Member Info for GreyPanther

Hi Rubey. A fair point. I now understand your comment in its context.
Exploration, Thanks for the geological explanation. I'm very happy not to be living next to one of those mud volcanoes. Mind you, the Romanian and Azerbaijan examples may explain why oil exploration started in those countries very early.

Thanks Exploration. I know very little about Romania, the Pannonian Basin in particular, and I thought your post was enlightening. So I'm much the wiser for your posting. Let's hope Rubey wasn't being sarcastic. Surely not, eh Rubey?

Hello again Heid. I must admit that Biscathorpe, while not huge, is pretty good for the Onshore UK, and it's certainly the right size for UJO. So I'm guessing they'll probably want to stay with it for the duration, through exploration and appraisal via the sidetrack well, to development and ultimately production if things work out well. It's also worth bearing in mind that B'thorpe is governed by a different local authority to Wressle, so it will be Lincs CC, rather than North Lincs Council, who administer Wressle, that will control the planning process. They (Lincs CC) have a much better record with oil exploration activities, probably because they've had a lot more exposure to oil operations than that other lot at North Lincs Council. This prospect is probably good enough for other parties to show interest in it as matters progress. We can only wait and see, but it's interesting that Humber wants to keep 15% of it.

Hello Heid. I like Biscathorpe a lot too. However, we should bear in mind what UJO have actually said about it. Leaving aside Mr Bramhill’s recent interview comments, their latest published info was in their 28 July RNS. On the technical front UJO more or less repeated what they and Egdon had said previously. As far as “reserves” go, and I put the term in inverted commas on purpose, they said:
"The Mean Prospective Resources associated with the primary Westphalian target area are estimated by the Operator, Egdon Resources plc to be 3.95 million barrels of oil (mmbbls), with an upside case of 6.69 mmbbls".
The conventional view of “Prospective Resources” is that they are potentially recoverable oil or gas, so UJO’s (soon to be) 30% share would be about 1.19 to 2.01 million barrels of oil. This would be nice, but it’s not a huge amount compared with West Newton. Mind you, the Dinantian is potentially much larger, and they also said:
“An assessment of the Dinantian oil volumes has also been modelled with volumetric assumptions as being filled to spill and a proven likely live oil column following the results of the APT exercise. Mean Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place within the Dinantian has been calculated by the Operator to be 24.3 mmbbls with an upside case of 36 mmbbls”
It’s worth reading what their 28 July RNS said about the Dinantian very carefully. These are large numbers, but they are only oil in place, so you might have to multiply them by about 20% (or even less) to calculate the potentially recoverable amounts. I say this because the Dinantian isn’t generally a fabulous reservoir in the UK. It’s certainly not often as good as the Westphalian. In any event, 24.3 to 36 mm bbls of Dinantian oil in place x UJO’s 30% x (say) a 20% recovery gives UJO another 1.46 to 2.16 million barrels if things work out really well in the Dinantian. So I’d certainly agree that it’s very interesting so far, but not exactly huge. All the best, GP

I don't mind having a rights issue if / when one is really necessary, as they give the private investors a chance to participate, But they're a lot more expensive and time consuming, etc than having a placing with a smallish group of institutions. I assume this is why many small companies will always prefer to have a placing rathe than a rights issue

Hi Exploration. Thanks v much for that. I finally found the depth info on ADX's RNS. I suppose RBD's directors aren't all that interested in the technical data. Since 3,046 psi at 2,033 metres equates to 0.4567 psi per foot it's exactly as you say, not much greater than normal hydrostatic pressure. I realise there may be some drilling mudin the well, which will be denser than fresh water, but using my favourite freshwater gradient of 0.4335 psi / ft makes very little difference. The well is clearly in balance and the reservoir isn't over pressured. ATB, GP

Hi mixster. Thanks for providing the links to your Twitter postings. I now see what you are driving at. We certainly don't yet know the seaward limits of the West Newton discovery but, peaking personally, I don't think it will extend offshore. Nor, of course, do we know much about the undrilled prospect to the SE, which I believe is Spring Hills. There may be a clue in the fact that no water was apparently seen in the Kirkham Abbey reservoir below the gas in the A-1 well, nor below the oil / condensate in the A-2 well. Coupled with the KA and Cadeby Formations being carbonate bodies within the otherwise mainly salt and anhydrite Zechstein Group, this makes me think that WN may be a stratigraphic accumulation, rather than being a structural trap. This would make it harder than usual to map using conventional geophysical methods, so maybe we can expect some geological surprises in every well, including the B-1 well.

