Member Info for CynderLad

Farage vs Skwizz, pay-per-view option available?

Consider this. Take the words that Greta spouts, and re-imaging them being spoken by Farage.
I bet half the board would be celebrating his genius and waving having their Brexit tattoos updated with "blah blah blah" in close proximity.
I'm not a Greta fan, but take the message rather than the person. Take the message rather than the politic, and then listen to Sir David A speak at COP26. Strong messages, I set aside who gives the message. Last night was listening to a bit of Bowie and reimagined him speaking at COP26 and delivering those messages.

Just imagine if he were still here and was up on that stage throwing the "blah, blah, blah" message at the world leaders. Just how powerful that would be and how many older generation folks would take note. For me the whole Greta thing and dislike from the older generation is because they see her as a child, a puppet, naïve and a hypocrite. Think they need to lose the ageism issues and stop castigating her; yes she does have to travel, yes she is young, No I don't like here, but she does put across a very important message. So get over the sexist, ageism, ham-driven pro-Brexit (hate foreigners) mindsets, and listen to the damn message.

Disclaimer: I do not have any ties to XR, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or other, not a protestor. I'm just an ordinary Joe; but am open to the message despite being closed to the person.

Yet another month passes and the directors (all 3) pass on their commitment to buy shares under the DDSPP.

You have to wonder what excuses they can give.

The RNS was very clear, and why would they make such a commitment, yet all 3 ignore to oblige to their commitments.

Will they go a full 12 months without buying? If so, I think that they should be voted down when it comes to reappointment to their positions. What they have done is quite obvious, is misleading investors the last straw?

are weighing heavily on many, but it seems that Australia are keen to continue to keep supplying coal for as long as people are willing to buy it.

LOL. Ok. Yes. ect. Jeez. Give a dog a bone. well said, "here here"

and taps BoJo on the shoulder and reminds him of what he said at COP26?
The longer that Planning Inspectorate ruling takes, the worse the likely outcome. Seen it plenty of times.

But hey, lets say that UKOG do win on appeal, then PI's can look forward to another series of placings to fund the Loxley drill.

I'll predict that UKOG do win, and that this time next year (Rodney) UKOG will have BILLIONS more confetti doing the rounds...

p.s. SS is not risk averse, just look at how willing he was to throw perfectly good money over to AME to drill a well in a dead duck license. "AME are pleased to announce that UKOG kindly offered to pay them for a pointless drill, this has served AME very well in that they have now extended the retention of that license at the expense of a rather naïve individual"

Nonsense Pboo.

Actions speak louder than words. $8mm versus $722k. Do me a favour. There is one reason and one reason only!

But the complete lack of transparency and proper truthful operational updates from the CEO means that you are left with the "who knows" card. Don't you see how ironic that is? A perfectly valid investor question from me that has at stake a difference of several million in profitable revenue and PI's are left to discuss the matter. The CEO should be mandated to update the market and provide the truth, he's clearly hiding something very damaging away, as only a madman would chose to pass over the chance for the profit that Kim offers without good reason!

Take the blinkers off, and stop supporting a CEO that should be updating shareholders on basic business matters!

p.s. I recall Adrian mentioning earlier this week that "the ask had ticked up as he had predicted". Well no surprise that the SP is down 10% from where Adrian has posted that "prediction". What an expert he is!

In answer to the not so difficult question posted. They haven't switched back to the Kimmeridge because they have most likely screwed the well up downhole of the Portland. There is no logic to them having abandoned Kimmeridge dry oil in preference for Portland with its decreasing output and water treatment costs. Look at it from a business perspective, why would they chose Portland over Kim?

Then there is the "HH2 Kimmeridge" topic. Originally HH2 was to be drilled into the Kimmeridge, cored, log + analysis. They decided against doing that. Instead they drilled into the Portland, then reversed back up the well and drilled the horizontal (HH2Z). They had the rig on-site, all the equipment, staff and experience to drill and core the Kimmeridge in HH2, but decided not to do that. What would it have cost? 8 days of Rig+Staff costs? They definitely missed a trick there, and their explanation for not drilling/coring in HH2 was what? And yes, smoke and mirrors..

Onto Broadford Bridge. Not long now before UKOG will have to decide if they approach the CC for a further extension at BB. But given that they have no cash, and had already commented that BB was sub-commercial, then you can surely understand what the extension gives them, you can right? Well, if not, then I'll make it really simple for you; having an extension offers them a delay to the abandonment of the site and all the costs associated with doing so. They don't want to spend several hundred grand abandoning BB do they? So delay it and deal with it is 2 years time. (SS may be retired in 2023, so it could be someone else's issue).

Just my opinion of course.

Pboo, you decided to dodge the difficult questions I put to you yesterday, you gave some half baked nonsense responses.

Here you go again, and this is open to other UKOG fans too:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2+ years without touching the Kim, after it had been 330 bopd + dry oil.

