Member Info for GreyPanther

Blackhopper. Thanks for re-posting RBD’s 18 Dec 2019 RNS. It’s water under the bridge by now, and I may be reading too much into it, but I’m wondering about the bit that says: "Planning permissions in place for two additional wells, to test Kirkham Abbey formation and Cadeby formation RESPECTIVELY". Back then I thought that B-1 would test the Kirkham Abbey and B-2 would test the Cadeby. RBD’s 23 Nov and 10 Dec RNSs indicate that this didn’t happen, as B-1 and B-1Z seem to have looked at both targets. Maybe they have other plans for the - as yet undrilled - B-2 well. It might make sense to drill southwards from the well site to look for a possible extension of the favourable Kirkham Abbey trend there, rather than expending more effort on the Cadeby. Or maybe, since the Cadeby is only about 150 metres below the KA, they would always take the opportunity to drill through both of them. What do you think?

I think we'll see the B-1Z and A-2 EWTs some time before we see a new CPR (competent person's report) as they'll need the EWT results to - hopefully - improve on the numbers in the original CPR. The main reason I think the CPR will be influenced by the EWTs is because the partners will want to talk about potentially recoverable reserves, rather than merely "in-place" numbers. I would if I was even contemplating a sale.

Thanks Mirasol and CynderLad. I'm scared ****less! GP

Hi Mr.Investment. Another thing we don't know is the size or shape of the gas accumulation on the maps originally used by Deloitte to estimate the OIP and GIP numbers in Connaught’s June ’17 CPR, and which I think were increased / amended after the WN A-2 result. So we can't yet tell whether the latest well results will add to the resource / reserves, or reduce them. I sincerely hope it's the former. But we don't yet know whether the B-1 well (effectively with no substantial pay, IMO) is within the previously mapped structure, or whether B-1Z came in with the predicted reservoir thickness, so we don't know if the "in-place" numbers will go up or down.

Hello Heid. I've noticed that a lot of posts on this board are a"deramp" when someone doesn't agree with them. The technical info that I'm able to turn up, or an opinion based on previous professional experience is merely that, and is intended to add to what we've been told in the official RNS's. Just because I'm not a paid-up member of the UJO fan club, as some here seem to think is obligatory, or constantly posting irrelevant videos clips, doesn't mean I'm not quite heavily invested already. Do please keep up your well researched 3p SP predictions as, like you, I'd be delighted to see UJO with a £600 million market cap. But unlike some, I'm not holding my breath.

Hi Doorstop. UK onshore wells are expensive these days (ca. £5 million for a tested well) and one doesn't often know the extent of a field until a few wells have been drilled. It would take a very rich / confident company to drill more than one well towards where they thought the field's limit might be, and just for information. They'll want as many wells as possible to be kept as future producers. So they'll usually drill a (more or less) vertical well first, always assuming they can lease a site exactly where they want to drill. If the first well is successful, the next step is a well (or wells) deviated from the same site towards the field'simits in different directions . It looks to me as if none of the four WN wells drilled so far was drilled vertically, so perhaps site availability had something to do with it. With hindsight, it might have been better to drill the B-1Z location before B-1, but I'm sure they didn't set out to drill to a less than optimum location.

