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.
Ok, will kick off some debate. And I do not want to see replies along the lines of (SS bonus, SS quiet, lifesytle, eggcup issues, etc). Keep the conversation sensible please.
Discussion Point 1 -- Horse Hill
- We were assured by way of RNS that HH1 would be subjected to additional perforations of the Portland, and that this would be done in the summer of 2020. By my reckoning, that is overdue, but maybe this will happen soon pending some supplier hook ups.
- We were also informed by way of RNS that they would move HH1 into dual completion, with both Portland and Kimmeridge to be flowed. So that is another key milestone for this well.
- We've seen production data for HH1 show some water cut in the May 2020 figures. It was speculated that this may have been kill fluids as the well may have been killed during some workover. I've not seen the hard evidence to support that argument (kill fluids). But we do know that the production data for June 2020 is due before the end of this week.
- Then there is HH2z. Its been shut-in for some time now, and we have not been told whether anything has been progressed on that well. We are aware of the additional water issues, but not what UKOG plan to do or on what timescale (not that their timescales can be taken literally).
Discussion Point 2 -- Loxely
- Planning refused on very uncertain terms back in the early summer.
- Looks like SCC have taken external advice on the matter, and that is likely to be of legal counsel.
- Due back to SCC, will it be heard in October? We wait and see? Will it be the same 11 SCC councillors and if so will they vote any differently?
- If it is refused a second time, then I think we can expect a delay of 12 months whilst that process deals with the matter. But based on what I observed in the recording from the dismal meeting back in June, it seems highly likely that the appeal would be a success.
- Or will SCC play the deferral card and insist on input from the local travellers (something that I would find a tad strange).
Discussion Point 3 -- IoW
- Looks like the IoW planning committee is against any further deferral and can kicking.
- Seems likely to be heard this side of Xmas
- Large number of objections, but are there really any grounds for refusal?
- I must admit, the site location is excellent and I dont see any impacts, much simpler than Loxley (good roads, no wedding business, etc)
Discussion Point 4 -- Turkey
- Must be getting close to an announcement on progress with the Turkish Government.
- Do UKOG have sufficient cash in the bank to cover the cash call of the first drill? It will be a slim bank balance if they do.
- On-going operational costs at HH will be quite low, but what is the current burn rate?
So plenty to discuss. Happy to discuss. But keep it on point.
Different people see different sensibles.
For instance.., ALL of this has been discussed in multiple threads and across multiple weeks already.
It's all still ongoing.
Every day.
But you kick it off again in a new thread.
:)
Cinders
This was removed last week so have you read the relevant policies and how uncertain are they?
"draft minutes for Dunsfold out;
"25. A Member of the Committee felt that the discussion on this application
was disturbing and highlighted to Members that if the application was
refused on non-planning reasons then the cost of appeal, if successful,
would be significant. Further to this in regards to the motion for refusal,
the Member stated that there was a lack of highway reasons, that
citing impact on businesses was not logical, that oil wells were
regulated nationally, that nothing can stop clear felling of woodland if a
licence was granted for that, and that the public had provided an
emotional response.
26. A Member of the Committee stated that they believed it was the right
choice to refuse the application and that Members should not be
discouraged by the risk of the decision being overturned at appeal.
The Member further highlighted that the number of objections to the
application and the lack of consultation with the local Gypsy and
Traveller community.
27. The Chairman called the motion for refusal which received 6 votes for,
5 votes against and no abstentions. Therefore the motion was carried.
28. The Principal Solicitor stated that there was a need to clearly set out
and confirm the reasons for refusal. The Chairman agreed to adjourn
the meeting to enable Planning Officers to collate a summary of
planning reasons for refusal following discussions at the meeting.
Keith Taylor left the meeting 15:07pm
The Chairman adjourned the meeting from 15:07pm to 15:27pm
29. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the following reasons for
refusal:
a. It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the
development nor that the adverse impacts in respect of Highways,
noise, lighting and air quality will not be significant contrary to policies
MC12, MC14 and MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011.
