Member Info for CynderLad

No point talking about $15 per barrel costs at HH. That is meaningless without knowing what the costs are based upon. They are not operating the site on a completely variable cost basis. That $15 per barrel would need a baseline, e.g. 200 bopd.

The best way to look at this right now, is to consider the sales receipt for 220 barrels.
At $50 that is $11,000.

Monthly costs will be much much higher than this.
If the baseline was 200 bopd, then monthly costs would be 200 (bopd) * 30 days * $15 = $90,000
If that were the case, then UKOG would need to be shipping at least 8 tankers a month / 2 week to cover costs.

Does that make sense?

That RNS is another kick in the teeth for shareholders. UKOG yet again fail to deliver an update on HH. How long has that long term PBU been running now?

The cash calls for Turkey mean that the SP is going to get smashed into sub 0.05p. Silent Steve should be sacked for failing to deliver any investor updates. Why can he not do a simple interview once a month? The guy is a shambles. Maybe he is spending all his time looking at fine art books and wondering what to spend his money on next.

As they obviously know the results now.
Twitter is going bonkers with speculation from the campaigners versus rampers, what is the truth?

I called ALBA and offered them £1 for their HHDL holding. After all if someone can buy Leeds United for £1, then ALBA should take £1 as being fair value given their issues with cash calls. Of course, I would not pay any of the cash calls and just sit there like a lemon when approached. But that seems to be acceptable in the current setup.

You gotta love someone who doesn't understand business.
You cannot create a company and deliver something of value without investment.
The model is slightly different with tech startups, but even they require investment, e.g. UBER

SO, yes, the cash raises by UKOG have been considerable, and the cash exceeds that of the present MCAP. But that is true for many many small young companies.

You also need to realise that there is no guarantee that investment = success. UKOG are clearly struggling to make a success.

What you can draw from the below summary by Mald, is that UKOG had created enough appeal in the market to be able to raise cash. There are many companies that wish they could do the same, and have folded because they could not.

There is a string of failures with some small successes for UKOG.
BB = failure, extension is only to avoid capital expenditure of abandonment in the next 12 months.
HH = limited success thus far, but commercially viable. May only deliver small quantities of oil, and the Kim may not get switched back on. Folks will have to wait and see.
Loxley = cannot get SCC to make a rational decision.
Horndean = small potatoes
Holmwood = adios.
Turkey = good potential, but not counting any chickens.

Is the £19m mcap reflective of the small volume of output at HH? or is it factoring in a future degree of success at HH and Turkey, over-turn of Loxley and potential for some success there? It has to be the latter, the production through 2020 at HH is not sufficient to merit that MCAP. What upside is there; Take your pick, place your bets.

But fact remains; the company has an attraction in the market that keeps its position liquid. Plenty of folks are jealous of the package taken by SS and his mates, but thats life, some win, some lose, losers whinge.

I see someone on Twitter did some digging on one councillor and found out that he had not paid interest on director loans taken from the company that he runs. I know that director loans have to be repaid with interest, and that they cannot be interest free as per HMRC rules. I took out a few thousand as a loan 5 years back and my accountant made sure that I paid interest on that loan. I only borrowed that money for 3 months, and I paid 3.5% interest which was calculated daily. It hurt me a little, as that interest was then treated as income and therefore had some corporation tax impact (20% hit) as we were making a nice profit.

If I had a business that was losing money, then the interest would be offset against the loss. So privately, every penny paid in interest would be lost. In a business making a profit (after operating expenses), then you are only really losing 20% of the interest paid in CT. Its a little more complicated with a few different scenarios.

Looks like Councillor Povey was paying zero interest on a director loan, when he should have been paying thousands back to the company in interest alone. Further to that, the company was then avoiding corporation tax on that interest.

I have not been through the accounts, but at first sight it does look like Councillor Povey has broken 2 clear HMRC principles; you cannot have a zero interest director loan (that is a beneficiary arrangement), nor can you avoid CT on that interest if the company is making a profit (after operating costs).

I wonder if he will be investigated by HMRC, and I wonder if the SCC folks have a standards code that he has failed? On the face of it, he has acted fraudulently.

If found guilty, then should be step down from his position?

Just to be clear, UKOG / HHDL do not just use UKOG (GB) Limited, they have other entities.

They use "UK OIL & GAS PLC" Company number 05299925. That is the main one and was used in references for the last AGM.

SO it is probably just a bit of housekeeping to close down a limited company that is no longer required.

Oh dear. That is very bad news.

UKOG (GB) Limited, Company number 04050227. First Gazette notice for Strike Off, 8th Dec 2020.

That is quite simple. The company is going to be closed down.

DS01 form must be submitted and signed by company directors.

So, what is afoot with UKOG? This merits an immediate RNS.

I see he is all over Twitter again, talking down the posts from Tony.
Well, Tony may only go to site "once in a blue moon", but every time he is there, there are tankers sighted.
Whereas, FOTH does not post anything other than dross and hides all the positive stuff away in his sock drawer.
FOTH and Ruth Hayhurst should join forces, as neither is able to give the full unabridged truth for any scenario.

There is a difference between XR protestors thinking that their actions were vindicated, versus that of the court.

UKOG clearly dropped any interest in having them prosecuted, and the crown probably conceded that they have insufficient resources to bother pursuing a criminal conviction against a few people.

We do not live in a country where the crown has infinite resources to prosecute such matters, and unless UKOG wanted to pursue, then it was always going to be dropped.