Hi Mirasol. That’s a reasonable query, but impossible to answer from what's been published so far. What KA net pay was forecast in B-1? The partners' 23 Nov press releases don’t even say what the GROSS reservoir interval was. That’s why I guessed it might have been fairly thin, or we’d have have heard more about it. The only pre-drill guide I can find is an old cross-section on Reabold’s website at: https://reabold.com/projects/west-newton-uk-onshore
I assume this was meant to be geologically accurate as I found something very similar as Fig. 6 in Connaught’s June ’17 CPR. This suggests that it was then thought the KA "Platform" reservoir would be well developed (as it was in B-1Z) and sit almost directly on top of a thick Cadeby reservoir, possibly a reef-like mound (which it clearly didn't). This diagram also shows the KA to be present in a SSE direction as “U, M and L Slope”, whatever that is, but presumably different to the platform facies. If the whole thing was fully charged, it could have contained a very substantial, continuous hydrocarbon column. I was wondering if this concept might be what Reabold's 118 metre column was based on. Unfortunately it now seems to have been contradicted by the B-1 outcome. This isn't a big surprise as I’ve never seen an onshore or offshore well where this actually happens. The intervening non-reservoir section (the Hayton Anhydrite in this part of the world) is shown on the diagram in red (with a kind of “chicken wire” ornament), but only on the flanks of the structure. The Hayton is fairly well developed locally and is never porous. It was 151 metres thick at WN-1, according to the UKOGL website, and one might reasonably expect it to thicken to the SSE but this isn’t shown on the Reabold section. It would be a geological surprise (to me anyway) to have found it as shown. Still, it's only an interpretation of a geological model. It's easy to get things slightly wrong , or even to find what you hoped for in a slightly different place. That takes a spot of good luck!

AJamesW and Medauntouchable . Please have a look at my reply below to Mirasol about faults etc. If an obstruction or permeability barrier existed which has prevented hydrocarbons from migrating towards the B-1 well, this barrier would have to be to the east or SE of B-1, as that's where the oil and gas migrated from. The barrier, if it exists, can't be completely effective as oil and / or gas have been found in all the KA penetrations so far, including the B-1 well - although there now seems to be very little of it in the Cadeby in B-1 or B-1Z. I think a more important factor is likely to be reservoir presence and its effectiveness, rather than faulting, and that applies to both the KA and the Cadeby. As one moves from onshore East Yorkshire, down the Zechstein slope into the offshore Southern Gas Basin, the Kirkham Abbey and the Cadeby become thinner and much less porous and permeable. We know this to be the case from numerous published offshore and onshore wells. In fact the Cadeby not only becomes much thinner to the east / SE, but it gradually turns from dolomite into anhydrite with almost no porosity in most wells (except at the Hewett gas field, quite a long way to the SE). I therefore think the KA is only a poor or very thin reservoir in the B-1 well (where it contains only minor gas shows) and the Cadeby is all but absent, or is a non-reservoir in the B-1 well.

Hi Mirasol. Thanks for the two UKOG Library links. Directional arrows are shown at the upper right corner of the seismic cube illustration but, not knowing where the horizontal time slice was taken, I couldn't reach any useful conclusions about possible faulting in the KA Formation at WN. Regarding the ca. 8km x 5km rectangular 3D survey area shown on the other link, I recall being told at a UJO presentation a year or so ago that almost none of the 3D data extends over the undrilled prospects. It looks to me, though, as if the survey might just have reached the eastern end of the Ellerby prospect. Ellerby lies immediately north-west of WN and, from the limited published 2D data, it seems to be separated from WN by a structural saddle, rather than a fault. The Spring Hill prospect is another matter. There is still no 3D data over it, but quite a lot of reasonable quality 2D data that one can look at on UKOGL. Spring Hill is SE of, completely separate from, and apparently smaller than WN. The big plus for me is that it's located at the eastern margin of the "platform" area, where it could presumably be fairly easily charged by hydrocarbons migrating out of the offshore Gas Basin which lies only a small distance to the east / south-east. But would Rathlin drill it without 3D data?

Hi RNST. Thanks for your comments, and I'm sure you are right about this. Unfortunately this isn't the first time that S&S have "over-egged" the WN pudding. Something similar happened in an earlier RNS where they said that the Cadeby Formation had been cored in the A-2 well, when it definitely wasn't cored there, but only in WN-1. Reabold were written to in late Aug '20 about that error and, after some delay, they issued a rather vague retraction within their 5 Oct '20 RNS. Their written response was not very reassuring as one of them suggested that their earlier RNS was "open to interpretation". Really! There was certainly a discussion about it on this board earlier. I therefore sometimes worry a bit about their grasp of technical facts. As geology is presumably not their forte, perhaps they feel that it shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of an otherwise good story. I note, however, that they had a "Qualified Person" review the latest RNS. I wonder what that cost?

