Member Info for Penguins

ocelot

I think this gives a bit of a clue when it began.

From the 20 July RNS:- 'will now implement a pre-planned farmout programme'

Don't know about ocelot but 'will now' sounds like on or just after the 20 July.

But of course ocelot will never know because of filtering nearly everyone that posts replies.

Yawn

Recent fund raise with nearly 1.5 billion shares issued at 0.0875p, they got rid of a lot at more than that but now presumably just wanting to be rid of them - and there's lots of sells at 0.84!p, ie over the mid, recorded os 'buys'.

'Oh to be a fly on the wall, those discussions should prove very interesting!'

Yep - you might find out what other oil companies think of the risks rather than just UKOG's PR optimism.

Ocelot,

If you're going to copy a post I'll copy my reply......

regardless of whether UKOG farm out to a 'peer', say it's UK onshore's most valuable undeveloped asset, or any other opinion it depends on it being successful - UKOG put a probability of success of 60 to 70%.

It isn't 'UK onshore's most valuable undeveloped asset' until drilled and proved - in fact it isn't an asset - given the cost of dilling it's a liability which appears to need to be farmed out.

In fact it seems that making claims on twitter or in interviews has become the norm in certain AIM oilers.

Conveniently they appear to have reinterpreted Alfold and determined that a larger gas column (26ft) than seen, and tested, at Godley Bridge (19ft)was missed by the operator of.........Godley Bridge (Conoco). Several companies have reviewed the acreage in applications and from a quick look at application and relinquishment reports all have accepted the well was dry with gas show.

As the Portland was cored and a pretty extensive logging suite was run in Alfold-1 it's surprising that no other company has 'discovered' this 26ft gas column.

Some map a small closure updip of Alfold with a shallower GWC than Godley Bridge - so some hope, but given the depth conversion issues will it be where the well is drilled or large enough to develop?

PS the gas price in December could be any number you like - UKOG has zero sales gas even if Loxley is successful and will almost certainly need further (successful) wells (and possibly seismic) to determine commerciality to proceed to a development.

So UKOG listed they needed 112 tonnes of storage for oil but somehow thought that the bigger tank didn't count - or they never expected both tanks to be full - but that's not how it works.

With revisions after submission and schoolboy errors like this in planning applications no wonder it takes months / years for UKOG to get applications to the stage of being considered by the planners or committee - they did the same with the EA application for permission for water injection - and then blamed the 30 months delay on the EA

But 1 tanker every 3 days gives a maximum (as long as they're not waste tankers) of about 72bopd. Not sure if the tanker every three days is a strict limit or just guidance from UKOG.

The 49 tonnes was a claim in an amendment in 2021.

However they seem to have forgotten they still required a 'stabilisation' tank which was also for oil storage being g 'stabilised'.

Seems the delay to this planning permission being granted was due to UKOG messing around - not the planners. This is an excerpt from the revision of 1st April 2021 (I kid you not):-

'As a result of the most recent review of legislation and a re-assessment of the sites storage inventory, the Applicant is able to reduce the need for crude oil storage to a maximum of 49 tonnes.'

From the offi cers report:-

'16. The HSC application was first submitted in February 2020 and at the time the operator
was proposing the storage of up to up to 285 tonnes of crude oil in on-site storage tanks
at the wellsite.
17. The application has since been revised in March 2022 and this application as amended
seeks consent for the storage of up to 112.46 tonnes of crude oil in on-site storage tanks
at the wellsite.'

Not sure what the 49 tonnes was but the oil tanker export remains at one every three days in the March 2022 revision by HHDL.

Ocelot,

regardless of whether UKOG farm out to a 'peer', say it's UK onshore's most valuable undeveloped asset, or any other opinion it depends on it being successful - UKOG put a probability of success of 60 to 70%.

It isn't 'UK onshore's most valuable undeveloped asset' until drilled and proved - in fact it isn't an asset - given the cost of dilling it's a liability which appears to need to be farmed out.

In fact it seems that making claims on twitter or in interviews has become the norm in certain AIM oilers.

Conveniently they appear to have reinterpreted Alfold and determined that a larger gas column (26ft) than seen, and tested, at Godley Bridge (19ft)was missed by the operator of.........Godley Bridge (Conoco). Several companies have reviewed the acreage in applications and from a quick look at application and relinquishment reports all have accepted the well was dry with gas show.

