Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten has just been released. Listen here.
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. 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 suspect a good number of the trolls have no stake in UKOG.
Consequently, they are free to express their views but lack the financial muscle to have any impact on the share price.
But it works both ways - if the market decides that the share price has gone up too far it can swiftly decline as was shown on Friday when the share price dropped by over 30 percent.
There are times when there is absolutely no point in trying to fight the market.
If the market has come to the conclusion that UKOG's share price is seriously undervalued, then the re-rating will take place, no matter what anybody posts on this board.
Yup my thoughts exactly
Ibug
Are we looking at a export pipeline there?
"Did the EWT finish at the time the production licence began March/April 2020."
Yes - the OGA wouldn't hand out a PL while the EWT was running - tho it was, in fact the other way round.
Because so little was happening onshore UK and because the Kimm was so new the OGA effectively allowed UKOG to produce under the EWT approval for well over a year. They'd argue (correctly) that UKOG weren't making a profit so that was OK under the guidance.
Once they'd approved the FDP the EWT officially stops and the production licence supersedes it.
Wizard
It is easy to check using the RNS's. Despite the Planning Application the EA permit is even more restrictive only allowing 1230 barrels of oil to be stored. The gauge tanks are gone and there are only storage tanks.
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rh6-0hn-horse-hill-developments-ltd/supporting_documents/04%20%20Site%20Location%20Plan%20and%20Site%20Layout%20Plan%20R1.pdf
Ibug
Did the EWT finish at the time the production licence began March/April 2020.
The water began after the oil flow increased to 300 BOPD which was the expectation of what the well could produce by the flow test by Xodus from memory.
Wizard
When did the EWT finish? When did they discover water? Application went in at the end of January 2020.
Ibug
I don't know about that but I thought planning in September 2019 was granted on the extended HH site for up to 9000 barrels storage.
https://planning.surreycc.gov.uk/planappdisp.aspx?AppNo=SCC%20Ref%202020/0018
No. Totally new configuration. I have been in touch with SCC as it does not match what they have put in the EA application. That was well over a month ago and not had a reply.
Thanks Ibug
I don't know if that includes currant storage onsite or is additional storage but if additional would add about 2000 barrels storage which would make storage for about 4200 if there is currently 2200 barrels storage.
Senmon.
Once again what's important is, what do YOU think will happen.
It's YOUR money.
Whose advice are you asking for?
Who are you listening to?
Who is everyone on this forum?
What are their qualifications that they can advise YOU what to do with YOUR money?
Have you noticed many conflicting views/thoughts here?
Why would you be interested in anyone else's view?
It's YOUR money you're investing.
Wizard
There is one planning application still outstanding for storage on site. They have requested the following size tanks.
58: GAUGE TANKS X 5 (CAPACITY 27.8M3) (VESSEL NO. WT-T1 to WT-T5)
60: GAUGE TANKS X 2 (CAPACITY 69.95M3) (VESSEL NO. WT-T7 to WT-T8)
61: GAUGE TANK (CAPACITY 55.64M3) (VESSEL NO. WT-T6)
Ocelot,
you haven't considered that the constant optimism by certain posters of how great everything was and how the SP would always rise in the future over the past 3 years vs the outcomes might have lead to the disillusionment of investors and the low price?
So the years of decline to the 'bottom' is due to optimists and the 4? days of recovery (if it holds) due to pessimists - followed by a day's drop caused presumably by the optimists
Didn't exactly see that being reflected in the posts over the last few days.
There has been a single poster saying the Turkish well wouldn't be drilled but the main thrust has been it's unlikely to be transformational (unless that means a well not much different to HH-1, if they're lucky) - that has still to be found out.
As nobody flagged that permission from the authorities was something waited for (which as the site was being prepared AME obviously thought it would be a formality) the market wasn't waiting for 'permission to drill from the Turkish authorities' and it was just lucky a P&D at 88E had just happened.
Any proof of the 'rumour' about wealthy (now wealthier with cash in bank if they were smart) Turkish investors?
Wizard,
'HH was originally permitted for 3000BOPD.'
