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.
Actually she is Adriana Zalucka and a Director at AZ PARTNERS LTD. Please get your facts right before posting.
Great post Penguins. You take some sh#t, but have always ended up pretty much on the mark.
Given your 5, can you explain what it is about UKOG that persuades you to remain invested in it?
I have always wondered who Penguins is and who or what organisation he/she represents.
Clearly anti UKOG.
Not an investor.
But not posting against other oil companies? (Not that I’ve noticed)
Does Penguins ever take a holiday? ( not that I’ve noticed)
Smyth is a possibility, or a competitor.
ADA ZAFFINA, who is really
1 Means I don't have to do 4 as much as you might think
2 Just because I don't for instance post '1.5p by 23 September 2020' (Tymers end August) doesn't mean my posts are negative, they reflect what's actually happening as I see it. It depends on your POV as to whether you consider my posts negative. I sometimes keep the possible (rather than probable) really negative stuff to myself as I hope I'm wrong because you are wrong about 5.
3 Because of 1, and don't like liars
4 I have a reasonable memory, been posting since mid 2015 but still get the odd thing wrong, and unlike some will apologise, if more did that then I might be less 3.
5 because in fact you are wrong about 2 you are wrong about 5, I probably have more shares than most that post but am not willing to post rubbish to try and tempt others in.
I've been positive, and wrong believing some of the misdirections in RNS
oil in place.
There's a whole lot of people invested in UKOG who wished they'd listened to Penguins a year ago.
I’m still convinced that Penguins = David Smythe...
1) knows his onions
2) relentlessly negative about anything UKOG
3) relentless to the point of obsessiveness
4) appears willing to spend a lot of his valuable time digging through old RNSs to argue points, even though...
5) clearly not a shareholder due to (1)-(3)
Panicking Penguins still struggling to come to terms with the "expert" meaning of OIP.
Funky Gibbon, surprising how easy it is to find the facts on the origins of the 124 billion+ OIP in the Weald. Even though some "experts" really struggled with those positive facts.
Panicking Penguins now admits to Nutech report that there are 124 billion + barrels OIP in the Weald.
Most who read this board would never have thought that a positive about Ukog or oil in the Weald would ever eminate from the self proclaimed expert of all things negative.
Panicking - you're the one making stuff up about Schlumberger to give some credence to the Nutech figure that in itself is a distortion of what oil will ever be a volume that can be 'contacted', with only a small percentage of that recoverable.
'RE: SS 22 Sep 2020 11:28
Oil in place of 100 billion barrels and 120 billion barrels in the Weald claims were made in reports by Nutech and Schlumberger. World renowned oilfield analysts.'
You now seem to accept, as you have not been able to find any such report, that Schlumberger have never stated that the Weald contains 100 or 120 billion barrels OIP - or any figure at all for the whole of the Weald.
For details see my earlier post, but even before discussing what might be recoverable less than half of the 124 billion barrels OIP in the whole Weald is within the 600ft of Kimmeridge that SS claims can be drained from the KL3.
The 'fact' that UKOG don't appear to be doing anything with the Kimmeridge at HH suggests that the 11 billion barrels OIP stands a good chance of remaining there. It was strange that UKOG only referred to the findings in an RNS about this 11 billion barrels (having released at least a summary of the other Kimmeridge reports), so there is no breakdown as to how much of the Kimmeridge total of just over 8 bilion bbls is located within the 600ft of 'connected' Kimmeridge, and takes no account of the BB and Brockham failures (sorry, for failure read 'success' at BB) which were after this report. Also Brockham is adjacent to the northern part of the licence.
Looks like SS was forced to make this statement at the end of his comments:-
'Schlumberger is acting exclusively for UKOG and for no one else in connection with the subject matter of this announcement and will not be responsible to anyone other than UKOG in connection therewith. No person or company other than UKOG may directly or indirectly rely upon the contents of its report. Schlumberger is acting in an advisory capacity only and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, disclaims all liability for actions or losses derived from any actual or purported reliance on its report (or any other statements or opinions of Schlumberger) by any person or entity other than UKOG'
Not sure Schlumberger had much faith in the volumes reported.
Penguins, See you are panicking again after positive "facts" from real experts in the oil industry have been stated. You can not avoid the real truth that the Nutech report stated 124 billion+ barrels of OIP in the Weald. 24billion+ more that SS stated.
