Member Info for Penguins

Until Angus RNS what is going on statements claiming production is only from one well and it covers the hedge are not supported by 'facts' when nobody knows

1) whether A4 is on stream (soon on 25 August) or
2) how much hedge Angus has left in Q3, or
3) absolute certainty the figures are correct - though why they wouldn't be is difficult to explain

It's just an opinion.

As for stable flow not sure how long that excuse is going to sound reasonable. Maybe the RNS'd 5mmscf/d without a more explicit explanation was almost certainly a short term initial flow and would not represent production flows - rather than an uninformative 'normalise' - has come back to haunt them with flows apparently around the mid 3mmscf/d.

But as long as the remaining Q3 hedge is just for September (which might suggest Angus knew more about extended delays in July than they admitted) the recent flows being published by NG are around the hedged level of 3.45mmscf/d for September and if they achieve the monthly volume hedged the CPR gives a revenue of £450,000 (and enormous profits to the hedge holder!).

So don't panic......

If fracking works in the Bowland Shale maybe cheap gas for those likely to be affected might sway it for some - unfortunately fracking for oil in the Weald with cheap crude oil on offer may not have the same inducement. The offer of 6% of gross revenues expected to be in the billions didn't sway all the locals around Horse Hill, and the same offer was made for Loxley. Any sign UKOG coughing up on that for HH - although what they paid in business rates was to be deducted from the committment.

Reabold has interests in 2 large gas discoveries (much larger than Loxley) one onshore in Humberside and one offshore West of Shetland which the companies involved are progressing to development.

UKOG already has permission to drill Loxley but is stalled waiting to secure a farminee in the strangely named 'pre-planned' farm out. Of course if Loxley is succesful then maybe a more helpful planning regime may speed up further drilling and then development.

'we will make sure that the UK is a net energy exporter by 2040," she said.'

Easy to say and maybe by then demand will have dropped off - but before making such claims make sure fracking for gas works.

Any idea how many times the open offshore blocks have been offered and many previously licenced.

Reverand,

'Penguins we know that because you wamp on about it all the time'

Maybe you should have listened: -

'TheReverand Premium Member
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 2,003
Price: 1.15
Strong Buy
Price 01 Nov 2019 15:07
7.8 for me please'

Price the 10 times what it is now .......

Noticed what's happening at Angus who have proved and flowing gas when the UK is going to be on a war footing.

UKOG have no gas anywhere near production - just an appraisal that's really an exploration well that they've been farming out since July and don't seem to want to spend money drilling.

Otherwise- HH which is producing between 50 and 60 bopd with no firm plans to drill and a licence in Turkey where they recently drilled in the wrong place and are waiting for more seismic to hopefully upgrade a lead to a prospect.

The UK may be in an emergency but the geology and prospectivity in the Weald, where UKOG has licences, stays the same.

Exactly why would the SP get to any of these silly predictions with nothing really happening until next year and likely the herd playing with the frackers?

Just our own faithful band of rampers trying desperately to deceive any passer by with wild claims about oil, gas and fracking.

Lynthip,

Exactly what is holding UKOG back in terms of their UK conventional - poor chance of success?

Planning granted for Loxley and multiple wells at Horse Hill. No other prospects.

Why else commit any cash raised to Turkey - whi h is pretty dire anyway.

Expected about 11:15.

Ells,

But dramatic when any exploration (fracking or conventional onshore) isn't going to make any difference for a long time even if successful, and unless they bring in price controls on the producers no difference ever as it's global prices we pay according to your earlier quote.

Ells,

Yep,

Those traders know how to move shares in and out, wonder how many of those shares have been in out in out this am.......and get out at the top while others are buying.........pretty obvious it was a P&D preying on those that think UKOG could frack anything. They can't even produce the conventional reservoirs.

All the reporting (tip offs) has been about shalemgas and offshore.

Interesting that anyone thinks that UKOG has any shale gas licences, or interest in offshore licensing.

After the announcement could be interesting as the spotlight turns on those that do.

Joey,

You'll notice almost e ery reference is shale gas, not shale oil.

a d as for shale oil this is a conclusion in the BGS Weald Report - a comprehensive report about the shales in the Weald:-

This is from the BGS Weald repot page 4:-

'There is a high degree of uncertainty in these figures. Indeed, there is a chance that there may be little or no ‘free oil’, given that the ‘oil saturation index’ is considerably less than 100 (see Jarvie 2012b) and what oil there is could be located entirely within the kerogen particles and would thus require heating/retorting to extract it. In these circumstances, the resource could no longer be categorised in terms of ‘shale oil’

Quite technical but pretty clear that fracking might not work at all on the basis of quality of the shale, not even considering the difficulties because it is already fractured

06/09/2022 System Entry Volume, Saltfleetby, D+1 0.0886 07/09/2022 12:01:00

Down slightly 3.1288mmscf. No information from Angs

Conversion from mscm to mmscf (millions of cubic metres to millions of cubic feet) is multiply 35.3 and there follow a lot of other digits. ie same as cubic metres to cubic feet

Try research - I did.

In fact if you read my post there's mention of where the definitions came from - Operational Data User Guide

Here's a clue google that with national grid - it'll come up.

The post also mentions that the 'important' date is the 'Applicable for' date - there are repeats (D+1 and D+2 , also explained in the post) but the volumes have so far remained the same.

