Member Info for GreyPanther

I've just checked the OGA's website to see what it shows for our WN licence PEDL 183. It still has Humber down as owning 16.665%, and RBD with no direct % …. so far.

Hi mixster. Although they are now published, I first saw BP's Biscathorpe-1 logs many moons ago. The well definitely wasn't tested by BP, probably because there were only 4 feet of basal Westphalian sandstone sitting on top of the Dinantian carbonate (Carboniferous limestone) which appeared then to have no oil. I think it’s very likely that it was the very thin reservoir as well as the oil price that deterred them. They dropped the block soon after that and it was subsequently picked up by Roc who applied to drill a second well. However Roc relinquished the licence, along with several others, when they pulled out of the UK. EnCore picked it up later but soon passed it on to Egdon to operate. So Biscathorpe has certainly had some history. It may not be all that significant, but it's possibly interesting, that in this morning’s RNS David Bramhill says “PEDL253 remains, in the opinion of the Company`s management one of the UK`s largest onshore un-appraised conventional LICENCES”. In July last year he said “in the opinion of Union Jack's management (Bisc) remains one of the UK's largest onshore un-appraised conventional hydrocarbon PROSPECTS”. That was only a year ago, so could they now be looking around the licence more widely than just Bisc-2?

I now rather regret asking! A "brucie bonus" was defined in the 2006 version of the on-line urban slang dictionary as "When a man ejaculates during sex and manages to maintain his erection, making him able to carry on intercourse". What can Bruce Forsyth have been thinking about? It obviously wasn't UJO's share price.

Mr.Investment. What on earth is a Brucey bonus? Do tell!

I'm thinking that a Wressle update wouldn't come amiss. Come on Mr Abbott!

Hi Crocqman. That's a great target but don't forget the decimal point. I'd be very happy with a 0.28p to 0.30p SP in the next couple of weeks. Good luck!

Going Up? Not so far today, sadly. But no doubt soon, we hope/

What's happening about OGA approval of our West Newton deal with Humber? It's certainly taking some time. This morning's RNS from UJO says their deal with Montrose (for a further 3% of Biscathorpe) has been approved by the OGA. The UJO deal was announced some time after our West Newton deal, yet we are still awaiting OGA Consent. Is it something to do with its being a bigger deal, or is it Humber or us, or just more governmental / COVID delay?

Hi Exploration. From various RBD and UJO RNSs last year there is no water leg in the Kirkham Abbey Fm in WN A-2 because the whole 65 metre reservoir was described as hydrocarbon-bearing. So the only water the EWT is remotely likely to produce would be relatively minor amounts of "connate" water remaining in the porosity in either the 'liquids' or the gas leg. That's my two pennies worth. Over and out …. for now!

The WN A-1 well has apparently been published, and you can see some of the info on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library website. No cores were apparently taken in the Kirkham Abbey reservoir, but one was taken in the Cadeby which was described as having very little porosity. Going back to the "tested gas out of the Permian at four and a half" surely it can only be a 4.5 million cubic feet of gas per day flow rate. IMHO, of course. Even if it was only dry gas, this would be the equivalent of 750 barrels of oil equivalent per day, which is very decent for a UK onshore well.

Hi Exploration. That's a very interesting NERC report, and thank you for the link to it. Mind you, it will take me quite a while to absorb all of it. Figure 39 concerns well 41/14-1, and it's quite a long way north of the Humber Basin from which our hydrocarbons were presumably derived. Do you think that the same source rocks are present in both basins? Rather interestingly Roc Oil, who discovered and previously operated the Saltfleetby gas field, postulated two distinct hydrocarbon expulsion and migration phases for their LIncolnshire onshore discoveries, with an earlier (conventional black) oil phase followed by a gas expulsion phase which pushed the earlier oil farther up-dip. Maybe it was all actually down to uplift, as you've suggested. Your description of the testing of gas condensate wells as being complicated may throw some light on why one of the pieces of kit that Rathlin have ordered for the EWT is a pump!

In Graham Bull's June '19 presentation which you can still find on ShareTalk at:
https://www.share-talk.com/west-newton-a-2-what-you-are-looking-at-if-offshore-reserves-onshore-2-2-2/#gs.b9d1md
he says that the A-1 well "tested gas out of the Permian at four and a half". IMHO that can only be a flow rate. At the time I assumed it might have been a short production test which was terminated fairly quickly, perhaps for operational / safety reasons, but that's only my guess.

