Member Info for ocelot

"Sources of finance may well influence the siting of the AAMP, ..."

Elir71,

Don't we already know the site of the AAMP?

"Following a lengthy evaluation process, the Company selected Eyde Materials Park in southern Norway as the preferred location for its AAM plant and signed a Letter of Interest with the landowner in August 2024 ..." (Final Results RNS of 24/04)

Chris Stark, head of the Government's "mission control" for clean power, said a "clear priority" that had emerged from the report of November 2024 by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) was "the need for more energy storage". It is not hard to see why. The report lays bare the huge overall scale of the challenge to reach clean power by 2030 and its colossal cost. The Government's plan requires a spending programme averaging an eye watering £40 billion or more annually. Without the right policy mix in place, much of this investment is at risk of being passed onto consumers' bills. (from EPP's CEO's report in its Annual Report RNS of 30/06, just as valid for UKOG as for EPP).

"... It is important to secure a substantial amount of ore from Amitsoq, as it will take time to process that into graphite concentrate and we want to have the material ready by the time we are ready with our planned pilot processing plant".

And now for the funding of the planned pilot processing plant.

EPP is in the same business as UKOG's UKEn.

Page 11 of its June presentation is focused on its alignment with the government's energy strategy. This contains observations which apply to UKEn too:

https://res.cloudinary.com/investorhub/raw/upload/v1750432609/leaf-prod/310/documents/EnergyPathways_Investor_Presentation_June25_behmzn.pdf

Given UKOG's transition away from hydrocarbons, the next set of accounts will not be pretty.

In the interim results to 31/03/24, Exploration and evaluation assets totalled £34.070m and Oil & Gas properties, £2.308m, making a grand total of £36.378m.

It looks as if almost all of this will need to be impaired.

This should come as a surprise to nobody but will still make a poor impression.

How can UKOG try to compensate this impression?

At a cosmetic level, a change of name to UKEn might help.

At a financial level, an injection of new funds is almost obligatory. If it is a question of a placing (once the listing is restored), then, imho, management should be seen to participate on this occasion in more than a token way.

"... we believe the RTO under consideration, along with other M&A opportunities currently under consideration, could significantly strengthen and expand our operational footprint by increasing reserves production and cashflow, and create a path toward growth and renewed shareholder value". (Interim Results RNS of 30/06)

As you would expect, management is seeking to keep its options open by considering "other M&A opportunities" than the RTO.

The predictable next RNS will concern the quarterly production figures.

In an off the cuff remark, Mark Austin once made a comment about the possibility of gold.

"tell us ONE item that people like BP got wrong and ONE item that OTM and rampers got right in the last 5 years".

Perhaps more interesting is to think of the developments which nobody foresaw. Who foresaw:

the suspension of trading in the shares?

the resignation of RH?

The council’s planning development manager, Sian Saadeh, said there was no prescribed time limit for the quashed permission to be redecided.

She said the site operator had been asked for more information on its proposals.

A formal Regulation 25 request was issued in December 2024 for details on greenhouse gas emissions, noise, groundwater protection, traffic and lighting. The letter did not specify a deadline for the information.

Ms Saadeh said:

“My understanding is that we are likely to receive that [information] in the coming months but I do not have a firm date.”

She said there would be a public consultation on the information once it had been received.

Jackie Macey and Deborah Elliott raised concerns about whether the operator had enough money to restore Horse Hill. The parent company, UK Oil & Gas plc, suspended share trading and delayed publication of its accounts in March 2025.

Ms Saadeh said:

“This is not a relevant consideration at this stage. Whether or not sufficient funds exist is not relevant to any enforcement related matters”.

She said the restoration issue would be considered when the council redecided the quashed planning permission.

https://drillordrop.com/2025/06/26/horse-hill-one-year-on-no-site-clearance-date/

Would like to see Angus return from suspension soon, to see how the market responds to updates and to avoid it being associated with other stocks which are currently suspended.

According to Angus its suggested 4th well "... would allow for 2 and up to 6 mmcf/d of incremental field production in Q2 2026". If that proves to be the case, then, imho, the 4th well is, effectively, self-funding.

Bubblepoint,

While you are here (if you still are) ...

Putting aside funding requirements, what do you make of Angus's suggested 4th well and, in particular, of its statement that it "... would allow for 2 and up to 6 mmcf/d of incremental field production in Q2 2026"?

... In order to retain the full 300 km² licence area without any future partial relinquishment, the Company must now commence drilling the Loxley-1 appraisal borehole no later than 30 June 2025. Loxley-1 is designed to confirm the commercial viability of the Company's material 100%-owned Loxley gas discovery and its related hydrogen feedstock project ... (RNS of 27/03/24)

Drilling of Loxley-1 had to commence before 30/06/25. The NSTA's work programme conditions for the licence retention area have not been met. Loxley no longer features among Envoi Limited's projects.

No news of Loxley but , presumably, this is also an exit, given the exploration drill has not been drilled within the required deadline.

Affrm,

The RNS of 30/06 sounded confident:

... The audit of the Company's 2024 Annual Financial Statements is now well advanced and the Company expects to publish the report before the end of July. The Company will then seek to publish interim results for the period ended 30 March 2025.

With the passage of time, we can see that:

1/ elir71 was right, the US institutional investor of 02/06 did sell at least enough of its holding to fall below the declaration threshold because there has been no TR-1;

2/ the market had largely assumed GROC would achieve EU Strategic Project status because the share price has since come back to a level below the subscription price of 2.5p paid by the US II.

This does nothing to detract from the very positive achievement of Strategic Project status, it simply means the market needs some time in which to digest the news.

For myself, I look forward to news of funding arrangements for the pilot processing plant.

Note: Angus is the 4th biggest onshore oil producer ... some way behind Perenco at Wytch Farm!

Scroll down and there is a monthly chart of Saltfleetby gas production from Aprril 24 to April 25 (3,427) inclusive:

https://drillordrop.com/2025/07/01/uk-onshore-oil-and-gas-production-in-figures-and-charts-april-2025/

"The well is in the preliminary design phase with a target drilling date of Q1 2026, subject to funding and pending delivery time for long lead items. The target drill date would allow for 2 and up to 6 mmcf/d of incremental field production in Q2 2026".

No 8% royalty payable on a 4th well, Angus would receive 100% (and not 92%) of revenue.