Member Info for cyan2

I suppose its too much to hope for an apology for trying to discredit me Elegance. The facts are there; There WAS a recent OPEN period when options COULD have been exercised ,but, there were fears over LIQUIDITY so directors did not ALLOW their exercise; they extended them Liquidity is an issue if it was feared the options were to be sold. Its legitimate to ask why a director might want to sell rather than hold for possibly better days after the EWT.

"Please do tell us which UKOG Director sold and at what time..Otherwise I challenge that you that no director sold and that you are blatantly misleading new investors." Me being argumentative! If you took a few seconds to read what I wrote you would not blatently misrepresent what i said as a claim I said a director sold. I believe there was a wish to excercise and sell which was prevented.

"Cyan2 - erm which director is holding shares? There has never been a PDMR announcement. . . Red" The options exercise was NOT allowed. They did NOT exercise; Please read the RNS. Sanderson does not hold any shares. Is that clear?

Are you being deliberately arguementative Elegance. Can you not read and comprehend what I wrote. I NEVER said that a director exercised the options; they did not "allow" the exercise. Stop misrepresenting what i said. The evidence suggested to me that a director wanted to exercise and sell but was prevented. So, its not unreasonable to ask; "If the director thought that the SP was going North to 3p ; say after HH EWT he would want to HOLD his 0.4p shares NOT SELL them for the then price of about 1.5p ."

Good morning Elegance. Please do not misrepresent what I said. Read the RNS again and what I wrote; The options during the 'open period' were not exercised so no director could sell. I DID NOT say any director sold. The line "rather than ALLOW their exercise in the current open period" suggests someone , imo, wanted to exercise the options but were prevented/discouraged from doing so. Liquidity is only an issue if those shares were sold. It appears, imo, that the fear was they were. Any other interpretations out there?

Burningspear wrote ths line earlier this morning; "Has not bought any shares in the company because the company has been in a closed period for the last few years. Or so I am led to believe by some." In fact there was a recent 'open period' when options could have been exercised when the price was around 1.5p. See this RNS dated 16th April 2018 http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/uk-oil-gas-UKOG/share-news/UK-Oil-Gas-Investments-PLC-Exercise-Grant-Ame/77182010 Extract "During its review of option awards the Independent Directors of the Company approved an extension of the exercise period of 25 million options previously granted to Stephen Sanderson (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")) and 10 million options granted to Matt Cartwright (Chief Operating Officer ("COO")). The independent directors determined that to ensure the continued alignment of the interests of shareholders and the option holders and considering the liquidity of the Company's shares it would be beneficial to extend these options rather than allow their exercise in the current open period and consider the grant of further options to both the CEO and COO." "rather than ALLOW their exercise in the current open period" It appears an exercise was somehow prevented. Who wanted to exercise their options? Why was it prevented? "to ensure the continued alignment of the interests of shareholders and the option holders and considering the liquidity of the Company's shares it would be beneficial to extend these options" LIQUIDITY would be affected IF THE SHARES WERE GOING TO BE SOLD straight away. You have to ask the question; why would a director be keen to sell then? If the director thought that the SP was going North to 3p ; say after HH EWT he would want to HOLD his 0.4p shares NOT SELL them for the then price of about 1.5p .

" dishonestly swamping this forum " With what? Quotes from Sanderson and the RNS's pertinent to a reasoned debate. Are you The "fool"? What rules have I broken? If I was saying you should buy UKOG and you will soon be millioires would you try and have me censored.? What a sad state of affairs

Rusty8 Regarding BB issues and the line "The consensus was that they messed up the drill" The results RNS had this line; " Any future work at BB-1/1z would likely take place after a successful trial of such alternate methods and technologies in the next PEDL234 exploration well." SANDERSON is signalling he MIGHT go back to BB after experimental drilling elsewhere first. To me, it appears they tried their best but the methods used did not cause a commercial flow. They appear to be looking for something completly different and that it was not incompetance on their part responsible for the failure to flow commercially. Anyone want to offer a different interpretation?

I am here because , for too long, rampers sucked the inexperienced into this second rate investment causing huge financial losses to some. I hate seeing the little guy taken to the cleaners by ruthless rampers and there onesided arguments. Just filter me Daz423. Off out now. Have a nice day

"you have absolutely no evidence that the Kimmeridge won’t flow commercially." On the contrary; The BB drills were all about proving the Kimmeridge would flow commercially; It FAILED That is evidence of, at the very least, SANDERSON's commercially flowing COD is NOT a reality. I think he expected BB to be another HH. Lets see what happens at HH; I think alarming depletion will soon be evidenced. Time will tell.

Don't try and bully me off this BB. If you have an arguement ; throw up some evidence, some numbers, some logical analysis. Boards taken over by rampers with their own selfish agendas can suck the unwary into very risky plays. I have never shorted in my life; am morally opposed to the practice.

