Member Info for Penguins

HH1AN2

'ukog have huge amount of prospects over the weald basin .. that could flow under different method'

Are you sure Truss will 1) include the Weald in removing the fracking ban, and 2) change the parameters for depth allowed to frack 3) are certain it will work?

Assuming the answer is yes to all three can you name maybe 10 of these huge number of 'prospects', and why that different method will work, the BGS wrote in the Weald Shale report:- 'It should be noted that yields comparable to those proposed for the Weald Basin, even for the averaged Kimmeridge Clay, might be considered non-commercial in the USA.'

Or were you just ramping.

Adrian,

'Broadford Bridge is massive. Needs fracking imo'

Any proof, or is it your 'special proof - 'imo', or did you mean massively expensive failure

Ocelot,

The only company saying that is the same one that made unfulfilled claims about every well it has been involved in drilling and testing.

Rather than quote what the BGS hasn't said, like lemomnjuice, I would copy this paragraph from page 52 about all the clays in the Weald, Kimmeridge, Oxford, Corallian and the three Lias layers, of which the Kimmeridge is by far the best quality:-

'Even corrected potential oil yields are generally poor when compared to the shale oil plays of the USA (Figures 39b & c, Table 10). It should be noted that yields comparable to those proposed for the Weald Basin, even for the averaged Kimmeridge Clay, might be considered non-commercial in the USA.'

Apart from Nutech nobody has proposed that any oil is likely to be produced from these lower grade shales, and so far the only oil produced has been from the fractured micrites of the Kimmeridge, and even these haven't been put into commercial production.

You also made this claim last night:-

'Your getting desperate. You know and I know the BGS has said 80% of the Weald needs fracking.'

I certainly have never seen the BGS 'saying' that and I asked you to tell where they did - or is it another of your lies.

In fact in the quote from the BGS report I posted it isn't certain that there's any free oil in the Kimeridge shales so fracking wouldn't help. I'm afraid your Mr Smythe could be very wrong.

PS there's another 'tell' in the quote from your post.

I see Truss is also telling porkies on TV.

You posted:

'Penguins has always said the Weald needs fracking. Now watch her deny it lol.'

Like a lot of your posting and tweeting that is a lie, I've already 'denied' it because it isn't true. Here's a couple of examples from the past:-

Here's the pertinent bit of a reply to a tweet of yours on this board:-

'On 23 Oct 2018 20:17

I never said it would need fracking, in fact I have continually said it wouldn't be fracked.'

and this on 29 July 2019, about FOTH to another poster:-

'I suppose next he'll be repeating the lie that I said the Kimmeridge would need fracking - I have said the reason the Weald companies have said they wouldn't frack was that it would probably do more harm to the reservoir than good, not it needed fracking.'

No surprise lemonjuice, or is it leaf, should be doing exactly the same thing 3 years later - though then it was because he though the Kimmeridge was fine without fracking and claiming the 'greenies' saying it would need fracking were scaremongering.

But I was right you had found a greenies 'report' that was designed to scare the locals that said it would be needed.

Will be pointless posting today as you will flood the board with rubbish and lies from your frebile mind - appropriate it starts with fre........

'Your getting desperate. You know and I know the BGS has said 80% of the Weald needs fracking.'

Where did the BGS 'say' that. It's pretty clear it isn't certain that there's any free oil in the shales so fracking wouldn't help.

Maybe instead you should remind the Angs board not to hang everything on initial unstable flows. You've been fooled enough times by SS. Funny that Angus didn't mention A4 nor what the nominated volume was in the RNS.

As I said, trying to scare the locals.

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’

Just keep linking your 'green' stuff - which you probably rubbished years ago.

'UKOG have some sites that could take advantage of Truss saying get fracking.'

Really, where?

Reverand

The government awards onshore licenses on the very clear understanding it's up to the licencee to get all permissions needed for any work required to execute the work programme.

Perhaps you should have done more research before investing in an onshore O&G company (and UKOG should also know that and not delay applying for permissions and then take ages getting them right before they can go to committee.) However UKOG has permission to drill plenty of wells at HH and the Loxley well - as they are sure the legal challenges will fail what are they waiting for instead diverting funds to drill in Turkey where they've already drilled one failed well.

Not sure Loxley or HH would get any government help as UKOG has chosen to spend their funds elsewhere.

Wizard,

surprisingly SS told the inquiry that the Kimmeridge had a probability of success of 30 to 40% - which, as you seem to be inferring is the best place to drill, means the PoS for a BB sidetrack must be pretty poor - and maybe explains why they're doing nothing at HH?

Ocelot,

There's no evidence in the 'Benefits' section of the appeal decision document that the SoS did anything except accept UKOG's opinions on size and risks.

