Member Info for GreyPanther

Hi Exploration. I was wrong to say that the Brotherton lacked any shows. On doing a bit more digging, there were apparently gas shows (but no oil shows) at this level in both the WN-1 and the A-2 wells, but there was nothing worth testing. Unfortunately I don't know if the shows were poor because the reservoir wasn't well developed, or if the amounts of gas weren't sufficient to merit a test.

Judging by the WN-1 well, where some of the drilling details have been published, I think it could be a while before we hear any result from either the KA or the Cadeby reservoirs. In that well there were two more casing runs, the 9.625" and the 7" casing. So I reckon we could be at least 20 days before any logs are obtained, and possibly 30 days before anything promising is likely to be perforated for a well test. So in y opinion the results could start to leak out early to mid November.

Thanks Exploration. That was Mike Cooper talking about Ossian-Darach on YouTube. He is very knowledgeable about the offshore Zechstein play, and was involved in re-licensing the Endeavour Zechstein gas discovery before it was acquired by Egdon. If Ossian-Darach is of Z3 / Haupdolomite age, that would make it the age equivalent of the Brotherton Fm, which is also present in the WN area. It was more than 50m thick in WN-1 and more than 60m thick in the Great Haltfield well, but unfortunately without any shows at either location.

Hi Exploration. Thanks for the interesting discussion and for the link to the density inverted 3D seismic line. I can't really argue with you about the regional geology. What concerns me is the B-1 well location itself. If B-1 is a vertical well, according to Rathlin's section we should see the KA and Stages 1 & 2 of the Cadeby. The latter will presumably be in a reef facies if you accept their model. However, according to some recent info I've seen, the well is to be deviated about 0.7 km towards the NE. This means, according to Rathlin's own section, that they may actually penetrate both the KA and the Cadeby in what they call "Slope Deposits". These are presumably to be found just down slope from the platform edge in Z1 / Z2 times. So it will be interesting o see what they find. One more question, do you know the age of the atolls at Ossian/ Darach on Block 42/4? This area is quite a long way to the NE, close to the southern flank of the Mid North Sea High, and so is possibly in an analogous position to WN. All the best, GP

There's been a recent improvement to Rathlin Energy's website, with videos explaining exploring for and producing oil and gas. Investors without much technical background might find the on-line consultation page of interest. It's at: www.rathlin-energy.co.uk

There's a recent improvement to Rathlin Energy's website, with videos explaining exploring for and producing oil and gas. Investors without much technical background might their on-line consultation page of interest. it's at: www.rathlin-energy.co.uk

Thanks RNSTranslator. That makes a lot of sense to me. I have to say that an Egdon fundraising exercise must be imminent, even with the SP at only 1.75p. But will it be a placing or a loan facility, I wonder? I don't think their major shareholder (Petricorp, aka George Yates) who holds 30% plus will have much spare cash for Egdon these days.

Hi Uggy. I sincerely hope the B-1 well is drilling the Cadeby in the most optimal place, but I'm still not entirely convinced. So far Cadeby reefs have only been encountered (and I'd stress "so far") much further north, in the Hartlepool area. They are found there right at the margin of the Zechstein (Z1) basin. Unfortunately it looks to me as if the B-1 location could be a little way into the basin, so it's not the best place to find a reef, IMHO. A more relevant nearby example is the Great Hatield well, drilled by BP in 1971 only about 4 km north of WN. It found the Cadeby to be very thin, less than 10 metres thick, and it certainly wasn't a reef there but a thinly bedded limestone of possibly deep water origin. Still, Zechstein limestones can and do change very quickly from one location to another once you move away from the Zechstein shelf, so we can only wait and see.

One further thought: with ca. £11 million in the bank, Union Jack could presumably afford to pay for their 50% share of a North Kelsey well if they chose to, whereas Egdon couldn't . So, rather than "jointly pursue a farm out" they might only need to find someone to pay for the greater part of Egdon's 50%.

Some of the details given in UJO's RNS don't seem to have been mentioned by Egdon, for example "Previous financial farm-in obligations in respect of the 20% interest in PEDL241 already held by Union Jack will lapse". If future financial obligations are to be paid for on a 50 / 50 basis, it looks to me like a very good deal for UJO. Maybe it's not so fabulous from Egdon's viewpoint, though, particularly if you think about what they must have spent up to now. It certainly shows the value of having cash in the bank (or of not having very much) that Egdon was willing to take only £100k for 30% of a very attractive licence which has LIncs. CC planning consent to drill. I think I'm right in saying that North Kelsey isn't situated in the same difficult local authority as Wressle is, since it's under Lincs CC planning conditions and not those of North Lincs. Is this actually the case?

Hi Mirasol. Thanks for posting the contents of Union Jack's RNS. It seems to me that some of these details weren't mentioned by Egdon, for example "Previous financial farm-in obligations in respect of the 20% interest in PEDL241 already held by Union Jack will lapse". If the financial obligations are to be paid for on a 50 / 50 basis in future, it looks like a very cheap deal for UJO, but perhaps not so fabulous from Egdon's viewpoint, particularly in terms of what must have been spent by them up to now. It certainly shows the value of having cash in the bank (or of not having very much) that Egdon was willing to take only £100k for 30% of an attractive licence which has LIncs. CC planning consent to drill. Am I right in thinking that North Kelsey isn't situated in the same rather difficult local authority as Wessle, as I think it's Lincs and not North Lincs that will be involved?