"flows from the Kimmeridge at BB " apologies ; should read 'flows from the Kimmeridge at HH'

I do not believe the HH kimmeridge will flow for very long. Some believe the flows from the Kimmeridge at BB were because of the very localised fracturing which have been filled over an immense period of time. You are the back to the problem found at BB in SANDERSON'S allegedly proven concept; the COD. Nice concept; trouble was, no matter what he did , it did not flow commercially. I am more optimistic regarding The Portland discovery. The results (3.4.18) described the possible recoverable numbers for UKOG; "The HH-1 Portland oil discovery's importance was further boosted by Xodus' report in February 2017, which determined that the P50 OIP had increased to 32 million barrels, an increase of 53% from the 21 million barrels reported prior to 2016 flow testing. Gross Contingent Resources rose to 1.5 million barrels (0.5 million barrels net to UKOG) with a further 1.7-6.6 million barrels gross recoverable (0.5-2.1 million barrels net to UKOG) being possible via implementation of a water re-injection scheme." JUST 500k to UKOG without injection , with injection maybe another 500k ,to a theoretical POSSIBLE maximum total of 2.6 million with injection. The Portland may be marginally commercial, covering its costs but not sending shareholders to the Bahamas.

You are counting your chickens before the eggs have hatched. The EWT has to prove commerciality first; ITS NOT PROVEN YET; then another fund raise to bring into commercial production; UKOG have told you that already.

Don't tell me SANDERSON spent £10 million at BB not hoping to find commercial flows; ridiculous. You are in denial . Why is he hoping to go back if he's proved his concept? Its because he's holding out the hope, still, that BB will be a commercial producing well. The RNS regarding license extension; "The extension, if granted, will provide time to incorporate the learnings from future planned Kimmeridge operations at Horse Hill and PEDL234 into the design and objectives of a possible new BB-1y sidetrack and test programme." 'a POSSIBLE new BB-1y sidetrack' The results had this line; " Any future work at BB-1/1z would likely take place after a successful trial of such alternate methods and technologies in the next PEDL234 exploration well." SANDERSON is signalling he MIGHT go back to BB after experimental drilling elsewhere first; and guess what; that will need yet another fund raise.

Billy please view this video and listen to SANDERSON himself; hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTRYVvCe7Bce Stop ramping with the billion barrel numbers when SANDERSON himself stated that the best case "technical" recoverable to UKOG is 200 million. See 5 minutes into the interview. SANDERSON spelt it out; he would need mass drills, imo, probably every couple of miles to stand a CHANCE of extracting just 200 million. Even SANDERSON thought it unlikely he'd get permission for such intensive drilling. How many sites would he be allowed,and at what COST, ? Its likely he would only get a fraction of the sites necessary to target HIS BEST CASE of 200 million to UKOG. UKOG will NEVER extract billions of barrels. BUT here is the CRITICAL point; SANDERSON picked his flagship spot at BB to PROVE he could extract some of the 200 million theoretically recoverable ; He FAILED miserably. Not one 200 barrel tanker was seen to leave the site Circa £10 million lost on the "likely sub-commercial" BB site. How many more failures could there be? "The oil would be fairly easy to get at - because of the way the rock is structured" BB proved that line to be a load of baloney

Remember the hype last year. Lenigas in full voice after the French billioniares (briefly) invested. The effect was that some invested money they really coul not afford to lose , buying the share at over 7p; like this guy who commented on the press story; "i sold my car at the weekend to pile all the money into UKOG...once in a life time opportunity to become a millionaire in 6 months...watch and learn!" hTTp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4763920/French-billionaires-buy-Gatwick-Gusher-oil-firm.html#reader-comments Article from 5th august 2017. Did the poor chap listen to Sandersons "Bahamas" BS too ?

The french billionaires! They did not stay very long. Once they were inside I expect they found out that all was not quite as easy as SANDERSON would have people believe. Since the BB failure I would suggest that the chances such outside investment has receded. Sanderson might be able to retire to the Bahamas but that's not going to be the fate of most LTH in my opinion. Its really disappointing to see ceo's coming out with such lines. The lack of trhe 'smart money' like Institutions or big oil companies is a red flag , for me.

"30 to 50 million barrels of oil is still worth circa 1billion sterling so I am not to despondent." Its all about proving the what's recoverable and at what cost. BB was a big set back. The Portland has got legs I think but , when Sanderson said with $50 oil we'll all be retiring to the Bahamas he was talking Bull , imo. quote from 50 seconds into this video; hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1_stpqkU7w

I think people read numbers selectively sometimes and , you and I know what 'revenue' means or maybe better to say 'gross revenues'. Some may not think about the uncertain costs, so its worth mentioning It like the 'billions of barrels' of oil; some do rather simplistic maths as to what may becoming UKOG shareholders way. I think I have a FAR more skeptical view of the value of The Weald licenses since the BB failure. SANDERSON made a huge gamble at BB to prove his Kimmeridge COD could flow commercially. It did not. Why should anywhere else be much different?. Some say that the HH Kimmeridge flows are because of the particular fractured area drilled. Yes , we have to await the EWT results