30. The Chairman moved the confirmation vote on the motion for refusal of
the application for the reasons outlined in paragraph 29a of these
minutes which received 9 votes for, 1 vote against and no abstentions.
Therefore the motion was carried.
Page 8 of 13
Actions / further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
That the Committee REFUSE application WA/2019/0796 due to the reason
that It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the development
nor that the adverse impacts in respect of highways, noise, lighting and air
quality will not be significant contrary to policies MC12, MC14 and MC15 of
the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011.""
volume of 119.8m, much better than yesterday, approaching the double of yesterday's total volume.
Skwizz, I really dont care for your pseudo trading blog on this board. FTSE is not a dart board where money can be made without risk. You and ohmetoe and clearly trying to deflect proper conversation of UKOG on the UKOG board. I wonder why?
Ibug. Thanks for posting that. I watched the entire replay and it was tedious to say the least. Regardless of what SCC did in "full on panic mode" in the meeting back in the early summer. I think that they will not try to take the same approach for refusal as they did last time. It would be folly and I dont think they'll have a leg to stand on from a legal perspective. Their own planning officer and legal counsel, and chairman made that clear in the meeting. They put up a wishy washy reason in the second vote on the matter. They were in chaos, and I bet the chairman was happy to get the meeting finished before having a few drinks to settle his nerves.
I fully expect UKOG to have the planning approved, be it at the next SCC meeting or via appeal.
p.s. I do not have a Twitter account, the organisation I work for has very strict policies on social media applications and usage, thus we are encouraged not to have them (if we do, then they get monitored). Its a bit of a pain, but I'd rather avoid a slapping for my political views, environmental views, etc.
Oh and Skwizz, when you state; "But you kick it off again in a new thread."
Um, that is my right. This is a discussion board. i.e. for discussing things that are relevant and on the near term horizon.
My use of the UKOG board for discussing relevant UKOG topics is what it is designed for. Its not a blog service.
But, I know why you don't want to discuss UKOG, and would rather discuss anything but UKOG, and even brag about your unproven trading mastermind results.
HH
what's to discuss - either they do what they plan or it just doesn't get mentioned again.
Loxley
They were advised by legal dept and planners to pass and they refused, date will be whenever they get round to it and may depend on covid restrictions as videoconferencing didn.t work.
Far more important is what happens after they get planning either from SCC or appeal. Not 'planned' to be drilled until H2 2021 and the record of UKOG fulfilling plans is not good. It's a test on a dodgy map of a failed discovery (GB-1) that had 2/3 appraisal wells that were all abandoned, as was the discovery well - yet posters believe it's a slam dunk, here's a definition of 'recoverable resources' from the OGA:- 'This is an estimate of the amount of gas that might be technically recovered if production were not constrained by economics. TRR estimates will therefore always be larger than reserves estimates'
and they need to discover not only a gas but also prove the GIIP that the 'recoverable resources' is based on.
IOW
Similar to Loxley except Xodus have accepted (without discussion) the UKOG explanation for the failure of Arreton 1 and 2 so calculated contingent resources and are drilling a well to test the Arreton structure deviated to be adjacent to Arreton 1 & 2. A risky 'appraisal' of oil shows.
They haven't submitted planning for the follow up well they claim to want to drill directly after Arreton-3. From the Final Results RNS:- 'Should Arreton-3 results prove encouraging we plan to move directly to drill, core and test a vertical pilot hole in the geological look alike Godshill exploration prospect'
Turkey
Not entirely clear that they will have the cash up front to pay for the well let alone the seismic - UKOG usually raise when the kitty drops below £1mm. End March 2020 there was £780,000 cash left. 28/4 they raised 1.275mm ostensibly to pay for stuff they had raised £2mm for in December and then raised £4.2mm in early June for the equipment purchase (again) plus paying off YA etc. and the summer intervention and Loxley site prep - neither done. That's about £6.25mm end march cash plus raises, but about £2.2mm to YA and PW so £4mm left less monthly costs of running UKOG and subsidiaries Even if HH/HHDL is now paying it's way UKOG won't be able to get it's hands on the oil sales cash. Assuming that the sums for Loxley and HH intervention aren't ring-fenced even zero pcm outgoings for UKOG still will mean UKOG need to raise for Turkey.
