We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
You posted:-
'Its is good to have the companies views on here for a change. Not just the made up nonsense from the activists'
The irony is if anyone was to trawl through what UKOG's views previously were about HH, BB and Turkey, all of which have been drilled and failed, you might find a more reliable commentary about the outcomes - Kimmeridge at HH not in production, Portland at HH nothing like as good as claimed, BB failed and both Basur-3 and Pinarova failed - would be in the 'nonsense' from what in your similarly wrong view are activists.
Still hangs onto the non assets (intangible assets) as if they have any basis in reality.
As deltavega, and I have previously, points out the figure is nothing more than how much UKOG has spent not finding commercial oil.
Even the valuation of HH-1 hasn't been put to the test of a CPR, the only producing asset with a 'normal' oil company valuation is Horndean and if / when it returns to production Avington - both operated by Star.
UKOG doesn't identify what bit of value of non-asset is associated with which project except HH so there's no way of knowing if the valuation is likely to be realised. Even for HH it's remarkable that despite the well that's producing being valued at £1.4mm (up from last year's £0.8mm) the Horse Hill development is carried at £19.3mm in non-assets - though that won't acknowledge the 49% hit based on the PPP farm out should it happen.
In fact apart from Turkey where they are obliged to stump up 50% of ongoing costs everything else depends on their salesmen being as good as AME's, or the farminees being as 'diligent' as UKOG apparently were in farming in - unless, of course, they didn't believe their own 'transformational' communications about it.
As for Contingent resources UKOG carry the Xodus 2020 gross resources for Basur Resan of 33mmbbls despite the failure of Basur-3, AME 7mmbbls.
UKOG clearly sees the Portland Port Project as its core business, or at least the priority for investment, judging by the importance placed on it in recent interim and annual reports.
However there's a disconnect, with money raised and spent on Portland Port via CLN or placings although the shares semm to be predominantly sold to pi hoping for short term rewards (based on the activity during P&Ds) on news about the oil and gas projects they are not spending money on to advance.
The excuse, at least for HH, is said to be waiting for the Supreme Court decision, but there is zero expectation SCC will lose - will that decision result in a burst of activity at HH, or rather a (re)announcement of plans for activity at HH? The farm out to PPP has not progressed since it was announced in March 2023 and PPP may have difficulty funding HH-3 even if they scrape together enough for the 3D.
Loxley's challenge was defeated in January. This has been on offer as a (pre-planned) farm out since mid 2022. There are still outstanding planning conditions to be addressed and whilst UKOG has RNS'd and tweeted about interest in Portland Port no expressions of interest in Loxley have ever been made by UKOG.
Turkey seems to be floundering and perhaps there's another disconnect between what UKOG and AME would like to do.
As for Portland Port - UKOG appears to be betting the farm on their subsidiary UKEn getting something from the Q3 2024 Allocation awards, though when anything is 'allocated' may be much later, but how that will help (fund) the O&G business hasn't been explained if none of the farm outs happens.
Last week, and AME had a stand there - surprised that UKOG don't have a stand in these 'trade' events where companies 'sell' the prospects etc they want to farm out.
A coincidence AME published their annual report last week? - did they check there wasn't anything contrary to what UKOG have said about Resan?
Should have been released on Thursday - why wasn't it?
From AIM rules for companies:-
'Annual accounts
19. An AIM company must publish annual audited accounts which must be sent to its
shareholders without delay and in any event not later than six months after the end of the
financial year to which they relate'
......and according to AIM rules failure to publish accounts within 6 months of the accounting period for the Annual Report leads to suspension.
'The Exchange will suspend AIM companies which are late in publishing their half-yearly report
or their annual accounts, pursuant to rule 40.'
Though rule 40 does suggest there are excuses.
After all they have been busy tidying up after the GM resolutions got passed on the second attempt, though that was only after ensuring that the pi vote didn't count having stuffed the EBT with over 3 billion shares to vote in favour - and incidentally about 1,000,000 more than the 10% the EBT is limited to.
Unfortunately as the Annual Report, and more importantly the accounts, will only be up to end last September we still won't know if the loan note holders have an extra £1,000,000 of notes to convert on top of the, as UKOG put it, 'principal balance of the £2 million gross first cash sum received below the prior £0.66 million figure announced on 23 January 2024.'
On 13 March UKOG revealed a further 206,965,282 shares were handed over - but the price would be decided at some other time, even 15 days before, no doubt at a time advantageous to the loan note holder.
....and Trish I do copy and paste when necessary - mainly of extracts that have probably not been seen by most posters who seem to be oblivious even to what's in RNS let alone to reports found elsewhere.........or even AIM rules.
