Member Info for GreyPanther

Thanks Exploration, and everyone else with something useful or interesting to add. The recent exchange of technical views has, IMO, turned into quite an interesting discussion, which makes quite a change. Presumably none of us is a Rathlin or RBD board member but I'd be willing to bet that some of those posting on this board have just as much UK experience as Rathlin's technical team have Canadian expertise.

Hi artyth & Harryshang. It's great to be on nearly everyone’s blocked list, and I rarely feel that I have to defend my fairly infrequent postings. Whether what I post is right or wrong, the blocking of views one doesn't agree with doesn't do anything except confirm a blocker's prejudices. So I still skim read the posters that I don't agree with and those that are just about incomprehensible or technically illiterate because there's often an interesting point of view in them which I don't share. And it would be nice to hear from Secret Blueprint or a reservoir engineer about my 18.44 comment / query yesterday, please!

I don't often agree with persimmon's comments, but I do worry about the length of time it's taking S&S to know (or at least to tell us) about the outcome of the EWT. Presumably the testing is still continuing, or an RNS would have to have been released by now. IMO the slow progress doesn't necessarily mean the news will be bad when it comes, but I think it's likely the flow rates haven't been exactly fabulous and / or the results are hard to interpret. It's also possible that Rathlin have encountered one of those situations where there's a lot of gas and liquids together, and they are testing a gas-condensate filled reservoir. Rather than testing an oil column, and then the overlying gas column, perhaps the tests have produced gas and liquids together. When a condensate test starts, the reservoir pressure will drop and the liquids often settle out, and this can slow or even block the gas flow completely. One way around this is to have a much gentler "draw down " so that the liquids are produced along with the gas, but much more slowly. Maybe this is what's taking all the time to get right. I'm no reservoirs engineer but if we have one on this board, does this seem a sensible possibility?

Hi Ribeye. if you look under the "Live RNS" button above you will see that UJO's interim report to 30 June '21 was published on 13 September. It contains many of the things you were asking about earlier. IMO, a little research is always a good use of an investor's time.

Persimmon. I'm pretty sure there was an RNS many moons ago saying that Rathlin's debt to Connaught had been settled. I sincerely hope that's not a lie too.

Selfish. I've known Peter Dolan for many years. In fact, we were post-grads in the same department at university, and we have worked together since then. I don't think he would have any reason to lie, whatever you may think.

Peter Dolan is indeed highly respected and he certainly is by me. I have spoken to him several times about matters completely unconnected with RBD. However, when he was asked about WN- although it was some time ago - he said that he had not done any work on it for RBD. Hence my thinking that Rathlin provide the bulk of RBD's technical advice. Heaven knows, they've certainly paid for it.

Thanks Persimmon. Well, maybe. I think Reabold are probably even more anxious than UJO to issue some news about WN. IMO, Bramhill has a better technical grasp of what's going on at WN than our two boy wonders since he's advised by Graham Bull, who seems pretty sound. I also sometimes wonder who S&S go to, other than Rathlin, for technical advice. I wonder about it even though RBD has a majority interest in / controls Rathlin because for some time I've been concerned about S&S's overall grasp of their business. Am I the only one? And I should add that I'm still a shareholder here, in spite of everything. Although I sometimes wonder why! Are we flaring yet??

Hi Persimmon. That's a slightly odd question at the end of your 11.48 post, if I may say so. Why on earth wouldn't David Bramhill have an insight into what's going on at West Newton? If a CEO doesn't have oodles of cash - and UJO doesn't, even with their new Wressle income - most of them like to grab any they can when it's offered in case of unforeseen events. Well, that's what my old boss used to say.

Hi porkpies. Why i3 in particular? Probably every company holding a UK "Promote" licence, and there are quite a lot of them, is looking for a farm-in partner. if you have the ready cash to invest, it's still a buyer's market. IMO we can only afford to do quite a small offshore UK deal, or anywhere for that matter. With our extra UK production income now at $80+ per barrel, our gross income is still only about $18,400 per day before all the operating costs and any down time are deducted. Mind you that's still the equivalent of $6.7 million gross per year.

Hi RonnieB. I've always assumed that directors aren't allowed to buy shares in their company if they know about any unreleased, price sensitive info. There won't always be sensitive info in the offing, of course, but it would explain why our directors - who must be rarely without some kind of "insider" technical or financial info - don't regularly buy more shares in their own companies.

Thanks to all concerned, there's been some very useful information exchanged here lately. II's definitely a change for the better. While I wouldn't argue with most of what's been said about Corallian's UK prospects, it's always wise to be aware what the risk factors are, even if one choses to down play them.

