Member Info for mimbrit

@DavidLenigas

18 Apr 2016

EY saying the #gatwickgusher and the Weald Basin could provide up to 5,000 #UK #jobs. Now that is a very significant thing for England.

@DavidLenigas

14 Aug 2021

I’ve been asked to head up a new Public company with a massive push into HYDROGEN. I’m looking forward to it as I know more than most globally about commercial commercial fuel cell tech. It is the future. 👍

Evidently a snip at £800m but how does UKOG raise its share of this? Please don’t say government funding.

Also, is there anything published about the expected revenue from the project and payback period?

Sorry, Mumbo, the answer to your question is we’re not really sure what the company will do with what’s left of the monies raised; it usually just gets soaked up in inflated salaries.

They have made a sale (but not completed) of some oil assets, retain one for which they say they will reapply for planning (half heartedly) and, otherwise, have been trumpeting a pivot into hydrogen. Only the funds they have are a drop in the ocean of what’s needed and allegedly courtships with major players have not materialised.

It would be great for LTHs if something magic did occur, but the company does have form…

If you look at the interim accounts, the company only had £373k cash at the end of March.

They said their admin costs were a mere £440k/6 months against an average of £1.6m in prior periods, so hard to reconcile.

I have a feeling the 2025 accounts will show another £4-5m loss and that a good chunk of the £4m raised may have been ‘pre-spunked ’ to chime with this BB’s usual terminology.

Done, I agree with FF03.

Thank you Ice for your persistence and Bob for the news on the ground.

Hargreaves Lansdown deadline is 7pm today.

Incorporated March 2018.

Latest accounts show a £500k increase in fixed assets, galling to imagine the incompetent was paid that to go.

I wonder what he wanted to hide by shortening the accounting period.

Somewhere they did say that there was no adverse comment from Moore Kingston Smith but it’s fishy that they took six months not to approve the accounts and then PKF came back and completed in two.

I wonder if PKF are aware that UKOG have posted on their website (and at Companies House) accounts that fudge the error in those in the RNS, and which version do they endorse…? PKF recognised £625k remedial costs in the original (probably a gross underestimate) but even that amount was airbrushed from the ‘final’ version.

Also, in their interims, UKOG stated that their admin costs were a mere £440k compared with an average £1.6m in previous six monthly periods. Assuming Sanderson didn’t forego his (ridiculous) salary, are they down to a skeleton staff of three for this new and exciting hydrogen era?

As they say in Private Eye, I think we should be told.

Ocelot, let's keep this really simple - why do the accounts on the website differ from those in the RNS?

Which set carries PKF's endorsement? It doesn't differ between them or point out any qualification...

I think it would be better if, as they did with the interims, the company put their hand up to the error and correct it. The statements in the revised accounts on the website are BS.

OK, Ocelot, let's try a different view of this...

If you go to UKOG's website - investors - financial reports, open up the 2024 accounts, go to page 61 and have a look at the Note 8 there. Do you spot a difference? The decomissioning number of £625k has magically disappeared.

Now go to page 44 and see how the 'new' numbers drop into the income statement - does that help explain the error in the RNSd accounts?

The thing is, I think UKOG know about the error and have tried to cover it up with the fudged set of accounts on the website. Only, as far as I am aware, the ones that really count are those in the RNS.

What do you make of that?

Ocelot,

Very, very clear - Note 8 £886k 2024 figure should have appeared in the income statement as a negative figure, just as the number for 2023.

Note 19 refers to Provisions and appears correctly in the consolidated statement.

How do you explain the differing treatment of finance costs in the two years (apart from it being a schoolboy error)?

If you have a moment, take a look at Note 8 - Finance costs - in the audited accounts RNSd on 30th September - £886k for 2024 and £589k for 2023.

Then have a look at the income statement - the £589k for 2023 is correctly shown as a cost but the £886k for 2024 is shown as INCOME!

What’s a £1.8m error among friends though?

Ocelot, I read here that UKOG will let 50% of the project(s) which are principally energy storage caverns costing something well north of £500m to build.

One assumes that any JV partner will expect UKOG to fund the 50% it retains of the project; how do you envisage the company bridging the financing gap when it has no revenue and will probably eat through the £4.5m recently raised well within a year?

Zen - I listened to 18m28s of drivel from Rachel Reeves this morning but didn’t hear anything about energy storage.

Was I listening to the wrong speech?

Thank you, Ocelot, but what is actually being negotiated? Can anyone say what the substance of the negotiations is and what they will mean to the company? I don’t think I got that from Sanderson’s interview.

Shouldhavedone - please could you put some flesh on the bones of these two JVs? With whom is UKOG negotiating and what do you see is the likely outcome for the company?

There were around sixty trades in the first hour with an average value under £20.

Who was signalling what to whom?

I do beg his pardon, he’s only 59 so you can surely expect another £2m to be ‘needed’ before retirement. Absolute disgrace.

He’s 69 so I wonder how many more £300+k infusions he needs before bowing out gracelessly.

SWLC - Peel Hunt REDUCED their holding to below the 10% radar within days of declaring above, if UKOG’s AIM Rule 26 information is correct; make of that what you will.

Recently UKOG figures have been unreliable; they had to correct a £1.8m error in the interim accounts and are yet to correct a similar ‘blunder’ in their AUDITED annual accounts. Nobody seems too bothered or surprised about those…