Member Info for GreyPanther

"Unimpeded and flow rate should be 900 bopd. maybe as high as 1500" IMO that'scomplete b*ll*x

Hi Ezhik, We can only guess why Beacon decided that they needed a pump before they started drilling. But perhaps my last comment makes better sense now: " I've been told that the well logs aren't all that good, in spite of what BCE has said earlier, but that's only industry gossip". Cheers, GP

Hi Ezhik. I'll try to be brief as it's quite a complex subject. We've been told the reservoir pressure is 172 bar which is about 2,500 psi. This suggests, if the porosity and permeability are good, that the Schwarzbach-2 well ought to flow naturally without using a pump. However, I suspect, when the well was first drilled, that they had to use a heavy drilling mud at some point because of operational problems. This is why drilling fluids and / or solids got into the formation and plugged off much of the porosity. When the well was first completed I expect the operator will have used a much lighter completion fluid, such as brine, so the reservoir pressure should have been greater than the pressure exerted by the completion fluid, thus allowing the well to flow naturally. They only seems to have produced about 40 bopd, and that was with a beam pump. However, it should do much better if there's no formation damage, and that is what the sidetrack is trying to achieve. However, I believe no cores were taken in the original well, and probably none in this sidetrack, so they don't yet really know what the permeability is. The 900 bopd that's been suggested with an ESP (electrical submersible pump) is really only an educated guess. IMO 250 bopd would be very acceptable and would be a 6 times improvement. Also, the natural flow - if there is any - should give them a more reliable idea about the permeability. But I'm still not expecting 900 bopd. I've been told that the well logs aren't all that good, in spite of what BCE has said earlier, but that's only industry gossip.

It's very quiet here without "You Know Who". Don't you love it!

Thanks for that Hepseal. However, as a former oil geologist, I remain slightly suspicious of Appel's statement "the natural porosity, i.e. the permeability of the rock, is good". They apparently didn't take a core in the original well so, while the logs can tell them whether the porosity is good, they don't yet know the reservoir permeability. And, in the absence of core data from the well, they won't know this until they get a decent flow rate.

Hi there HereforHemo. As you've said, we're told that the reservoir is big, and we know that some oil has already flowed. But I'd still really like to know why we didn’t get a better result from the jetting operation, other than the presence of fairly deep reservoir damage. IMO, a possible answer is that the reservoir isn't anywhere as good as we’ve been told by our board. We were also told some time ago that both the PBS and Meletta Schichten reservoirs were of decent quality. Yet there’s not been a mention of the Meletta reservoir since then. So I do hope that I'm not being over- negative about the well and sidetrack. But I'm beginning to fear the worst. Let's hope I'm wrong.

In my opinion this is a pointless RNS. What's the point of a carbon intensity study for a discovery that has not yet tested at anything like a commercial rate, and which Rathlin, the operator, apparently can't afford to appraise?

There are still several things that puzzle me about our well. My original concern was about the sand jetting operation. It has now been overtaken by the current sidetrack operations but I’ve been told by people that know about these things that sand jetting can penetrate more than a metre into the formation, and that this is considerably greater than the depth of most reservoir invasion zones. So how come we didn’t get a better result from the jetting operation? A possible answer is that, in reality, the reservoir isn't as good as we’ve been told by Beacon's board. We were also told by the board some time ago that both the Pechelbronner Schichten (PBS) and the Meletta Schichten reservoirs were present and were of decent quality. Yet there’s not been a mention of the Meletta reservoir since then. I'm sorry to sound so negative about the well and this sidetrack, but I fear the worst. Let's hope I'm barking up the wrong tree!

Heid is absolutely right to say "I have every right to voice my opinion here". But 275 times in only 30 days seems to me to be over-doing it a bit.

Hi itsawrap. I it reasonable to deduce from your post that the two Reach wells that are no longer producing were yielding only 6 bopd between them? In that case perhaps they we no longer economic , or were only being pumped from time to time. So what are you hoping for from the Andrews1-17 well? I'm guessing that we might be lucky and see 100 to 150 bopd. Of the higher figure UJO's 45% share would be 68 bopd and probably be more profitable per barrel than Wressle is when one allows for the exorbitant UK Energy profits Levy. All the best, GP

Hi there Canchat. I'll happily post here again as soon as there's something worth commenting on such as the Andrews well flow rates. Like you, I've become extremely tired of the daily cat fighting. So why can't people give it a rest? Please do, particularly Heid, as it only stirs up a lot of other equally pointless posts. Over and out .... for now!

I'll be very happy to get a 0.25p dividend on an AIM listed share with a still rather low 24p price. That's a yield of 1.04%, and there could even perhaps be an interim 2024 divi later in the year. Who knows? But IMO it's a sensible decison by UJO's board based on the company’s likely income and cash requirements.

Hi milnrowmug. I tooam hoping that UJO will turn out to be a far better than average AIM oiler and, IMO, it's doing all the right things. Assuming the board decides to announce a divi fairly soon, perhaps along with the annual results, what do you think the right yield is for a £25 million mkt cap company? IMO it should only be about 1% or so. All the best, GP

Ditching Stifel Nicolaus as joint broker lookst o me like re-arranging the deckchairs on the sinking Titanic!

With regard to Heid's "I want 0.6 (pence) or higher", I completely disagree and, if I'm honest, I think she's barking up the wrong tree. It would represent a yield of 2.5% on a share with a 25p SP which is almost unheard of on AIM. I would far prefer to see any "surplus" cash invested in attractive drilling opportunities which should, in the event of success, soon be reflected in a much higher SP.

Why bother voting in another pointless Heid poll? We'll either know tomorrow ...... or not

Hi Uggy. I certainly hope they get round to drilling at WN this year. For a day or two I've been sitting on a VERY small profit here. But not any longer!

Hi ChristineTaylor5. There are incomplete log "header" details, and no well name showing on that log on Twitter / X. I can see it's from the right county(Seminole) in Oklahoma, but it's probably from a much older well. IMO it's much too soon for the Andrews-1 well logs to be published.

Hi Lamoroma24. The forthcoming dividend is 13.2p per share and is due to be paid on 9th May. The shares have been ex-dividend since late March, so buying them now won't get you that particular divi. However, if you buy by mid September you'll be eligible for the next one after that which was 6.5p last year and was paid on 3 November '23. I hope that helps.

Are there any guesses about UJO's opening price on Monday? There was a large (£30k) purchase at 20.9p just before the market closed on Friday, so I can see there being significant interest tomorrow, especially if we get a positive RNS from Oklahoma. Fingers crossed!