Looks like Bunsen was "too busy" or "just forgot" to buy the £5k's worth he assured everyone he was gagging to buy a day or so ago.
Or perhaps his dog ate his network cable?
Or maybe... just maybe... he had absolutely no intention of buying in at all and was just the latest boringly trite ramper desperately trying to pump the SP upwards by claiming how strongly he believed in the good ship ANGS Going Nowhere.
I wonder which of the above is the most likely? Good weekend, all.
Snaith, putting words into another poster's mouth is really a little trite, no?
I did not "agree that if the HH2 conversion at Horsehill gets the go ahead to convert to a water injector well profits from oil sales will see a huge rise."
I stated that, IF permission is granted AND IF pumping water back in to Horse Hill does not adversely affect existing production or water contamination, then the cost of sale on UKOG's 100 bopd would indeed go down.
That's markedly different from what you were so unsurprisingly keen to pretend I'd said.
The cost of oil sales is high at Horsehill because of the high cost to tanker contaminated waste water away to be incinerated."
I agree. Which is precisely why I said that nobody but an idiot would want Holmwood and Markwells Wood to be "producers like Horsehill".
"These high costs will be non-existent if water injection is used to put the wastewater back into the well." Again I agree that just the water disposal element of said costs would be substantially reduced... IF such a thing is permitted and IF such a thing is viable without adversely affecting production.
No deramping here - just stating facts. But I have to comment that throughout its entire history to date UKOG has always been very fond of its "ifs" and "potentiallys" and "expected to be's"...
Snaith, if either site had been drilled and "turned out to be producers like Horsehill has", that would in fact be really bad news for UKOG.
Why? Because from looking at the very recently released HHDL FY accounts, roughly speaking, every £1 of revenue generated from oil extracted from HH seems to have a £2 cost of sale attached to it. And that's without taking into account any of the initial set-up capex costs required, which would run into seven figures per site.
So actually it would be far more correct to say that Holmwood and Markwells Wood would have had to turn out to be producers absolutely nothing like Horsehill demonstrably has.
On that basis, it is very easily arguable that UKOG and especially its long-suffering PIs dodged two bullets when permissions weren't granted on these two sites. ..
So clearly on a downward trajectory over time, then.
Ocelot, much like your post quoting an article describing a backlash against greener energy like geothermal the other day, you really do need to be careful with the scripts for your cheerleading, because a few things you've posted recently are entirely unwittingly negative.
So clearly on a downward trajectory over time, then.
Ocelot, much like your post quoting an article describing a backlash against greener energy like geothermal the other day, you really do need to be careful with the scripts for your cheerleading, or you'll be put on the naughty step.
Fantastic news! Now, just remind me, how many barrels of oil a day is ANGS producing? And what volume of gas?
I'll give you a clue to both answers - the company has been zero revenue for 14 months and counting...
Nom, the recent influx of those of a ramptastic persuasion (including a few never seen before posters claiming they'd just bought in because this is such an "amazing opportunity" (shyeah, right) has made me wonder about the exact same thing.
If you're familiar with other micro-cap AIM (little to no) Oil and (no) Gas companies, check out the clearly orchestrated bulletin board P&D shenanigans that went on with UKOG in the last ten days of June (and staggeringly enough, just before a successful institutional placing was announced there on July 5th - whoda thunk?)
With these microcaps, it's really hard not to be cynical...
DoneK "Again we go armed with previous operators' experience".
Well, let's look at that...
The most recent "previous operator with experience" was more than happy to pay ANGS £2.5 million to take the gas field and associated liabilities (abandonment costs, anyone?) off its hands. That's an indisputable fact long in the public domain.
One therefore wonders why their estimation of the gas field's potential (based on their experience) was so hugely different to ANGs's estimation (with their entire lack of experience)?
A backlash against Co verting to greener fuels, eh?
Careful what you say, Ocebot, or you'll ruin Sando's chances of bigging up geothermal in an effort to raise more jam tomorrow cash. I mean, it has to be on the cards, doesn't it? Now Basur-3 is going nowhere for months, Steve needs a new fairytale to spin in an effort to keep the directors' trough filled - and it's bound to be geothermal.
I suspect you'll get told off severely tomorrow...
I find it mildly surprising that UKOG PIs would not know how to spell the name of UKOG's only producing "asset".
Not that Horse Hill can really be described as an asset anyway, since what it can be coaxed into producing doesn't get near covering the costs of producing it. Looking at the last FY reports from both UKOG and HHDL, it seems that to produce and sell every £1 of Horse Hill oil costs around £2 to do so...
