Werner Klingenberg, Goldplat CEO outlines his growth strategy at the London South East May webinar. Watch the full video here.
Where does that quote come from? It may be legal but I don't remember even UKOG making that up.
There is no Loxley gas field. There's a discovery in the adjacent block and 3 failed attempts to define whether the discovery well Godley Bridge-1 had proved an accumulation to develop - as there is no Godley Bridge Field it didn't.
Someone else making stuff using UKOG figures based on their 'interpretation' which needs at least one well at Loxley to start proving that UKOG figures are anything more than hope.
When UKOG couldn't get Xodus to assess volumetrics based on their mappingin a CPR they eventually asked them to do a 'study' to determine volumetrics based on their new mapping in 2020 - presumably because Xodus could still see flaws. UKOG didn't publish the study, just the volumetrics.
Pity there isn't a Loxley Field. There's a discovery in the licence to the west, Godley Bridge-1, which tested sour gas at a rate of 1.44MMscf/d. The appraisal well was dry and a subsequent sidetrack of the appraisal was also dry. It was not developed There was also a test to the east of the Loxley proposed location that was dry.
Any 'estimates' of GIIP are dependant on the Loxley well being successful - unlike Broadford Bridge, HH-2z and Basur-3 - or to put it another way every well UKOG has operated or farmed in to, HH-1 was drilled by the Angus team. So plenty of risk as you might expect from an AIM company scratching around for wells with little more than shows to raise money to drill and pay the salaries.
Anyway first get permission, likely in less than 2 weeks; then find the cash (£6+mm), or maybe another desperate AIM oiler to farm in, then prepare the site and get a rig to drill, and then if sufficient encouragement test.
If the test provides enough encouragement get planning to drill more wells to confirm the accumulation - actual appraisal - if they are successful then apply for planning to develop etc.
First sales gas ?
I'm still waiting for those that seem to think the answer to the question 'what can the government do about high energy costs' is 'UKOG' to explain exactly how a company that even if it is successful at Loxley, and HH improves, will affect prices in the next few years, or in fact ever.
It may have an undetectable contribution to balance of payments and tax, but otherwise the 'price' is global.
Perhaps a more honest reasoning (and one conversely made by like minded posters) is that UKOG can cash in on the hype and high prices even if it doesn't produce much but promises plenty - in the future, sometime.
To paraphrase a dead bird in the hand but 2 in the Bush.
and when did UKOG mention that the planning application was submitted 29 April 2019 (SCC Ref 2019/0072), or that documents, presumably to clarify the application details, were submitted up to 24 June 2020.
Planners recommended approval, politicians decided against, twice. If the politicians had accepted the planners advice the application would have been passed soon after the last documentation was submitted - 29 June 2020.
'Uk needs the likes of UKOG'
we've been told that the UK needs UKOG by posters (and tweeters) for years - so far 60bopd (less than 10,000 litres)..........a lot less than the average petrol station sells in a day (more than 15,000 litres).
As you keep suggesting it perhaps you could explain what exactly will UKOG do this year or over the next 5 years for the '12 mil families in fuel poverty by September 22, 100% RISE from today 6 mil recorded figures'.
Is the answer nothing so the excerpt is a pointless attampt to suggest UKOG willproduce enough to make a difference in the near term?
Unless you're proposing that UKOG sell its oil and (if it finds any at Loxley) gas at considerably below market price and with its meagre production somehow forces world prices down somehow I'm sorry to tell you and others that what's significant for UKOG is insignificant for even the UK that already produces a fait bit of its own requirements, let alone global markets. The price, unfortunately, is determined by 'ransoms global markets however history tells us that the oil price at least is highly volatile and what goes up will eventually come down - even if Bloomberg think otherwise.
Any oil and gas that UKOG are likely, even with success, to produce in the next 5 years and probably any timescale into the future would be lost in the rounding of published UK production.
That's not to say that UKOG shouldn't be allowed to test Loxley or any other site, but I do believe they should be more open about what they are testing and the risks involved. So far all the wells UKOG have drilled have beem far better at provinb the risks that posters here have identified, if only after years of publishing selected test results in the case of HH - followed by years of silence during production. Fortunately they were compelled to give production data to the OGA so that investors at least know, if 3 months delayed, what has happened to UKOG's forecasts.
'As the second largest gas accumulation drilled and tested in the UK onshore'
Hmmm - that's debatable.
Godley Bridge-1 was drilled and tested some way to the west of Loxley. Whether it tested the 2nd largest acccumulation onshore UK depends entirely on whether UKOG's current mapping extending the structure from GB-1 across PEDL234 is correct - only to be found out after drilling. GB-1 tested at 1.44MMscf/d and currently the licence holder IGas is showing no signs of pursuing development despite the discovery being in their licence -although when UKOG announced their intention to drill IGas did suggest they would also drill, So far they have not submited a planning application to do so - I suspect they'll wisely wait to see what happens at Loxley.
