London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I think you're wrong here - the point is that a very large vertical section of the Kimm is connected by fractures - that includes the micrites or limestones AND the shale (which is the vast majority of the section). As it's connected all you need to do is to open up the hole opposite the limestones - these will flow better than the shales (unless you frac them). Oil flows from the limestones and is replenished via the fractures in the shales. Oil produced in the shales also will flow (Very slowly) into the fractures
We don't know how effective that replenishment is - and I 'd guess that is why they are taking so much time and spending n so much on analysing the Kimm data - pull too hard and you might bring in water into the limestones - better to keep rates modest until you know what is happening.
Ibug, wrong again. Maintaining your 100% record of being wrong.
Read the RNS again and try to understand it.
You learnt tonight that there is a difference between fractures and perforations, and hopefully you understand what that difference is, but I am not holding out that much hope as you are not the sharpest tool in the box.
The last of the outstanding planning conditions need to be signed off by SCC, before UKOG can connect to the grid.
The oil did not flow from the shales as the layer was not perforated. I'll just leave it at that. End of. Go argue with yourself.
The obvious omission from you post concerning UKOG not covering cost of operations from sales; UKOG are soon to go into long term production of HH1 and HH2z. When they do this, the operational costs fall through the floor by comparison with costs during an EWT and drilling campaign.
Operations could simple become minimal site staff to cover security and maintenance, transport costs and simple BAU day to day management by the office junior.
Those costs are small, and UKOG will clearly show a significant profit with HH1 and HH2z delivering 900 to 1300 bopd over the first 12 months.
1100 bopd would deliverbgross revenue of $24,090,000 with Brent at $60. ALBA and DOR will get next to nothing from that pending contractual situation.
Of course, UKOG are then going to plough on with further drills, HH3/HH3z at Horse Hill, Loxley, etc.
As per ibug post earlier, UKOG have raised £23m over 2018/2019. They will not be needing to place when HorseHill delivers $48m gross over the next 2 years (from just 2 wells).
Enough said. ibug, you posts on placings show just how transformational HH1 and HH2z will be for UKOG.
Only placings post production would be to but out crap partners. I for one cannot wait to see the back of the useless partners.
Ibug, do you now understand the difference between perforations and fractures?
Ask yourself why they perforated c1000ft of Kimmeridge at BB and KL3 and KL4 at HH and 640 feet at Brockham. All 3 wells were perforated. The only difference is they did not perforate the shales at HH. That should tell you something.
HH2z, slotted liner, no perforations needed
HH1, standard liner, needed perforation.
If UKOG didn't perforate HH1, then there would be zero flow from the naturally fractured Kimmeridge.
Slotted liners do not need perforations, but those without slots do.
HH2z, slotted liners, no perf.
HH2, standard liner, needed perf.
Ibug you are really embarrassing yourself now. Fractures are cracks within the formation and in the case of the Kimmeridge are extensive and have formed naturally. Perforations are made through the casing of the well bore to allow a passage for oil to flow from the formation through the casing into the well.
See how silly you look now.
You obviously have missed the point. Why perforate the KL3 and KL4 layers if they are naturally fractured. You know nothing. Of course they need to perforate the interval in between if they are going to test them.
"The EWT will comprise a series of three separate test sequences commencing in the Portland followed by the KL4 and finally, the deeper KL3. If time permits a test combining the KL4 and KL3 (a commingled test) may be undertaken. It was never the plan to test the interval in between.
Perhaps if you had been an investor in Angus you would have realised that "Brockham X4Z well has been perforated from 960 metres to 1155 metres (an interval of 195 metres)" i.e. 640 feet. And look what happened there.
You don't need to look far for an analogous well.
Please try to do better.
You have to be in the same class as Thymers when it comes to knowledge.
Do you know what a test spread is?
Stanley, again you show why you have got yourself into such a fine mess with your investments. You need to pay some attention to details and facts. You could also point this out to Ollie.
You may have not noticed but there have been at least 407 oil tankers at HH. What ever the reasons there were none at Broadford Bridge. That is a major difference.
Ibug, Facts are not your strong point and as usual you are wrong again. As you can now see below your accusation of my maths ability was also wrong.
The EWTs has continued since the 16th Jan 2019 and the Kimmeridge reservoir details were updated via RNS on the 28th June 2019.
Kimmeridge oil reservoir is a vertical zone of 200M, not 109m.
Also Ibug there is no need to perforate the interval between KL4 and KL2 as the whole length is extensively naturally fractured which is why the oil is flowing from both the limestone and the shale layers.
RNS Number : 7440D
UK Oil & Gas PLC
28 June 2019
"We also tested the deeper naturally fractured Kimmeridge Limestone 3 ("KL3") and KL4 oil pool, which during its initial 50-hour period produced 563 to 771 bopd from the single KL3 perforated zone alone. The 40-41° API crude oil flowed continuously to the surface with zero water content. The test data confirmed that the Kimmeridge oil pool produces from one single vertically-connected 600ft (200m) or more naturally fractured zone, extending from the deeper KL2 to at least the top of the KL4 zone. Oil production is interpreted to come from both naturally fractured limestones and calcareous shales, which is an unexpected learning."
So far Ibug you have been completely wrong on the number of Tankers, the amount of oil produced, and the Kimmeridge Resevoir size.
Not much else left considering this is an oil company.
' 200m vertical oil zone producing from both the limestone and shales'
Just like at Broadford Bridge then? Except as they said at the time that was better because it was in the 'sweet spot'.
The Portland horizontal is about survival.