Hi archie2. My simple answer would be "Yes, most probably". I think the main issues might be whether Rathlin have any 3D seismic data over these two areas, and which well would they want to drill first. I don't think they have any 3D over these prospects yet, and it's expensive and time consuming to acquire. So that would hold them up as they will probably be reluctant to drill without it. Budget-wise, I'm thinking £2 million or so for a fairly sizeable 3D programme, and £5 million plus for each well, £2 million for a side track and £1 million for an EWT. These are just my guesses, though. GP

Hi gkb47. That's a fair question, and one can only guess. I believe Rathlin wanted the drilling rig gone from the B site to carry out the B-1Z EWT first using a smaller (?work over) rig. They also said that they'd test B-1(Z) before A-2, although I'm not sure why that was. They could certainly have started the A-2 EWT while B-1 was underway from an operational point of view. However, they are quite a small company, and maybe B-1 and the B-1Z sidetrack took longer than they expected and the well suspension was getting close to Christmas when drill crews would be relictant to work over the long break; who knows? Perhaps they simply didn't want too many activities going on at once. It's not just some of our American friends who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, you know!

Yesterday’s news was highly encouraging, but IMO some of what Reabold's RNS said was slightly over the top, and a bit confusing in places. This is mainly a geological rant, so please bear with me. It’s worth comparing what UJO said, and Rathlin too, at:
www.rathlin-energy.co.uk/latest-update
with RBD’s comments. I’ll stick with UJO’s, thank you, a,s their geological insight is probably better than Reabold’s if I’m brutally honest. RBD’s wording is definitely more bullish than ours where it says “In conjunction with the results of the B1 well, the overall hydrocarbon column in the accumulation is estimated to be at least 118 metres”. UJO and Rathlin don’t mention 118 metres, and UJO rather more cautiously said: “Pending confirmation of logging and other information, in conjunction with the WNB-1 well result, there is scope for the overall hydrocarbon column to considerably exceed the current identified interval”. One can't really argue with that, but you might have expected the partners to say the same thing about such an important matter. So I suspect RBD are being a bit over-optimistic. Did they measure their 118 metres from the base of the Kirkham Abbey in the deeper B-1 well to the top of the KA in B-1Z? If that’s the case, how can they know that B-1 and B-1Z are in communication? Neither well has been tested yet, and B-1 never will be now because the lower part of that well has been abandoned. In their 23 Nov RNS about the B-1 well UJO and RBD both said “The Kirkham Abbey formation indicated a hydrocarbon charge based on wireline logs, cuttings and mud gas readings”. So perhaps there wasn’t very much KA reservoir in the B-1 well, or the partners might have said more about it. And there was no mention of oil at B-1 either, and it's the deeper well, so perhaps only gas shows were seen. I wonder how gas in the B-1 well could possibly underlie the oil in the WN hydrocarbon column if it’s all within a single reservoir. It seems to me that either B-1 and B-1Z are not in communication, or maybe the KA isn’t a good reservoir in B-1. I do realise that other interpretations of the published facts are possible, though. Any thoughts please?
Looking to the future, I think that Rathlin and partners should concentrate on the Kirkham Abbey and get some decent test results pronto from the B-1 and A-2 wells, and maybe even take another look at testing WN-1 fully, rather than being distracted by drilling yet more wells. We still need to know exactly which hydrocarbons are present, and in which well, and the rates at which these can be produced. In spite of all this moaning, though, I’m a very happy bunny!