Given the above statement SS will look pretty silly if Loxley is dry, or proves little gas - but then it wouldn't be the first time he hasn't delivered on his own hype.
It's expensive to do anything but flare small quantities of gas and the NSTA figure of an average of 10,000cu ft / day associated gas from HH-1 (about a quarter of a tonne) is insignificant in comparison to the quantity of gas required to be commercial - which to support any infrastructure requirements would be in the millions if not tens of millions of cubic feet per day, depending on location.
At ca 1 therm = 100cu ft the value of gas flared is about £200, considerably less than trying to do anything with it.
The flaring maximums mentioned for Loxley is during testing - the gas has to be discovered there for any gas at all to be flared, and even if present may not produce at the rates 'expected' so your worry about tonnes of gas not being sold may be premature.
Potential. A word that can enable even the most unlikely estimates to be quoted.
Presumably you're referring to the ca. 8 tonnes a month of associated gas produced by HH-1.
Loxley awaits permission, needs to be drilled to discover if there's gas to produce - although UKOG don't have the funds to drill it.
As for Horse Hill the 8 tonnes translates to an average of about 10,000 cubic feet per day (NSTA figure for February). As the volume is low and the well is probably intermittently flowed to enable pressure recovery it has few options for use - not even sure they use it for anything on site except keeping the replacement small flare occupied.
It isn't overruling - it's putting the record straight.
The DDSPP came about during a particularly difficult period for the company when they withdrew rather then lost a resolution at the AGM about share issuance. Like the open offer that followed it was supposed to show the Directors were taking shareholders concerns into account. All the Directors could participate, Sanderson committed to buy £1000 worth every month for a year.
It was, as Ibug mentions, meant to commence in early July but in the announcement that oft used word 'expected' was used in the RNS rather than 'will'.
Li,e so many things UKOG tollgate and too little to make a difference.
'Posts from years gone by were written without hindsight only with expectation of forthcoming events being successful and as such shouldn't really be mocked as stupidity or ramping etc'
Not all posts.
There were a few posters who told why forthcoming events were not likely to be as successful as SS hoped. What was (and is still) obvious is only an upside full success case is presented, with hardly any assessment of what the risks are. These posters were, and still are, claimed to be swampies, greenies, shorters which seems to be a function of needing to discredit posters who obviously have an O&G background, or see through the RNS BS, and post about realistic outcomes and risks and present arguments to support these views rather than just quoting UKOG RNS or just some hoped for SP - as if the hopes were facts.
Ignoring that this is AIM and micro oilers like UKOG have to scratch around finding undeveloped discoveries to promote that by definition will be high risk, the original 'finder' deciding not to develop - presumably because the results didn't confirm their 'expectations'.
So when should hindsight be taken into account. When the company keeps failing to hit their own schedule of forward plans, when there's silence when things are going badly eg HH flow rates fast decline and water production; eg BB failure despite initial super positive RNS; eg HH-2z failure; eg Basur-3 being drilled in the wrong place; eg The Kimmeridge not being developed? Is this bad luck or a more likely outcome of risky projects with plenty of information in the public domain that could predict many of these problems.
We now have to hope Loxley will be drilled on a correctly mapped depth structure, not a 'nose' nor missing the culmination nor hitting water, nor low flow rates if there is gas. That the new, plus reprocessed, Resan/Basur seismic really does help well target decisions. That the water injection works at HH. That the new wells at HH are more successful than HH-2z in avoiding water filled fractures.
Legalease - with a leading question:-
'What do we think a positive outcome re Loxley we hold fo to our share price?'
Ocelot with an answer out of the SS book of 'expectations':-
'Dare one use the word "transformative"?'
Of course you can, as the assumption is 'success' and it's a word that UKOG use that avoids having to give an indication of what's expected in terms of flow rates or anything particularly useful to assess the true value of this and other appraisals. But GIIP times an industry norm recovery without an objective view of risk in a 'study' is not informative but useful to feed the unquestioning.
But there's cash to be raised to drill as the current $2mm revenues I've seen quoted are currently swallowed up by company and HH OPEX costs and would anyway require years to pay for Loxley even without those costs.
A farm in is possible but that will produce a different kind of dilution - equity in the licence, not a worry with a dry hole (cf. Basur-3), though more likely another AIM oiler looking for an opportunity to raise to drill (and pay the salaries).
Funny you didn't mention you were buying more when you posted about the first 3 trades after they had been made - and then you posted after the next 2 trades were made..........
Anyway at least someone, you, gave Mr 10,000,000 two exits - maybe he knows more than you?