I should have said "indicates that there is SOME effective reservoir permeability". GP

Hi miker444. I know almost zilch about Romanian gas. On the face of it, though, a reservoir pressure of 3,046 psi seems quite high as it's 210 times surface / atmospheric pressure. This is presumably a good thing in this particular case, as it would be anywhere. Unfortunately I can't say if it's exactly what you'd expect for the PA IV reservoir since I can't find out its depth. Maybe the fiigure is buried in an old RNS, but I couldn't find it on RBD's corporate website. The fact that both the well head and down hole pressures have been increasing - although we don't yet know the rate of increase - indicates that there is effective reservoir permeability which can only - I hope - be improved by acidisation, but it's not necessarily so in every case. However, there is a tradition of successful acidisation in the area. I have to say that the operator seems to be on an extended schedule but this may be down to the difficulties of mobilisation of equipment in these difficult times. Also, I've no idea whether the "influx of reservoir fluids" is reservoir water, possibly drilling mud filtrate, or perhaps even condensate. We would need to see the test results. I'm sorry to be so clueless but we don't have enough info at this early stage in the testing

Hi there mixster. It's not often that I don't agree with something you've posted but In today's 10.18 post you said: "Prove those extents into the Anglo Dutch basin and bingo"... Maybe I don't understand exactly what you meant but, long before WN-1 was drilled, the Humber Basin was known to lie at the extreme western margin of the Anglo Dutch Basin, aka the Southern Gas Basin. The Kirkham Abbey and Cadeby formations at WN are very similar to what's been found offshore in Quad 47 immediately east of WN. Anyway, maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but WN definitely lies (just) within the Anglo Dutch Basin. Sorry if I've misunerstoof what you were getting at. GP

Hi Rubey. Thanks for the link to the OGA's map. The number of environmential "no go" areas in the offshore area next to WN came as a surprise to me. And that's leaving aside all the potential operational problems of acquiring seismic and then perhaps drilling in very shallow water. The dominant structural trend in the Southern North Sea is NW - SE. So if WN had an offshore extension, it would probably lie immediately to the east and / or south-east, rather than to the north-east. What might be of value to the WN partners, if there was anything of interest immediately offshore, is that it could be accessible from the extreme eastern part of the licence using highly deviated wells, as at Wytch Farm. However, it may well be that with the Spring Hill and Ellerby prospects still undrilled, they have enough on their plates for now.

Hi jmhy. So what's your question - is it about WN or some other asset? With WN it's impossible to say until the well and test results come in, and with Wressle it's about 200 barrels of oil per day net to UJO when it comes on stream in the next few months. ATB.

Hi Rubey. Who can tell what Deltic may have bid for in the 32nd Licensing Round. I believe that most of the open blocks are on offer, and Shell may have bid for blocks of their own choice too, which would be cheaper for them than farming-in to other people's blocks. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who gets what.

Hi Harryshang. If S & S really want to do a deal with Deltic's investors, wouldn't it be even more sensible to provide a proper rationale when / if a formal offer is made, rather than when it's about to close. I must say that I've not seen much of a rationale so far, except for the cash, of course, although I suppose there may be some technical merits in the fullness of time, Shell permitting, of course.

Rathlin may still have a budget for 3D seismic over the Spring Hill and / or Ellerby prospects and UJO may well have sufficient cash to do it but, if I were contemplating a sale of the whole WN licence soon I wouldn't be about to shoot a lot of time and money consuming 3D seismic. In an asset sale you rarely get paid very much for undrilled prospects, even when they are covered by seismic. You'd need another well or two to confirm they are WN analogues, and not just superficially similar from some 2D seismic lines. All IMHO, of course.

Although the WN licence extends all the way to the coast, from the very few maps of the prospects that I have seen (published ny the partners) I'm not convinced that WN, or the Ellerby or Spring Hill prospects extend quite as far as the coast. If they did, you might have thought the WN partners would be interested in the immediately adjacent offshore area (between the coast and Offshore Block 47/7a). There's been no indication that they have applied for any licences in the latest offshore Licensing Round, but they may just be keeping it quiet, of course.

Hi Rubey. You are quite right and I think Forest Nominees held no RBD shares before now. They also previously held Humber's shares in Union Jack.

Hi BlakeneyP. Do you have a link to this morning's interview with Proactive Investors? Thanks.

There are some Cadeby numbers in Reabold's RNS today which weren't included in UJO's RNS. RBD said: "The deeper Cadeby target has the potential to be even larger than the Kirkham Abbey resource, as identified by a Deloitte CPR published in 2017, which attributed a best estimate total prospective recoverable resource of 79 million barrels of oil equivalent, and an upside case of 146 million barrels of oil equivalent on a gross basis." These are very decent numbers but they are now quite old as they were taken from the June 2017 CPR and are based only on what was seen of the Cadeby in the A-1 well. I'm not sure what effect, if any, the A-2 well would have had on the Cadeby numbers. So it's fairly old news … but even so it's helpful to be reminded.

There was interesting info on the Cadeby in today's RNS. It says "The deeper Cadeby target has the potential to be even larger than the Kirkham Abbey resource, as identified by a Deloitte CPR published in 2017, which attributed a best estimate total prospective recoverable resource of 79 million barrels of oil equivalent, and an upside case of 146 million barrels of oil equivalent on a gross basis." These numbers had already been published and are based only on what was seen of the Cadeby in the A-1 well. I'm not sure what effect, if any, the A-2 well would have had on these Cadeby volumes. So it's fairly old news … but helpful to be reminded