomed!

UJO have today reported Wressle income of $3 million since the proppant squeeze, with the current production rate ranging “from 600 to in-excess of 700 barrels of oil per day”. This leaves me wondering why neither Egdon nor Europa thought it worth announcing their earnings as we should have earned 75% of what UJO have achieved, or about $2.25 million / £1.67 million over the same period. IMO this is slightly earlier than expected, so you might have thought it was worth an RNS. I’ve done some sums which contain quite a few assumptions. What follows is, of course, dependent on the actual oil price received, but let's assume it’s fairly close to the Brent price. I think this is likely to be the case because it’s a similar quality oil. Brent is (or was) 38 degrees API and Wressle’s Ashover oil is 39 / 40 degrees API. It’s also likely that our oil will be sold at a small discount to Brent because it's being delivered to the refinery in fairly small, ?200 barrel tanker loads. But, as it’s a bit lighter, presumably it’s slightly more valuable to the refiner, Phillips. We also don’t know how much down-time there’s been between UJO’s 11 January RNS announcing $2 million and now but, during this time I reckon Brent oil has averaged about $92 per barrel. From these figures I’ve calculated an AVERAGE of 258.8 barrels of oil per day net to UJO, or 647 bopd for the whole field since 11 January. That’s 194 barrels of Wressle oil per day net to us. It will be more than this if the average price received was less than $92, or if the time taken was less than 42 days due to well site down-time, for example. However, this seems about right as there have been reports of three tankers per day, and occasionally four, leaving the Wressle site. Any thoughts or comments welcomed!

Hi Tovoc. I think Europa's share of earnings would be in US Dollars, rather than Pounds. Still pretty decent though, since$2.25 million is about £1.65 million for us.

Thanks Selfish. You may well be right.

Hi Uggy. I agree with you about WN needing a successful test from either one of our existing wells or, more likely, from a new horizontal well before anyone will buy it, but I suppose a farm-in candidate might still turn up. This would be fine with me on the right terms, so long as they brought some further technical and commercial experience to the table. I don't know if it's just me, but did this morning's interview seem a bit light on real news to anyone else? As far as I can recall, almost everything we heard from S&S today has already been announced in fairly recent RNSs.

Hi Exploration. It's good to hear from you. In case you missed it, there's an interesting summary of the most recent (2 Dec '21) meeting of the WN Community Liaison Committee on Rathlin's website at:
https://www.rathlin-energy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Rathlin-Energy-UK-Limited-West-Newton-Community-Liaison-Committee-Notes-02-December-2021.pdf
All the best, GP

Sorry, a case of thick fingers with my last attempt at posting..
I'm no longer a shareholder here, so there's not really a lot of point in my posting on this BB. However, I still look in from time to time, and at UJO's board, if only to confirm how toxic these two LSE sites have become. To answer your query on WN testing costs, i reckon you're in the right ball park. I'd say anywhere between £40k and £50k per day. The higher number should include Rathlin's overheads because I understand they are quite expensive as UK onshore operators go.