Member Info for GreyPanther

Apologies for re-posting this, but I haven't had any further enlightenment in the way of posters' comments, in spite of quite a few "Recommends". Presumably this was either because it was a daft idea in the first place or, more likely, it got drowned out in the to-ing and fro-ing on the board. So:
"An interesting part of the RNS that no one seems to have commented on so far said: "Analysis of the original drill stem test ("DST") in 2015 indicated a permeability of 55 millidarcies. Recent analysis by ERCE indicates a reservoir permeability of 80 millidarcies"
If the reservoir permeability has been increased by about 45%, and the skin factor has been reduced very significantly too. Is it possible that we might ultimately see an an improvement in the Ashover Grit recovery factor, and not just its oil flow rate?"
Any thoughts from a reservoir engineer type would be much appreciated. Thanks.

We haven't received an offer yet, just a proposal from Sound which was "only" 1.5p per Angus share, in shares only and without any cash element. The Angus SP is only about 1.125p today, and it has been significantly less than 1.5p ever since we learned about the proposal. IMO this is telling us something quite important. Either the market doesn't think a firm offer will emerge from Sound or, perhaps more likely, the market broadly doesn't think our shares are worth even 1.5p. Any thoughts on this topic would be much appreciated..

An interesting part of the RNS that no one seems to have commented on so far said: "Analysis of the original drill stem test ("DST") in 2015 indicated a permeability of 55 millidarcies. Recent analysis by ERCE indicates a reservoir permeability of 80 millidarcies"
If the reservoir permeability has been increased by about 45%, and the skin factor has been reduced very significantly too, is it possible that we might ultimately see an an improvement in the Ashover Grit recovery factor, and not just its flow rate? Any thoughts from a reservoir engineer type would be appreciated. Thanks.

Good Lord! I see I'm on deemule's "Green Coffin" list along with a lot of other posters. How will we survive this dreadful punishment?

An interesting part of the RNS that no one seems to have commented on so far said: "Analysis of the original drill stem test ("DST") in 2015 indicated a permeability of 55 millidarcies. Recent analysis by ERCE indicates a reservoir permeability of 80 millidarcies"
If the reservoir permeability has been increased by about 45%, and the skin factor has been reduced very significantly too. Is it possible that we might ultimately see an an improvement in the Ashover Grit recovery factor, and not just its oil flow rate? Any thoughts from a reservoir engineer type would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi Canchat. I think there's a good reason why RPS didn't say how many wells might be required for the development of WN, and it's presumably because it wasn't what they were asked to do. As VHB points out , the RNS states that all the modelled flow rates are based on one well. We don't yet know how many wells might ultimately be required for a full scale WN development. IMO that's mainly because the Rathlin and the partners don't yet know WN's full areal extent, but it does seems to be quite extensive. Onshore UK wells don't come cheap these days. I'm now a bit out of date, but I'm thinking £3 million gross for a vertical well and £5+ million gross for a horizontal well, depending on its length. So I'm hoping not too many!

I've had a look at yesterday's report on UJO by Arden and I can't see any issues that bother me. Arden are a bit out of date in my opinion since they are using only 200 bopd of net UJO production and a $65 oil price for 2022. This implies only 500 bopd of gross production if it's all coming from Wressle and we already know that figure is very conservative. So, as far as I'm concerned, UJO are absolutely fine financially, and TW is wasting his breath if this is what his so-called "research" is based on. It looks more like a piece of vindictive journalism to me, if you can call it that.

Thanks JustBe and waggy1. I'll take a look. GP

Winnifrith's views about UJO are IMO utter bo**ocks but I'd still like to know what he's banging on about so I can judge for myself. I'm too mean - or sensible if you're feeling kind - to pay TW for anything. So does anyone please have a subscription to enlighten us? From what we've been told recently by UJO, I can't see any near term funding issues, let alone the need for a further fundraising. This possible scenario seems very unlikely to me while the oil price is in the high $80's and Wressle is flowing the black stuff at a good rate. What debts can UJO possibly have, other than the well known Calmar production payment, and presumably the monthly invoices from Rathlin and Egdon? The ongoing work at WN and Wressle doesn't seems to require any wells to be drilled in the near future. Any thoughts?

