serious question. What exactly has been the benefit of getting an irregular count of daily tankers. There seem to be 2 outcomes, dismay at so few or a short spike when a few more tankers are seen and then there's 'no one around to see them' the next day, or there are actually less the next day. I accept that you guys are generous with your time and hope it's a case of unintended consequences but you almost facilitate P & D activity.
I'm not sure whether schroedinger made any other philosophical exercises about numbers of cats rather than whether it was dead or not - maybe the unseen tankers could be a new one.
If several days of a reasonable number of tankers are seen, and we know which wells are producing all the time, and we know whether the tanks were full or empty before those few days then a tanker count means something - but we don't know these things, regardless of which there will be a most positive outcome calculated or a guess of tanker numbers without any shame when that's found to be wrong, in fact worn as a badge of pride for being 'positive'.
YA & / or Tellurian would like to thank FOTH and the other 'eyes' and rampers on twitter, and the rampers on this site for enabling them to sell loads of shares today.
Ironhide, - share buy , of course it was.
Keep it up.
The question is why has SS has decided to hand over the control of the SP to a bunch of guys hanging around the HH site and their associates rather than releasing an RNS? Is he oblivious to the SP and the reason for price movements, perhaps he deliberately sent out 4 tankers yesterday to help out with £1mm worth of shares to hand out next week?
Is the HH-1 pump even capable of that level of flow?
.......and what about the HH-2z ewt? The clean up is part of the ewt programme and was continuing until the proposed shut down (that doesn't seem to have happened) and once cleaned up the ewt proper would commence. Maybe it has cleaned up and as with HH-1 perhaps an early part of the ewt is a maximum flow test.
Who knows, 4 tankers today, 4 Saturday and 8 Monday would be good news in the absence of an RNS.
Could you specify what operations on site indicate that HH-2z isn t being flowed?
apart from never trying to predict the unpredictable what exactly do I have to eat humble pie for.
I've always said that I have no idea what HH-2z could produce, wait for an RNS or CPR. Any comments I've made about actual production have been based on tanker sightings and often acknowledge there could be 'unseen' tankers - although counts by the eyes haven't usually been that far off.
In fact prediction (or 'expectation-wise) I've rigorously followed the latest company guidance which isn't a number of barrels, just that HH-2z should flow significantly more than the vertical well - with absolutely no guidance as to UKOGs opinion of significantly, unlike the fantasists on this board who believe that any made up number will do as long as it's lots.
Still waiting for an RNS to find out what is really going on. Hopefully this is indeed good news and not just a flurry that helps YA make their return.
which year? 2021 almost certainly, though they did promise one following the submission of the planning application for the development site - though it is still after the application was submitted which was 15 months ago.
But unless they want one full of caveats based just on HH-1 (which they surely could have done ages ago) they will need a period of stable flow with no surprises and probably high rate flows as well for HH-2z.
So far assuming the tanker count is about right there isn't much sign of significant production from HH-2z if HH-1 is also flowing. FOTH seems to have a sixth sense in concluding HH-2z isn't flowing though. Maybe it's ESP, or lack of it?
Previously with one well flowing that was so.
If the only good news you can extract from 2 tankers a day is that it means the dozens of times it was right that this only happened on a Monday is now changed you really need to think about your previous expectations. So no, no humble pie - but then I haven't made a series of ever reducing expectations both on timing and volumes eg:- your expectation of 1200bopd during November 2019 based on just HH-1 Kimmeridge and HH-2z Portland.
With any luck there will be an RNS clarifying wtf is happening - if this is HH-1 and HH-2z production let's hope they are being prudent, or HH-2z is still cleaning up nearly 3 weeks into the ewt programme.
6 tankers in three days - but production from nearly 4. Sat morning 10 am to the last tanker to leave this morning (9am?) is effectively 4 days. But is this HH-1 production + HH-2z which should have been cleaning up for about 17 days.
