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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
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.
Snaith, putting words into another poster's mouth is really a little trite, no?
I did not "agree that if the HH2 conversion at Horsehill gets the go ahead to convert to a water injector well profits from oil sales will see a huge rise."
I stated that, IF permission is granted AND IF pumping water back in to Horse Hill does not adversely affect existing production or water contamination, then the cost of sale on UKOG's 100 bopd would indeed go down.
That's markedly different from what you were so unsurprisingly keen to pretend I'd said.
What we don't know is how much fluids came out of HH-2Z between December 2019 through to October 2020. They will need to be replaced before any affect takes place. The longer it goes on the bigger the void at HH-1. imo the only gains will be in the non payment of contaminated water for quite a long period, probably years.
If you neighbour has a water leak, then is your house flooded?
I ask, because, if UKOG's original statements about HH2z being a different compartment in the Portland are true, then injecting water into that well may not drive oil up much at all. Have they really modelled HH1 / HH2z and shared that publicly? You seem to have a lot of confidence in a CEO that has a rather shocking track record.
AME have already shown that the bit of SE Turkey that UKOG is involved in is not very analogous to the Kurdistan fileds by multiple drills at the adjacent, analogous to Resan/Basur E Sadak with significantly lower production and reserves.
Perhaps they intend to help with exploration nearer the border.
H.I.T.S. Bit like the use of analogous when it comes to Horsehill and Broadford Bridge which is over the horizon but not Brockham which is nearly next door. Could it be because of Brockhams production figures? Same could be said about Resan and East Sadak but not Sadak, Bukat and Kedil which are all closer. They only mention Godley Bridge but never Alford when it comes to Loxley so UKOG really are selective with what the do and don't admit to.
The cost of oil sales is high at Horsehill because of the high cost to tanker contaminated waste water away to be incinerated."
I agree. Which is precisely why I said that nobody but an idiot would want Holmwood and Markwells Wood to be "producers like Horsehill".
"These high costs will be non-existent if water injection is used to put the wastewater back into the well." Again I agree that just the water disposal element of said costs would be substantially reduced... IF such a thing is permitted and IF such a thing is viable without adversely affecting production.
No deramping here - just stating facts. But I have to comment that throughout its entire history to date UKOG has always been very fond of its "ifs" and "potentiallys" and "expected to be's"...
Of coarse you are wright. After all what has SCC to do with the lease. The important approval for HH-2 is not the EA one which is mainly procedural but the approval by the OGA for the FDP addendum. I have asked UKOG on many occasions why they never put in a FDP addendum to produce simultaneously from the Kimmeridge and Portland at HH-1 and have never had a response. They never even raised it at the AGM.
Snaith2 Wrong. They never re-submitted the Planning Application and Holmwood application was withdrawn by Europa. "03 May 2017 UK Oil & Gas Investments PLC ("UKOG" or the "Company") Markwells Wood Planning Application Update UKOG (AIM & NEX: UKOG) announces that, in order to progress the acquisition of new site-specific hydrogeological data over and around the Markwells Wood drilling pad, the Company has temporarily withdrawn its planning application to the South Downs National Park Authority ("SDNPA"). The application is now planned for resubmission later in 2017 after the completion of the planned data acquisition and upon the conclusions of ongoing technical conversations with the Environment Agency ("EA")."
" An Interesting tweet from Anton " and yet no picture of this surface piping. All sounds very dodgy to me. UKOGers back to their old tricks methinks.
Snaith, if either site had been drilled and "turned out to be producers like Horsehill has", that would in fact be really bad news for UKOG.
Why? Because from looking at the very recently released HHDL FY accounts, roughly speaking, every £1 of revenue generated from oil extracted from HH seems to have a £2 cost of sale attached to it. And that's without taking into account any of the initial set-up capex costs required, which would run into seven figures per site.
So actually it would be far more correct to say that Holmwood and Markwells Wood would have had to turn out to be producers absolutely nothing like Horsehill demonstrably has.
On that basis, it is very easily arguable that UKOG and especially its long-suffering PIs dodged two bullets when permissions weren't granted on these two sites. ..
Unfortunately there is already a field in SE Turkey adjacent (and slightly nearer) Iraq to the field UKOG farmed into in south east Turkey - Resan/Basur - that has multiple wells yet doesn't produce oil at volumes 'analogous' to the Iraq fields. UKOG has also preferred to look far to the south-east and the Kurdistan fields than actually mention the production over time (or even a snapshot) of this producing lookalike field.
I wonder how much investment getting 8% of AME cost, or are they just going to utilise their technology as payment?
I noticed this in the annual report some time ago which suggests that the even the relatively small current 'reserves' for E Sadak may not be all they seem:-
'Our current strategy is to increase our oil production substantially from our new discoveries, proving the recoverable reserves to international industry standards and to the satisfaction of financial institutions.....' so they can get a London listing.
So the recoverable reserves quoted by AME (and requoted by UKOG) might be a bit flakey for the analogous field to Reasn/ Basur.
ocelot So what. I post many links but don't believe a big % of them. I don't go highlighting the rubbish, my word, they come out with though. If SE Turkey was so analogous how come we have not heard of it before. Do you ever hear about the major oil fields in Turkey? Nope. Iraq? Yes.