The Loxley CPR shows signs of UKOG influence and there is at least one error in interpretation of the Loxley well.
Firstly UKOG insisted on an additional calculation of NPV using a flat 186.5p per therm price forecast, the gas price at the end of December 2022. That price has not been reached since - end December 2023 gas price was less than 100p per therm - but in the recent tweet they only quote 'their' NPV, not RPS's which is about a third less.
The development in the CPR is based on the exploration well becoming the single production well until such time as production drops off and a second producer is drilled. However the original plan was for 5 production wells based on a view of productivity per well which would significantly impact the NPV value.
So why the change?
UKOG had a report produced by Kappa Engineering which it appears from the text that RPS has reluctantly accepted - this the footnote to page 32 about GB-1:-
'To date, DST rates were only approximately 1 MMscf/d. Kappa’s interpretation of DST#6 suggests this may be due to a large mechanical skin during the test and that a zero skin well could produce at significantly higher rates (15-18 MMscf/d), though RPS believes the interpretation is uncertain due to the scarcity of the available pressure data. However, based on the reservoir properties from logs, there is no suggestion that these rates cannot be achieved from the planned wells if drilled successfully with minimum formation damage.'
As for the error in the analysis of Alfold-1 on which a gas column in Loxley and the structural closure is based.
The uppermost, gas bearing, Portland in GB-1 has a good porosity/permeability which RPS attribute to gas emplacement preserving poroperms. The logs for both wells are shown which clearly show that in fact the uppermost, supposedly gas bearing, Portland in Alfold (figure 5.16 labelled incorrectly as GB-2z on page 23) has poorer (most around 10%) porosity (phi column) above the supposed GWC than GB-1 (most 15 to 20%). But the largest contrast is permeability, but for whatever reason the core permeability (kh red astersks in the right most column) isn't plotted on the single well figure for Alfold-1 - but is in the correlation figure 5.18.
The values for GB-1 are generally in the range 100 to 1000md - for Alfold less than 10.
The points when plotted on the cross plot don't even remotely lie on the same trend even the colour coding suggests something is wrong, so the assertion in the CPR that:- 'There appears to be two distinct trends in the core data porosity permeability relationship, shown in Figure 5.14. This data could mean that permeability may be preferentially preserved by gas emplacement above the Gas Water Contact.' Two trends maybe but not related to the GWC.
The current licensing status is irrelevant. That survey was probably shot years ago chasing the Kurtalan discovery which was mentioned in 1961 - and the licence area may have covered what is now the Resan licence anyway,
I doubt that any recent survey would be a series of 2D lines shot in dip and strike direction rather than a 3D.
Ibug,
Not sure what you mean but that's historic data - and doesn't even include the 2 phases shot for Basur and Pinarova.
So there will have been licences over the area previously and seismic shot across those licences maybemlicenced to the same licencee.
Of course prospects are no respecters of licence boundaries and maybe in Turkey it's possible to shoot outside your license if the adjacent acreage isn't licenses.
If someone has never sold because of belief in what they post is true (which I doubt) and has averaged down through thin and thin surely an ocelot TR1 must soon be on its way as the management, and therefore ocelot, has hoped, expected, claimed:-
That the Kimmeridge in the Weald would provide up to 27% of UK Oil consumption - the report was by EY but based on information provided by UKOG, and was prefaced as conservative following the 2016 testing.
Broadford Bridge - installed a 'production completion' to great acclaim before testing suggested following removal of the production completion that the testing was going well.
That by the end of 2019 HH would be producing 2000bopd.
That HH-2z would produce between 720 and 1280bopd.
That there would be 6 producers at HH producing initially 3,500bopd by end 2020.
That HH-1z would be a horizontal into the Kimmeridge.
That HH-1 would be dual completed.
That Basur-Resan, like almost every project, was 'potentially transformational' when evidence from E Sadak told a different story.
That Basur contained tens of millions of barrels of recoverable oil before drilling Basur-3.
Basur-4 would follow Basur-3.
That sequentially, in Pinarova-1, the Hoya amplitude anomaly, then the Hoya above that and then the shallower Germik was where the oil found in shotholes would be found.
So what is UKOG likely to be wrong about next:-
HH-3 drilled this year (more likely next) - but no predictions from UKOG as to likely success - plenty from DL, though farming out an appraisal / development well updip of a production well is an unusual step - are the risks high and thus risked economics not positive.
Loxley drilled this year (more likely next or never) finding a significant gas column in good reservoir in the Portland.
Another well in Turkey finding the source of the shothole oil.
