Member Info for CynderLad

HH1AN2 is starting to sound a lot like Adrian. All those ....'s too.

Hmmm.

The theoretical decline in use of fossil fuels is up for debate.
As an example, note how China refused to buy into the abolition of the use of Coal, others have too.
No way are the likes of China and India going to give up their stranglehold as being the dominant workforce based economies in the world, and with the workforce that each has, then you can count on them needing more and more power.
I don't see either committing to a short or medium term switch away from Coal / Oil / Gas.

Additionally, I do not see planes or cargo ships switching away from the aviation fuels that are used today.

Same with trucks/lorries, they'll remain predominantly diesel based for a good while. Especially those on the long haul with heavy loads.

I don't have to hand an updated post COP26 view of what consumption levels are expected over the next 5 / 10 / 20 / 30 years. But it's sure to remain relatively high compared to where climate change champions wish it to be.

But I'll bet you a dime to a dollar, that as the demand drops, it'll be the big boys that feed that demand. Smaller companies like UKOG, UJO, etc, are not going to get a look in. My reasoning for this is simple. National policy and frameworks will oppose small scale development, permitting the supply from long time established and large players. Money makes the world go around, and the politicians will see the benefit of keeping small players away from the game.

Just my view of course, but these small time oilers have a limited window for success now. I don't see on-shore development being permitted in the UK post 2025, so what's not drilled by 2025 will remain undrilled.

Re-posting as my earlier post was deleted.

1) Will HH1 be put back onto Kimmeridge production?
2) If HH1 was put onto Kimmeridge, then it may still be dry oil with no water cut?
3) Dry oil = no water treatment/disposal costs = less impact on profit?
4) How long since HH1 was on Kimmeridge?
5) Would Kimmeridge pressure be decent if it's been shut-in for ~2 years?
6) Will HH3 ever get drilled?
7) Why would UKOG not switch to pure Kimmeridge production whilst waiting for a permit to convert HH2z into an injector?
8) Why did UKOG not drill HH2 to the Kimmeridge and then log/analyse as per their original intention? They had all the kit on site and it would have not been ridiculously expensive.
9) How can UKOG stake a claim to drill a further side-track at BB (and thus avoid abandonment costs) if they passed on the opportunity to drill HH2 into the Kim to log/analyse?

There, all clean and above board, no rules broken.

Be happy to hear some insightful views on the above.

HH1AN2:

I'd love to talk about recent UKOG matters, but the complete radio silence from the CEO is preventing that from happening.

PI's are long overdue a proper update on Turkey and on HH.

The next RNS will almost certainly be that for the Loxley appeal, the one after than will probably be for a further placing.

Have they given an update on whether the seismic has been shot in Turkey, the timescale for analysis to be complete and they're current funding spend on Turkey and what they have in the bank to cover for these "contingency" matters. From what I know the $5mm did not cover the drilling of a side track, tell me I'm wrong.

Quite obvious to those who know.

The latest giveaway being his use of "ect" instead of "etc", if only the lad had stayed in school and made an effort, or studied Latin, or actually understood that etc is the shortened version of et cetera (and ect is not what he thinks it is).

But as is the case with FOTH, the dumb mistakes always catch him out. Using the same mistakes, time and time again.

7-4 against I believe. These county councils are a law unto themselves. The power of COP26 timing, too much pressure for county councillors to handle.
No sure that they have a leg to stand on to be fair, the well is already there, to block a sidetrack is nigh on impossible from a legal perspective. How can they form an argument to refuse when they had already granted the original well? What grounds? There's nothing in the sidetrack requirement that would not have been required in the original well. Look forward to the formal reason from the council and then an appeal (which I doubt that they'll bother to make representation at).

However..... the timing of the decision for the UKOG Loxley appeal may throw a spanner in the works for UJO. If the PI rule in favour of SCC in lieu of the Loxley appeal, then UJO may need to re-think.

