Member Info for GreyPanther

I'd really like to know how much Humber paid Egdon to reach a settlement on Biscathorpe, but nobody is saying in this morning’s RNS from UJO and Humber. I'm assuming it's a term of the settlement to keep quiet about it and, although it's mentioned, I don't recall any relevant financial details in UJO's 2019 accounts. However, a rough estimate can be based on Egdon’s latest accounts. These were published last November for the period up to July '19. Note 17; Trade & Other Receivables showed that Humber then owed a total of £780,000. Of this £327,200 was apparently owed to Egdon so presumably the £452,800 difference was paid by UJO and Montrose Industries, maybe about £226,400 each. So we should have received at least this much. There has been another year of licence costs since Egdon's July ’19 year end, so perhaps we should have received some of these costs on top of the our ?£226,400. I had been assuming that the cash would come in handy for the Wressle development, but UJO may have received a 5% interest in Biscathorpe from Humber in part exchange. Anyway, it looks like a satisfactory result to me, although it must have been extremely frustrating at the time. From UJO’s 24 June RNS it appears that Humber are still on the licence, but with only 15%. Egdon’s 35.8% share of the project doesn’t seem to have changed during the process and it’s interesting that our interest has risen from 22% to 30% (5% from Humber and 3% from Montrose Industries). I'd be guessing, but UJO must have foregone part of their share of Humber’s cash to achieve this result

I, for one, would really like to know how much Humber paid Egdon to reach the Biscathorpe settlement. It seems that nobody is saying in this morning’s RNS from Egdon and Union Jack. However, a reasonable estimate could probably be based on what we know from Egdon’s 2019 accounts (published last November; Note 17) which showed that Humber then owed a total of £780,000. Of this £327,200 was apparently owed to Egdon. So we should have received at least this much. There has been another year of licence costs since our July ’19 year end, so I assume we will have also received some of these costs on top of the £327,200. Egdon might therefore now be £375k to £400k better off, maybe more. I’m sure the cash will come in handy for the Wressle development, but it’s only about 0.1p per share. Anyway, it looks like a fairly satisfactory result to me, although it must have been extremely frustrating at the time. From UJO’s 24 June RNS it appears that Humber are still on the licence, but with only 15%. Egdon’s 35.8% share of the project doesn’t seem to have changed during the process and it’s interesting that Union Jack’s interest has risen from 22% to 30% (5% from Humber and 3% from Montrose Industries). I suppose UJO might have foregone some of Humber’s cash to achieve this result.

Egdon Resources plc (AIM: EDR, "Egdon") is pleased to advise that the proceeds from the confidential settlement agreement between Egdon Resources U.K. Limited (acting on behalf of the PEDL253 joint venture partners) and Humber Oil & Gas Limited as announced on 24 June 2020 have been received. The joint parties to PEDL253 have therefore resolved the dispute arising under the JOA and look forward to co-operating in the future in the development of the licence.

Hi Exploration. Thanks for the link to Arenite's prospect, as it seems familiar. The area was once known as the Cleveland Dome gas field, and I think Arenite did a deal with the offshore part of it with Egdon some years ago. Anyway, it's now part of the package that has been famed out to Shell. I think Egdon's and Arenite's former area are now called the Resolution and Endeavour prospects, but I still don't know which is which. ATB, GP

Shell's farm-in is very interesting technically, but the terms aren't exactly generous. I wonder if Egdon will be able to afford their 15% of up to $5 million for the 3D seismic programme. That's $750,000 net, and they aren't exactly flush with cash. The Egdon / Shell licences are in fairly shallow water and nearshore, so operating there may not be easy. They could, I suppose, drill from onshore but I think this area is within the North Yorks National Park. At WN, though, we are both well funded and onshore. The Egdon licences are some way away and are north of Flamborough Head, so the Zechstein section may not be completely similar to WN geologically speaking. Looking at what's been published, the potential reservoirs are in the Haupt Dolomite and the Platten Dolomite, which I think are the offshore equivalents of the Kirkham Abbey and Brotherton formations respectively. What, no Cadeby as well?

Today's Egdon RNS is fairly old news, IMHO, as it's only a confirmation that their previously announced Shell deal has been approved by the OGA and an operating agreement signed. And, over here, if UJO's SP were to rise to 1.0p, our market cap would be £154 million, so I'm a bit concerned that we are getting ahead of ourselves. A 1.0p SP would be great, but our share of West Newton is "only" 16.665%. Does that mean that the whole of WN could be valued at about 6 times that (say £900 million, and that's ignoring all of UJO's other assets)? I don't think so .... not yet, anyway. But I guess we all live in hope of some positive results from the B-1 well and the A-2 EWT. Then we'll see what the market really thinks it's worth!

Who is Hugh, and what has he to do with the Shell farm-in? Or maybe it's huge. It's potentially a very big, prospect, for sure, but Shell's farm-in terms aren't all that generous from Egdon's POV. Will Egdon be able to fund their 15% of up to $5 million for the seismic? That's $750,000 net to Egdon, and they aren't exactly flush with cash.

Egdon's RNS this morning says:
"Egdon Resources plc (AIM:EDR) is pleased to advise the completion of the Farm-In Agreement with Shell U.K. Limited ("Shell") in respect of offshore licences P1929 and P2304 ("the Licences") which contain the Resolution and Endeavour gas discoveries.
The OGA has approved the transfer of a 70% interest and operatorship in both licences and the associated documentation including Joint Operating Agreements in respect of both licences has now been executed" etc, etc

Egdon retains a 30% interest in the Licences. Under the terms of the Farm-In Agreement, Shell will pay 85% of the costs of the acquisition and processing of the 3D seismic survey covering both the Resolution and Endeavour gas discoveries. Under the terms of the Licences, this work needs to be completed by 31 May 2021. The carry on the acquisition costs will be capped at US$5 million gross, beyond which Egdon would pay 30% of the survey costs. Furthermore, Shell will also pay 100% of all studies and manpower costs through to the well investment decision on the Licences.

