Member Info for GreyPanther

Hi Armani84. It's an interesting idea, but how will "Edr and Ujo could take wressle off edgon"? If you meant Europa and UJO, I wouldn't be at all surprised if UJO wanted more of Wressle, but I was led to believe that Europa were also a bit short of cash. Maybe they aren't as desperate as Egdon, though

Hi RNST. Egdon's late results, even if possibly awaiting first Wressle oil (if we're charitable) and the going concern and funding issues worry me considerably too. I'm surprised that we haven't had a recent Wressle update from EDR. Frankly, I'm now getting quite twitchy!

Thanks hopingforbags. I'm not currently a Twitter aficionado, but perhaps I should be so I don't miss any hidden gems! All the best, GP

Hi Rubey. I too am expecting much better news from the B-1Z sidetrack as it seems - to me anyway - to be situated in a much better position, some way west of the easterly slope down to the Southern Gas Basin, so it should find a much better developed Kirkham Abbey section. At least, that's what the published seismic seems to suggest. However, I'm not sure I agree with your view that they found pretty much what they were expecting in the B-1 well, as RBD and Rathlin previously thought it was an optimum position for the Cadeby and presumably not too bad for the KA either. I think the RNS would have been much more useful if we had been told what the two thicknesses were, but they didn't give them. I suspect this goes a long way towards an explanation of what happened to our SP recently and to UJO's too.

Hi AJamesW. How (or why) do you dream this misinformation up? You have confused what you think was seen in the Cadeby formation with what was actually found in the Kirkham Abbey reservoir in the WN A-2 well. A Cadeby core was taken in the WN-1 well but, as far as I can see, it hasn't been flow tested anywhere yet. So it can't possibly have "flowed in limited from the Cadeby Gas and OIL contact zone, when they expected from the logs condensate and abandoned EWT because of the oil contamination" as you rather oddly put it. While this may be your view , it's most definitely not what was reported in any previous UJO RNS. We can expect to get another look at the Cadeby in the current B-1Z sidetrack well as it's only about 100 to 200 metres deeper than the Kirkham Abbey, although I'd suggest that you don't hold your breath. The KA is where most of the action will be focussed - in my opinion of course. And I'd also suggest that the sidetrack can't possibly start in the "lower portion of the KA" but will kick off much further up the original hole so they can sidetrack several hundred metres away from the previous TD. Good luck anyway.

Thank you Alexios. it's nice to see that someone is able to find helpful info on the OGA's website.

Hi Blackhopper. There can't now be a "flow test with the coming EWT on B1" as the down hole part of B-1 has been abandoned to do the B-1Z sidetrack. I'm wondering, though, whether the B-1Z sidetrack might now be a replacement for the B2 well as it would probably cost them only about £2 million, compared with about £5 million for an entirely new well. They could even drill a horizontal / lateral well from the B-1Z sidetrack if the KA looks good there, in order to do a test over a much longer reservoir section.

I'd be very surprised if the sidetrack well doesn't take another look at the Cadeby because it will add very little to the cost - which will still be much cheaper than an entirely new well. Could the reason for only Reabold mentioning it (in the sidetrack well) be because they remain the most optimistic about it? Still, it's a bit odd that Rathlin, like UJO, don't talk about it either.

Hi hopingforbags. That sidetrack info from Alex on Twitter seems to come from the OGA's website, so it should be pretty reliable. Could someone who "Twitters" please ask him for the details of that particular link. I can't find it anywhere on the OGA's site … probably because I'm incompetent. Thanks.

Hi Wasit105382. The presence of hydrocarbon charge in the B-1 well doesn't necessarily demonstrate reservoir connectivity between the two sites, only that the reservoir is present and hydrocarbon-bearing in both places and, I assume, in between them too. For them to be absolutely sure of connectivity we need pressure data from the recent well to compare with data from the A site wells. The B-1 pressure data hasn't been mentioned but, if they don't have any data by now, they'll presumably get it in the sidetrack well if there's a better reservoir there as anticipated.