Was hoping it would land today, but looks like they are keen to wait for COP26. Not sure that the planning inspectorate are keen to overturn with Boris in Glasgow with the world leaders.

It's November, when was the outcome expected? Late Oct? hmmmm, I smell a rat.

Enough said. You had a longer run than usual.

What Adrian fails to understand is that UKOG have 2 assets that are providing a revenue stream; Horndean and HorseHill. Between them, these assets are delivering ~100 bopd, which is insufficient to cover the operating costs of UKOG/HHDL. As a company, UKOG is losing cash at a rate of knots, not helped by the costs of water treatment/disposal from HH1.

The exploration in Turkey was a joke from day 1. SS has played his hand and it was an act of desperation, one that has failed.

IoW is a non-starter, as is Loxley, neither assets offer up any realistic prospects of long-term revenue streams + profit. They only offer up a series of requirements to raise further cash through placings. UKOG are heading towards 30 BILLION shares.

HH is not going to be transformational. If UKOG were stripped down to barebones staffing, then the site may give a tiny profit. But this would need all directors to be removed from positions, and would also require the likes of Matt Cartwright to step down too. That's not going to happen.

SS will probably start talking about overseas exploration next, my guess is that he'll look to options in Africa. The other options will be renewables / hydrogen, yawn, UKOG are not a player and will never be a player in either. Its just noise to cover the obvious issues with the company and its management.

Clock is ticking, and for me, UKOG is nothing more than a lifestyle operator that's paying SS and his mates until they retire, and they will take a lovely coin from PI's until that time.

All in my opinion of course.

As for clowns, only a clown would follow a clown, and Adrian is a great example of that. He has multiple Twitter accounts and each follows the other. Get back to those fire extinguishers Adrian, and make sure that you don't drink too much...

Adrian (aka StopStart), how much are you down on your buy-in thinking that the directors would buy in as per the DDSPP?
LOL

tick tock, Badgers all round....

StopStart is Adrian, aka FOTH. Very obvious.

As for ANGS, the CPR is great, but it's nothing new really. Its the same P90 / P50, just using updated figures on gas price.
ANGS need to get SFB online and processing, until then it's risk.

Shame that 007 has not been deployed. Is SS any better/worse than Dr Evil (aka Mike Myers)?

SS and his mates on the board will be desperate to get a well online in Turkey, even if it is just 30 bopd, because I'm pretty sure that they have that milestone linked to a bonus payment.

How would PI's feel about bonuses worth in the region of £350k being paid out between the 3 directors on the basis of 30 bopd in Turkey? Would that be fair? If not, why not? After all, they seem content to take their salaries without doing shareholder/investor calls.

You don't think they'll try getting a bonus, think again. Just wait for SS to raise a glass to himself. He may have to discuss the bonus being linked to merely spudding a well though, as most savvy folks already know that Turkey is a dead duck where AME took the UKOG coin to drill a well in the style of pin the tail on the donkey...

ZYX098, Thank you for that insight and analysis, a truly eye-opening post. You don't get much of that on LSE, thumbs up as best post in 2021.

Lights are on, but nobody is home!

that Sanderson does not give two hoots about any of the negativity thrown at him. He looks at his bank balance, opens another bottle of champers, opens his latest fine art monthly magazine and laughs it all off. Meanwhile the Chairman is in Texas eating steak and drinking as much Rolling Rock as he can get his hands on.

Mirasol,

A pig farm is not of national significance, so unlikely to be done at a central level.
A major motorway, is a central matter, and no level of local consultation would change the outcome.
Same with Heathrow and HS2, what needs to be done at a national level, will get done.
And having the right to support/object, whether at local council or at a national level would still get my voice heard.
Location, location, location; it's all a game of roulette at the end of the day.

What I am proposing would be to avoid the dumb inefficient, costly and outdated process we have that serves only to hinder rather than support.

Tony, there's enough fascists in the UK to support them. You only need a party banner that has the Union Flag with a Brexit logo and you'll get half the hams in the country signed up.