Hi Lenin. I missed your earlier apology and it is, of course, accepted by me too.Thank you.

Why is there all the talk about Premier and even references to Sound's TE-7 well on our board. Is any of it relevant to UJO, I wonder?

Thank you Rubey. No doubt the facts - whatever they are - will emerge in due course. It's probably just as well that we don't all hold exactly the same views as I suspect it would make successful share dealing even more difficult than it already is. All the best, GP

Thanks ChimeyBleue. You are absolutely right and I stand corrected. GP

Hi Rubey. Access to daily drilling reports and the like are for licence partners, consultants and advisors only, I'm afraid, and I'm not any of these. However, it will explain my rather veiled comments on what I learned from the "horse's mouth" in order to protect my source. But you can be sure (well, I am anyway) that it's reliable info. ATB.

Thanks Albinio74. One of the bullet points in RBD's 17 June '19 RNS does indeed say "Deeper exploration target in the Cadeby formation encountered hydrocarbon shows with an oil saturated core" and this sounds pretty definitive on the face of it. My contact, who was then advising one of the PEDL 183 partners, said that it was interesting that UJO hadn't said exactly the same thing (for once) in their RNS issued on the same day. He added that there were other, mostly minor differences in the two companies' interpretations and RNSs. RBD's Cadeby comment seemed to him to be referring back to what had happened at WN-1. He added that you only had to look at the daily drilling reports to see they had drilled through the Cadeby in WNA-2 without stopping to take a core and this was because there was no real encouragement at the Cadeby level. Still, this won't be enough to convince everyone, I suspect. Perhaps I should add that, at the time, RBD were not Rathlin's controlling shareholder and they didn't have a seat on their board. RBD may have felt then that they didn't need too much technical advice on the WN front, but that's just a personal view, of course.

Hello again Rubey. My source was quite definite. Can you point to the relevant RNS, or another source for me to look at? Thanks

Hi Rubey. What you say about putting together a thorough West Newton field development plan makes a lot of sense to me. This morning's RNS may well be the first step in the process. But if Rathlin / RBD are contemplating a possible sale of WN after a - I hope - positive B1 result, they must know that they won't get much cash for any undrilled prospects. Maybe this is why there's also been some discussion recently about getting 3D seismic coverage over the Spring Hill and / or Ellerby prospects. A good well result on both of these could possibly double the size of the total PEDL 183 pot. That's if the info on SH & E in the CPR is to be believed. However, it will take some years to plan and acquire 3D seismic and the drill (?) two more wells, and it won't come cheap.

Hi there oldabutnowisa. I do hope the clue isn't in the name. Anyway, it's raining here and, even if only the two of us find it interesting to chat technically, surely that's better than some of the drivel you'll often see on this BB. Exploration makes some very interesting technical points, IMHO. I acknowledge that Hewett produced mainly from the Bunter. I'm just casting around for a few more ideas about the Cadeby potential. I don't share some people's optimism so far, but I'm very enthusiastic about the Kirkham Abbey. And please let me add that I sincerely hope I'm wrong about the former. Cheers!

Hi there Mirasol. Thanks for providing the link to UKOGL (Onshore Geophysical Library). Not being much a fan of UKOG, it hadn't crossed my mind that I might cause confusion. Anyway, UKOGL have a lot of very useful well and other data for those that might be interested. To my mind, UKOG doesn't! ATB, GP

Hi Exploration. Thank you for providing those two links, and I'll have a look at the Cadeby / Z1 diagenesis paper later on. I think the nearest Z1 commercial production is gas that is (or was) produced from the offshore Hewett field. No reef was needed there, I think! Hewett is some distance to the SE, though I don't know where it sits in paleographic terms with respect to WN. The presumably Rathlin 3D seismic section was interesting but it looks quite complex and, like you, I'm very happy not to be a wellsite geologist trying to sort out the Zechstein section from only drill cuttings. Let's hope they'll take plenty of cores. By the way, the WN geological section shown on RBD's website is potentially misleading, in my opinion. It includes a nearly horizontal well from the B site which stays within the KA formation. This could, I suppose, be a conceptual KA development well but I'm assuming B1 will be a vertical well (or maybe slightly deviated) to penetrate the KA and Cadeby. OK, Z2 and Z1 carbonates, if you prefer! ATB, GP

The UKOGL website contains some useful well info, in particular about the Kirkham Abbey & Cadeby reservoirs at and around WN. The full details of WN-A2 haven't been released yet, but we know from various RNS that the KA was 65m thick in that well. However it was even thicker in WN-1 (82m) and at Crawberry Hill (which was drilled unsuccessfully by Rathlin in 2013 a long way to the west of WN) the KA was very much thicker at 141m. So we can probably assume that the KA formation generally thins as you go east or south-east towards the B site. It's different for the Cadeby, as it appears to be more consistently developed across PEDL 183. We don't know how thick the Cadeby was in the A2 well, but it was 34m thick at Crawberry Hill and a very similar 33m at WN-1. So, the Cadeby is probably just over 30m thick in our area. This suggests to me that it's not too much like a reef, but who knows? So, how thick will it be in the B1 well I wonder? Answers on a postcard anyone?