Member Info for GreyPanther

Hello again AJamesW. Please could you re-read UJO's 29 Aug '19 RNS.
"Highlights; The Operator and project partners now believe that the West Newton project represents a significant oil and gas discovery rather than a pure gas discovery as originally perceived ………. the West Newton A-2 open hole data has identified an estimated gross hydrocarbon column of approximately 65 metres in the Kirkham Abbey formation. Initial petrophysical evaluation identifies a gross oil column of approximately 45 metres underlying a gross gas column of approximately 20 metres within the Kirkham Abbey interval". That makes 20m of gas and 45m of liquids, and it seems pretty clear they are saying that both are within the KA. There's no specific mention there of the Cadeby being gas-bearing, even though it was also penetrated in the A-2 well.

Hi ismalia. You are absolutely right about RBD's current undervaluation. I reckon possibly 90% of our value might be in just the WN project if it's as successful as we hope. But where did you get the idea that "This will change well before Christmas as WN comes on stream"? A positive result by Christmas is surely what we are all hoping for, but surely not actually "on stream"?
IMO it will be years before WN is developed and producing. But perhaps you mean something different by this phrase maybe?
different

Hello Heid. Is it Broughton North or North Kelsey that has planning consent? I thought it was North Kelsey, but we've not heard much about either recently. But you're quite right about Broughton North being highly prospective, and I think it's situated on the same structural trend as Wressle. All the best, GP

Hi AJamesW. Sorry, but I didn't miss "the WN top layer of 20M which has Gas and the 40M layer below it which has oil" because that's the Kirkham Abbey Formation (the upper reservoir). The so-called "Cadenby" reservoir which you referred earlier is the Cadeby Formation. This is about 200 m deeper than the KA. Although it's been cored once, it has not been tested in any well. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's unproven ..... so far.

Ho AJamesW. The "Cadenby Gas find"? Please enlighten us. I thought the Cadeby Formation was reported as having oil shows in the earlier wells. Thanks

Hi Exploration. Thanks for describing NAM's underbalanced Dutch drilling operations. I'd not previously heard about this being used when drilling the Zechstein. I assume the technique is mostly used where the Zechstein pressure regime is well understood, for example when drilling production wells. Or is it also used for Dutch exploration and appraisal wells? I'd be slightly surprised if Rathlin is contemplating this at WN, but what do I know? Do you have a view?

Rubey. Your question hasn't been answered yet, and it's probably because it's difficult to say for certain. In my experience the flare would only be operated during drilling operations if there was a "kick". These are usually caused by gas or water under high pressure getting into the drilling mud, and so reducing its density. This is potentially a very dangerous situation, and could lead to a well "blow out" if it remained uncontrolled. If it was a relatively small amount of gas, say a few gas bubbles in the mud, and the well was under control, the gas would probably be flared off to get rid of it. I think that's the only way that significant amounts of gas would get into the mud while drilling. Much smaller traces of gas from potential reservoir intervals will get into the drilling mud almost continuously while drilling. This gas is monitored to show the operator whether hydrocarbons are present, how much there is, and whether gas or oil is likely to be present. However, it wouldn't need to be flared as only traces of gas are present under normal conditions.

Hi Rubey. I vaguely remember a posting here (or maybe on UJO's board) during or just after the drilling of the A-2 well which said the WN reservoir was slightly over pressure, as compared with the regional Zechstein pressure gradient. I don't recall any actual pressures being given but, if I've remembered correctly, then it presumably means there's a limit to the KA reservoir, and It would be unlikely to extend for miles out into the Southern North Sea. It doesn't necessarily mean that the reservoir is small, of course, and Rathlin's very respectable oil / gas in place figures certainly suggest otherwise. But it could mean that WN is a stratigraphic accumulation, rather than a structural one, especially as no water contact has been reported below the hydrocarbons. This would be good news, in my view, as a higher reservoir pressure than normal, so long as it's not extremely high, should help with the recovery factor. Did anyone else see this? Maybe I read it elsewhere, or even dreamt it?

Hi feelinlucky. For the testing to work as you have suggested, I think the two wells would have to be tested (or at least monitored) simultaneously. I'm not a reservoir engineer but, as I read the slightly ambiguous RNSs about the planned testing, B-1 will be tested first (if it's successful) and then the equipment will be moved across to test the A-2 well. We should certainly get pressure information from both wells, which should show whether they are in pressure communication, and are therefore within the same reservoir - which is what I would expect. But I don't really see much potential here for what is sometimes called "interference testing". This is where test production from one well can be observed to affect the pressure in the other well being monitored. This can happen almost simultaneously if the reservoir is good, so it can be very useful. If I haven't got this quite right, maybe somebody can put me on the right track please

While I've no actual knowledge of the current well site activities, from previous onshore drilling experience, I think it's more likely they are running the next (?13.375") set of casing. Hence no drilling recently, perhaps.

Sorry, I meant "dependent on RNSs".