So my view. Why continue to operate an antiquated process that creates delay and creates unnecessary costs that the county councils have to pick up?
The process for such matters is out of date, ineffective, slow and costly.

Draw a comparison with banking, in the 80's and 90's I recall long queues at at the local bank branches to pay in cheques, pay in cash, withdraw cash , etc. But with the advent of technology, we know do all those common tasks without visiting the bank. I've not been to a bank in years. It would be ineffective of a bank to operate a pure in-person service on the high-street and expect to compete with those that operate through omni-channels.

A poor example you may think, and yes that is an example of how a specific industry in the private sector has adapted. It is focused on efficiency, customer service, cost to operate, and most importantly profit.

Take our planning system for these larger applications. It's completely flawed:
- We have to retain planning officers in every county council that need to have expert level knowledge of minerals policies, etc.
- We have councillors who don't care about national frameworks or national policies, and they also rebuke the expert authoritative statements of bodies that represent matters such as highways and the environment.
- We have a councils that delay planning reviews for months on end with no reasonable explanation
- We have councillors who don't have the intelligence to understand, fully consider and make a rationale decision on such matters.
- We have councils who turn down applications that are perfectly valid on grounds that they make up in a vain effort to protect themselves from legal costs on appeal.
- We have councils that then have to pay for the costs when they lose the appeal, in some cases they don't even bother to make a representation at the appeal
- We end up having industries that wait years rather than months for their business plans and strategies to be approved.

The alternative:
- A central planning body, with experts in the field. Don't waste the local planning officers time, They can get on with approving the simpler stuff that is also being held up as they dedicate themselves to months of hard graft to a single O&G planning application.
- A process that continues to permit local residents, campaigners, councils, etc, with the right to support or object to the planning application.
- A governance framework that provides a one-time authoritative decision on an application, and if this then goes to appeal they are unlikely to lose. The applicant would have to think very strongly about whether the fight would be worth it.
- County councils don't foot the bill for any legal challenges!
- County councillors don't have to make the hard decisions that are simply too pressurised for them to handle (default human behaviour is flight rather than fight, and in the case of councillors, they'll side with green every time give the social pressures

The vote yesterday was as I predicted, was an easy one to call.

As per my post from Monday:

"In answer to your question, they have no valid planning reasons for refusal, hence the planning officers recommendation to Permit.

However, in considering my earlier view that it will be refused, I considered the merits for refusal with those for:
Wressle
Horse Hill
Loxley * 2
West Newton
And that crappy Angus site (Balcombe) that Vonk lied about, that Angs wanted to test for too long a period.

It's easy for a councillor to reject the application and they'll brew up any old BS to do so. Just like they for Loxley on 2 occasions.

It's hard for a councillor to stand behind the recommendation of their planning officer nowadays, because they'll get it in the neck from the public on a regular basis.

Hence, my earlier posts about Loxley, and if you look back in my posts to the 2 Loxley SCC committee dates, then you'll see a flood of posts from me criticising the councillors who voted against it. They had pre-determined mindsets and some were just too plain dumb and too weak of character to stand up and support their planning officer.

IoW - I predict the same, the councillors will show a weak hand, weak character and vote it down on grounds that will not stand up to appeal. But they'll be happy that it is refused because then they can go back to their families and friends and show that they backed the green agenda and climate emergency. It's almost impossible for them to act openly and fairly on a planning decision.

For what it is worth, I think county councils should not be involved with planning applications of this nature. Should be a single central body that does it. And frankly, these things are not that difficult to assess and make judgement on, enough of the pandering to locals / NIMBY on these things. The alternate process I'm putting forward would still give them every opportunity to object and to voice their concerns/issues, but would take away the emotional and practically impossible position that councillors now find themselves."

=========================
------- TIME FOR CHANGE -------
=========================

Take these planning decisions away from the County Councillor planners, they are too biased and under too much pressure to make a decision that is not predetermined.

Enough said!

p.s. Turkey is still a dead duck, as it was from day 1.