Of course there could be untold numbers of tankers not seen, but I guess harry the horse is a good source.
As for shutting down production maybe UKOG will try and perform the upgrade etc without stopping production or keeping any shut ins to an absolute minimum rather than 10 days as rental of kit will continue used or not and even at this OP every little helps.
The RNS was released on the morning of a significant drop in the OP and the plan has already changed maybe the delay in starting the work was to prepare a different less disruptive plan for the upgrade?
It's about time UKOG gave an update on progress.
absolute rubbish. To start with the watchers, even if they see any equipment, seem to have little idea what it is nor what's going on - they don't even count all the tankers, which at least is not usually open to debate unless the word 'waste' is conveniently forgotten, so do you really believe that UKOG plan their operations around them. Maybe they would see less at night but most operations take place down the hole so night or day doesn't matter. I suspect with their objectional behaviour on twitter they have become as much as an irritant to the company as any 'swampies'.
Looking back through your posts you keep telling everyone to keep to information from RNS and ignore anything else. Presumably you include yourself in the advice to ignore.
Still waiting for that good RNS - roll on Monday (again)
you posted a link to a tweet which I have copied and pasted in my previous post - perhaps you would you like to explain how a tanker this morning could have all of today's production in it?
'And Mondays tankers are taking Saturdays oil bulls****r either'
Badly written I grant you but I don't think he is saying any tankers on Monday will have Saturday's oil in it as they are always proclaiming (as do certain posters on this board) that if there are 2 tankers Monday production is 2 tankers a day - and crestfallen when on Tuesday there's only one.
Oh and I don't think those accused are market manipulators - I think we know who those are - and I don't think any have said 'no oil' - just not as much as some expect - but I can't really speak for the others.
So no facts, just biased opinion / incorrect statements. - and as usual badly written.
If you link a tweet I take it you agree with it. But Unless UKOG have time travelling powers the tanker seen this morning will only be shipping out a small part of today's production - or probably none as it still goes through a secondary process before being exported.
But ignoring that, on Monday morning 2 full days will have passed, and even if there's another tanker last thing this morning it will still be 1 3/4 days since today's last tanker on Monday morning.
This is the tweet, sweary bits ***:-
So Penguins and Mira***hole and Backw**)dsman market manipulators on @LindonSouthEast none of your there's no oil s***e. And Mondays tankers are taking Saturdays oil bulls****r either
As for the originator of this thread and title 2 things
1 It had better not matter if they produce even 100,000 barrels now from the Portland as it should not affect long term production and cash now is probably imperative
2 it's amazing how often posters claimed production would be high and then claimed it was being choked back when production wasn't as they expected..
the oil heater has indeed been on site smoking away every now and then, we keep seeing pictures of it - you've just put up pictures of it on twitter, thanks.
In the picture of the site you have put up on twitter you can see one pipe from the well going into to the oil heater and one pipe exiting and going into the other skid mounted piece of kit to the right which has a few pipes leaving it - which is a separator.
The previous time a dewaxing treatment was mentioned was 16 Jan 2019 - but I suspect we don't get told every time they need to do it. PS I didn't say that was definitely what they were doing
I think we all know that you need to put a positive spin on anything that is happening - but really, the heater working possibly because one of the wells requires dewaxing is hardly 'moving forward'.
In fact whilst the heater was working I see that twitter said the flare wasn't working - is that moving backward?
in what way was Pboo correct? He said it was a treater heater - with all your well site knowledge (cough) even you should be able to spot the difference. PS the high pressure kit left ages ago.
Sometimes it is
Google is a great resource but not everything on google is what is happening on the HH site. Perhaps compare what a treater heater looks like - not like what was puffing away.
UKOG has always had separate heater and separator on the site plans and on site and nobody has called it (including UKOG on their site plans) a heater treater - for de waxing treatments a simple oil heater does the job.
Just because something exists it doesn't necessarily turn up on every well site.
the oil heater is not a separator. It does what it says on the tin. Heats oil.