Hi feelinlucky. Those are worthwhile numbers for Corallian's undrilled prospects, especially those where they currently hold 100%. However, IMO some of their prospects are in places where there isn't much / any infrastructure, so they might have to be developed (if they are ever drilled successfully) as" stand alone" projects. When you were researching them, were any geological chance of success factors given to them by Coralliam? It would be good to know if they are likely to get farmed out to someone with some spare cash, as Corallian has almost none to spare.

I was very disappointed when I looked at the section in the interims which dealt with California. If my interpretation is correct, RBD were getting slightly less than 70 bopd in the first half at an average price of $60.6 per barrel. If you knock off the approx. 20% royalty at $12.1 per barrel and then the opex at $36.6 / barrel you are left with only $11.9 of operating profit per barrel. I realise the average oil prices will / should be quite a bit higher in the second half, but these numbers aren't going to se the world on fire.

I think Genghis make an excellent point with the comment "But a distraction, really, from the real issue ; IS THE WELL GOING TO FLOW". IMO Rathlin were planning ahead by submitting the application that's just been refused but, until it's proved that we can get liquids out of any of the wells currently being tested, we won't know if we will need any further well sites. But who can tell how things may turn out? If the liquids are very difficult / impossible to extract, we should still have a decent gas project which would, I think, require far fewer well sites, and probably be less expensive to develop. Gas is much more mobile than oil, so maybe the A and B well sites would be adequate for a gas project, especially if numerous horizontal wells were drilled from each of them.

It has been said on another BB - but I'm not sure where or when now - that 3 x 200 bbl oil tankers, and sometimes 2 tankers, are leaving the Wressle well site each day. Assuming they are all full of oil, that would put the average daily rate at somewhere in the 500 to 600 bopd range, always assuming that this observation can be relied on. For a Europa revenue predictions we should, IMO, ignore the 884 bopd "instantaneous" for now. It's just an indication of what the Wressle reservoir might be able to do with a facility upgrade and with all the stops out. IMO it doesn't (apparently) tell us what's being produced and paid for right now.

There's been unusually strong Egdon share trading today - at least heavy for us - at 20+ trades. The SP up by more than 7% too. Is this due only to Wressle and the much better oil price?

Hi Tovoc. I agree that the various RNSs issued by the Wressle partners are confusing. The RNS says "per day" but they will certainly have been letting it flow for many days at various choke sizes and production rates. To get their 884 bopd figure Egdon may have taken the very best hour and multiplied it by 24 to get an equivalent daily figure. What clinches it for me is the partners' reported income streams since the proppant squeeze. I assume they've been getting about / just under $70 per barrel once the reported $9 / barrel operating costs have been deducted. In each case I've come up with a number which suggests that Wressle has been averaging about 500 bopd since the PS job. There will be many days when it's more or less than 500, of course. And, if you were able to look at the actual figures, the hourly swings would be even greater than the daily ones. IMO, of course.

I'm sorry to seem negative, but it's possible that many non-technically minded investors don't know what an "instantaneous rate of over 950 barrels of oil equivalent per day" really means. It's definitely not a sustained rate of oil production, regardless of the choke size being used. It could perhaps be what's sometimes called an "absolute open flow" test". That is, no choke was used at the time. But IMO it's more likely that this high rate was the very best flow rate achieved, perhaps for an hour or so, on a particular day. So please forget about sustained oil production at 1,000 bopd, let alone 2,000 bopd. We also have to knock off the 80 boepd for the gas because it's currently being flared. Maybe it will be used for onsite electricity generation nin the near future but I don't see it being sold commerciall until there's a pipeline to take it away

Hi Tovoc. An important difference between our revenue calculations is probably that you see the reported Wressle "instantaneous flow rates in excess of 884 bopd" (about 960 boepd if the gas is included) as meaning CONTINUOUS production at this rate. Based on an analysis of partners' reported revenues since the proppant squeeze job, I think that "instantaneous" really means for a short period of time. This might be as little as an hour or two on just one day. As well as that, there's no revenue from the 80 boepd of gas. The gas is being flared because it can't currently be used. I estimate, based on the partners' reported revenues, that Wressle has averaged between 500 and 600 bopd of oil sold since the PS was carried out. There's also bound to be some down time, as Serif has pointed out. We don't yet know how much, but it would probably be wise to allow about 5% each month while Egdon are getting the optimum flow rate sorted out for Wtessle.