Member Info for GreyPanther

Adding the two much more gassy reservoirs (the Wingfileld and Pen*stone Flags) could obviously significantly increase the gas that's available. Unfortunately it 's really difficult to estimate how much more gas might become available without reliable flow rates for these reservoirs. It might even require an additional well or two, and we don't yet know from which site the most gassy reservoir, the Pen*stone, will be developed. I guess the old Broughton well site is a possibility. But even if additional gas volumes become available, they still won't be sufficient for a liquifaction plant, IMO. I think the most likely option under most scenarios is electricity generation and selling it to the National Grid.

That's an interesting idea. I believe the Ashover gas to oil ratio is only about 500 cu ft per barrel. So at 1,200 bopd we'd be producing only about 0.6 million cubic ft per day which IMO is nowhere near what would be needed for a gas liquifaction plant

Hi S740. It's an interesting idea. However, IMO there are potential difficulties in getting three or more rather different companies together to bid for a single asset / company. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I rather doubt that all of them would find Saltfleetby very interesting technically since it's all about the recompletion of a long suspended gas field. Maybe they should throw Europa into the mix, rather than Reabold? At least those three companies (Egdon, Europa and UJO) would already have one asset in common. Well, that's my tuppence worth.

RNST's posts are almost always interesting and well thought out. It's just that many other posters on this board can only appreciate a ramp-tastic post and will criticise or block those posts that don't suit their personal agenda. So I'd like to say to RNST, please keep it up. Your postings I mean, of course!

SO's description of 1,216 bopd as an optimum rate sounds really great, up to a point But it would have been even more helpful if he'd said how long he expected it to last. If it's anything like our Crosby Warren field - which is only about 10 km NW of Wressle - peak production lasted only about a year before there was a steep decline rate of about 50% over a 3 year period, as was seen in the early 1990's. IMO we need to see a significant reserve upgrade to give us a longer peak rate than Crosby Warren's.

Hi VernetLes.. Thanks for the reply. Your arithmetic certainly supports what you are saying, that 10% of Wressle could be worth £6 million. Don't forget, though, that the Ashover Grit reserves are only about 0.6 million barrels, which isn't big enough to support a 3 year plateau rate at 1,200 bopd because this would produce 1.3 million barrels over the period. By adding both the Wingfield and Pen'stone Flags oil we could perhaps get a further 1.7 million barrels with an extra well or two, but this won't happen overnight. Our adjacent Crosby Warren oil field has been producing at very low rates for the last 25 years of its 35 year life, and this is down from an initial flow rate of 700 bopd. If Wressle behaves in the same way it will have a huge impact on the net present value and, IMO, what a buyer might be prepared to pay. Even so, I feel that there's a lot of extra value to be found at Wressle, and this is why I'm invested. I'm also hoping that UJO's CPR work will confirm this with a much higher flow rate potential than at present, and with increased reserves.

Hi VernetLes. I do hope you're right as I've just increased my stake in EOG. How, though, did you calculate that 10% of Wressle was worth a minimum of £6 million? If it's just a"guesstimate" it sounds really great, but the market must be completely daft in that case. Let's hope so anyway, since the current market cap is only about £11 million

The successful Wressle appeal was against NORTH Lincs Council, who were forced to pay up when they lost it to Egdon. Yesterday's RNS indicates that the Biscathorpe appeal will be against Lincolnshire County Council, who are a completely different body. In the past LCC have been fairly sensible about oil-related matters, as for the original Bisc-2 well. But not for the Bisc-2 sidetrack, which seems a bit illogical.

There's been a bit of discussion in recent days / weeks about whether we have enough cash to pay our 16.665% share of a horizontal well at WN. I'm assuming that the "all-in" cost of such a well is likely to bet about £5 to 6 million possibly a bit more. So our share isn't very likely to come to much more than about £1 million. However, I see Rathlin as being a bit stretched, maybe, for their 66.67% share. What do other posters feel about this? Some of us have been wondering if a further fundraising is on the cards but I'm assuming - well, it's hoping actually - that it's not going to happen just yet. Any thoughts?

I too would like to see UJO drill more of their better prospects now they have a significant income. This is subject to Council and other planning constraints, of course, and to Egdon being willing, and in good shape financially too. The problem with potential dividends and share buy backs is, I think, that the company's accounts would need to show a profit and loss account surplus. We may well need a few years of Wressle income before this happens, even though 2022 itself may well be very profitable for UJO.

Hi Buzzard44. Petrichor have been Egdon shareholders for a very long time, and they currently own about 46% of the company. They have participated in most previous Egdon placings, so they seem to be very supportive, even though they don't appear to have a representative on Egdon's board. Even so, I think they are close to the Egdon management, possibly via George Yates. I assume that P's average buying price is far higher than the current 1.65p, so why would they want to dilute or get out at a loss when things are starting to happen for Egdon? The downside for us is that it makes a takeover bid pretty well impossible without P's acquiescence. There's also not much movement in the SP, presumably largely for the same reason.