Some investors, or perhaps our non-investing commentators, will only see today’s RNS in a negative light. My take on it from a geologist’s rather speculative point of view is a bit more favourable. I think the B-1 well may have been deviated to the east to penetrate the slope towards the Southern Gas Basin. This would have made it a very ambitious step-out / appraisal well. It’s therefore good to know that the Kirkham Abbey reservoir extends this far. I would have expected both objectives to be much thinner here than at the A site, just as they are in the offshore area. In my view there’s no good reason to assume that the sidetrack, which is presumably designed to look at the shelf area again, won’t work for the Kirkham Abbey. I suspect it will probably be drilled in the general direction of the WN-1 and A-2 wells, but I’ve seen no published evidence for this. Regarding the Cadeby, the RNS says “The secondary target ..... contained insufficient reservoir development at this location”. This fits in with my slope hypothesis and, although disappointing, it’s not a great surprise in the geological context. RBD also say “The sidetrack will also provide an additional penetration into the Cadeby, which Reabold believes remains a valid target in this location” . This doesn’t appear in UJO’s RNS and I don’t know if it means anything, but RBD’s and UJO’s RNSs usually say much the same thing. So it’s possible UJO now has a slightly different view of Cadeby prospectivity since so little was seen in the B-1 well, let alone a reef, at what was meant to be a favourable location. I guess the jury has yet to decide on the Cadbey, IMO of course.

Thanks Rubey. What do you reckon since then? If the WN B-1 well comes in at (say) £5 million gross, then RBD's 16 .665% direct interest will have cost them about £833k net. Persi, it's obviously not so easy to keep an eye on Rathlin Energy UK's situation as it's a private company and they only report accounts their annually. I'm not exactly worried on their account as, according to Compamies House, at 31 Dec '19 Rathlin UK had £18.142 million in cash. Since then they have paid about two thirds of the cost of WN B-1, so that's about £3.334 million, plus all their overheads, of course.

Does anyone know RBD's current cash position? Having a direct WN interest will presumably be quite a drain on their cash, since this differs from how they have previously "pre-funded" their indirect WN interest by investing in Rathlin rather than the asset. Any thoughts?

I think Europa have a position offshore Morocco, rather than Egypt, although I've no idea whether it's any good.

Rubey, that's an interesting idea. Corallian might be helped in negotiating a possible reversal into Egdon by one of the latter's former joint CEO's (Andrew Hindle) being a Corallian director, along with Sachin Oza. But one could perhaps argue even more strongly for a Europa-Corallian tie up, with Stephen Williams now on Europa's board?

AJW, I've done my own research thanks, and there is only one "gas zone" above the oil / condensate. What you are saying about a "first Gas Zone. A separation area. Then a 20M gas Zone. A contract area between Gas and Oil" is complete twaddle, I'm afraid. I don't think you have really understood the relevant RNS, if I'm allowed to be brutally frank.

AJW. Can please clarify what your "three zones" are. My understanding is that there are two: the gas-bearing interval, and the oil / condensate interval below it. I'd be surprised if we have both oil and condensate from what's been announced so far, but I could be wrong

Thanks AJamesW. You mentioned that " the (A-2) well was perforated at the Gas Oil contact zone" but does anyone know for sure exactly where this was done? We can only guess, and it would be good to know for certain.

I think Mr. Investment was commenting on Wressle but, regarding the WN A-2 well, it wasn't the gas pressure that prevented the oil from rising to the surface. it's much more likely that the gas wasn't at a sufficiently high pressure to lift the oil or condensate to the surface. I think we can be confident that Rathlin knew at the time (from the special log they ran) where the oil / gas, or the condensate /gas contact was situated, and they would have been very unlikely to perforate in the gas column. IMO they would haveperforated it just below the gas / liquid contact as they needed confirmation whether it was oil or a condensate. The words "oil" and liquids" have been used in various RNSs, which makes me think they are still not sure. I'd agree that the liquid was not fully evaluated during the initial phase of the testing, but neither was the gas, really.

The WN A-2 well spudded on 26 April '19 and the first results were announced on 17 June '19, which is 52 days. WN B-1 spudded on 4 Oct '2 and I'm sure you can do the maths just as well as me. But if the current well is of a similar duration to A-2, that would take us to 25 November. No two wells, even apparently quite similar ones, are ever quite the same operationally, so don't hold you breath. In the - I hope - unlikely event that B-1 isn't successful, when will we find out, I wonder. Sooner or later than 25 November?