Next news will probably be a placing, 4 billion at 0.00125. UJO is showing UKOG how to get away with M.........
Sorry scallywag, but the directors are only granted the rights to issue £300,000 of new shares at nominal value.
So they cannot raise 4 billion new shares. They are limited to 3 billion per annum, thats unless they raise a motion at an EGM to grant the further rights.
At a 25% discount to current SP (0.18p = 0.135p), then they would raise £4.5million if they were to issue 3 billion shares.
Agree?
Cynderlad. Trust me its not just this board that Skwizz and co try to promote themselves, some say its an inferiority complex or a new way of presenting your cv when looking for work.
Good news Ohmetoe I have got you an interview at Lidl it involves TROLLeys
I think any placing would be more like 15% below SP.
The only placing that should be done is placing the person behind bars for what he has done to share holders money imo
Different rights for different users eh?
Btw, who were you before this user?
Lololol.
Cinders, I really dont care for your rampings/ramblings on this board. FTSE is not a dart board where money can be made without risk. You and ohmetoe and clearly trying to deflect proper conversation of UKOG on the UKOG board. I wonder why?
You seem not to have read my posts.
LOL!
:D
Calm down Skwizz - the rampers are getting the better of you. I know it is frustrating, but like an irritating rash, they will not go away by scratching. A few on here have some savvy, others are just desperate.. I’ll leave it up to other members to work out who they are !!!
So to quote from my earlier post:
"Discussion Point 1 -- Horse Hill
- We were assured by way of RNS that HH1 would be subjected to additional perforations of the Portland, and that this would be done in the summer of 2020. By my reckoning, that is overdue, but maybe this will happen soon pending some supplier hook ups.
- We were also informed by way of RNS that they would move HH1 into dual completion, with both Portland and Kimmeridge to be flowed. So that is another key milestone for this well.
- We've seen production data for HH1 show some water cut in the May 2020 figures. It was speculated that this may have been kill fluids as the well may have been killed during some workover. I've not seen the hard evidence to support that argument (kill fluids). But we do know that the production data for June 2020 is due before the end of this week.
- Then there is HH2z. Its been shut-in for some time now, and we have not been told whether anything has been progressed on that well. We are aware of the additional water issues, but not what UKOG plan to do or on what timescale (not that their timescales can be taken literally)."
I refer all readers to the above, and yes my timing was pretty good wasn't it. I wonder?
See, I provided the opportunity for open and honest debate, and what did I see through today in response? A load of rubbish responses from known detractors of UKOG. We all know why.
The insults and detraction, and deflection, none of that stopped the cranes turning up, nor has it stopped the workover work. Nor will it stop UKOG from ploughing forward.
So how about you lot focus on discussion rather than berating people like me for bring proper discussion to a board, a board that was designed for proper debate, and not for BS.
Who was I before this user? I was someone on the ADVFN board, and got sick and tired of the same rubbish from the same XR trolls there as I've already witnessed here. As for who I am outside of this board, that I will not divulge. But you can take what you like from my timely posting of updates at HH in my post earlier this morning. And before you jump to any conclusions, no I am not someone who goes to site with a camera and sits in the bushes.
Lol Qwerty.
I'm sixty bud.
I find it all rather amusing.
;)
Oh, I see what you mean now.
(I was only quoting Cinders' earlier post...)
:D
Cynderlad,
'So how about you lot focus on discussion rather than berating people like me for bring proper discussion to a board, a board that was designed for proper debate, and not for BS.'