The separator does that - obviously.
One use (and UKOG has previously mentioned doing this on HH-1) is for de-waxing. This is circulated down the well. So no new oil would be produced so no gas, and there would be no flare, but is the flare stack not going - there's another well if one is being worked on.
I might take you seriously if you hadn't replied on a thread with the most ridiculous title - your timescale for 5P?
So where's this discussion you're always on about.
This morning your opinion was:-'I'm now sure that UKOG will batten down the hatches and focus solely on the costs to get HH into long term production.'
Not exactly a carry on as normal.
I just gave a reason why they might need to 'batten down the hatches' and what that could mean in the near term and what might indicate they are doing it. Like UKOG I choose my words carefully (most of the time) and what I said was 'If things are tight', 'if'. You seem to assume I say something, not actually read what I post. But you also have no idea how much cash is left.
As for your:-
'As for the £300k at nominal value. That was to buy out Alba. They'll not do another placing now, only the settlement with Tellurian and the usual CLN with YA.'
Where did they mention that in the GM notice? Or do you think, like being positive about something you have absolutely no control over (eg OP, SP, Geology), you can change things just by repeating them.
Here's a bit of help:-
'Therefore, the Board seeks approval to increase its authority to allot and issue shares'
Why? you might ask.
'so that it can act swiftly to establish Production via an ability to fund the Company's Horse Hill FDP'
is that all?
'and to ensure that the Second Deferred Payment can be satisfied'
Now if you can see a link between issuing shares to ensure that the Second Deferred Payment can be satisfied it's not that much of a leap in the dark to see a link between issuing shares to fund the Company's Horse Hill FDP. Though I'm still struggling to see words even suggesting purchasing equity in anything.
I do agree that a fund raise is not likely to happen though (but never say never - something I've learnt over the years), although whether you can rescind a bet that easily - what's next for your eyebrows, $100 oil by ?, UKOG 5p by ?, 2p by ?.
and I'm not off for 2 months - impossible with FCO advice as negates insurance. Be able to watch out for that trade finishing 71,949, maybe tomorrow. 0.368p - Ouch.
Maybe abandoning all plans until the OP improves could see UKOG managing without a fund raise - in fact as it's unlikely anyone would take on the risk they are probably going to have to anyway.
One indicator they are watching costs might be if they delay, or reduce, the 10 day shut down for site works which would be a double whammy of no production whilst spending extra money. Maybe just ship out any excess equipment.
The issue is whether income is greater than expenditure now, not in the future when hopefully the OP is higher and they have only production, no ewt, costs and long term contracts that reflect the less than $19 a barrel production costs. If income isn't greater than expenditure then how much cash do they have and how long they can last. If things are tight site equipment suppliers and contractors may allow some leeway - so as long as the low OP doesn't drag on UKOG will hopefully be able soldier on.
You do not want them to be in a fire sale.
As for the 28/1 RNS - at the GM they asked for, and got, permission to issue 3 billion shares between the meeting and the next AGM, expected in April - let's not get into any delusion it was £300,000 at the current, not notional, SP as they wouldn't be able to issue £1mm of shares to Tellurian. Unless they were expecting an SP of considerably less than 0.1p (which would be 1 billion shares) it suggests they needed more shares to exchange for cash than just the £1mm for Tellurian.
UKOG may be spending tens of thousands of pounds a day, but 10 tankers seen since Monday 9th suggests an average of just over 200bopd which at $30 a barrel is less than £10,000 a day - even with GBP/USD heading for parity.
Yes there are posters making outrageous claims. Some overly positive some overly negative, but strangely despite posting paragraphs of pompous rubbish it isn't your decision as to what can be posted, nor are you an unbiased arbiter. You have frequently posted views and opinions that have later proved highly optimistic either in terms of price or in terms of progress and conversely what you consider negative proved to be correct.
Constantly posting that the optimistic outcome will happen - you may be part of the problem - not the solution.
