Member Info for GreyPanther

AJamesW You're quite right, RBD won't take over the role of issuing RNS just to keep the shareholders happy. They will, I think, have a legal obligation to do so because they control the operator and indirectly own the largest interest in the WN discovery. Isn't it a bit like Danube Petroleum, ADX and RBD? But now RBD will be in ADX's place …. I think.

I dimly remember being told some years ago, when the oil price was higher than it is now, that found but undeveloped onshore oil, and in a stable-ish place like the UK, was worth about $10 per barrel of recoverable oil. This isn't the figure for oil in place, which would be about $2 to $2.50per barrel if the potential recovery factor was only 20% to 25%. This sounds a bit mean compared with some estimates I've seen here, but you can find similar details on-line for deals done for undeveloped oil if you want to.

AJamesW: You are quite right to say that Rathlin UK (the licence operator ) will remain a private company, but it will have a new owner. From Monday onwards it doesn't seem very likely to me that Reabold will remain at arms length. If the RBD meeting goes to plan they will then control Rathlin and their board. This means RBD will be able tell Rathlin what to say and when to say it. I expect UJO, and maybe Humber, to remain as partners, just as they are now. The work pace will probably now increase as the operator will be properly funded. This could be a bumpy ride for an unlisted company like Humber but I would expect UJO to remain on board for the next two wells if no stonking great offer arrives for their 16.665% WN interest in the mean time. Time will tell!

I think Zac Phillips is a consultant rather than just an analyst, though he has done analysis work in the past for stockbrokers etc. I googled him and here's what it say about him on the LinkedIn website:
Director - Oil & Gas Advisors
London, Greater London, United Kingdom·500+ connections
BP and University of Bath
I have experience of numerous roles, both in finance and industry.
I was a founding member of the management team that established DB Petroleum (a Dubai World joint venture), where I acted as its CFO, responsible for the economic, financial and legal management of DB Petroleum and its assets, investments and subsidiary companies.
My work has included projects and transactions with a value in excess of $63bn in a variety of locations including Africa, North and South America, Asia, CIS and Russia; I have also had operational roles with BP and Chevron.
Specialties: Economics, Due Diligence, Transaction Management, Finance, Equity, Debt, Reserves Based Lending, Valuation, M&A and Audit.
So, I think he knows what he is talking about. Was he perhaps called to speak in when DB was feeling he had done enough presentations lately, just to give UJO a slightly different look?

I think Zac Philips has done consulting work in the past for UJO. This might - possibly - be why he referred to ‘we’ when presenting on the company recently.

Hi there AJamesW. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. Standard oil field abbreviations are always used in a CPR and I'm sure that's the case here. So, I still think M = 1,000 and MM = 1,000,000. B (or Bn) is sometimes used for a billion (1,000,000,000) but not here. I'm also sure that the term Mbbl means a thousand barrels (of associated liquids). Why else would they use MMcf for a million cu ft lower on the same page? Also, if you add the "best estimate" 581 Mbbl of oil and liquids (the equiv. of 3,486 MMcf in my opinion) to the "best estimate" 184,724 MMcf of gas you get 188,210 MMcf which is darned close to the published best estimate elsewhere of 189 billion cu ft.

Here's my take on the delay, for what it's worth. I suppose we might learn something new from UJO's presentation tonight but I'm not holding my breath. In my opinion there are several possible reasons for the delayed resumption of the EWT, as follows:
1. Rathlin's shortage of cash. This was fixed, or will be very soon, by RBD's recent fund raising.
2. Further analysis of the core and logs. Surely this must have been done by now.
3. Waiting for equipment. Maybe something has to come from overseas, maybe the USA or Canada. Wouldn't this have been explained in an RNS?
3. Waiting on Government / Regulatory (rather than Local Authority) consents. The OGA (Oil & Gas Authority) are usually reasonably quick as they are staffed by oil and gas types. The EA (Environment Agency) is quite another matter. Getting their consent for even fairly simple things can take up to 3 months.
My money is therefore on the EA. The WN partners, though, won't want to be seen putting the blame on them as they will almost need the EA's help / consents in the future. Maybe I'm being pernickety, but my feeling is that we've only seen a short, initial flow test so far, whatever Rathlin might care to call it. The proper EWT hasn't ever really started IMHO.

Thanks AJamesW. I looked at page 2 of the executive summary first, of course. However, the numbers on that page are all expressed as M boe, and not as Mbbl or MMcf. To my mind this means the gas they thought was there at the time has been turned into an "oil equivalent" by dividing the gas in place numbers by (about) 6,000 to get an equivalent number of barrels of oil equivalent. This will be very different from proper "oil in place" figures since the original gas will almost certainly have been estimated at surface conditions (usually 15 degrees C and 1 atmosphere pressure). For example 6,000,000 (6MM) cu ft of gas at the surface is the equivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil at the surface. The same 6MM cu ft of gas down in the reservoir would occupy about 31,915 cu ft by my calculations, which is about 5,684 barrels, and not 1,000. So I still think it's the Mbbl and the MMcf on the next page (the contingent and prospective resources for the KA Shoal only) that we should be looking at. Mind you, the table is pretty
confusing. I guess it was done for Connaught by Canadian reservoir engineers who probably do things differently to over here.

