Member Info for GreyPanther

This may be of interest to some holders as it indicates some continued interest in Irish gas:
"Equinor ASA today announced it has entered into an agreement with Vermilion Energy Inc for the sale of Equinor’s 36.5% non-operated interest in the Corrib gas project, Ireland, for $434 million plus up to $25 million of contingent payments.
The transaction sees Vermilion, the current operator of Corrib, become a 56.5% owner in the project and adds c. 23 mmboe of 2P reserves and c. 7.7mboe/d of production in 2022. The Corrib gas production features best-in-class ESG credentials with Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions intensity of 4.2 kgCO2e/boe.
As part of the transaction, Equinor will hedge approximately 70% of the production for 2022 and 2023, allowing Vermilion to lock in the majority of the asset’s cashflow for the next two years during a period of unprecedented high European gas prices. Vermilion will also pay 12.5% of the realised revenue to Equinor if 2022 NBP gas prices are above 102 p/therm, capped at $25 million."

I don't think there are any serious issues at Wressle right now. We know all about the earlier problems caused by the UK's archaic planning process of course. But there have been fairly regular reports from residents that 3 oil tankers leaving the site most days, and there are occasionally four, appaently. Assuming these are relatively small 200 barrel tankers, this suggests to me that Wressle has been producing at about 600 / 700+ bopd lately, and that can't be bad. If there have been any further serious delays, wouldn't we have been told in an RNS?

Drill or Drop has reported today that Egdon has given formal notice to North Lincs Council that it intends to apply to extend the consent period for a third time".

120 million cubic meters of gas per day at 35.315 cubic feet per cubic metre = 4.2378 billion cubic feet / day; say 4Bn between friends. This can't be right, can it?

Hi Jimmybob. Thanks for that. I was surprised to learn that York's offshore wells are still putting out 120 million cubic meters a day. This is the equivalent of more than 4 billion cubic feet per day. Could you please check your source to conform that this is correct? Thanks, GP

This was posted on Europa's LSE board today:
"Mark Abbott updated the group on recent activity.
MA – It is a couple of months since our last update. Oil production has been ongoing since the last meeting. There have been no H&S issues on site and we are exceeding expectation on production. We have not been able to flow test at a maximum rate as we are still using test equipment, but during September the well reached a rate of 884 barrels per day and c.0.5 million cubic feet of gas per day. The gas management is causing some issues as the installed flare is not performing as expected. The choke has been adjusted to reduce the oil flow through the separator to ensure effective incineration of the gas in the flare.
We are installing some pressure gauges next, so there might be a crane on site associated with this and a wire line truck. Modifications to the site’s production facilities will include the installation of a customised new separator, bund and associated pipework. The well is free flowing and seeing strong pressure from the reservoir. We have received planning permission for a gas engine which would enable us to convert the gas to electricity and export it from the site. We are also looking at more environmentally advantageous solutions, for example, piping into the local gas grid – without having to incinerate it.
We will close the well down while we install the new production equipment, and as such there will be more people and equipment on site. We’ll also be installing some insulation to the surface pipework to enable the oil to flow more easily in colder temperatures.
We’re aiming, in around 6 months, to get automated systems in place to allow the site to be manned during the day only and automated for the rest of the time.
To date, we have not seen any produced water which we might expect in due course, and everything is working well and ahead of our expectations.
We understand that a question has been raised about an NGO representative going around oil and gas sites filming for methane emissions. Egdon’s security guard saw somebody filming and asked them to move on as they were trespassing on the famer’s land. Subsequently the NGO reported that there was some methane seen to be coming from the degasser tank. We do monitor and record on an hourly basis and as we see how the gas is released from the oil as it decompresses. The OGA gives consent for venting etc and there is a small amount which is permitted. Egdon’s emissions are within the limits of its permit.
JS ran through the question that had been received from Terry Howe: “Could Egdon clarify why unofficial methane monitoring was barred and will Egdon be undertaking its own testing (methane)?”.
MA: We have not barred anybody, but somebody was trespassing so they were asked to move on. The second part was to ask if we monitor emissions, and the answer is, yes we do, Egdon has a responsibility to undertake this."