By the EA? Storage and handling of 500tonnes is about 3150bbls not bopd. UKOG are now indicating production of up to 25,000scf/day from HH-1 (up to 140bopd?) and up to 250,000scf/day during 90 day ewt production from further wells. But UKOG's record of using the permissions they have to the full is poor.
Don't confuse planning permission for a maximum number of daily tanker export for a short 4 month period with EA permission to flare or utilise associated gas.
Mirasol
If you read the RNS I believe UKOG addressed that.
Wizz - you haven't addressed the issue that the reservoir model is clearly wrong
reserves must go down and there goes any RBL
Penguins
Very funny you have been predicting the depletion for many years that the water injection is there to offset & was stated by Xodus in the 2018 Portland CPR.
The key question as far as the gas is concerned is what is the current gas production & how is that likely to increase in the development, test & production stages of the future HH wells & is it within the current permitted limits?
HH was originally permitted for 3000BOPD.
Wizard,
The EA is revision to previous permits asking for EA permission to test and for treatments to further wells at HH. There is no change to the allowed mass of gas allowed to be flared. From EPR/BB3300XG, determined 31st August 2017, 'The amount of gas to be flared shall not exceed 10 tonnes per day.' From this request: 'Incinerating natural gas at a rate not exceeding 10 tonnes per day during production operations.
They will continue to store and handle crude oil up to a capacity of 500 tonnes within the existing infrastructure and within the current permitted boundary (Permit EPR/SP3339YS)
The following applications from the original application for consolidating the permits with the above have now been
withdrawn:
• Permit Number: EPR/SP3339YS/V002 to allow for a regulated facility type: 1.2 A(1) h) (i) - Loading/Storage/
Treatment etc of Crude Oil
• EPR/TP3007PZ/A001 to allow for the operation of specified generators with an aggregated capacity of less than
50MWth for the production of electricity for export.
As they have said they want to drill a further 2 wells the request for EA permission for testing and treatments for HH-3 to HH-6 is timely - if there is production from those wells they will be subject to further EA permission, but the loading plant and gas to wire requests have been withdrawn.
Note the following from the Gas Management Plan:-
'6.2, however this Gas Management Plan has been produced to assess the techniques considered the best available
for waste gas during activities associated with production from the HH-1 well only, and extended well testing of each
additional hydrocarbon exploration well.'
and
'With the sites main commodity being oil no other gas management techniques have been considered within the
quantitative assessment as the volume of gas encountered thus far suggests that there is not enough to power the site by itself let alone for exportation. Gas volumes are too low for heat generators and gas turbine technologies,
forcing HHDL to consider small scale generator sets only.'
However they have indicated gas production from HH-1 of 25,000scf/day. In the Geological Reservoir parameters they quote 180scf/bbl as the current GOR (document dated 21 Jan 2021) so about 140bopd.
Water injection into a fractured reservoir, especially from a well not specifically placed for that purpose and a reservoir they appear to have difficulty modeling is not a turn it on, it will work process - it will need to be tested and may only work partially, or not at all, or make things worse. I'm also not sure how early water injection was considered to be needed - if UKOG knew it was 6 months after start of production - and it had to work - perhaps they should have mentioned that otherwise decline would be catastrophic - but there's never any risk with UKOG projects, everything will turn out fine - until it doesn't.
Think the trolls themselves may be in part responsible for UKOG's resurgence.
By constantly focusing on the negatives, they seem to have ensured that the negatives were fully discounted in the share price.
Consequently, the share price was primed to rise on any positive developments (permission to drill from the Turkish authorities, cash from investors in 88 Energy, cash from wealthy Turkish investors, ...).
HH-1 was deviated up to 18 degrees down to the Kimmeridge.