Hi there MarkA8178.
What I put on this BB yesterday isn't "ramping" IMHO. It's based on data published by Rathlin and / or its partners RBD and UJO. The analysis was done by someone who knows about oil and gas reservoirs. I'm sorry you don't like it much .... but there you go. All the best.

Hi OIler87
I've looked at the CPR again to see where your "170,000,000 with a high of 385,000,000 for the Kirkham Abbey" came from. On page 34 of the CPR it actually says 170 and 385 Mbbl. I think this means thousands of barrels of prospective resources on the then undrilled KA "Slope". It's a bit confusing, but to my mind these figures mean 170,000 and 385,000 barrels of potential oil & liquids in the "slope" gas prospect . If you look lower down the same page where it talks about natural gas they use MMcf which means millions of cubic feet. A better guide to what they had already found in June '17 (after WN-1 only) can be found on am earlier page (33) where the "resources", or what's been found, are shown as:
Best Case: 581 M (thousand) barrels of liquids and 184,724 MMcf of gas (or 184.7 billion cu ft) & High Case 1,330 M (thousand) barrels of liquids and 368,446 MMcf of gas (or 368.5 billion cu ft.
This makes better sense to me, but what do you think?

Here's a thought on the possibility of water production at WN-2. There hasn't been any mention of a water zone underlying the 65 metres of gas and oil here, so I wonder where it would be produced from. I suppose it could possibly move sideways or from a deeper part of the reservoir elsewhere through breaks or fractures in the reservoir, which is probably a limestone or dolomite rock. This is only a thought, and I'd be happy to hear other opinions.

I was burbling yesterday about some useful info on the UK Geophysical Library website. It hasn't been working very well lately up until now. At
https://ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-93085,7083239,43890,7181079&l=5,1392640,0&b=3&sm=true
I was able to find out the depth to the Kirkham Abbey reservoir in the WN-1 well, which was from 1,683 metres sub-sea level to 1,765 metres sub-sea level. It was therefore 82 metres thick which is a bit more than the 65 metres net or gross, (I don't really know which) seen in WN-2. From the WN-1 info it's possible to estimate that every single cubic foot of gas within the reservoir at that depth would be converted to about 188 cubic feet of gas at surface conditions. You can then divide the former 189 billion cubic feet "best estimate" of gas discovered by WN-1 by 188 to turn it into an equivalent reservoir volume. This comes to 1.0053 billion cubic feet. If you divide the 1.0053 Bcf figure by 5.6146 (the number of cubic feet in a barrel) this gives you an amazing 179 MIILION BARRELS OF OILPOTENTIALLY IN PLACE. This is just the old CPR number for the gas in the Kirkham Abbey "Shoal" reservoir turned into oil in the same reservoir. It doesn't take into account the fact that 20 metres of the total 65 metre column seen in WN-2 is still gas, but this would come to less than 5% of the total reservoir volume if you do the sums. If you have a look at the Connaught CPR they mention a further 54 Bcf of prospective gas resources in the Kirkham Abbey "Slope". I assume this is what they were looking for in WN-2. If you add this number to the former 189 Bcf best figure you get 243 Bcf which, by doing the same sums, gives you an even better 230 MILLION BARRELS POTENTIALLY IN PLACE. It will be very interesting to see what the new CPR has to say - when we get it - but these calculations give you some idea of the overall oil potential at West Newton. I'd say this would be good news for all shareholders.

Still no luck. Try starting at:
http://ukogl.org.uk/

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

If you're a bit of a nerd - like me, you'll probably say - take a look at a website called "Onshore Geophysical Library". It has a lot of useful geological info that's been published recently. Just copy the following link, then go to:
ukogl.org.uk/map/?e=-112394,7081892,24581,7179732&l=5,1392640,0&b=3&sm=true
You should see a map of the West Newton licence. It's PEDL 182. If you click on one of the small square symbols or a circle you will see a well name. Try clicking on the small square that's just above "PEDL 182" and two well names will come up. There's nothing there for WN-2 as it's not been released yet. That takes 4 or 5 years I think, but there's a lot of info for WN-1. Try clicking on "Images" and then on "Well Tops" and you can see what they found in the well, including the depth to the Kirkham Abbey and the Cadeby. I think this info could be useful in estimating the amount of oil in the ground, rather than the gas they originally thought was there. I might be able to do that with a bit of help, based on what's been published so far …. but don't hold your breath.