So you keep going on about debate but don't want to respond to replies to your previous post but repeat the bit in your original post and declare responses (presumably those you don't agree with) as ' A load of rubbish'.
That's not debate, if you don't agree post what your opinion is and what it is based on, that's debate. Just claiming 'we all know why' is not debating an issue.
So in fact you didn't bring discussion to this board at all if you only wanted replies you agreed with.
As for current activity let's hope it is for reperforating and reconfiguring the production tubing, but until UKOG RNS that's what they are doing we don't know. June OGA production figures tomorrow, From UKOG RNS should average about 250 bopd, pity UKOG don't feel they need to tell their shareholders current and anticipated production from HH-1.
Penguins,
I brought 4 discussion points yesterday, and my timing was pretty good on the HH point. The responses received from the known trolls were as expected. I reserve the right to respond to them in kind calling out my opinion.
I brought debate, which is more than can be said for many here, those who just post negatives about the company without any technical analysis. It really has become a soap box for the XR community. They are proliferate.
Back to HH, and HH1 workover. I am not expecting HH2z to have a workover at this point, UKOG probably dont have the cash to do what is needed there. I've written off HH2z as a water injection well. HH1, re-perf is on the cards and dual completion. SO lets see what it provides. As for HH1 anticipated figures, why do UKOG need to put anything out there? They are clearly not after a loan at this point. The OGA figures for June will be interesting (water cut increase or decrease, oil production, etc). Plenty there for us to pick the bones out of tomorrow or Friday?
Glad that you are in part wishing to have a debate, but don't call me out for putting others down as you are simply then doing what I consider to be poor practice. Just accept that I will bring debate, and that when I see rubbish responses from folks that would prefer to brag about their investing mastermind trading results, or rubbish responses from known haters, that I will put their response into context. e.g. Rich3648, someone who does not ever enter into proper debate and just takes the opportunity to **** the CEO off.
The figures will be in the region of 840 tons.
And there will be a water element as there was a workover between the 8-11th June were the rods were out. Perf guns ? .
In the last week of June the tanker rate increased...
Don’t let the spin get in the way of the facts
" I will bring debate, and that when I see rubbish responses from folks that would prefer to brag about their investing mastermind trading results, or rubbish responses from known haters,"
So says Cinderland - a new poster with a total of 20 posts - in fact its clearly Troll Hunter/Troll basher/Troll hater again
Cynderlad,
Dual completion won't be happening for some time if ever. It needs ESP's not rod pumping - it would require a major workover and could risk the only (significant) production UKOG can lay claim to - even if the majority is likely to be absorbed by HHDL just to continue operations.
HH-2z is probably unsuitable for water injection - location probably not ideal as they probably targeted the culmination of HH Portland - and fractures inflowing could with the application of pressure become uncontrolled and not understood conduits elsewhere rather than allowing a carefully managed waterflood - there's suggestions (waste tankers) they've had another go at flowing HH-2z, no official information since end June RNS though.
UKOG don't need to put out figures? Mayn=be they don't need to but UKOG are an oil production company yet they can't give investors an idea about what their expectations are for production of their first and only operated field - look at the SP they need to do something to encourage investors. Before being in production UKOG were very happy to quote expectations of 362bopd from HH-1, and variations on 720 to 1080 bopd from an horizontal - when they are in production though..........not even prepared to put out precise figures for their daily rather than average production which we can only get 3 months in arrears. I wonder if they will have the same reticence for issuing initial flow figures after reperforation?
and if you think putting others down is poor practice why the 'A load of rubbish responses from known detractors of UKOG. We all know why.'
'We all know why'?
Is it because almost every 'why' I've seen seems to revolve around 'swampies, xr, trolls' etc which is just a lazy response to avoid debate - rather than it's posters putting up genuine issues with what UKOG has and is doing and essentially there being no rational argument.