Hello Heid. That's very interesting, thanks. A horizontal well won't come cheap, but it would almost certainly help with the high Waddock Cross water cut. I note that Egdon's website also says something rather different, although it probably pre-dates their AGM presentation. If so, it would be best if they removed it as it says: "This challenging field with a thin oil zone and water drive holds over 30 million barrels of oil in place and is currently shut in whilst we evaluate future development options". I would hope the people at Egdon can make up their minds what they believe the oil in place actually is. From my now ancient involvement in this part of the world I have to say that Egdon has either vastly improved their mapping of the Bridport Sandstone reservoir, or are being somewhat "creative" in their comments. Or perhaps they are, as we used to say at Company X, "drunk on their own whisky". I can recall gross Bridport reservoir volumes of the order of 50 million barrels at Waddock Cross but I'm unable to say how much of that might now be oil filled , rather than water bearing. This isn't too helpful but my excuse is that I'm now rather out of date, even though I like to follow what's happening in the onshore UK. For the record, I've small shareholdings in Egdon, Europa and in UJO. I much prefer UJO at the moment as they are well funded - IMO of course - and with a decent range of prospects if they can get them drilled ....thanks to various often unhelpful local authorities. All the best, GP.

I'd suggest looking back at the Waddock Cross history before we get too carried away. If you do, you'll see that it was abandoned, or maybe suspended for a very long time, with a water cut of more than 90%. This was after many years of on / off production by Egdon and by their predecessors British Gas, who discovered it in 1982. This, not just a shortage of cash, may explain why Egdon have struggled to get it drilled. Even so, I'd imagine that UJO will have already thought about it, and may have already turned it down. Who knows?

Hi Serif. I too like the sound of the Broughton North prospect, assuming we can ever find a suitable well site and get planning consent from North Lincs Council. These two factors aren't foregone conclusions of course. Regarding possible flow rate improvements for the two un-developed Wressle reservoirs, I can only really say that without knowing their porosities and permeabilities, or if they had serious skin factors (reservoir damage), or knowing what their productivity indexes were (that's barrels of oil per day per unit of reservoir pressure reduction) it's not really possible to comment usefully. However, the proppant squeeze of the Ashover Grit reservoir seems to have increased its flow rate ten to twenty fold, so it's definitely got to be worth considering.

In case you can't find them on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library website, here are the published 2015 test rates for the two oil-bearing reservoirs above the Ashover Grit at Wressle:
1.The Wingfield Flags were only 3 metre thick and produced 182 barrels of 39-40° oil plus 0.456 million cubic feet of gas per day. This implies a significant gas / oil ratio of about 2,500 cu. ft per barrel.
2. A 7.5 metre thick lower zone of the *****tone Flags produced 77 barrels of 33° API oil per day but apparently no gas. This seems a bit odd to me as all the other zones produced significant gas.
3. A 9 metre thick upper zone of the *****tone Flags produced 12 barrels of 35° API oil plus 1.7 million cubic feet of gas per day. This implies a very high gas / oil ratio of about 142,000 cu. ft per barrel.
These results suggest to me that producing from any of the additional zones (except maybe the lower zone of the *****tone Flags) will require additional gas handling facilities. The upper zone of the *****tone Flag at 1.7 million cubic feet of gas per day is particularly interesting as it might be worth laying a pipeline to an industrial user, rather than just burning it to generate electricity for the grid

Thank you Serif. IMO any further consent(s) that might be required, presumably from the OGA, to develop the Wingfield Flags would IMO depend on whether it's already been included in the field development plan (the FDP), or not. Could this be the "development scope" mentioned in the FinnCap note? I rather doubt it but, in any case, a finalised version of the FDP must soon be submitted to and approved by the OGA to allow Egdon to produce Wressle on a commercial basis, rather than via the current EWT / extended well test consent. I'd imagine that this might well be happening now. I recall that the published Wressle-1 log header indicates that in 2015 the Wingfield Flags were tested at 182 bopd of 39-40° oil plus 0.456 million cu. ft of gas per day, which is a lot more than the Ashover Grit produced in the 2015 test. This was long before the proppant squeeze, of course. The Wingfield test rates imply a Gas / Oil Ratio of 2,506 cu. ft per barrel, so it's much more "gassy" than the Ashover Grit oil. I therefore wonder if Egdon might prefer not to make their excess gas problems any worse by producing both oils at the same time. So I think we'll just have to wait and see how things develop.

Hi Vauch. That's absolutely correct. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the other two reservoirs are a still a very long way from being produced commercially. The Pen'stone and the Wingfield Flags were both successfully tested (presumably as short drill stem tests) back in 2015 and these two reservoirs seem to be more gas-rich than the currently producing Ashover Grit. No application has been made yet to develop them, but Egdon and the partners seem to be thinking about it. In fact, I suspect they might require additional, separate wells if they are gas-prone, or perhaps they will be developed via the Wressle-1 well, but only after the Ashover Grit has been depleted. Still, I reckon they're good to have in our back pockets.

Good Old Malcy. I'm probably being a bit picky here but, when he's not cut and pasting without any serious analysis what the operator and partners have said in their RNSs, he often makes a slightly off the wall comment. What on earth did he mean by "an immediate uplift in production"? At least he goes on to say that "The potential increase in revenue terms is substantial ". In any event, I'm sure it's extremely good news for us however Malcy choses to describe it .

Hi milnrowmug. I view the improved permeability reported by ERCE as being very positive. And thinking about what SecretBlueprint has posted about water breakthrough, I expect it will happen sooner rather than later if production is vastly increased. However, I understand that we've not yet seen any formation water. It must break obviously through at some point, but not for a long time I hope. When it does, Egdon will have to dispose of it, and water disposal can be quite costly.

Thanks SecretBlueprint. I assume there must be a link between reservoir permeability and hydrocarbon recovery factor .... maybe?