These notes have been posted on Europa's LSE Board about the 9 Nov Wressle CLGL Meeting:
"Mark Abbott updated the group on recent activity.
MA – It is a couple of months since our last update. Oil production has been ongoing since the last meeting. There have been no H&S issues on site and we are exceeding expectation on production. We have not been able to flow test at a maximum rate as we are still using test equipment, but during September the well reached a rate of 884 barrels per day and c.0.5 million cubic feet of gas per day. The gas management is causing some issues as the installed flare is not performing as expected. The choke has been adjusted to reduce the oil flow through the separator to ensure effective incineration of the gas in the flare.
We are installing some pressure gauges next, so there might be a crane on site associated with this and a wire line truck. Modifications to the site’s production facilities will include the installation of a customised new separator, bund and associated pipework. The well is free flowing and seeing strong pressure from the reservoir. We have received planning permission for a gas engine which would enable us to convert the gas to electricity and export it from the site. We are also looking at more environmentally advantageous solutions, for example, piping into the local gas grid – without having to incinerate it.
We will close the well down while we install the new production equipment, and as such there will be more people and equipment on site. We’ll also be installing some insulation to the surface pipework to enable the oil to flow more easily in colder temperatures.
We’re aiming, in around 6 months, to get automated systems in place to allow the site to be manned during the day only and automated for the rest of the time.
To date, we have not seen any produced water which we might expect in due course, and everything is working well and ahead of our expectations.
We understand that a question has been raised about an NGO representative going around oil and gas sites filming for methane emissions. Egdon’s security guard saw somebody filming and asked them to move on as they were trespassing on the famer’s land. Subsequently the NGO reported that there was some methane seen to be coming from the degasser tank. We do monitor and record on an hourly basis and as we see how the gas is released from the oil as it decompresses. The OGA gives consent for venting etc and there is a small amount which is permitted. Egdon’s emissions are within the limits of its permit.
JS ran through the question that had been received from Terry Howe: “Could Egdon clarify why unofficial methane monitoring was barred and will Egdon be undertaking its own testing (methane)?”.
MA: We have not barred anybody, but somebody was trespassing so they were asked to move on. The second part was to ask if we monitor emissions, and the answer is, yes we do, Egdon has a responsibility to undertake this."

Based on Union Jack's 27 October RNS stating their US$1 million of net revenue generated since the 19 August test re-commencement (so since the proppant squeeze), Europa's revenue was presumably $750,000 for the same period. If you divide this by about 70 days, you get $10,714 per day. I know this is only an average, but it strongly suggests that at (say) $75 / barrel, we've been paid for about 143 bopd net to Europa's 30% share. If you gross this up, the average flow rate since 19 August can only have been about 476 bopd. We don't yet know how much down time there has been, but we have the reported 884 bopd rate plus the gas at 80 boepd to go on. The difficulties in estimating our cumulative revenue and the daily flow rates are obvious, but both must be pretty good.

"What activity is taking place right now at West Newton?" I suspect there is very little actually happening on the ground.

Thank you Heid. Why wouldn't I be polite? IMO this should apply to all posters, although I’m frequently disappointed here. But then, I'm a bit long in the tooth! Regarding your perfectly reasonable "flying through 500 bopd", when UJO issued their 27 October $1 million revenue RNS I found it highly encouraging, although I would have liked some more precise info about actual production rates, of course. So I tried analysing UJO’s figures and I posted my thoughts on Egdon's board since I'm a holder there too. I came to the conclusion that the field had been averaging around 490 bopd since the squeeze job. UJO’s RNS was presumably written the day before 27 Oct, so I reckoned it probably included their revenue up to the previous day, and this came to about $14,706 per day over the 68 days. Rather obviously, if Wressle had been shut in for any of that time, then the figure would have been higher on an actual producing day basis. Perhaps more important for shareholders, what oil price have we been getting? Looking at the Brent oil price graph, and assuming we aren’t suffering too big a discount to it, I estimated that we probably averaged about $75 per barrel over the 68 days. It was probably less than this in August, and quite a bit more in October. This indicated to me that our 40% share of production had averaged about 196 barrels per day over the period. By grossing this up from our 40% to 100% I calculated an average rate of 490 bopd for the whole field. It could obviously have been more than this if the average price received was lower than $75. So how does this compare with UJO’s quote “Current daily production figures well in excess of ...... 500 barrels of oil per day from the Ashover Grit reservoir”. Well, quite a few producing days - but presumably not all of them- must have had much better production rates than 490 bopd, especially if there was limited or no production on some days. I’m not sure if this helps, but it was fun doing it. Regards, GP

Heid. I'm extremely happy that Wressle is doing well and I'm also perfectly able to do my own research. In fact, I had already done so by reading all the relevant RNSs from Egdon and their partners, and by listening to Mark Abbott's recent interview. I have a high regard for MA but you and I obviously interpret things slightly differently. So, to return my question: where have you seen, or on which published figure(s) have you based your 1,100 bopd estimate? Thanks.

Hello Heid. How did you calculate your 1,100 bopd for the Ashover Grit, or is it merely a slightly optimistic guess? It would be great, of course, but I can't see any real evidence for it just yet. The only info we have so far for such a high rate is the 884 bopd (plus 80 boepd of gas) reported as the "instantaneous" flow rate. IMO this was probably recorded on a particularly good day, or maybe only for an hour or two.