The Kimmeridge horizontal, when it happens, will be about 5-10p/share (depending obviously on how many extra billions of shares have been issued by that point).
As per the RNS 19th Jan 2019 there had been 114 Tankers from HH.
There has now been 407 known tankers.
So 293 tankers over 56 weeks.
An average of 23 tankers per month or between 5 and 6 per week.
Allowing for down time there will have been days, or even some weeks, without any tankers. So there must have been many days when two and three tankers left HH.
How do you calculate when the % has changed so much since the EWT started? Why not just wait for the Annual Report?
Surely these are a big enough clue. (£23m)
02 Dec 2019 £2m placing
07 Aug 2019 £5.5m financing
27 Mar 2019 £3.5m placing
04 Jul 2018 £2m placing
02 Jul 2018 £5m placing
15 Jun 2018 £5.5m placing
UKOG % of HH
7th August 2019 85.635%
14th February 2019 50.635%
30th August 2018 46.735%
14th July EWT commenced
20th August 2017 32.435%
Math is obviously not your strong point. 358ft is 109m not 200m. The interval between KL3 and KL4 was never perforated. Why not read the RNS's first before posting?
16 January 2019 KL4 production from a 103 ft perforated interval commenced during late November, yielding 2,192 bbl at a maximum half-hourly metered rate of 584 barrels of oil per day ("bopd") and at an average sustained daily continuous rate of 300 bopd over the subsequent week.
Fluid and pressure build up data gathered from the KL4 test demonstrate that the KL3 and KL4 are one single oil pool of 358 ft vertical extent. As a result, and as previously indicated, a decision was made to commingle both KL3 and KL4 production (i.e. produce from both sets of perforations at the same time).
Commingled KL3 and KL4 production from an aggregate 187 ft perforated interval commenced on 4th December at a maximum half-hourly rate of 426 bopd and continued throughout the Christmas and New Year period, producing 8,829 bbl of 40° API crude. The programme included several pressure build-up tests and testing of different pump configurations, settings and equipment.
Following the installation of a new downhole pump and an optimised surface hydraulic pump unit, stable commingled production resumed on 7th January at an increased initial rate of 525 bopd. The sustained daily rate over the subsequent week averaged 303 bopd. A de-waxing treatment applied on 14th January led to an increase in hourly rate to 351 bopd. Commingled production continues.
Since end June up to end January about 32,000bbls has been produced (397*215 = ca 85,355 – 54,000 on 28 June). So revenue from HH over these 7months is about £1.65mm (OP av ca. $65, Exch av ca.$1.27/£1) = approx £236,000 per month
Since end November (27th) there has been up to end January 6511bbls produced (85355-78844) using the same figures that’s a gross £325550 in 2 months or £163,000 per month.
So far in February with tanker 407 yesterday that makes 10 tankers, and OP in Feb has been around $56 = about £93,000 – if the rest of Feb continues with one tanker a day = 14*215*56/1.3 = £130,000 – so not £400,000 – but for February, assuming they don’t stop for rig or coiled tubing unit arrival, about £220,000.
From the 31 March 2019 consolodated cashflow account UKOG gross outgoings were nearly £1.3mm a month, the next 3 months it was about £1.1mm.
For details see my post of 12 Feb, 21:03 where my estimate was that UKOG had at best £2.5mm left end of January. Which is why I won’t be surprised if there is a cash raise before the end of February – and not at 2p (or even a 10% discount to 2p).
‘Therefore, the Board seeks approval to increase its authority to allot and issue shares so that it can act swiftly to establish Production via an ability to fund the Company's Horse Hill FDP and to ensure that the Second Deferred Payment can be satisfied.’
Of course the £10,000 net a month they were getting from Horndean (accounts end September to end March) might delay it a day or two.
You may mess around with tanker volume, number of tankers on Jan 31st, average OP, exchange rate or claim that the £1.3mm and £1.1mm were periods with extraordinary costs – but UKOG certainly aren’t any where near covering costs with oil sales.
HH1 can at present produce oil from three separate levels in two different reservoirs. The lower two levels in the Kimmeridge have been proved by the EWT to be connected by extensive natural fractures creating over a 200m vertical oil zone producing from both the limestone and shales. Greatly increasing the amount of recoverable oil potential.
Yes, it was my photo of the tanker and I agree, it's a shame there are a few people knocking Ukog, maybe need week it will all become a lot clearer, for everyone.
Roganjt, it must of been your photo of that tanker that I saw originally I think on FOTH twitter. Then on Wealdoilers as well.
You did well.
Trolls hate support for facts that disprove their false claims. It makes their deramping agenda so much more difficult.
Remember the recent attempt to pretend there was no cage on site for HH1. Same culprits on here today trying to get away with more false and misleading posts.
And at 13.45 you posted:
'On the other days the money from the oil so!d builds up and is then used towards costs when they occur. '
I'm just suggesting that after flowing oil from HH1 for all this time not much can have 'built up' can it?
If this company is going to be OK it's all about HH2?
Can we agree on that?
"Grid connection is covered by permitted development order 2015."
It is in deed but that's permission from the Planners - I meant there is no record of HHDL applying to THE GRID for a connection..........
Stanley, your 14.17 post explains clearly why your investing history is so poor. You need to give Mr Hardy the boot and get your financial advice elsewhere. It could not be worse than Ollie's to date.
The 400th tanker was photographed by me last Friday week, 7th Feb and UKOG put a photo up on their web site. Seven tankers have been in and loaded since then, so 407 tankers to date.