As the Portland was cored and a pretty extensive logging suite was run in Alfold-1 it's surprising that no other company has 'discovered' this 26ft gas column.

Some map a small closure updip of Alfold with a shallower GWC than Godley Bridge - so some hope, but given the depth conversion issues will it be where the well is drilled or large enough to develop?

PS the gas price in December could be any number you like - UKOG has zero sales gas even if Loxley is successful and will almost certainly need further (successful) wells (and possibly seismic) to determine commerciality to proceed to a development.

Ells,

I , unlike yourself, don't know what others may WANT, but what I'd like to see (want?) is UKOG actually updating some of the forecasts and estimates they've previously issued regarding their projects that might possibly deliver some profits in the near future.

Too many plans, no cash, difficulties executing them and an inability to convey the full range of possible outcomes - perhaps why being honest about the full range of outcomes - some much more likely than the happy chappy RNS, ends up sounding negative - but eventually right (admittedly so far).

They were endlessly quoting the OIP etc for Horse Hill prior to drilling HH-2z. Since then they've remapped Horse Hill and have months of production data for the Portland- and even calculated a NPV for HH-1 (less than £4mm) - what volumes and flow rates were expected for that calculation? There was a RPS Kimmeridge report in June 2019 - only the contingent resources from that were sneaked into the reserves and resources list year later. Apparently they are still 'preparing' to convert HH-2z to water injection- again very little about when or what's expected - is it because not much is expected except saving on water disposal costs - not so significant for 60bopd rather then the projected 362bopd in 2018/9.

They've remapped Basur which in outline is tiny compared to the previous blob map which presumably was the basis for the large OIP and recoverable oil figures they quoted as transformational - it's a trivial calculation in the interpretation software they use - but no update to that either. There was also a recent trip which they were going to report on.....

Instead vast tracts about gas storage and Loxley (not forgettint the pre-planned farmout)- neither of which is likely to deliver for years even if they pass the first hurdle of being economically viable.

UKOG has 'form' on only mentioning the positives. Unfortunately it's the 'negatives' that aren't mentioned that seem to happen - but not because they aren't apparent.

Maybe you'll be lucky and there's a spike soon - and I suspect despite your list of upcoming positive news I don't expect you'll be waiting for any results.

Ells,

That would not only be a first, but likely crash the SP.

I suspect most 'investors' don't read this board or twitter and have no idea what oil or water HH is producing on average. Last time a production rate was mentioned it was going to be more than the previously mentioned 'over 300bopd', but that was in Q2 2020 - unfortunately the truth emerged thanks to the OGA publishing field production figures, albeit 3 months later.

If they were going to mention it maybe yesterday's update might have been a good opportunity?

Changing the downhole pump and production completion at the end of 2020 made no impact on decline either - and they even tried a (pointless) reperforation of the whole of the Portland despite the production 'lions share' coming from a discrete layer.

The only likely outcome of the recent work is the monthly production figures dropping while the well was shut in with maybe a short term boost from being shut in for a short period,.

Any more mm 'folklore', to pass off as knowledge - maybe a 1 trade 'signalling' an RNS?

No real news - though the appeal's been allowed - ?Q2 2023 and they 'continue' to prepare for the HH-2z coonversion - and they changed the pump.

One day an update might just have some details of what is heppening at HH in terms of production - any why it isn't what they predicted- not what they 'plan' to happen.

Couldn't be that IGas has interests in licences with potential for fracking for shale gas - which has absolutely nothing to do with UKOG.

Don't think it's likely to be because of the Godley Bridge licence.

As for the pre-planned farm out programme which was implemented on 20 July, according to UKOG, let's see if there's any takers rather than expect anything from UKOG that's planned - or even pre-planned - to happen quickly or at all.

Quality of ramping, casting around for virtually any slightly good news in the O&G sector, has gone down considerably.

why do you assume that the farmout was underway when they announced it.

Doesn't 'will now implement' mean it's the start of the process? Pre-planned is a meaningless add on to the words 'farmout programme' - maybe they are alluding to the statement in the 2021 Final results - 'Judicious use of farmouts to provide operational funding' - 'cos boy do they need funding.....

Surely if they were already in discussions with one or several parties they would have said it if they were minded to announce it - why would they only say something if there was only one interested party.