Hi JD / Ruby. I too would be surprised if the Langs had sold many - if any - of their significant RBD holding. However, they still run Humber Oil (which now holds only a reduced 15% interest in the Biscathorpe prospect, plus a % of one other Egdon onshore licence), but are no longer a direct WN license holder. So they won't be seeing any of the data while the B-1 well is drilling. I therefore assume they will be as dependent on RNDs for the results, as we are. That's unless they can get someone on the inside to spill the beans, which I hope will not happen, as IMO no one owes them any favours.

Yes, the frequent references to 500 or even 1,000 bopd from Wressle is a bit like a comment one often sees on UJO's bulletin board about their West Newton discovery. The gas is frequently described by some as being "nailed on", and that's before there's been a decent test of either of the apparently successful WN wells drilled to date. I guess you can't go very far wrong underestimating most people's grasp of technical issues, and I suspect that what most of us are doing here is gambling, rather than investing. It's AIM, after all!

Thanks JD. Tthat's very helpful. Perhaps I should just stick to geology!

Thanks RNSTranslator. Egdon's 22 Oct '15 RNS third paragraph says: "As previously reported, flow rates from the Ashover Grit measured in the initial testing phase (80 barrels of oil per day (“bopd”)) were affected by localised near well bore formation damage (high “Skin” factor) and so are not representative of the flow rates that could be attained from this interval. Reservoir engineering analyses of the well test pressure and production data indicates that initial production rates in excess of 500bopd could be anticipated if the effects of the “Skin” can be successfully countered. It is therefore the JV’s intention that plans for the development of Wressle will include a comprehensive suite of operations and procedures, designed to mitigate the impact of the “Skin” on production rates, which form part of the initial workover programme for the well to prepare it for long-term production". I don't therefore think shareholders were misinformed at the time. it's just that in the five years since then people's aspirations have increased, no doubt encouraged by the Egdon's and its partners' remarks over the years. Let's hope the re-perforation and clean-up operations - or whatever is planned for the Ashover reservoir - will be stunningly successful. It's a big jump from 80 to 500 bopd, though. So much for the 1,0000 bopd that I've seen mentioned elsewhere. This would surely have to involve the development of the other two reservoirs, and some further planning consents. I believe one of the other two reservoirs has a very high gas to oil ratio, so they would presumably have to find something to do with the excess gas; perhaps it could even involve on-site electricity generation.

This may not be a completely new page on Egdon's website, but some of the Wressle information seems to have been amended lately. Please have a look at:
https://egdon-community.com/our-active-sites/
and tell me if you think it contains any real news. Thanks, GP

Hi TAF. Thanks for your kind remark about my occasional geological remarks, and I'd be the first to acknowledge not knowing much about the corporate / legal side of things. Because I wasn't completely sure of the facts, my comment about RBD being an OEIC was based on their Companies House website entry. Can you suggest why "Nature of business (SIC) 64304 - Activities of open-ended investment companies" doesn't actually mean that RBD are an OEIC?
And another question to which I'd like to see an answer please. I don't always see AGM and other meeting notices as my shares are held in a nominee account. So I wasn't aware of the proposed new Articles of Association . So, has anyone analysed the differences between the old and the new Articles approved at the AGM on 23 September? Are they just "boiler plate" or has anything been smuggled through that should concern us? Thanks, GP

Hi ivans. Some smaller shareholders seem to be selling lately and I'm not all that surprised. But I don't think it's a conspiracy, and I'm not about to do the same thing. There could still be another placing soon, I think. EDR raised only £0.5 million in April, plus presumably the cash refunded by Humber Oil. Against this, they have the Wressle development and numerous other (40 plus) licences to fund, so they must be getting through their cash at a fair old rate. So I wouldn't be surprised at another small placing. The issue for me is whether EDR can afford to make the £0.4 million Wressle start up payment, without raising more cash. If so,they could delay or may not even need it. If not, I think there's likely to be another fund raise before too long.

Hi BolivianBanks. I'm invested in both RBD and UJO too, and it's a dilemma - for me anyway - deciding whether to invest further through RBD or via UJO. I can see the obvious merits in RBD's higher WN % interest, having RBD's institutional investors, and not having UJO's rather too frequent placings and dilutions. However, I think UJO's other assets are better than ours. They show the signs of having been more carefully selected, although that's wearing my geologist's hat. I think one must also bear in mind RBD's situation as an OEIC (open ended investment company) which apparently limits some assets the company is allowed to invest in. I can't see that it has had any serious impact so far, but it's possibly a potential factor to bear in mind.

Hi Rubey. I've been looking on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library website to see what more I could find out about the Cadeby. It seems to be almost the same thickness everywhere that Rathlin has drilled so far. For example at Crawberry Hill (some way to the west of WN) it was 34 metres thick, at WN-1 it was 33 metres and at WN A-2 it was 35 metres thick. All these figures were apparently corrected to be "True Vertical Thicknesses" to allow for those wells that were deviated, and therefore penetrated the reservoir at an angle, rather than vertically. What should one take from that? It suggests that the Cadeby is as flat as a pancake, geologically speaking, in the areas drilled so far. Let's hope the Rathlin / RBD geologist has got it right, because a potential reef near the B site is very hard to see on the limited, but now rather old, seismic data available on the UKOGL website. Time will tell, as they say!