Skwizz,

wealdoilers on twitter and pboo on LSE are one and the same - wealdoilers is not Adrian.

Stockraiser,

Oh dear.

I'm sure pboo will be delighted you're linking to a spoof twitter account - that mocks pboo.

'Haven't understood your comment. The SoS granted UKOG's Loxley appeal on 07/06 of this year, not last year or the year before that.'

But you posted on 2 July:-

'The recovery of the Loxley appeal by the SoS was announced on 06/01 so there has been 6 months in which discussions could have taken place about Loxley with potentially interested parties'

Which you repeated for a while until it was obvious that perhaps 'now implement' meant they only started the 'pre-planned' farm out when they announced it in July.

UKOG are still silent, even about 'interested parties'.

Ells,

they always forget to mention - if successful - same goes for range of potential resources which in reality starts at zero.

Maybe everyone wants to go fracking where there will be a bonfire of regulation, maybe.

Stockraiser,

The statement in the operational update is hardly an endorsement of the project to find out in the first case if UKOG's claim that it is the second largest gas accumulation onshore UK even exists in PEDL234:-

'.........will now implement a pre-planned farmout programme..........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.'

Manage uncertainty ........ best use of the Company's working capital.

Says it all - looks like they'd prefer to spend any money raised on Basur where they don't even have a firm target - needing more seismic over what are effectively a couple of leads. Even with success E Sadak production has similarities to Horse Hill, though decline appears to be much faster - perhapsmwhy UKOG never mention well productivity of E Sadak wells in production even though they proclaim the field as a producing and geological lookalike.

Ocelot,

You keep posting Lucan's short answer to a long question with a uncontentious. view of another company's asset - would you expect Angus to say it was rubbish, or imply Angs wasn't interested in expansion?

Any idea of the 'right price' - buyers and sellers (and posters on discussion boards about AIM companies) often have wildly divergent views - eg bids for Angus in the sales process.

Mirasol

Interesting how much the water cut increased at HH in June (35% to 38%) with a small increase in production - though total water is considerably down from when they were producing a whole lot more oil. It's odd that UKOG haven't proceeded urgently with converting HH-2z unless the cost of the work exceeds the expected benefit or is it that there are risks (that UKOG hasn't mentioned) with injecting water into a fractured reservoir with a relatively thin producing interval and within the oil pool rather than the water leg?

As for Brockham, as ocelot seems to want to cross ramp Angs here and UKOG on their board, odd that there are no figures for May when Angs RNS'D this:-

'Current average rates of production from the BRX2-Y well are 50 barrels of oil per day with an approximately equal amount of formation water produced and reinjected daily into BRX3. Presently the site now has over 400 barrels stored for sale'.

Not sure a 66% water cut is approximately an equal amount of water, maybe it got worse rapidly or they were messing around with the site and production levels. For Angus it's a sideshow to SFB anyway.

'for Loxley SS has claimed a daily production of 10mmscf/d equal to 3.65BCF'

should be 'for Loxley SS has claimed a daily production of 10mmscf/d equal to 3.65BCF per year'

Saltfleetby was a defined 'stranded' gas field, controlled by several wells and 3D seismic - with a gas terminal nearby.

Loxley is undrilled, not even a site prepared and even UKOG give it a 60 to 70% probability of commercial success. Rigs to drill it may be in short supply if other operators up their drilling plans - especially if fracking is allowed and 'pushed' by the government unless UKOG get a move on and farm it out.

Currently there is no farminee so the terms of any farm in aren't known - UKOG are hoping for full or part cover of UKOG's share that remains.

More than one well will be needed to be drilled if the first is successful before any production infrastructure is planned so it is built the right size - it can't be guesswork

Angus had reserves calculated from years of production history and was able to connect to two production wells already drilled - yet little value was ascribed to SFB until first gas was announced about £1mm per BCF of reserves - now about £2mm per BCF of reserves.

UKOG has a range of net technically recoverable gas (gas estimated in PEDL234 and described in the 21/9/2020 RNS ) they have upgraded to Contingent Resources ranging from 18BCF (low case) to 54BCF (high case) - the large range from low to high case suggests a high degree of uncertainty.

Ocelot has previously only quoted the mid/mean and high case gross volumes that SS put in his letter to Jeremy Hunt. The volumes quoted will depend to some extent on the GWC being the same as Godley Bridge - and SS stated to the appeal (justifying the well site location) that at least 100 vertical feet of gas column is needed to be commercial - so if Loxley has gas but the GWC is significantly shallower than Godley Bridge with a reduced gas column reserves will be small.