I'm starting to wonder how deep ocelot is in as the BS is getting rather desperate.

HH1AN2

there was no chance the volume of oil produced ever being enough to justify a pipeline as the maximums were only very short term at the start of production - UKOG's figures clearly showed it would half in less than 3 years, and that''s turned out to be optimistic (a fifth in 2 years). Plenty mentioned it would never happen because of the rapid decline that's turned out to be a feature of even the miserable production from HH-1.

It was all ramping BS.

I can't imagine who you're talking about.

But if it's who I expect all we get is the same old drivel - tankers! Flare! Loxley & Igas! Kimmeridge! - though H2O-2z seems to have dropped off the list, and I'd forgotten pipelines! and of course the lies about oil production, lies because of claims to have knowledge that meant it wasn't a guess - but most of the time it's Greenies! xr! swampies! and just attacking other posters some who ignore the ridiculous attempts to rile, and some who don't. Whilst swamping the board with repetitive posting.

But perhaps most damning were the words of those who watched the site with him. I won't embarrass pboo and yourself but they're there in your history and have been copied here recemtly. Maybe you've made it up now he's back to ramping, but you knew him and your comments matched what many others thought - regardless of whether he was ramping or deramping.

The problem is that so far the 'negativity' as you put it has turned out to be the reality - maybe have a peek at the SP chart......

btw I'm only posting on this subject because you posted such a ridiculous opinion - is this a 'Trojan Horse' to get 'him' back on the board because you've talked about 'him'.

you've filtered most of those you call naysayers so you haven't a clue what they have posted about, nor who has posted unless you're having a sneaky peek?

Admittedly some are getting into squabbles - but then where is UKOG in this post:-

'Yes, the board has arrived at the point where it provides more insight into the naysayers and their behaviour than it does into UKOG.'

But those that don't filter can gain insight to rampers behaviour - posting about gas prices (UKOG has none to sell) and macro economics and the OP - UKOG has very little oil to sell.

Is that because UKOG only has uncertain 'plans', and those depend on others actions - except Horse Hill that wasn't even mentioned in the recent operational update - and it's the only operation that's currently operational.

celot,

Pointless.

front month natural gas price up 10.9% at 396.22p:

https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323

It's quite a Winter approaching the UK, its new PM and Europe.

Don't sound so pleased. Maybe by the time Loxley's producing there'll be a Labour government - they might bring in price controls for domestic production........

Meanwhile in the real world - any idea of UKOG sales gas this winter, next winter.

Zero any help.

Ells,

Still on the wrong board.

it's not 'nayslaying' it's reality, not the fantasy that the oil price has any bearing on the value of UKOG - if that's what you're chasing try a company that produces enough to make a profit at $100 oil - UKOG has to keep raising to do anything. even pay salaries.

The domestic production that's capable of being scaled up to make any difference isn't onshore - UK onshore oil production is less than 2% of the total.

The reverand

'Loxley will be fast tracked'

Well that's an opinion, what exactly do you mean. UKOG has planning permission, they're now looking for a farminee.

First what's essentially an exploration well needs to be drilled, and it isn't a nailed on success (UKOG PoS 60 to 70%) - and it isn't just planning that slows things down.

The problem is now and probably the next few years, the cost of gas will drive finding alternatives so UKOG definitely need to hurry up, not their default action plan.

UKOG's plan is for 4 development wells to deliver 11 to about 13.4mmcf/d (in the unlikelyevent their mapping is right) and certainly the development and any connection need to be right sized so it won't be test Loxley-1 (hopefully) put in all the equipment and a pipeline. They'll need at least one successful appraisal well and probably shoot 3D seismic before that to establish what they have.

Suspect if there's any fast tracking it will be for fracking the Bowland shale - if it works it's the size to make a difference (which Loxley doesn't) - though in a timescale that won't help for years - and unless the government brings in price controls will still be at global prices.

'We are all entitled to our own opinions and to express them, whether they be right or wrong.'

.....and of course if you choose to filter almost everyone who expresses an opinion you seem to have difficulty dealing with you're entitled to do that - but you then assume that you know their opinions that you don't see.

The other drawback is you keep posting the same thing meaning any discussion goes back to square one - but that suits you because you have no technical knowledgeand can't move beyond the stuff you copy and paste here.