Member Info for mimbrit

Vagabond, Sanderson alluded to institutional interest in the placings but that hasn’t actually materialised, has it?

15bn shares issued at an amazing price (given the price in suspension) the back of a frothtastic MOU announcement and not a TR1 in sight.

All we have had is a pretty arrogant interview - “my background is big oil” (so how come he delivered so little?) - and accounts peppered with errors.

It would be good for shareholders to get the unvarnished truth about ‘what’s in the pipeline’.

That’s also correct, Ocelot, but planning consent usually requires an application to be made beforehand and, as far as I know, UKOG have not made one.

Do you know different?

So you appear to be OK with accumulated losses of £100m?

I’m sure Sanderson will sleep peacefully at night, comfortable in the knowledge that he wasn’t responsible for the other £30m!

Ocelot, that is absolutely correct; have you been here all that time?

So Sanderson has presided over ‘just’ the £100m losses.

Bubble - far be it from me to correct you, but UKOG have stated not £100 million but £130.3 million of accumulated losses in the latest interim accounts.

If I’m right about the schoolboy error in the audited (cough) annual accounts, that figure should be £132.1 million, but what’s a couple of million between friends?

Last Monday UKOG made no apology for issuing interim accounts with a £1.8m error in the company’s favour, and the incorrect version is still on the company’s website.

The financial year has recently finished but we won’t see the result of that until the end of March (if then). I thought I would have a stab at estimating them but there are anomalies I don’t get (but I think I do)

It turns out that the 2024 accounts in the RNS differ in their content from the version published on the UKOG website.

The income statements (and notes and commentary thereto) do not match; RNS version shows net finance INCOME of £886k which, according to note 8 should have been negative (as correctly applied in 2023 numbers). The website version refers to a £1.1m magical ‘credit’ reducing the original £2.8m admin costs and removal of the £625k estimate of decommissioning liability (is there truly none?). I think these are further errors which have subsequently been fudged to avoid showing another £1.7m adverse result.

The interims claim massively reduced admin costs of £440k/6 months compared with historical annual expense of c.£3m, with salaries alone running at £1.9m.

In Sanderson you trust?

Jlovie - "What would the current cash equate to in the share price - around 0.015p?"

The company had £373k cash at the end of March. They said in the interims that their admin cost was down to £440k in the 6 month period which is hard to reconcile with previous years' c.£3m p.a. unless they've shed all employees. Therefore they must have been running on empty when these raises occurred and they may have £4m in the bank after placing costs. So, with 33.25bn shares in issue, the answer is 0.012p per share and reducing at whatever one can fathom their current running costs are.

Ocelot, I think the placing price was grossly inflated by the announcement of the MOU and the placees will have had a profitable exit provided by it; I feel really sorry for retail investors who have been sucked in by this.

The 'institutional' interest hasn't resulted in the announcement of a TR1 by an institutional investor so, unless Sanderson follows up with some more 'bankable' news, I think the SP will struggle.

I look forward to UKOG confirming who the major shareholers now are.

Incidentally, the list of those on the website (August 11th) differs wildly from the list (from June 2025) in the annual report - would you know why that is?

Rich, that's a good idea in principle, but do we know that UKOG/UKEn has any land in East Yorkshire to put them on?

Penguins drew our attention to the RNS of 19th November 2024 highlighting the opportunity to acquire land and IP but the recently published annual report doesn't actually say the've done it. It only merits a one liner "The Company is planning a further hydrogen storage project in East Yorkshire, located nearby to the existing SSE Thermal/Equinor Aldbrough gas storage site."

Don't you think they would have wanted to trumpet the completion of this inspired acquisition in all its glory?

Vagabond - he’s over at Matd which is probably a better place to be right now.

Souldhavegone probably has…

Penguins- our 9.08s crossed - I was referring to your earlier 8.13 to Laura, but we are absolutely on the same page.

UKOG says that a decision is pending on Horse Hill which might be difficult if they haven’t reapplied!

Penguins - “I’d wait for the TR1”

Do you think there will be any?

Zen, could you say whence and when the company is going to achieve any revenue?

If you listen to the recent interview at 4.35, Sanderson says the pipeline will come “ to or close to” UKEn’s Yorkshire site in 2032. Do you know where the site is and what has been bought/leased?

Not counting 2025, Sanderson has been paid £3.9m since 2015, at an average of £420k p.a.

During that time the company has achieved a TOTAL turnover of just £7.7m and accumulated £100m in losses.

DT - it is said that a leopard can’t change its spots.

It MAY be that Sanderson is truly on the verge of something great but a quick glance at the 5 year chart on here will show what he has done for shareholders in that period. Better still, find one that dates back to the start of his tenure - Yahoo Finance for instance.

There are so many unanswered questions about the latest news that it makes sense to tread with caution and not heed those offering rockets etc. In any case, these projects are years away from approval and funding is not coming from government as some are promulgating.

Sadly, I think a lot of retail investors will have been impaled on the 1st October spike, while placees quietly exited with a handsome profit.

Of course there may be new cornerstone investors but why, ask yourself, have there been no TR1s or an update to UKOG’s information about total shares in issue and major shareholders (AIM rule 17)?

I hope your holding does well.

Please tell Laura that UKOG don’t have LOIs with Sumitomo, RWE or SGN.

That statement by Sanderson in his interview was not correct, and is misleading people.

UKOG have announced at various points that the company has LOSs with them; very different in significance.

Stock raiser,

The notes on petroleum assets in the interims state about Horse Hill:

“ Awaiting new retrospective planning consent following Supreme Court ruling; production to resume if approved”

This reads like UKOG has reapplied; do you know that they have?

“British Gas approached us for our assets.”

Really?

You mean those enumerated in the recently corrected accounts?

Does the company have a lease on the East Yorkshire site?

As I am filtered (for telling the truth), could someone please explain to Laura the important difference between Letters of Support (which UKOG has) and Letters of Intent (to which Sanderson clearly referred in the interview)?

I don’t think they have the latter.

Thanks.

...and not a lot of good that has done for UKOG shareholders in the nearly 11 years he has been CEO.

Note, at 9.40 in the interview, he states UKOG has a number of LOIs with large concerns (RWE, Sumitomo, SGN) which I am not sure is correct; a Letter of Support (LoS) and a Letter of Intent (LoI) are quite different in both legal weight and commercial implication.

LOIs would constitute new information and require an RNS.