Member Info for GreyPanther

Hi Mixter: Agreed. I reported Humber's default at Biscathorpe when I saw Egdon's annual results RNS on 29 Nov, and the resulting licence equities will be as you described then: Egdon: 44.75%; UJO: 27.5% and Montrose: 27.75%. Presumably those wheels are still in motion.
You also say "Humber where kicked out by DB". Can I assume you mean FL from UJO's board, rather than Humber from Biscathorpe? It can't be the latter as that must presumably be the OGA's and Egdon's job.
At WN it's difficult to see how Humber can finalise a sale in the immediate future. Until the EWT has been completed, they won't have earned their 16.665% share. So I guess it's possible they may default there too. In that case the WN interests would be about: RBD: 80% and UJO: 20%.

The possibility of Humber and UJO merging their interests at WN, Biscathorpe and Wressle, as was perhaps on the cards some while ago, must now be almost zero. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Humber completely out of WN and B'thorpe before too long. What they will get for these interests remains to be seen since their hold on both looks a bit weak to me. Still, it's
just another guess.

Companies House website says that Frazer Lang was appointed to Humber Oil's board on 19 Dec '17 and he is still a director there. He was therefore on Humber's board all the time he was on UJO's board. He obviously didn't leave UJO to get a job at Humber, but maybe he needed to sell his UJO shareholding to fund Humber's operations elsewhere. Most or all of those licences involved UJO too. If that's the case he would have become an insider for share dealing purposes. So I guess that he probably had to resign from UJO's board in order to sell his UJO shareholding. Anyway, I'm probably reading too much into it.

Does anybody else think it's odd that Frazer Lang was a non executive director at UJO for only about 6 months. He resigned - well that's what we are told- only a short while before he sold a lot of his UJO shares. His company Humber Oil was meant to be in a strategic relationship with UJO. Then we learned soon after that Humber had gone into default at Biscathorpe and are also apparently trying to sell their West Newton interest. Have they simply run out of cash or is it something different I wonder

I don't think North Lincs Council, whether they are on holiday till end of next week or not, now have anything much to do with the announcement of the Wressle appeal decision. It's down to the Planning Inspector and the Govt Minister to announce the decision. I assume North Lincs will find out about when Egdon and UJO do. Let's hope they all like it!

Still no sign, so it's definitely not going to be before Christmas for the Wressle appeal decision. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the inspector's decision is most likely sitting on a minister's desk somewhere. Wasn't it Blow Jo himself who said "F**k Business" during one of his many Brexit rants?

Still no sign, so it's definitely not to be before Christmas for the Wressle appeal decision. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the inspector's decision is most likely sitting on a minister's desk somewhere. Wasn't it Blow Jo himself who said "F**k Business" during one of his many Brexit rants?

Hi All. I'm thinking of investing in UKOG as I've seen it mentioned a lot on Union Jack's LSE site, not always favourably, but I like to do my own research if I can. So, some constructive feedback would be much appreciated. I've been mainly reading UKOG's recent RNSs. What I don't really understand is the poor share price performance - down by about 40% since 31 Dec '18 - in spite of mainly encouraging operational news during the year. Has there been a similar shareholder dilution as at UJO this year? UKOG's RNSs sometimes contain slightly mixed messages, IMHO. For example, the occasional signs of what you might call "selective reporting" for example over the latest HH flow rate periods and flow rates. And I feel the water cut seen in the latest HH horizontal well test is a bit worrying. However, these are just niggles. I wonder if there any other particular factors worth thinking about, for example the management quality, plus the usual environmental issues of onshore oil and gas in what's been called the "stockbroker belt" of SE England? Anyway, thanks for any thoughts you can offer, and a Happy Christmas to all.

Wolfman_Jack:
Which bit about Humber are your referring to?
There's been a lot of chat on here about them - but not that much recently. Thanks, GP

Ref. the Wressle planning appeal, I don't know if this is news, but Egdon’s website has their AGM presentation from yesterday which says:
"Wressle Planning Inquiry was concluded after 3 days. A decision is expected before 17 February 2020 (PINS website)"
What's so magical about 17th February, I wonder, or is it simply three months after the hearing?

Can I take slight issue with OilAnalyst's Point 4? "A concern for the WN joint venture will be that the oil zone has been perforated together with the gas zone and yet the initial test was only reported to have produced some gas. Anyone who knows about well testing will know you always start testing from the bottom of the well and work up. Any new test will need to isolate the gas interval and try and clean up the oil zone where previously it did not flow to surface. This is possible with a pump but is uncertain".
In response, I'd be surprised if Rathlin 's first test, presumably of the deeper oil zone, also included the gas zone. Usually they would first try to perforate the well in the best part of the oil zone, avoiding the overlying gas . This makes me think that the gas produced so far might be a small amount of "solution gas" (dissolved in the oil), rather than being from the gas cap. I think too that it's unlikely they will do a separate long term / EWT of the gas zone as this would deplete the gas cap which will be needed to maintain the reservoir pressure. This seems to me to be fairly low already. This is probably what you'd expect at the reservoir depth seen here. WN-1 was reported elsewhere as being at a depth of only about 6,000 feet below the surface which is shallow compared with most of the nearby offshore gas fields.