As for Portland Port the new, presumably core, business where it seems every available penny is being spent - expressions of interest and encouraging words from the (probably) outgoing government need to be converted to partnerships and cash.
UKOG has never issued a RNS that has properly addressed the probable downside vs the hoped for result, is Portland Port no different?
My guess is they were obliged to get authority to issue more shares, perhaps because the CLN holders had triggered a conversion that UKOG couldn't legally fulfill.
But then have UKOG positive tweets and RNS always been accurate, or ocelot's posts based on them......maybe this time rodders......
Not sure where the A D V F N poster got their figures from but they are completely wrong.
I hope it was just a misunderstanding of the publically available figures, but oil sales have totalled 8601bbls including November's 4599bbls not about 25,000bbls those figures indicated.
So @ $55 a barrel less than $500,000 after royalties and taxes to 25 March, not $1,377,000 to 26 Feb.
and they will have been spending heavily on workovers according to what's in the RNS.
If it's true about 1H vs 4H it still suggests that 4H is a lot worse than 1H - or why shut in 4H in the hope of improving 1H - and 4H rates were after a long shut in.
They're also coy about water production which in the RNS on 30 Occt they said it would be reported in a few weeks, and the effects of the rising gas production.
Wondering if PPP can fund the HH farm in with a low SP and low oil production.
UKOG may be in discussion with several investors for the Portland Port project but UKOG has been pushing that narrative since December:-
'UKOG@UKOGlistedonAIM
·Dec 5, 2023
UK ENERGY STORAGE LTD: Portland Port hydrogen storage business gets significant boost in the space of a few days after positive discussions with two of world’s giant trading companies, Japanese Sumitomo, and US ExxonMobil. The countdown to lift off begins...'
Not sure what the countdown started at - or have there been a few failures at 'lift off'.
So that's 2050 sorted, even though there's not even a planning application been put in yet.
What about all those things that are meant to be be happening now, in what anybody investing over the past 9 years would consider the core O&G E&P business.
Has UKOG really not done all those things at HH that is so great they want to farm out 49% for a pittance relative to what they paid to get to 86%, and watched the SP collapse because of the legal challenge to the planning permission they've been adamant would fail?
Turkey was a desperate diversion that was never going to be truly transformational based on the nearby lookalike field rather than fields in Kurdistan.
Instead of nonsensical tweets maybe it's about time for UKOG to explain how it's going to survive this year, let alone until 2050.
I didn't say you had posted that UKOG had claimed production could double or treble, I asked you if you could find such a claim:-
'Perhaps you can quote where UKOG, a great source of positive information (again look at the SP chart to establish how accurate that is), has suggested since production started that injection would double oil production, let alone treble.'
So you can't because UKOG have never said production could double or treble - you were just making it up and haven't even tried to justify that opinion.
Wednesday you were claiming that K1 (Kimmeridge-1) production, a well near the village of Kimmeridge, was from the Kimmeridge.
'K1 is producing from the Kimmeridge
Fact'
... it wasn't 'fact' - it doesn't - since then I've read the K1 well report (UKOGL, UK Onshore Geophysical Library, nothing to do with UKOG) and production is from the Cornbrash, there is a comment about the Kimmeridge in the Oil, Gas and Water Indications Section which is:- 'No free oil or gas was recorded'. It wasn't tested.
Do you just come on this board to embarrass yourself?
You posted:-
'RE: UkogToday 11:27
Penguins
Is another one that can't read. Where have I said that UKOG have said the water injector could double production.'
Well a few hours before that post -
'Pboo
Posts: 7,280
Price: 0.065
No Opinion
RE: UkogToday 07:30
Ninetails
If and when UKOG get the HH2 water injector up and running we could see the dribble as you call it from HH1 double or even treble.'
or have you not got the hang of the way this board works and thought it wasa private message to Ninetails.........
Unlike your 'wealdoilers' twitter account you can't change, delete, or stop anyone reading posts here.
As for ocelot,
Missing the obvious point that instead of making their EBT buy 3 billion shares so they could ignore their shareholder their adjournment is to:- 'enable the Company to engage with shareholders regarding their voting intentions, as it is crucial for the successful passage of resolutions'
Unlike your 'wealdoilers' twitter account you can't delete or change or stop anyone viewing what you say
Pboo,
The difference is I explain why your opinion, as that's all it is, is wrong.
If anyone were to glance at the SP chart they might find 'Just the expected negative replies from Ibug and Penguins.' an endorsement.
Perhaps you can quote where UKOG, a great source of positive information (again look at the SP chart to establish how accurate that is), has suggested since production started that injection would double oil production, let alone treble.