AJamesW. I don't know how many times it's been said on this board, or will have to be said yet again, but there is nothing (other than some oil shows) in the Cadeby Fm in any WN well. All of the oil (or condensate, possibly) and the gas that has been found so far is in the Kirkham Abbey formation. Please could you stop banging on about the Cadeby as it's now irrelevant. Thanks, GP

Rathlin issued a update yesterday whichyou can find at:
https://www.rathlin-energy.co.uk/latest-update
Is it of any significance that neither Rathlin nor UJO have specifically mentioned the 118 metre hydrocarbon column which S&S have been getting so excited about?

It's not Egdon's late prelim results that worry me. I think they have several more months to issue them - probably by 30 April '21 rather than 31 Jan) thanks to Covid-19. My concern is that even with Union Jack's £ 1 million loan, the auditors won't say they are a going concern without raising even more cash.

Today’s news is highly encouraging, but I thought some of Reabold’s RNS was slightly confusing. IMO it’s probably worthwhile comparing what UJO said - and I know they only own 16.665% of WN, but their geological insight is probably as good as that of S &S’s, or even better if I’m being brutally honest. RBD’’s wording is definitely more bullish than UJO’s where it says “In conjunction with the results of the B1 well, the overall hydrocarbon column in the accumulation is estimated to be at least 118 metres”. UJO don’t exactly say this, but only: “Pending confirmation of logging and other information, in conjunction with the WNB-1 well result, there is scope for the overall hydrocarbon column to considerably exceed the current identified interval”. I would ideally have expected the partners to say the same thing about such an important matter. Perhaps RBD are being a tad more optimistic by measuring from the base of the Kirkham Abbey in the deeper B-1 well up to the top of the KA in B-1Z. But, if that’s the case, how do they know that B-1 and B-1Z are in communication? Neither has been tested yet, and B-1 never will be now because the lower part of that well has been abandoned. In their 23 Nov RNS about the B-1 well Reabold said “The Kirkham Abbey formation indicated a hydrocarbon charge based on wireline logs, cuttings and mud gas readings”. So IMO there’s probably not much KA reservoir in that well, or they would have said rather more about it. And there was no mention of oil either, and it's a deeper well, so maybe there were only gas shows in B-1. I'm therefore wondering how gas in the B-1 well could possibly underlie the WN oil and gas column. The simplest conclusion to occur to me is either that B-1 and B-1Z are not in pressure communication, or the KA isn’t a decent reservoir in B-1, although I’m sure there are other interpretations of the rather limited facts. Deeper in the well, there’s only a passing mention of the Cadeby this time, and UJO don’t even mention it. I assumed the two recent wells would have clarified matters as at least one of them was meant to have been drilled at an optimum location. So, do Rathlin, RBD or UJO now realistically think that a Cadeby reef exists near WN? Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the Cadeby element of the WN play were written off. It would certainly save us the expense of chasing what I always felt was something of a geological mirage. Looking to the future, I believe Rathlin and their partners should concentrate on the Kirkham Abbey and get some decent test results pronto from the B-1 and A-2 wells, and maybe take another look at testing WN-1 fully, rather than being distracted by drilling yet more wells. We still need to know exactly which hydrocarbons are present, and in which wells, and the rates at which these can be produced. In spite of all my moaning, though, I’m a happy bunny today.

Hi Biggleswerf. Thanks; that makes sense. Europa's results to 31 July '20 showed 92 boepd (net to them, I assume) of production from Europa’s three existing UK fields during the year. That's about 61% on top of their potential 150 bopd from Wressle, so £3 million might be possible in total.

gkb47. You're right. Neither sets of coordinates (top / bottom hole for B-1 and B-1Z) have changed on the OGA's website. Sorry for my mistake. GP.

The OGA's website has recently been updated to show the intended bottom hole location for the B-1Z Sidetrack. It's at: National Grid Easting 520134 and Northing 437482. This puts it about 0.4 km North-West of the B-site itself, about 0.75km West-South-West of the original B-1 bottom hole location, and about 2.3 km South-South-East of the successful A-2 well.