Kim at 330 bopd dry oil right now @ $82 = $9.87mm revenue per year = $8mm per year profit (assuming $15 per barrel costs)
------------------------------------ VS ------------------------------------
Port at 90 bopd dry oil right now @ $82 = $2.7mm revenue per year MINUS water treatment costs = $722k per year profit (assuming $60 per barrel costs inclusive of water treatment).

So why would they not switch back to Kim and bank ~ $8m profit instead of $722k profit?

Is it a no brainer? Well on paper it is.

But what it the truth? Has the Kim gone completely dry? Has the Kim been screwed up by some kit lost down hole with failed fishing effort?

Like I say, actions speak louder than words, but to the bystander it would appear that UKOG are not going back to KIM because they cannot go back to KIM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go on, answer the above question, and try to properly consider why the Kimmeridge is not on production right now or anytime recently.....

As for "Read my posts properly".

Well you make it quite hard. The grammar is atrocious. The spelling is diabolical. Your lack of understanding of; prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, verb tenses, etc, make it a challenge for you to structure more than 2 sentences into something of meaningful conjecture.

Aside from that, you still don't know that ect is not etc, etc is the shortened version of "et cetera" old boy. Please take that on board and show that you have some capability to (a) read, (b) process, and (c) learn!

I dare you to answer each of those honestly and without prejudice. If you don't know what "prejudice" means, then go google it. LOL.

LOL Adrian. As it happens, I'm quite uneducated in respect of climate change. But I can quote you based on the recent COP26 outcomes.

But here's a few questions for you?
1) Are you only backing O&G companies like UKOG for pure profit?
2) do you really see O&G on a miniscule level (i.e. 90 bopd) as being essential to the UK economy?
3) Would you like to see UKOG delist the moment you sell out?
4) Would you prefer to make £100 on trading UKOG or see a better environment for the future generations?
5) Do you hate the planet and the future generations who have to live here?
6) If you could invest elsewhere and forget about UKOG, have a stress free investment portfolio, then would you not prefer that over what you do now?
7) I dislike XR and dumb councillors too, but I don't hate them. Why do you hate them? Is it purely because it hurts your profit?
8) If money was no object, would you buy an EV instead of running an older car?
9) How much Badgers did you drink last weekend?

Adrian, (aka FruitExtract).

Ponder this... "I always tell the truth, I'm lying"

Famously used by James T Kirk of the Enterprise to melt a computer's AI.

What you have said are clashing with each other. How can they comingle production IF they will only restart Kim when water ingress to Portland ceases?

Grow up you ********. Time you realised that it's easier to make cash elsewhere (e.g. BT doing me a lovely 11% today alone).

FruitExtract.

You said that they'd not want to restart Kimmeridge production whilst the Portland had water ingress.

So on that basis, UKOG will never restart Kimmeridge production as the Portland will never ever flow dry oil again.

As for your reasoning, it's just plain daft. The Kimmeridge is a set of layers that are distinctly different to that of the Portland (can you read a company presentation? if so go look at it on the UKOG site and you'll see the layers and their depths at HH).

Isolating Portland and restarting Kim in HH1 should not compromise Kim dry oil output. Portland water ingress should not easily migrate through the geology there (I'm not an expert).

I think you may be worried:
1) That we all know that you are Adrian Watkins, and
2) That UKOG have stuffed up the Kim with kit lost downhole, which was not recovered after a fishing effort.

As I point out earlier, why would UKOG settle for $722k profit from HH1 from Portland, when they could make $8mm profit from Kim from the same well? Just think $8mm would just about cover the cost of drilling HH3 or Loxley. But hey, SS must be thinking of a placing and confetti instead of using profit to cover the next drill!

if (new user == FruitExtract)
then
new user = "Adrian Watkins";
end if;

(excuse typo in the below, should have read Port at 90 bopd oil with water cut, it's not dry oil)

Come on Pboo, pull the other one...

2+ years without touching the Kim, after it had been 330 bopd + dry oil.

Kim at 330 bopd dry oil right now @ $82 = $9.87mm revenue per year = $8mm per year profit (assuming $15 per barrel costs)
------------------------------------ VS ------------------------------------
Port at 90 bopd dry oil right now @ $82 = $2.7mm revenue per year MINUS water treatment costs = $722k per year profit (assuming $60 per barrel costs inclusive of water treatment).

So why would they not switch back to Kim and bank ~ $8m profit instead of $722k profit?

Is it a no brainer? Well on paper it is.

But what it the truth? Has the Kim gone completely dry? Has the Kim been screwed up by some kit lost down hole with failed fishing effort?

Like I say, actions speak louder than words, but to the bystander it would appear that UKOG are not going back to KIM because they cannot go back to KIM.

Pboo,

Why have UKOG not switched back to the Kim if it was flowing 313 bbl per day dry oil?

Does it make sense to continue to produce from the Portland when there is profit to be had from the Kim, and no water treatment/disposal?

313 bopd dry oil (Kim) VS 93 bopd + water (Portland).

Why not switch it back? Of have they buried some news (e.g. Kim layer is screwed, tools lost down hole + fishing effort did not work)?

Actions speak louder than words, and for me, the Kim in HH1 is a write off, there's something they have kept quiet and it's not good news!