They did suggest it would improve recovery - ie improve the ultimate amount of oil produced - presumably by reducing the decline and enabling production to continue for longer.
Pboo,
If the water injector enabled even a doubling of production why would UKOG not do it even in the short term - with that sort of production increase plus the savings UKOG claim would pay back the cost in a short time.
But of course it' rubbish. The claim of a saving of £250,000 would mean even if the water cut didn't increase fhe cost per barrel of water disposal saved at 90bopd would be only about £8 per barrel of water.
But the water cut has generally increased with time even as oil production has dropped, and even slight increases in oil production have on ocassions also shown more dramatic jumps in water cut.
Doubling production would definitely see an increase in water cut to more than 50% and could see an out of control increase, overwhelming oil production.
But UKOG's own estimate of value of HH-1 belies any significant increase in daily oil production from the last annual report:-
'The Directors determined that the net present value of the HH-1 well was £0.8 million and therefore determined that HH-1 should be impaired by £2.9 million. The net present value utilised an internally generated depletion curve that was independently reviewed. Costs were based on current costs less any anticipated savings'
Note ' less any anticipated savings'. Which would reasonably be assumed to be from the injector as this was also in the same annual report:-
With both the Environment Agency and NSTA permissions in hand, UKOG can now further expedite its plans for produced saline formation water reinjection at Horse Hill.'
'expedite', that was a year ago.
Anyway, even at 90 bopd (a doubling of production) the value of oil would be at UKOG's price forecast of $81 for the NPV calculation about £2mm a year. They're even using a discount rate of under 4% rather than a more brutal 10% usually used to test economic robustness and end up with a value.
Even assuming OPEX with injection is half that the NPV of HH-1 would be less than a year's income - so something doesn't add up, they're even anticipating depletion rather than any increase.
So UKOG are not predicting a significant increase in production, in fact any plan to recklessly produce more oil with the inherent risk of messing up the reservoir or increasing water ingress to a level where reversing it could be impossible would be rejected by the NSTA.
Oh dear,
Adrian returns to lie
about the company
about other posters
Just because he bought £5,000 worth of shares in the hope of a P&D on the Finch case result which has been hoped for every next week since before Xmas.
Adrian will claim everything will go ahead after the Supreme Court judgement, which is unlikely to be in Finch's favour, but won't be holding on to the shares if there is a P&D. But the Loxley High Court verdict in January dismissing the challenge to that planning permission hardly stirred the SP.
Currently Adrian is obsessed with BB - a site with a well that was expected to prove that the KImmeridge could be produced throughout the Weald, and proved the opposite.
The planning officer has recommended that UKOG be allowed to retain the site, fencing etc. to enable the well to be abandoned and site restored or find something else to do with the site. The planning committee will decide though.
But a Supreme Court verdict won't make HH suddenly have wonderful reservoirs - and the PPP farm-in announced nearly a year ago, to save HHDL the cost of 3D and then a well, if PPP agree to drill, isn't agreed by the HHDL partners. There's also the possibility that PPP may be financially strapped having been silent for 3 months about the 2 workovers of shut in wells that were hoped to boost earnings, meanwhile the SP has dropped from 3.3p (the day before the announcement it was 5p though they did raise £1.5mm the same day) and is now 1.2p down 64% - and even has a mcap less than UKOG's at £1.2m.
As for the CLN - those shares were probably sold before the GM - impossible I know....but......wonder when UKOG will know what price YA/Riverfort choose.
Ibug,
they could write any old rubbish - they don't care as they are never pulled up on any errors - they even made the EBT buy a million more shares than they were allowed to own.
Of course it's the fifth tranche - and they're being very specific about what this conversion reduces - the FIRST (my capitals) cash sum of £2 million. So why say first if there isn't a second, and maybe third - though perhaps YA / Riverfort called force majeure on that one as UKOG had run out of authority to issue shares.
Pboo,
Kimmeridge -1 produces from the Cornbrash - a poor quality, fractured, limestone. It may be producing oil sourced from the Kimmeridge, which can clearly be seen to be above it at that location but it's preety obvious the Kimmeridge won't have any pressure as it outcrops nearby, any mobile oil would be long gone - they used to have to heat the rocks to get oil out of the Kimmeridge mined from Kimmeridge bay.
Adrian,
I've looked and ibug posted 'name a field that's producing from the kimmeridge', present tense, not past tense.
You're banging on about the test which lead to the decision to not 'produce' from the Kimmeridge.
Fact is there are no fields currently producing from the Kimmeridge.