Member Info for GreyPanther

It's quite an unusual move, IMO, for Bottomley to move from being the CEO to a Non-Exec position. Usually a CEO just removes himself from the board entirely. So it's presumably not a case here of a rat leaving a sinking ship, but it certainly makes me wonder.

Fat Fingers ... January's 3,000.92 cubic metres from the NSTA is 18,875.2 barrels. This amount divided by 31 days is a monthly 608.9 bopd average by my calculations. It's also shown by the NSTA as 2,490.764 tonnes, and that's the equiv. of 7.578 barrels per tonne. Sorry!

January's 3,000.92 cubic metres from the NATA is 18,875.2 barrels divided by 31 days is a monthly 608.9 bopd average by my calculations. It's also shown by the NSTA as 2.90.764 tonnes, and that's the equiv. of 7.578 barrels per tonne.

Sorry! That should have said "an easier conversion factor is 6.28981 bbl / cubic metre"

The NSTA reports monthly oil production in cubic metres as well as in tonnes. So, even if you don't know the exact number of barrels per tonne, then an easier conversion factor is 6.28981 bbl / tonne.

Uggy. If you're asking if I share your opinion of our two CEO's, I suspect that if I posted it what I think on here it would be taken down very quickly by any sensible moderator because of the number of swear words it contained. Suffice it to say that, with our £9.1 million net cash being so much greater than our £6.3 million market cap, this indicates an enterprise value of MINUS £2.8 million. So our assets are effectively worthless in their hands.

Hi Uggy. IMO a better and cheaper option would be for Rathlin to re-enter the suspended WN-A1 discovery well. This apparently had high pressure gas (and maybe some oil) in the Zechstein KA formation. This well also seems to have had gas in the Rotliegend, as well as in the KA reservoir. A cheap work-over rig could perhaps be used to do this and it would mean that it shouldn't cost more than about £1 million gross. If the Zechstein KA still looks good, then they could perhaps consider a short horizontal kick-off, which would have the benefit of not being located too far away from what seems to be the best part of the KA reservoir. As to a possible EA permit for oil testing, I think the liklihood of getting oil to flow through this reservoir is pretty slim and there may not even be any significant oil present. But time will tell, of course!

There are still a lot of things that puzzle me about the disappointing news about Schwarzbach-2 from our board. The first is that we had to wait a long time to be told that we still owe a lot of money towards the cost of the well. Not so long ago we were advised that Beacon had sufficient funds to pay for the jetting operation and, IMO, this was disingenuous to say the least. If we’d known that money was owed we might have guessed that a placing was likely to take place, and some of us might have taken defensive action. My second concern is about the sand jetting operation itself. I’ve been told that this process can penetrate up to more than a metre into the formation, which is considerably greater than the depth of most reservoir invasion zones. So how come we didn’t get a better result? One possible answer is that the reservoir isn't nearly as good as we’ve been told by Beacon's board. And thirdly, we were told 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 be so negative but I fear the worst, and have reduced my holding significantly since the placing.

Heid,

Heid. I'm hopeful, but not over-optimistic, about the development of the Pen'stone this year. Do we know yet if they've obtained the landowner's permission to extend the Wressle site?

Hello Heid. Regarding your posting "to change a pump, that was meant to be three weeks an ended up four months". I assume from that that you're referring to the installation of the ESP following the cessation of better than 500 bopd of free flowing oil that we had for about two years following the proppant squeeze. This was before the onset of water production and, as far as I can tell from the NSTA's data, the ESP installation took about two and a half months to complete. That's not brilliant, I know, but it's not four months. I agree though, that things have not improved at Wressle time-wise now that Heyco are in charge. I assume that's because they are still using the same Egdon staff as before, and not their US personnel.

Thank you, Ms |Taylor, for the well chosen words regarding my occasional ramblings. All the best, GP

Hi Gwynwin. I posted exactly the same info on this board at 10:25 yesterday. But, as usual, it became submerged in all the dross!

Hi jt2017. You asked "Will the flow from the new side track add to the current flow rate from the existing side track?" IMO that's very unlikely. The new side tracked hole (not yet drilled) will replace the original sidetracked hole that's recently been sand jetted. So any better flow rates obtained will not be incremental to whatever flow rate we've been getting lately. We'll just have to hope they are a lot better than what they've been getting up to now.

The NSTA’s December production info has just been published. I’d expected that in November Wressle would have shown some flush production after the two month hiatus for the installation of the electrical submersible pump. However, the NSTA data shows that in December Wressle produced an average 439 barrels of oil, 181,000 cubic ft. of gas and 109 barrels of water per day. From this one can calculate that the water cut was 19.9% and the gas oil ratio was 412 cu. feet per barrel. For comparison, the figures for November were 458 barrels of oil, 182,500 cubic ft. of gas, 107 barrels of water per day, with a water cut of 18.9% and a GOR of 398 cu. feet per bbl. So both the water cut and GOR have only risen very slightly over the month. IMO this is very encouraging as Wytch Farm is still producing a significant amount of oil (9,000 bopd in December) with a water cut of around 96%.