Also 11 billion+ OIP within the HH licence area.
This is what was said about HH which drew DL in back in early 2013.
PEDL 137 ~ Horse Hill Prospect including:
Portland (Closure Missed by Collendean Farm-1 well drilled in 1964 on down thrownside of fault with good shows still encountered) ~ Est. 30+ MMbor
Corallian Est 30+ Mmbor + Gt Oolite Est. 16 MMbor
Triassic ~ Est. 164 Bcfr"
By the end of 2013 it had changed a bit to:
"HHDL plans to drill in, the New Year, a well to test a number of conventional stacked oil and gas targets which the board believes could contain up to an estimated 671 million stock barrels ("MMSTB") oil in place with an estimated total mean recoverable prospective resources of 87 MMSTB and additional prospectivity of 456 Bcf gas in place (Mean 164+ Bcf recoverable prospective resource) in the proposed Triassic gas play."
Never underestimate what the BoD can get away with.
To answer your specific point the Kimmeridge is just over 1500ft vertical thickness so already there's 900ft not connected. That 900ft below the KL2 contains a quarter (31mmbbls from Table 2- Mudstone 5) of the OIP in the Kimmeridge at Horse Hill in the April 2015 Nutech Report. In the Nutech Weald report (October 2015) over a third of the 124billion bbls is not even in the Kimmeridge (Table 5 31 billion barrels) and 16 billion barrels in the unconnected lowest shale (Tanble 7, P50 Total AOI).
After nearly 5 years from the October 2015 Weald report by Nutech UKOG hasn't had another technical report produced that has been released for the Kimmeridge despite BB and months of testing of HH-1. Perhaps you need reminding they didn't even bother to deepen the HH-2 pilot to log the Kimmeridge as planned.
Pressure in the Kimmeridge at both Horse Hill and Broadford Bridge was mentioned as a reason for it being non- commercial at both locations in the planning application for Loxley - are,you suggesting UKOG lied to SCC? Perhaps, considering the 'progress' made at HH on Kimmeridge development, it's a more reliable source of information than RNS.
Well first you need to find out if there's anything to extract, which for Loxley despite your assertions that there's 'big gas' isn't known but given the fact Godley Bridge wasn't developed and there have been failed appraisal wells doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Loxley will be a 'slam dunk' success. But I'm afraid we live in a country where you can't just build anything you want where you want, you have to get permission and that's in the hands of the local authority amongst others, not the OGA that issues licencess that do permit extraction from day one.
It's 23 September 2020, how's the 1.5p prediction for the SP going? It's a lot closer to an eigth of that price (your usual 8 times wrong),
Might be back at 16:30 to see if an 8 bagger happens today (though like most here I'll have sold way before that, once bitten etc.
Amongst the last references to the Kimmeridge in the RNSs I believe it stated almost all the whole Kimmeridge formation, including the clay layers, were all interconnected and creating a 600ft+ oil reservoir.
Shan Jo, wrong, no mention in any RNS that HH Kimmeridge has low pressure.
Not selective memory just not so obsessed with it all as you seem to be. ..remember lid was broken now you mention it, still doesn't stop it looking good at the time...we will know more when a good informative rns comes out .....if ever
2Kimmeridge I may have forgotten but.. I dont remember anything being mentioned of the Kimmeridge being no good as far as I remember it was bloody good and was disappointed when they shut it in and put Portland bk on to flow.."
ithasn't been mentioned at all in many months HH1 as you well know
and past performance at UKOG can onlead to n conclusion
I seem to remember that even when they were flowing it it was never quite as good as the Portland - but that's why you run an EWT - to see what happens long term. My guess is that they have depleted the oil from the fractures and it doesn't recharge very fast - they can probably flow it 1 month a year or similar.
Hold for the Kimmeridge
I have both barrels on my desk at home
To be viewed as a reminder of mans greed or as I believe a momento of how I sneaked half a million under the tax mans nose
ISAa s that is
Keep an Eye on the Kimmeridge
I may have forgotten but.. I dont remember anything being mentioned of the Kimmeridge being no good as far as I remember it was bloody good and was disappointed when they shut it in and put Portland bk on to flow...the Kimmeridge was normally a ferocious flare and flames out the top as I remember..night time you could see it glowing from the roadside...