That does not mean that their actions were vindicated, it merely means that those who could of prosecuted could not be bothered to waste time and effort to get a few people convicted. The fines would have been small and disproportionate to the energy for the prosecuting party.

i.e. why waste 100's of hours of man power and £thousands in legal costs, when it is easier to let them off.

The evidence will always be there for future use should UKOG require it for subsequent cases.

Ibug, I doubt that ALBA or DOR will be getting an Xmas card. Neither will SCC.
I very much doubt that ALBA are getting a dime from production, after all, if many are to be believed, then the asset is not profitable. But if it was profitable, then would ALBA get a dime given that they ignore all cash calls? I'm waiting to find out whether ALBA will lose a % of their stake in consideration of their failure to pay the cash calls.

Have UKOG ever stated how much of the horizontal in HH2z was plugged and how much was still accessible?
Was it 50ft, 100ft, 500ft?

Can they do a further work-over to reduce the horizontal further? If they have hit a different Portland compartment, then would there be any value in a further work-over. Would a 500ft horizontal still be of use if it eliminated the fracture issues? Would a 100ft horizontal be of value? Maybe there is a further work-over opportunity to retain HH2z as a producer and avoid the conversion to water injector. But unless the output is significant, then water injector would be a smart play to mitigate the costs of water disposal.

Wow, penguins, you almost agreed with me on the math. Let Mirasol argue you down on water cut and his log decline.

As for the reason for the water cut increase to its current levels, I am inclined to agree with you on that point; it does look like an ingress of water. The question now is how much pressure that water play can exert on the well and whether it is sufficient to suppress longer term oil flow rates. Sept figures will be down, if the RNS is correct. What will the Sept water cut be?

$42,292.80 in sales from 4 tankers.
$30,870 in profit from 4 tankers at $48.06 spot price and $13 per barrel cost.

But as it has been said before, the cost per barrel is on the basis of a TBC volume per month.
I'd much rather see fixed asset costs / month, and variable costs / month, then determine monthly profit/loss on an asset level.

LOL. Mirasol. The water increase should be a % of overall combined Oil and Water production.
In July, combined oil and water was 727.1 tonnes, of which water was 30.1884%
In August, combined oil and water was 761.82 tonnes, of which water was 29.7052%

Thus, the water cut as a % has decreased, whilst overall oil output increased.

And to boot, Oil production per day was up versus July.

The recent workover of HH1 should provide an increase in production volumes.

That must be hard for you to take.

It is anything but a classic log decline curve. But you hate the plain and obvious truth.

To extend the above, it is very unlikely that Ms Finch will win her challenge, thus, UKOG will be producing at HH for a number of years to come. Who knows how many years of the 25 it will run for?

RNS due tomorrow?
Penguins will be praying that it only contains "initial half hourly flow rates"

The point being SCC councillors "behaved unreasonably" in reaching their decision. They were clearly warned by their own legal counsel at the start of the session; they were warned about predetermination; yet they could be clearly seen shaking their heads in disgust at every moment where UKOG's application was given backing.

The 6 councillors had predetermined opinions, swayed by XR agenda.

They made a very poor choice of motion, which was fact checked by their own planning officer and other agencies (e.g. highways). The councillors chose to ignore the recommendations given to them, they chose to ignore the statements from the Highways representative, etc.

Ultimately, they chose to vote to refuse the application for reasons that are unreasonable.

Mirasol, nonsense. Planning appeals when overturned are usually associated with payment of legal costs to the claimant. But you would say otherwise wouldn't you.

In this case, the SCC legal counsel and the chairman have forewarned the councillors. Unfortunately their pre-disposition for voting against a perfectly legitimate application got in the way of common sense. Why do you think it reasonable for a committee to block something that is perfectly legitimate? Do you think it appropriate to refuse the application on matters such highways, when the highways chap was present and backed the planning officer's recommendation?

I have no issue with a committee rightfully blocking an application if it is not sound, and if it does not have the backing of the relevant agencies. But 6 SCC councillors wilfully blocked the application on grounds that have no merit. It will get overturned on appeal. Like I've said before, I doubt that SCC will even provide a legal team to provide a defence.

A minimum of 2 tankers on Friday, 2 tankers today so far.
Yet FOTH says no flare, and Tony is there today and says no flare today.
So is HH1 on free flow? Is it from the Kim or the Portland?
If there is no flare from the stack, then is it 100% dry oil?
Is there anything on the water separator flare?

A minimum of 4 tankers sounds too much oil to be reserves from the storage tanks.

One has to remember that the committee cannot expect to make arbitrary decisions in support of refusing perfectly legitimate planning applications. There will be consequences for them. Their opinions and those of the locals is of no consequence when compared to policies defined and agreed at a national level. The decision by SCC last Friday was not democratic, people may say that it was democratic and that the councillors voted in the interests of the locals and of SCC.

To those who think that last Friday was an example of democracy in motion; think again. Democracy is about the wider interests of a country, not the narrow interests of the few. Where there is a national policy/framework, where there is support from nationally bodies (EA, OGA, etc) and where there is a process that clearly permits referral to an independent inspectorate to appeal; that is democracy. The fact that an appeal will almost certainly be upheld, the fact that SCC will be made accountable for all legal costs, the fact that councillors will be on record and accountable for the costs to SCC, the fact that a perfectly legitimate planning application is given approval through appeal; THAT IS DEMOCRACY.