The NSTA’s December production information has just been published. I’d expected that in November Wressle would have shown some flush production after the two month hiatus for the installation of the electrical submersible pump. However, the NSTA data shows that in December Wressle produced an average 439 barrels of oil, 181,000 cubic ft. of gas and 109 barrels of water per day. From this one can calculate that the water cut was 19.9% and the gas oil ratio was 412 cu. feet per barrel. For comparison, the figures for November were 458 barrels of oil, 182,500 cubic ft. of gas, 107 barrels of water per day, with a water cut of 18.9% and a GOR of 398 cu. feet per bbl. So both the water cut and GOR have only risen very slightly over the month. IMO this is very encouraging as Wytch Farm is still producing a significant amount of oil (9,000 bopd in December) with a water cut of around 96%.

Agree Professonal, and thanks. I was looking only at the short term debt as the situation could get a lot worse if they don't do much better after the sidetrack than (say) 100 bopd

There are a few things that I find puzzling about yesterday’s disappointing news. The first is that we’ve only now been told that we owe €1.1 million towards the cost of the Schwarzbach-2 well, when not so long ago we were advised that Beacon had sufficient funds to pay for the jetting operation. IMO this was disingenuous, to say the least. If we’d known that €1.1 million was still owed we might have guessed that a placing was more than likely to take place. As a result, some of us might have taken defensive action. My second concern is about the sand jetting operation itself. I’ve been told that this process can penetrate up to a metre into the formation, which is considerably greater than the depth of most reservoir invasion zones. So how come we didn’t get a better result? I strongly suspect the answer is that the reservoir may not be nearly as good as we’ve been told by Beacon. Has And thirdly, we were told by Beacon that both the Pechelbronner Schichten (PBS) and the Meletta Schichten reservoirs were present and of pretty decent quality. Yet there’s not been a mention of the Meletta reservoir since then. I’m sorry to sound negative about all this, but I’m starting to smell a fish here.

Today’s RNSs from UJO and Reabold contain some interesting points but, rather unfortunately IMO, neither of them mentions the expected cost of the directional well, other than saying its “offering significant cost savings compared with a horizontal well”. The gross cost of the horizontal well was originally expected to be of the order of £12 million, or £2.0 million net to UJO’s and Reabold’s 16.665% equity share. However, RBD’s presentation for their Edinburgh meeting tonight reveals slightly more about the directional well’s expected cost: £6.4 million for the well plus £3.0 million to test it, or £9.4 million in total. Of this smaller sum UJO’s and RBD’s share would be “only” £1.57 million and Rathlin’s 66.67% share would be about £6.27 million. So I suppose Reabold could conceivably bail out Rathlin by using the greater part of £9.1 million of cash that they say they have in the bank after receiving the final payment from Shell for Victory. But will they, I wonder? In their RNS UJO also said “An additional material secondary target in the deeper Permian Rotliegend Sandstone will also be evaluated during drilling of the WN-A3 or by the re-entry of WN-A1”. IMO the last point could be very important as the published data for the WN-A1 well shows that the well was suspended with only a 7 inch casing / liner over the Rotliegend gas-bearing interval. That could mean that re-entering the A1 well could be done quickly and quite cheaply, probably for about £0.5 to less than £1.0 million by using a much cheaper work-over rig. This could mean that an A1 re-entry well in 2024 is still a strong possibility.

Today’s RNSs from UJO and Reabold contain some interesting points but, rather unfortunately IMO, neither of them mentions the expected cost of the directional well, other than saying its “offering significant cost savings compared with a horizontal well”. The gross cost of the horizontal well was originally expected to be of the order of £12 million, or £2.0 million net to UJO’s and Reabold’s 16.665% equity share. However, RBD’s presentation for their Edinburgh meeting tonight reveals slightly more about the directional well’s expected cost: £6.4 million for the well plus £3.0 million to test it, or £9.4 million in total. Of this smaller sum UJO’s and RBD’s share would be “only” £1.57 million and Rathlin’s 66.67% share would be about £6.27 million. So I suppose Reabold could conceivably bail out Rathlin by using the greater part of £9.1 million of cash that they say they have in the bank after receiving the final payment from Shell for Victory. But will they, I wonder? In their RNS UJO also said “An additional material secondary target in the deeper Permian Rotliegend Sandstone will also be evaluated during drilling of the WN-A3 or by the re-entry of WN-A1”. IMO the last point could be very important as the published data for the WN-A1 well shows that the well was suspended with only a 7 inch casing / liner over the Rotliegend gas-bearing interval. That could mean that re-entering the A1 well could be done quickly and quite cheaply, probably for about £0.5 to less than £1.0 million by using a much cheaper work-over rig. This could mean that an A1 re-entry well in 2024 is still a strong possibility.

I reckon tomorrow would be a good day for RBD to put out an RNS before their Edinburgh presentstion. But will they have anything new to say, I wonder?