Member Info for Penguins

The bit about opinions was meant for ocelot!

Adrian / gideons,

Explain why they aren't producing more, rather than ever lower, volumes of oil? Surely with a much higher OP and, you say, lower sales costs with a fairly stable water cut they could (in that infamous phrase) turn on the taps - could there be something more than just water disposal costs affecting how much they can produce?

I suspect you'll mutter something about HH-2z and water disposal - but it certainly isn't that simple - I'm pretty sure every single prediction you've made about flow rates has been too high - even when you were counting tankers, I wonder why?

Ocelot,

Stones and glass houses - I hate to remind you that you posted that you agreed with zak mir's 0.9p SP by May 2021.

10 April 2021:-

'Zak Mir suggested 0.90p as a target by the end of next month. I think he may well be right.'

Ibug,

Costs of sales went down, but didn't the volume of oil sold decrease significantly.

I'd keep to your cut n pastes rather than opinions.

Vernonya ,

You're posting nonsense. EA permission does not override planning permission, so only those things already allowed in the planning permission will be possible under the EA permission. - which awas granted in 2019(!) but the abilkty to drill extra wells never taken up -ask yourself why.

Loxley is a risky well that UKOG don't have the money to drill, permission to drill is effectively a negative - though no doubt a P&D opportunity.

I think the accuracy of the article can be judged by them stating that George Frangeskides is Executive Chairman of UKOG (he's not).

But this permit made no difference to whether UKOG could drill further wells or produce the Kimmeridge (which during testing had no significant water production - so what was/is the problem?) - it only added permission for re-injection of produced water to previous permissions and consolidated them into this permit.

Incidentally UKOG withdrew the permit application submitted in 2019 and re-applied in early 2021 so this 31 months wait is rubbish and UKOG told DoD that NSTA permission is still required before injection can take place.

Just repeating UKOG's somewhat deceptive version of events certainly isn't a sign of any fact checking.

Mainland,

They're here because they bought too high on the spike and need the SP to rise so they can sell, surely.

Ocelot,

Well RNS are meant to be secret until released but the EA said in March that it was minded to approve - and not in the RNS, NSTA approval now needed

Pboo,

'HH2Z was drilled as a production well, injecting into it will reduce water disposal costs and water cut will no longer be a problem hence increased oil production'

Not necessarily, it isn't a simple produce more oil and there will only be a similar amount of extra water - otherwise why not do that now - I'm sure even with water disposal they are making a profit and they could thus increase it.

The water is presumably coming from a fracture/s and presumably not suffering the same pressure decline as the Portland reservoir when the well is flowing. If you've ever run a mixer tap with unequal pressures in the hot and cold supply if you turn both on full the highest pressure will completely swamp the other. With taps you can turn one down but there is no way to separately control the oil and water entering the wellbore.

So a small increase in flow may see the Portland reservoir pressure drop to a level where the water swamps production - and there's the problem of gas coming out of solution and interfering with flow as well.

We will see how successful the water injection is in the Portland - it isn't a simple task of injecting water into an already present water leg sweeping oil in the reservoir towards HH-1, and it has the added complication of the water producing fractures which were said to be near the heel of the well (and thus near the injection zone in HH-2z) that finally put paid to HH-2z as an oil producer, how these may interfere with the injecting may be difficult to predict.

The plan is to test injection first, presumably to see what happens.

Interesting times eh, good luck with the P&D.

Odd that in early March UKOG didn't mention that the EA were minded to grant this.

The only thing that's new is the ability to dispose of the produced water. As they were constantly RNSing during the ewts for both Portland and Kimmeridge that production was dry n was dry oil the need for significant water disposal only became apparent in 2020 - and the decision to use HH-2z as a disposal well made late 2020 IIRC - prior to that decision there was no way to reinject the water anyway.

At least UKOG hasn't given a timeline that they are likely to keep to - 2022.

HH1AN2,

Not sure what you mean by 'fix the well' but they are certainly controlling the flow to avoid too much water influx. But it isn't a simple produce more oil and there will only be a similar amount of extra water - otherwise why not do that now - I'm sure even with water disposal they are making a profit and they could thus increase it.

The water is presumably coming from a fracture/s and presumably not suffering the same pressure decline as the Portland reservoir when the well is flowing. If you've ever run a mixer tap with unequal pressures in the hot and cold supply if you turn both on full the highest pressure will completely swamp the other. With taps you can turn one down but there is no way to separately control the oil and water entering the wellbore.

So a small increase in flow may see the Portland reservoir pressure drop to a level where the water swamps production - and there's the problem of gas coming out of solution and interfering with flow as well.

We will see how successful the water injection is in the Portland - it isn't a simple task of injecting water into an already present water leg sweeping oil in the reservoir towards HH-1, and it has the added complication of the water producing fractures which were said to be near the heel of the well and thus near the injection zone in HH-2z that finally put paid to HH-2z as an oil producer, how these may interfere with the injecting may be difficult to predict.

The plan is to test injection first, presumably to see what happens.

Interesting times eh?

Unfortunately UKOG seems to believe it's own BS - here's an example of the poor decision UKOG would have made in Turkey if they didn't have a sensible, operating, partner - something lacking in all their Weald licences.