...which doesn't seem to be a particularly appealing business model to me?
To return (briefly, no doubt) to reality and facts...
An extra and entirely unexpected £12m had to be borrowed by ANGS at usurious rates to try to get that old onshore gas field connected.
ANGS's project to connect that old onshore gas field is currently running 13 months late (and counting).
The last reported OGA figures from when that old onshore gas field was last producing show production volumes that won't generate enough revenue to cover ANGS's costs - and especially their debt funding costs, even at current future gas pricing (but see below for capped price info).
In view of the above, ANGS is embarking on drilling a sidetrack in an effort to increase production volumes. The only issue there is that the well it is sidetracking from has already had multiple unsuccessful sidetracks drilled from it.
The high future gas prices are pretty much irrelevant since a) ANGS still hasn't got to production and b) ANGS has committed to a hedge agreement that caps the sale price of the significant majority of any gas it does actually manage to produce at 43p a therm (roughly 25% of future gas prices) for three years.
The previous owner/operator of the old onshore gas field was happy to pay ANGS £2.5 million to take it and its associated liabilities (abandonment costs, anyone?) off its hands.
All the above are facts in the public record and as such very easily verifiable. Now try polishing that little lot.
Aimofhtegame "Remember this went from 0.18 to 0.24 pre placing that's over 30% move in a few days. "
Yes it did. And the oh so obviously orchestrated ramping going on here in the last week of June was unbelievable (even text art rocket ships being continually posted, as I remember).
But surely you realise what was being orchestrated at that point? Let me explain it simply and in order:-
1. On or around June 20th, the city boys had committed to taking a substantial numbers of shares in the institutional placing.
2. A multi-party ramp was then organised to give them a rising price into which to forward sell the shares they'd committed to taking. From memory the price got ramped up to as high as 0.23p or thereabouts.
3. The city boys duly sold forward to anyone suckered into believing the ramp, trousering a very quick and easy nailed-on c. 20% profit for doing next to nothing over a very short period.
4. On July 5th, the successful institutional placing was announced at 0.18p. The price instantly crashed down to below that. The city boys didn't care - they handed over their committed to funding, having already made 20% or more as per above.
5. Then the availability of the "open offer" was announced, which was as laughable as it was contemptuous. Mere PIs were offered the chance to participate in a placing "at the same terms as the institutions. Same price, maybe (0.18) but without the benefit of a pump n dump being organised to sell into. Plus of course, by now, UKOG shares were considerably cheaper on the open market than the placing price offered.
So sorry, but the carefully concerted shenanigans organised at the end of June is an indication of precisely nothing at all... except PIs get shafted while those in the know get easy money.
Mirasol, don't go assuming that short-term rampers like multi-ID Cuddo will ever pay attention to cold, hard insisputable facts. They're allergic to them and in fact only deal in quite the opposite.
Separately I note that Cuddo's asked for support from the irrelevant and purely self-serving share tipping Twittersphere...
I actually can't see why a Loxley decision to uphold UKOG's appeal can be considered as a positive?
I mean, the general school of thought is that the appeal will be upheld, so the market will have presumably priced this in. But what would a successful appeal actually mean for UKOG in cold, hard terms?
Sure, for the board and the ramptastic squad, it'd provide yet another vehicle for can-kicking "Jam tomorrow! This time!! Honest!!!" fairytales... but surely actually all it would involve the company in is needing to raise yet more considerable funding tu be able to evaluate whether this latest "asset" is also a busted flush or not?
So, apart from keeping Sando and cronies in eye-wateringly large monthly salaries for a while longer - that's if they can find any more any gormless PI mugs left who can be led to believe in this latest wild goose chase - what's the upside?
Oh any by the way, in terms of confidence in UKOG and its executive dream team... remind me, someone. How many shares have the directors bought so far, now that the director share purchase scheme (announced via RNS at the end of May) has been in place for over three months and counting?
Ibug, that's a very good point actually.
If UKOG's share of the revenues at HH are 85%, that'd be around £638k of revenue, Similarly if their share of the direct costs of sale resulting from of HH are also 85% (and why wouldn't they be?) then their costs would be around £1,619k.
So from that back of a fag packet calculation, looking at UKOG's annual report, there's £270k of extra revenue from other sources (possible)... but then also a **negative** cost of sale somewhere else to the tune of at least £448k?
I can't make that last make much sense at all...