I'd be far more convinced about the recent RPS modelling study if it was based on an actual, reported WN flow rate of oil and / or gas from one of the WN wells. RPS are a very well respected consultancy, but IMO they may have "over-egged" the cake a little in their report. Well, it's only an opinion!

Has a bidding war really started? Not yet, IMO, as our current 1.225p SP is about 18% below Sound's proposed 1.5p paper offer. I realise that it's likely to be an "all share" offer - that is, if a formal offer ever emerges, and isn't rejected again by our board for the (?) fourth time. I reckon we are worth much more than 1.5p, considering the present ca. 200p / Therm. Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

This morning’s RNS is very good news, but please remember it’s only a modelling study, albeit by a highly competent consultancy. I’ll be extremely happy if any improvement in test rates like those described by RPS can be achieved for a horizontal well, as compared with a vertical Kirkham Abbey well. They have indicated that about a 20 fold increase for gas and a 15 fold increase for oil / condensate are possible. This is quite reasonable, IMO, but I don’t recall 1.8 mmscfd (million cubic ft) of gas) nor 64 bopd being reported from either of last year’s EWTs. Can there have been some rather important news we missed?

Hi Selfish. I'll stand by my "possible £40k to £50k per day all in" for the EWT costs, although an EWT could cost £20k elsewhere, I suppose. My numbers came from someone who's currently involved in the UK onshore E&P business, but not Rathlin or one of their partners, and I did say "ALL IN". IMO this means it includes the operator's overheads, and the like. Obviously some operators are cheaper than others. I rather suspect that Rathlin's overheads won't be amongst the cheapest as so many of their staff are foreign nationals, such as Canadian. Let's agree to differ, shall we?

Hi riptonk. For someone to give you a reasonably accurate response about the average Wressle production rates (based on UJO's $2 million revenue to date for a 40% interest), there are several factors to be considered which we can only really "guesstimate". We'd need to know:
1: the producing up-time, as the site has been shutdown several times for various works.
2. The discount to Brent oil price, as we are selling relatively small volumes of oil, and
3. The average £/$ exchange rate for each month since mid August, the easiest bit, I reckon.
If someone could answer these, we could have a shot at it.

WN must be hurting Rathlin a heck of a lot more than us since they've had to find 66.67% of the B-2Z and A-2 extended well test costs (and I do realise that Reabold owns more than 59% of Rathlin UK, so it's not quite that simple). Based on the RNSs issued last year, I reckon the two EWTs lasted about 130 days in total. At a possible £40k to £50k per day all in, they could - very roughly - have cost about £5.2 to £6.5 million in total. That's therefore £3.47 to £4.33 million for Rathlin, and £0.87 to £1.08 million for us and UJO, which is presumably just about bearable. Let's hope so!

If you want to see company RNSs almost as soon as they're issued, you could try taking out a subscription to RNSalert, rather than relying on LSE whose performance is often "patchy". RNSalert costs me only £4.95 per year, and one can follow as many companies as wished. I've about 20 Co's on my alert list.h I'm not invested in all of them, but merely interested in what they are up to, with a view to possibly investing in them at some point.

Like kelotoni, I also appreciate RNSTranslator's contributions to this board, although I realise not everyone feels the same. IMO he has helped us understand better what UJO's current cash position is all about. That's a plus in my book since it wasn't completely obvious from the later part of today's RNS.

Thanks to all concerned for their clarifications of UJO's financial position. I must say that it all sounds pretty good to me, especially for an AIM listed O&G Co with a market cap of about £16 million. So what on earth was Winnifrith banging on about (since I can't be arsed to read his drivel, let alone pay for it) regarding UJO needing to raise money. Unless he's thinking of some other company. It would be good to know the Wressle flow rate that will go into the finalised field development plan. Do I hear 750 bopd, or maybe even more? Answers needn't be written a post card, thanks.

Hi Snaffleman. UJO issued an RNS earlier this morning and IMO it's worth a read: $2 million income since August, and they have plenty of cash in the bank. I wonder if Reabold and Rathlin are able to say the same about their cash balances

Presumably Egdon have made $1.5 million from Wressle since August as they own 30% of the field, compared with Union Jack's 40%. So, based on what UJO have said, would anyone like to have a guess at the average flow rate since then?