There is no evidence the government would fund any drilling - if they did the quid pro quo might be control of the sales gas price, and could be a condition of fast tracking any permissions.

Ocelot - for SFB the production profile has been audited - for Loxley SS has claimed a daily production of 10mmscf/d equal to 3.65BCF - so if only UKOG acreage Contingent Resources are taken into account then 18BCF lasting 20 years production will be considerably less - and the mid/mean cases (32 and 34BCF) also suggest drop off in production over 20 years.

However SS has made many claims about production and likely success - none of them have come true to date for any of the projects that have been drilled - HH, BB and Basur.

If they offloaded Loxley what they would be left is:-

HH - a field declining fast, needs money spent to hopefully slow that decline and remove water disposal costs. They have limited seismic control of the structure so without new seismic is drilling HH-3 into a data gap as planned now on hold (lesson learnt in Turkey?).

A plan to shoot more seismic in Turkey to find out if the latest interpretation is right and find out if there is an updip appraisal of Basur-1 possible.

A plan to resurrect a gas storage project that won't be operational for maybe a decade - even if approval was fast tracked maybe 5 years.

If they keep Loxley whether they farm it out or not; if they've learnt anything from Turkey do some field work first - though as it might destroy the prospect will they do it? In Turkey it has already significantly reduced the room available for another well target and if it had been shot first they wouldn't have drilled Basur-3 where they did.

Apologies for posting my own opinion - which has so often been over the years, according to wizard, 'Your comments are as usual squewed and bias!'

Over the years my supposed 'skewed and biased' posts (my honest opinion often based on what UKOG say or other research) have unfortunately turned out to be more accurate (though often still too optimistic) than posts like wizard's that take what UKOG RNS, repeat it and then predict the golden future that lies ahead.

There needs to be somewhere where posters can post not theirs but other people's opinions about UKOG and global economics for those that only want to read the skewed opinions chosen by posters like ocelot who would prefer not to discuss what they post - as in this response by ocelot to a question about a post:- 'If you seek an answer to your question, can I suggest you put it to someone who is better qualified to answer than myself, UKOG?'

However it sometimes offers a topic for discussion even though ocelot is incapable of joining in to that discussion in any meaningful way partly because of lack of knowledge about O&G and having chosen to avoid seeing most responses by filtering.

As for Loxley is GL saying it's great? as he also wouldn't say it was rubbish - a non- answer. But any farminee should dig deep into the data and won't just accept UKOG's interpretation in terms of structure or analysis of the well data - athough a company might come along that 's desperate for 'potentially' good news that they'll pay the maximum entry fee (100% of a well and seismic).

Of course the company farming in will say how great Loxley is, like UKOG did with Turkey where a year or two later they RNS that half the 'field' had legacy wells that indicated problems and the supposed appraisal wasn't that at all and potentially decimated the potentially recoverable oil .

Wizard,

Presume you don't pay any tax as every now and then you suggest (hope?), the government is going to step in and help bail out your bad investment choice?

So, if the company that owns the asset doesn't get on with drilling the government should pick up the tab and drill what are looking more and more like high risk wells with suggestions of more seismic and absence of real progress - and an ever decreasing production - average just over 50bopd in May.

I'm sure accidentally drilling a water disposal well they don't use will be fine.

Maybe Loxley - although the same applies if on inspecting UKOG's interpetation and drilling plans no one farms in - if they don't why should the government fund it and if they do - it's funded.

Ocelot,

I suspect Truss doesn't know what she will do but probably pretend giving out licences (though open offshore acreage has either been scoured over in round after round or moose pasture) and allowing fracking is a near term solution but the right answer to any question ever was, and is, not John Redwood - a government of failures coming up, proving that there could be a worse PM and Cabinet than Johnson's.

Ells bot,

Bit out of order:-

'Stfu Penguins you emotional bagholder.'

Stfu - no, but the emotion baggage seems to be all yours - though it seems you agree your post was complete BS.

Ells bot is showing signs of problems with the AI

yesterday

'I get paid by buying @ 52 week lows…'

Earlier yesterday - 'Penguins .09 average has a great risk/reward ratio'

I suppose 0.09p was 'a' 52 week low though it has been below 0.85p - Was it FOMO?

Now talking chartist BS about gapping up at 0.0835 (one trade) and a floor at 0.09p when there's been a few puny trades at 0.09p and everything else below it - surely meant ceiling.

Ibug, I noticed that - straight out of the UKOG RNS instruction manual, no mention of A4 which was being 'introduced' 'shortly', what the nomination was for (very important) and still no stabilised flow (which was what nomination was waiting for in the last RNS - no wonder the traders have taken their profit.

Though I expected some ANGS cash would head for UKOG - no stampede yet.