Hi balancedviewer / Mrasol. I looked at the 22 Feb presentation but, IMO, it wasn't much help, so I'd prefer to wait and see what effect, if any, the new east-west seismic line will have on the structural interpretation. It may have no significant structural effect, but it will at least join up the three or four north-south "dip" seismic lines so they can be more reliably correlated. And as for the similarity between the consultant's interpretation and Angus's new one, this is quite comforting of course, but it doesn't prove anything if they are using the same depth conversion model in those areas where there's no well control.

Hi balancedviewer. My last message went before I had finished pontificating, so here it is again: In all honesty, I haven't spent any time until now thinking about Lidsey or the re-mapping exercise for a number of reasons. Until we hear about - or even better see - the new maps, we don't have any useful information on its additional potential. And, once Angus get their new maps, there may be no further upside, of course. I haven't seen anything very enlightening about Lidsey in a recent Q&A session, but I might have missed something. Maybe more importantly, with Lidsey's location near Bognor, it will be very difficult to drill any further wells, or even try for a sidetrack, as Egdon found our recently regarding their Biscathorpe discovery. It may not be too bad on technical grounds of course but, bearing in mind it's location , I'm not holding my breath for significant additional income. That's unless the oil price stays well above $80, of course.

Hi balancedviewer. In all honesty, haven't spent any time until now thinking about Lidsey or the re-mapping exercise for a number of reasons. IMO, until we hear about - or even better see - the new maps, we don't have any information on its additional potential. And, once Angus have the new maps, there maybe none, of course. I haven't seen anything very significant about Lidsey in any recent Q&A session, but I maight have missed something. Maybe more importantly, because of its location near Bognor, it may be diffiult to idrill any further wells, or even sidetrack, as Egdon found our recently reharrding their Biscathorpe discovery It may not be so on technical grounds but, bearing i Mind it's location in

Hi Balanced Viewer / Mirasol. I'm a long retired geologist. It wasn't BP, but one of their smaller partners in the Wytch Farm field.

It's not very difficult to get a sidetrack well wrong from a geological point of view, even if you have all the existing well data, as Angus must do. My posting many months ago - not now sure when it was - suggested that if you penetrate the reservoir near an existing well, where you will have a much better understanding of the thicknesses of the individual producing sands, the more likely it is that these sands will have been partially depleted, and will therefore have lower reservoir pressures than wished. To encounter an area with virgin reservoir pressure, Angus will have to side track away from the existing or abandoned wells, and this is where were they may run the risk of a geological surprise, and not always a good one. Believe me, I've done that a few times.

Thanks Serif. I've been wondering recently about the gas / oil ratio at Wressle. I'm assuming the 884 bopd and 80 boepd (say 480,000 cu. ft) of associated gas must have been recorded at the same time. This implies a GOR of 543 cu. ft / barrel, which isn't very high for the onshore UK, as far as I can recall. So perhaps Egdon are already very confident about getting a sustainable oil production rates significantly higher than 500 bopd. If not, pmaybe they wouldn't be so keento find a use for it, not that anyone wants to waste money. Or maybe, with COP 26 going on, they won't want to be seen doing a lot of gas flaring or even unburnt gas venting. What do you think?

Hi Serif. Thanks for that. I've googled, as you suggested, and I agree that it's a technical flow rate. What I was banging on about, but perhaps not very well expressed, was whether it was short- lived or not. Some posters seem to think that Wressle has been doing 884 bopd plus 80 boepd of associated gas ever since the proppant squeeze, and that can't be right. Egdon will presumably have been looking at the flow rates on a whole range of choke sizes for different lengths of time, so as to see what the best sustainable production rate is. I'm sure we'd agree that this is what the EWT is for. All the best, GP

Egdon's preliminary results for the year ending 31 July '21 are out today. Production was down from 145 boepd last year, to 90 boepd this time, a decrease of 38%. Egdon say this is because the Wressle proppant squeeze was delayed. Presumably the well was producing at a fairly low rate (I think 80 to 100 bopd gross, or 24 to 30 bopd net to Egdon) on test before the PS job. What they haven't told us - yet again - is what Wressle is doing right now, and I don't know why they are being so coy. They've trotted out their "constrained instantaneous" flow rate of up to 884 bopd etc. mantra. This is again without making it clear what they mean by "instantaneous". My dictionary isn't much help either. It could mean that the 884 bopd flow rate happened instantaneously (when the choke was first opened) or it flowed at this rate for only a fairly short period of time. I've tried to analyse UJO's recently reported $1,000,000 of revenue and came to the conclusion that the field has been doing around 500 bopd on average since the PS. Others probably won't agree, but I think the reported 884 bopd was for quite a short period of time. Either that, or my arithmetic is wildly out.