Hi Rubey. One can only wonder at what is (or was) on the RBD directors' collective minds. Are all their other non-WN projects looking as tired as Corallian is? I sure hope not. However, I think they were actually attempting an exchange of 23.8% of Reabold's current assets / enlarged share capital for all of Deltic's assets plus their cash? A resultant 23.8% Deltic / 76.2% Reabold ownership was the outcome - I think - if a takeover offer was successful at the proposed offer price.

Hi BigcheeseF. Some answers to your question "if it's condensates is that a good thing" were posted on this BB by krull and me (and a few other posters) around midday on Saturday, so why not have a look? It will save us the bother of repeating ourselves.

Hi krull. Many thanks for providing the link to David Bramhill's 17 June '19 Proactive interview. I watched it to see what he had said about the liquids in the A-2 well but I'm afraid I didn't learn very much. I note that it was dated about two months before Rathlin acquired the cased hole logs, so Bramhill may not have then known all that he must now know abouthe liquids in the well. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.

Miker444. Do you have a link to David Bramhill's interview on Proactive in which he talked about condensate please?

This info may not be much up your street, but I found it interesting as a former geologist. I have discovered a lot of Rathlin's older well information has been published on the UK Onshore Geophysical Library website. You can find a map of the WN licence at:
https://ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-95878,7084740,43849,7185636&l=5,348160,0&b=3&sm=true
By clicking on the grey dot above "Holderness" you will see the WN-A well site and you can find a lot of information there about the A-1 well. A bit farther west there is also some info for Rathlin's earlier unsuccessful Crawberry Hill well. Unfortunately the WN A-2 well has not been released yet but you can calculate from the well "tops" that the Kirkham Abbey formation was a massive 141m thick at Crawberry Hill, but only 82 m thick at WN A-1. We also know from various RNSs that it was only 65m thick in the A-2 well, so it's a very variable formation which seems to get much thinner as you go east. How thick will t be in B-1, I wonder? There's also some info on the Cadeby Formation which is a more consistent 34 m thick at Crawberry Hill and 33m thick in WN A-1. Unfortunately there's no description of how good it was as a reservoir.

Hi Rubey. That makes sense to me, thanks. I assume the perforations for the first A-2 test were mainly shot within the gas zone, but we don't know whether some of the underlying oil leg was perforated too. Whatever the case, it can't have been by accident since they appear to have perforated only after they had acquired the cased hole logs (pulsed neutron, I think) that told them they had distinct gas and liquid columns present. So they must have known exactly what they were perforating, either one or the other zone, or maybe a bit of both. Perhaps the test result wasn't a big surprise to Rathlin, but they then had to re-design it more carefully. It will be interesting to learn if they are planning to re-test only the original perfs, or whether they will add to them, presumably in the liquid column, and perhaps also try to minimise the gas flow by some technical method. But will it be before or after the B-1 well, I wonder? My money is on after B-1 since the site preparation there is so advanced.

Hi there miker444. It was only an educated guess on my part, so please take it with a pinch of salt. However, there is a real possibility the oil / liquid seen in WNA-2 is a condensate as it's often produced in relatively small amounts along with the gas in the adjacent Southern North Sea. This basin hasn't yet produced "black oil" commercially, as far as I know. Condensate is more commonly known as gas-condensate. It can readily change its state from a gas to a liquid and even back to a gas as the pressure changes, for example in the well bore during a test. This can make production from condensate-bearing reservoirs a bit tricky, as you can probably imagine. However, its potentially greater value lies in the fact that liquid condensate doesn't need much refining and, in Central Africa, I have even seen it being put straight into a jeep's fuel tank. Not a practice I would recommend with a modern car though. Also, condensate is very light, with an API number usually above 45. Conventional oil is heavier, and most often in the 25 to 40 API range. So condensate is likely to be lighter and much more fluid and, assuming it remains as a fluid on test, it should flow more easily than black oil. But only time will tell.

Hi Exploration and Rubey. The nearest Zechstein outcrop onshore is quite a long way from West Newton. My old geological map says it's about 40 miles to the west. No water has been seen so far in the Kirkham Abbey Formation at WN, as far as I can recall, and I'm very sure that only oil and gas was seen at the A2 well. I therefore think they would have to pump the reservoir pretty hard to produce water from the West Newton A site. On the "black stuff" I know they've said oil inn the past, but they have also said "liquids" a few times in RNSs, so it could still be condensate, IMHO. Has any one seen a core photo published or an oil sample description? I would definitely have remembered that since it's important info regarding potential flow rates. However, the jury is out on the Cadeby Formation, as far as I'm concerned.