The figures that vulcan has posted are not sorted by 'Applicable date' and there are repeats. Whereas using the Applicable day you get (I've added mmscf as I'm more used to that figure and can relate to it):-

2 Sept Volume 0.0324mscm / 1.14342mmscf
3 Sept Volume 0.0342mscm / 1.20726mmscf
4 Sept Volume 0.0680mscm / 2.4004mmscf
5 Sept Volume 0.1026mscm / 3.61278mmscf

It's interesting that the 2 & 3 September figures are around 1.2mmscf, then advance about 1.2mmscf (or about 340mscm)- let's see what today's figures tell - or indeed whether Angus say anything - it's thought they monitor this board so I'd hope if these figures aren't right they would RNS what is happening. However I see no reason why National Grid would publish erroneous data - and Angs RNS'd they were nominating gas.

Intrigued after discussions this afternoon so revisited the Saltfleetby National Grid data this evening and established from the Operational Data User Guide what the unit of measure is for 'Values' and that the D+1 etc. just means those figures were supplied that number of days later than the 'Applicable Day' - .

I don’t see any reason to dismiss the ‘Entry Volumes’ listed (in mscm) as anything other than the volume delivered to the grid that day, reported after that day – the ‘Entry Energy’ (in kWh) roughly equates to the 'Entry Volume' when converted using the calculation in my gas bill.

Thus:-
2 Sept Volume 0.0324mscm / 1.14342mmscf
3 Sept Volume 0.0342mscm / 1.20726mmscf
4 Sept Volume 0.0680mscm / 2.4004mmscf
5 Sept Volume 0.1026mscm / 3.61278mmscf

Nothing wrong with these figures – they’re significantly climbing each day – but perhaps they don’t match what was expected by some based on the 5mmscf/d figure for B2. However it isn't known if flow from A4 has been introduced yet – or even if it has whether flowing both together requires more careful control. They presumably have to be sure to deliver any nominated volume.

Maybe Angus won’t report volumes until they’ve reached production that’s nominally equivalent to the hedge – though Angus has yet to tell what’s required for the remainder of Q3 as an unknown volume of Q3 hedge was rolled forward to Q1 and Q2 2023.

Yanis

You're right ,but Angs has a part to play in this - according to Angus nominations wouldn't be made until flow was stable RNS 25 August) ' The Company will make nominations for gas sales when it is satisfied of stable flow' and also said on 31 August: The Company will give further advice on volumes achieved when flow rates have stabilised - yet had made nominations the day before.

Confusing figures are now appearing on the National Grid database - and look like they are more to do with testing than nominated volumes - it's reasonable to expect Angus to now release something about what's going on - as silence from AIM companies is rarely because they are not RNSing good news.

Here's a link to the 'select data' page - it's a bit clunky and you need to enter Saltfleetby in the search box and choose the data (everything) and a date range - can't link the selected data page.

https://mip-prd-web.azurewebsites.net/DataItemExplorer

BIGHOW,

I get asked that every now and then and my answer is something like this:-

Not 'invested' - more of a gamble based on the fact that there's P&Ds as I have a negative view of UKOG's projects which has served me very well (and came from being interested in the announcements in 2015 that were so obviously unlikely to be fulfilled in the long term, and indeed almost every claim since) - and could have served some others that spend so much effort trying to discredit my posts equally well if they realised the difference between sentiments expressed about the projects (even by UKOG) and the likely reality.

I never suggest anyone should buy or sell and keep a very consistent opinion about the company - I'll leave it to others to buy high sell low.

What's your excuse for asking?

Soco tec,

have you read the BGS report? The Nutech 'billions of barrels' report seems to be somewhat discredited 7 years on - maybe their methodology was more suited to shales where fracking was already working?

Lynthip,

If UKOG had decent production of oil from HH and truly proved gas at Loxley with high deliverability which had submitted planning permission for a development maybe they could hurry that up - but UKOG isn't in that position.

For Loxley Interfering in a permission that's already been granted in an appeals process is unlikely.

They've even had permission for multiple wells at HH since 2019 that saw one disastrous well drilled, said they would dual complete the Portland producer well in the billions of barrels Kimmeridge and didn't - and fail to mention at every opportunity what HH is producing on a daily basis, though the NSTA figures give a picture of low production (50-60bopd) and decline.

Let's see what Truss proposes - gas seems to be the main concern and the volumes likely at Loxley are insignificant should fracking work in the Bowland shale, and the conventional reservoirs in the Weald are low productivity and fracking the Kimmeridge looks unlikely to work - as I've posted over the years the reason why UKOG has said they won't frack.

As a consumer I'd be unhappy to see extraordinary support given to companies to exploit resources and then be charged global prices for the production - will that be part of any bonfire of regulation?

Lynthip,

surely if it's worth doing UKOG could actually get on and fulfill the conditions?

The government should be looking for the best place to support production - not fund a company that doesn't seem to want to get on and expedite conditions for a well they already have permission to drill - nor spend money drilling it?

What does that say about risk?

Reverend,

UKOG already has permission to drill Loxley - any delay now is due to failure to clear the conditions imposed in planning and unwillingness to spend money raised on progressing it - UKOG preferring to spend any raised cash on Turkey where they still don't have a prospect to drill - awaiting shooting seismic.

This about the 'pre-planned' farmout of the Loxley well:-

'whereby the Company's costs would be either fully or part carried by any farminee. The Company believes that this is the most prudent course of action to both manage uncertainty and to help ensure the best use of the Company's working capital'

The best use being drilling a well in Turkey not Loxley. Turkey where the last well was drilled so far outside closure they can't easily reach what is now a tiny closure already subject to a test that was stopped because of water production.

As for government backed loans - they're for suppliers loike Octopus - not producers who surely will be making so much money the banks will pay for risky wells?

'The new Prime Minister is thought to be planning to let energy firms take out government-backed loans to freeze bills'.

There's no news at the moment that directly affects UKOG - the P&D looks like it's flagging.