Record Well Name MD (ft) MD (m) Inclination Azimuth Easting (X) Northing (Y)
1 HORSE HILL 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 525254.91 143600.31
2 HORSE HILL 1 875.00 266.70 0.25 105.00 525255.47 143600.16
3 HORSE HILL 1 1185.00 361.19 0.25 5.00 525255.69 143600.32
4 HORSE HILL 1 1500.00 457.20 0.50 60.00 525256.07 143600.73
5 HORSE HILL 1 1780.00 542.54 1.00 215.00 525255.97 143600.31
6 HORSE HILL 1 1816.90 553.79 0.85 25.35 525255.95 143600.31
7 HORSE HILL 1 1861.90 567.51 0.85 20.41 525256.02 143600.49
8 HORSE HILL 1 1906.40 581.07 0.81 18.93 525256.09 143600.68
9 HORSE HILL 1 1945.40 592.96 1.07 9.77 525256.14 143600.87
10 HORSE HILL 1 1991.40 606.98 3.04 359.78 525256.16 143601.37
11 HORSE HILL 1 2035.80 620.51 5.12 353.20 525256.08 143602.33
12 HORSE HILL 1 2081.00 634.29 6.90 351.36 525255.89 143603.75
13 HORSE HILL 1 2125.20 647.76 7.95 353.47 525255.66 143605.48
14 HORSE HILL 1 2169.40 661.23 9.33 345.15 525255.27 143607.46
15 HORSE HILL 1 2214.00 674.83 10.78 342.03 525254.60 143609.73
16 HORSE HILL 1 2257.70 688.15 12.46 340.10 525253.73 143612.27
17 HORSE HILL 1 2302.00 701.65 14.34 340.41 525252.67 143615.21
18 HORSE HILL 1 2346.80 715.30 15.90 339.52 525251.45 143618.56
19 HORSE HILL 1 2390.70 728.69 17.23 340.00 525250.13 143622.14
20 HORSE HILL 1 2434.00 741.88 18.64 339.11 525248.71 143625.94
21 HORSE HILL 1 2478.30 755.39 19.59 339.09 525247.13 143630.07
Welltops HH-1
Top MD (f) MD (m) TVDSS (f) TVDSS (m) TWT (s) Detail
Weald Clay 25 7.6 -220 -66.9 - -
Hastings Beds 520 158.5 276 84.0 - -
Grinstead Clay 695 211.8 451 137.3 - -
Lower Tunbridge Wells Sands 770 234.7 526 160.2 - -
Wadhurst Clay 805 245.4 561 170.8 - -
Ashdown Beds 978 298.1 734 223.6 - -
Purbeck Durlston Beds 1302 396.8 1058 322.3 - -
Purbeck Carbonates 1525 464.8 1281 390.3 - -
Purbeck Main Anhydrite 1984 604.7 1740 530.2 0.385 -
Portland Sandstone 2042 622.4 1797 547.7 0.384 -
Lower Portland Sandstone 2324 708.4 2075 632.5 0.437 -
Kimmeridge Clay 2480 755.9 2223 677.6 0.469 -
Mirasol
I never siad it was please reread my post!
HH1 was reperforated in late 2020 the well has been under very controlled production due to the wated now being produced & the cost of exporting it offsite.
If the water can be reinjected the production may no longer need to be held back & we can see how well it will flow.
HH2 is now planned to become the water injection well.
"Water injection was always going to be needed in the early stages & would need to have been provided to support production that was not even there in the EWT to prevent depletion. As far as I know HH1 in its present form was not drilled as a production well, it will be interesting to see what happens after the water injector is fitted & what it will produce as a horizontal well after its reperforation when the water is reinjected."
Wizz - the injector was well 4 or 5 in a 6 well campaign - HH2 zwas supposed to be the 2000 bopd producer- remember?
HH-1 is a slant well (tho not very slant in the Portland) - it was never mean to be an injector nor have UKOG ever said it would be - they talked about a dual completion as a producer from the Portland and the kimm (remember that?) .
You don't turn your only producer into a water injector - not even ANGS are that stupid.
Sorry that was HH1 vertical well can produce after its reperforation with water injection.
Mirasol
Water injection was always going to be needed in the early stages & would need to have been provided to support production that was not even there in the EWT to prevent depletion.
As far as I know HH1 in its present form was not drilled as a production well, it will be interesting to see what happens after the water injector is fitted & what it will produce as a horizontal well after its reperforation when the water is reinjected.