Hi Rubey. I've had a good look, thank you, and I can't argue any longer that the document isn't genuine. I would say, however, that it is very old. It's apparently dated 8 Sept 2015, so it post-dates the WN-1 discovery and predates the WN A-2 appraisal well. So, to my way of thinking, it cannot be an accurate prognosis for B-1 as that well's precise reservoir penetration targets hadn't been agreed then. I think it was a schematic diagram made to assist the local authority at the time, when Rathlin probably still saw the Cadeby, rather than the KA, as their primary objective. In any event, I hope you'll agree that my mate as right about which well the Cadeby was cored in! All the best, GP

It may not be Humber who are selling. They have very few outgoings now, mainly their 15% Biscathorpe interest where not much is going on at present. They can't be exactly broke since they received £1.4 million in cash from RBD as part of the consideration for their WN interest, and an unspecified amount from UJO for 5% of Biscathorpe.

The total c

Hi Rubey. Thanks for that. Can you let me have the link to the page as I can't find it. It may be an old document (Montagu-Smith resigned on 1 July '20), but things can't have changed very much in the interim, I would have thought. My mate is adamant that the surface coordinates are right but the depths are not; they certainly look a bit odd to me too, but what do I know! I was told (again) that the depths are taken from an old well prognosis that was prepared for another well location, and some of the sub-sea depths seem similar to the WN-1 well, but not all of them.

Hi Rubey. You'll probably be surprised, and it's very hard to believe. That diagram of the B-1 well posted on Twitter is a complete fabrication. According to the company man who my fiend showed it to because he was concerned about the content, the diagram mostly consists of information taken from a previous Rathlin well plan, with the B-1 surface coordinates added to make it look genuine. Why would anyone take the trouble to do this? You may well ask, but it's presumably either to mislead, or to make the "author" look good. It sure makes one wonder who and what you can trust on here, even when it looks reliable. I think I'll be sticking with my own predictions from now on. All the best, GP

Rubey. You are quite right; these predictions can only be based on real data, not on guesswork. One can normally make fairly accurate Zechstein thickness predictions from 3D seismic data, especially if the data quality is good and the seismic velocities for the individual beds within it are known. Rathlin should certainly know these with two wells already drilled. Having now looked at some old (2D) seismic lines near the B1 location, I'm confident that Rathlin would be able to derive reasonably reliable thickness info from their proprietary 3D seismic data for individual Zechstein formations, although possibly with some difficulty. Rathlin will have the entire data set, which I've obviously not seen, so they should be able to get a very good idea of what's going on. However, even using the same data set, not every company's interpretation will be the same. It's also worth bearing in mind that B-1 is situated near the edge of the Zechstein platform, just before it plunges into the deeper Zechstein basin. This happens more or less as you cross the coast, but it's only a geographic coincidence. The geology could therefore be quite complex in the vicinity of B-1. I showed HRML's diagram to a friend in the industry who had never heard of them either, and we wondered if they might have been quoting for the supply of casing, or some associated services. He also suggested that such a quotation wouldn't necessarily require the most accurate geological forecast at that early stage. I'm not sure you wanted to know all this, though.

Rubey. I was interested to see that HRML's diagram also predicts the Cadeby will be 176 metres (577 feet) thick in the B-1 well. If that's what Rathlin really think, I can only say dream on! They must be expecting a pinnacle reef here, as seen in the Devonian of Western Canada. Unfortunately the Zechstein of Yorkshire hasn't yet been seen to contain any of these.

Thanks Rubey. I've now looked at that link you kindly provided. I don't know who HRML are but the table certainly looks pretty official. It's only a forecast, of course, but I would have thought it must be based on information provided by Rathlin. The 1,704 m figure for the top KA is the driller's depth corrected to true vertical depth below the KB, so it's not a very helpful figure for us. They also show 1,734m DD and 1,686m TVDSS and, as you said, a true vertical thickness for the KA of 85m. This would be an excellent result if it comes in like that.

Hi BH and Rubey. Don't forget that B-1 is probably going be a deviated well. We therefore need to know if we are talking about the driller's depths (DD), or the "true vertical" sub-sea depths (TVDSS) to the top of the Kirkham Abbey. There will probably be about a 150m difference between the two at the top of the KA, and about a 175m difference at the base of the KA, allowing for increasing well deviation with depth. The TVDSS depths will be the smaller figure, of course, so for the top of the KA I think we could be looking at about 1,800m DD and 1,650 m TVDSS. As for thickness, my guesstimate is 75m, or about midway between the A-1 and the A-2 wells which were 82m and 65m thick respectively.

Hello Heid. Bloody Hell! Here I was thinking I had a monopoly quoting UK Onshore Geophysical Library info on this board. But a word of warning … over-exposure to UKOGL can make you go blind or, even worse, it could turn you into a geologist or a geo-fidget. That BP seismic was very interesting as it led them to drill the Great Hatfield well in 1971. it was only about 4km north of WN, so they only just missed it. They found all three potential Zechstein reservoirs (Brotherton, Kirkham Abbey and Cadeby) but the KA was at greater depth than expected, and the Cadeby was very thin. Unfortunately nothing much was found, I think just a few sniffs of gas. That very interesting section through the WN A and B well sites was still on Reabold's website the last time I looked, but UJO seems to have removed it from theirs. Unfortunately it's probably not too accurate now, as It seems to be based on an old diagram taken from Connaught's June 2017 CPR. The A-2 well has been drilled since then, of course, and it probably changed things quite a bit. I'm afraid the Cadeby illustration is very optimistic (IMHO) as the formation is thought to be as flat as a pancake in this part of Yorkshire. Still, I've been wrong quite a few times before now, or else I wouldn't be doing this, would I?