Does anyone know for certain what the main objectives are in the next two wells at the WNB site? There's been some talk here about the deeper pay zone, the Cadeby, in which oil shows were seen in one of the earlier wells but nothing yet of commercial value. If it was my money (which I suppose some of it is, as a shareholder) I'd prefer them to concentrate on the Kirkham Abbey as that's where all the oil and gas were in the WNA 1 and 2 wells. There's a lot of value there already, so I wouldn't want to compromise that by drilling in the wrong place. Come to think of it, the UJO valuation is pretty weird. We have a current market cap of about £24.7 million, probably about £7.2 million in cash allowing for ongoing licence expenditures, so leaving the cash out of it for now, the value of all our licence assets is only about £17.5 million. With a West Newton interest of 16.665%, plus other good assets, this seems way too low to me. If we had no other licences this would place a market value of only about £105 million on the whole of West Newton. This can't be right, can it?

If you are interested there's some potentially useful / interesting info on the "UK Geophysical Library" website. To have a look just go to:

https://ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-93085,7083239,43890,7181079&l=5,1392640,0&b=3&sm=true

When the map opens you should click on the small grey square immediately above the word "Holderness". West Newton 1 and West Newton 2 should show up. There's not much info for the WN-2 well but there's quite a lot for WN-1 (which is now over 5 years old and has apparently been published). If you then click on "Images" you can look at the "Well Tops" which shows the various formations the well encountered. The Brotherton (possibly), the Kirkham Abbey and the Cadeby are apparently the potential targets in the Zechstein in Eastern England. The Composite Log Header shows when the well was drilled and its location plus a lot of other stuff. You can also find out information about Rathlin's other well on this licence (Crawberry Hill-1) if you click on another small symbol a bit further to the west. It's a pity that there isn't any thing about any tests done at WN-1 but it's still quite a useful site. You can see where any onshore licence is located and information for any well that have been drilled on it if is over (I think) four years old. I hope this map works for you. Enjoy ….!

You'd think, looking at the Energy Agency's consent, that Rathlin had already covered all the bases when it came to testing oil and / or gas. Since what you recover on a well test depends on the interval perforated, and Rathlin knew there was a gas-bearing section over the oil / condensate section when they perforated the well for the EWT, I assume they would have perforated the oil / condensate part. If they didn't do this they would have risked "Blowing down" the gas cap which would normally help keep the reservoir pressure up when the field starts commercial production. Maybe they didn't find what they expected in the first stages of the EWT, eg black oil rather than condensate, or a reservoir pressure much lower than they anticipated. If this was the case, they would almost certainly have needed some extra equipment, such as a well head pump, which would have meant going back to the EA again. Looking at the EA's website it seems that variations to consents are taking 3 to 4 months to process. Now I'm only guessing, and I don't know why we wouldn't have been told this. I have read somewhere, maybe in a Rathlin briefing to local residents, that the reservoir pressure was quite low. So I suppose it's just possible that we still waiting on a consent variation which hasn't been publicised. But why not, I wonder?

Fair enough PDMSP but it sounds a bit arrogant IMHO. Maybe I won't be able to find out anything new or useful, but I don't understand what's wrong with trying since we've been given so little info about this. Should any new info - and there will probably be none - be ignored just because it's regarded as immaterial by some members of this BB? I think everyone should do what research they think might be useful. Other folk can make of it what they will.

Regarding PDMSPiper's comment below that WNA1 has never been flowed,I'm pretty sure that I have read somewhere that the Kirkham Abbey had a short flow test from the gas zone, and that the Cadeby was cored but not tested. It should be relatively easy to find out. The WNA1 well is now more than 5 years old as it was drilled from June to Sept 2013. I think this means that it should have been published by the OGA or somewhere similar. I will do a bit of digging and see what I can find out.

PDSMPiper: One more query if you don't mind. When you say you can't find a planning / permit application to reconfigure the EWT for oil, I think that's very significant. However, we know that the EWT consent was granted ages ago for a gas test. Do you know if a revised EWT of the oil zone would require a completely new consent from the relevant authority? Is it possible that the EA / OGA might grant it under some form of variation order? If so, it might not show up in a list of applications. Maybe I'm clutching at straws here but I live in hope!

Hi there DMSPiper: When you say "The fact remains: there will be no resumption of flow testing at WNA-2". Is it really a fact? Or is it just an enlightened guess based on what's not happened so far with the WN-A2 EWT? My view is that they will recommence the WN-A2 EWT once they have all the necessary consents. After all, there is no guarantee that the wells to be drilled at the WN-B site will be successful. Maybe they should also consider going back to the WN-A1 well and testing the gas zone properly . That way they would gain useful information on both pay zones before spending a bundle of cash on the B site wells. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see since we aren't being told anything. .

Hi gkb47: I don't like this delay either, and it seems we PI's can only guess about the various EWT consents that might be needed from the OGA or EA. However, I reckon they would have to include the specific types of equipment to be used and exactly how it was all going to be done. I've been told that the EA crawl over any onshore oil and gas proposal in the tiniest details and they take a long time to do it. Probably it's because they don't have many staff who know very much about O&G. Still, surely it wouldn't hurt Rathlin / RBD and UJO to putout a delicately worded RNS about all this. So as not to upset the poor dears, of course!

Hi PDMSPiper; WN oil may well be flow tested from WN-B in Q2 2020or at some time next year but from various conversations (with people who I think would know) I'm pretty sure there is still a plan to conduct / complete an EWT at the WN-A2 well as soon as they get the necessary consents from the OGA and EA. It's just that those parties are taking an inordinate amount of time - pretty much as usual - to consider the new EWT proposal for oil and, I hope, agree to it.