SP seems to be dropping - quotes for £5000 going down, don't be like Adrian and believe his rubbish about Loxley though - maybe there will be a P&D on the appeal going their way, but then there's paying for the well - and when will it happen, UKOG said after Resan / Basur - but can UKOG risk waiting to raise for it in case Resan / Basur fails?
In fact there was a lot more red tape than presumably SS expected- whilst RNSing in July 2020 that the well 'might' be drilled in 2020 the government approval to the farm in was given in January 2021.
23 July 2020: 'Drilling and seismic are therefore expected to commence before the end of this year'
Yet another use of that useful word expected. Drilling finally commenced July 2021 - and halted during the month as the bit got stuck and the well was deep to prognosis. The seismic was unfortunately shot after the well in late 2021 and there appears to be some discussion about the interpretation. Though not due to the government we still await whether they will attempt a difficult sidetrack or go to a new site.
UKOG hasn't applied for planning for any more wells at BB has had planning for multiple wells at HH (and the application for those wells included a water injector). Applied in 2019 and then withdrew the EA application in early 2021 which included water injection. Hesitated over the Loxley application whilst knowing planning takes a long time, 2017 annual report and accounts 29/03/2018:- 'Two drilling sites have now been finalised'
Planning àpplication submitted April 2019.
Also this is the third, not second extension of the Broadford Bridge site retention - first was early 2018, then 2020 and now 2022.
It should be noted that UKOG planned, but didn't bother, to drill through the Kimmeridge when they were drilling the pilot hole (HH-2) for HH-2z.
UKOG continue to dangle the Kimmeridge in front of investors whilst doing as little as possible and saying even less about what the data they already have has told them about the Kimmeridge - citing vague problems with completion or drilling fluids (though also denying there were), though never mentioning exactly what, nor saying there were any of those issues at Horse Hill - where the Kimmeridge remains shut in.
UKOG is very good at having potentially valuable assets, even BB before it was drilled was going to prove the Kimmeridge was of national importance (IIRC) and producible across the Weald.
So much potential, so little actual success, already the potential transformational Turkey is floundering - why else seek projects elsewhere.
Distraction in adtion- don't look at what we're doing, lookover here.
UKOG already have a well at BB, and a sidetrack, which according to UKOG was successful in the sense of understanding the reservoir. BB had multiple tests over months of more KL layers than tested at HH, extensive coring of the Kimmeridge (remember 'oil' oozing from it) but the reason for not doing anything is waiting on more untimetabled drilling at HH on the other side of the Weald Basin where the Kimmeridge has already been tested extensively, and Loxley which awaits almost certain approval but is primarily a Portland test, but is unfunded.
Seems there's more to say about the untested (geothermal (or did they learn more about water than oil) for an unbuilt greenhouse - why no mention of a few solar panels on the site for more greenwashing?
This is second time UKOG have been given a 2 year extension to avoid doing anything, at least it saves on the cost of restoration.
' (fracking), now looks like acceptable policy'
Well the review is still underway -but I accept it might be acceptable policy, but it's pretty clear that it won't help the current situation and the UK's needs up until renewables / nuclear? / anything else contribute far more to UK's power needs so in the interim the shortfall in domestic production can be met more easily (and remember it's yet to be proved fracking the Bowland will work) by conventional offshore developments.
But specifically what does it have to do with UKOG - UKOG has maintained it won't frack - and this is probably because the Kimmeridge is unsuitable.
still clutching at straws, the gas HH-1 was meant to test wasn't there - probably because there was no source for the Triassic - nor was there any Triassic reservoir.
As for the KL1 and 2 I'd have a look at the Slide 11 Kimmeridge correlation in the 2017 Corporate Presentation.
KL1 and KL2 are barely discernable on the logs so likely to be a much poorer reservoir - in fact the NUTECH OIP Executive Summary only considered the KL2 (Lower Micrite) which had considerably less OIP calculated (about a fifth) than KL3 (Mid Micrite) and 4 (Upper Micrite) which as posters keep repeating UKOG isn't producing from. Note 'OIP' in the KL2.
Of course. To start with frackng is done from the well to be produced, injection is done from a remote well.
But in a fractured reservoir it is difficult to predict where injected water might go as it will preferentially travel through the fractures than the matrix (the main rock body).
Fracking uses much greater quantities of fluid at high pressure and there's added material (proppant) included to 'prop' open newly formed fractures. If there are already fractures that's where the frack might 'disappear'. The aim is to open up closed fractures and initiate new ones. The water is then expected to be pushed back to the well by oil coming out of the matrix (with a massively greater surface area against the fractures vs the original wellbore) and partial closing of the fractures - though hopefully still propped open.
Injecting the last thing you want is the water preferentially travelling through the fractures to the production well. In an unfractured reservoir the hope is the water will increase pressure in the matrix and also sweep the oil in the matrix towards the well.
Not sure what Tony's analogy is about.