If your posts have encouraged posters to buy more shares and hold since arriving on this board in August (first post:RE: RE: UKOG price prediction 30/10/19: 20 Aug 2019 14:00 My prediction 3.5p and Seadoc to be banned.), but my 'negative' posts have made some think twice - which currently would be the better option.
One final point - this is a discussion board about UKOG - if you don't want to see posts about UKOG you're in the wrong place.
I see FOTH has gone ex-directory again, perhaps to clear out last nights meltdown on twitter. One tweet that had disappeared by this morning seemed to suggest that the on site invite was in fact an invitation to a telling off - I wondered why it wasn't mentioned.
You really have upped your game - though what game I'm not sure:-
'The UK government will support UK onshore oil every drop will be procured at a rate to ensure businesses are safe guarded and reduce import imo ukog will be just fine.'
So what is the government going to do - requisition the tankers at the gate (or at the end of Wytch Farm's pipeline) and drive it to the refineries - oh and pay less than the global price - or more?
I'm not sure how much oil is produced per day onshore UK but excluding Wytch Farm's approx. 13,500 I should imagine it struggles to be more than a few 1000 barrels. UK consumption may have dropped below 1.6 million barrels per day but what is needed 'on the street' is refined products, petrol, diesel, fuel oil etc anyway.
So onshore oil, in round figures, about 1% of daily consumption - I know every little helps but UKOG's share of the 1% at best might be about 2%. I don't think the UK will grind to a halt if UKOG stops producing for 10 days so you can stop worrying.
If you have chosen to ignore the carefully selected words in RNS that is not SS's fault. Those words will have been dictated by the priority to protect the SP whilst not lying.
Posters on here keep claiming I take a negative view of every RNS, that isn't true - I take a reasoned view of every RNS and repeat both good and bad - whereas, for instance, you will find posters on here quote the 778bopd in the 9th March RNS without mentioning that it was a short term maximum, without mentioning the average over the same period was 223 bopd and without mentioning that the lowest rate seen was 10bopd. The justification being they are 'positive' or 'support' UKOG- not that they are in any way trying to present a balanced view.
Going by a lot of the posts here very few actually read the RNS so this sort of misleading post, which tends to get lots of 'likes' fuels the idea everything is going well.
When the next RNS emerges look at it critically, don't be drawn towards short term maximums, promises of future 'plans', or the newish word in UKOGs vocabulary 'significantly' which could mean anything.
There are those that do read the RNS and provide a different interpretation but before the coronavirus and oil 'war' had the SP been generally dropping or rising since the BB pump and Dump despite the stream of RNS that certain posters declared were good and would see a rerate - rather than a short term mini-spike they probably sold in to.
To revise a saying, don't blame the interpreter of what the messenger is probably trying to tell you, RNS are company PR without the full on BS.
Good point about the Senators, they're complaining about what the Saudis wanted to happen - can't remember Gladiator (great film though) I presume they didn't all survive though.
I very much doubt that UKOG have a £1mm held for future develooments. They said they had to raise £2mm in December partly to pay for the non-paying partners share of HH-2z and:-
'to accelerate long-lead time gas-utilisation, facilities and other related works necessary to bring HH-1 and HH-2z into stable long-term oil production.'
No mention of future drilling.
I'm sure UKOG would like break even costs of $14 a day but UKOG quote production cost of under $19 per barrel with long term contracts in place ie not yet - but a production cost per barrel will be production dependant as there will be fixed costs regardless of volume produced (ie per barrel will reduce with higher production), and other costs that may remain constant per barrel - so production cost quoted will be for an expectation of a specific production level - we've not been told what that would be for under $19.
Current break even for UKOG is an entirely different thing. Depends on how much it costs to run UKOG, its subsidiaries, all the planning work on the other sites and of course the ewt and production costs at HH. Break even would be all that divided by daily production.
Also I don't think UKOG has suffered a business interruption due to coronavirus - which is what the loans are for.