From RNS 10/12/2021:-
'As stated in August 2021 the Company's position in which it preferred to drill B-3S before the conclusion of the seismic programme remains unchanged'

Although UKOG wanted to target 'as near as possible' to B-1 (which may have guaranteed an oil show, although B-1 was never put into production due to water production after a 6 hours flow test) it's probable that the trajectory they had chosen would still have missed the accumulation and been on the downthrown side of the bounding fault.

RNS 20/4/22:-
'With the new seismic giving a more precise location of the bounding fault north of B-1, it is now apparent that to successfully enter the upthrown side of the fault containing the B-1 oil discovery, B-3S will require a steeper angle and longer lateral deviation than previously envisaged'

It now seems possible that a new site will be needed to drill Resan-6, said to be a less challenging, vertical, well, than B-3S. Let's hope the new seismic is correctly imaging the subsurface in this complex structure, and is correctly interpreted.

Mirasol,

Isn't there a 3000 character limit?

Adrian, or your current identity, gideons....

It's obvious admin have decided not to ban you so why the desperate need to deny your previous name/s here?

Could it be because of your incessant ridiculous ramping of UKOG on LSE and twitter and subsequent banning on both platforms is an embarrassment? You certainly need to hope ANGS pulls off its current plans or you're going to have to get banned again to wipe the slate clean yet again.

Of course you have occasionally admitted here you're Adrian / FOTH / freeasabird and even shown some regret over your previous posting, but those threads have conveniently been deleted.

But as for Russian money supporting 'greenies', maybe, but there's no evidence - just some bloke in 2014 making the claim - yet there's a list of UK Conservative MPs receiving large sums of cash from Russians, and your ex-favourite PM 'Boris' put a Russian 'mate' in the house of Lords - and those MPs are the ones that had the power to implement those policies, not a few protesters hanging around a well site that now produces about 60bopd.

But of course the UK isn't dependant on Russian gas - most imported gas comes from Norway and the UK does produce a good percentage of the gas used. As for oil if the Middle Eastern oil producers weren't happy to see the OP at it's current level they could rapidly ramp up production - any suggestion UK production could affect the price paid for gas or fuel in the UK is false - even the government isn't using the levers it has to reduce the price significantly.

But the green agenda- perhaps it was because it was a vote winner at the time, supported by the majority of the country?

Anyway it's just lazy constantly claiming that anyone who promotes a sensible POV about the AIM tiddlers you invest in is 'green' often with no other argument - just a pity all the previous rubbish you posted and tweeted about UKOG and ANGS isn't there for all to see.

Ocelot,

raising cash is easy if you take 0.18p for shares they can forward sell some shares for 0.20p+

Of course you were one of those extolling the virtue of the 'low' SP just prior to the £5mm raise - eg:

Price: 0.24 Strong Buy
'RE: Buy 03 Jul 2021 11:07
Penguins,
Given UKOG's lowly share price and market cap, the downside risk is, imho, as near to minimal as is possible, so the risk/reward ratio is, in all logic, attractive.'

That was Saturday. Monday morning the raise was RNS'd at 0.18p - the SP dropped to below 0.19p,, a drop of about 20% and continued to drop despite the 'minimal' downside risk.

In the same thread:-

'RE: Buy Jul 2021 12:22
Penguins,
Imho, as an investor in UKOG, I think you can begin to relax, the worst that can happen is that you make some money because the share goes up, (the 2nd worst, is that you make less money than you could have done because you didn't reinforce when the share was cheap).

Think we may be heading for something rather different than a spike, think a fundamental re-rating may be in the wind.'

Lol.......

Ocelot,

If SS had 'invested' £100,000 at the peak when UKOG was suggesting that BB was a success (and certain board members were parroting it) he would now be the proud owner of just over £1,000 worth of shares - that's the level of value destruction in nearly 5 years - or perhaps it was over egging the projects. Perhaps he should have been paid only in shares and made to hold them for 5 years he wouldn't play so fast and loose with the money raised.

That would be suffering.

Only ocelot could sympathise with the UKOG board for making statements that at the time were pointed out as optimistic - and it continues.

Processing complete but it seems they're preempting the interpretation, on a strike line to a structurally complex anticline - loads can go wrong without 3D.

Anyway would be interesting to see the seismic line that 'links, in their opinion, R-6 and B-3.

So is the B-3 site in the wrong place now - oops - still might kick the result into the long grass.

Ocelot,

UKOG may have become more diversified in its interests. Unfortunately UKOG has failed to deliver in the area of its expertise - hardly bodes well for things the management is interested in but have no expertise in.

Wizard,

There is a recent (September 2021) NPV for Horse Hill of less than £4mm in the recently published annual report. There's also Horndean and kit - total value (including HH) about £7mm. The current cash is about equal to what's owed.

Most of UKOG's assets are intengibles - what they've spent on projects that are neither considered successful (yet) or failed (yet).

Over recent years we've seen tens of millions of this class of asset written off as UKOG when the project has either failed, or a true value is determined. Currently these intangible assets are about £30mm.

Bottom line is that what most people would consider real (tangible) assets are less than 0.05p per share - less than half the current SP - and the value of HH-1 is from an internally generated NPV - 'The Directors determined that the net present value of the HH-1 well was 3.63 million'

Pboo,

You said:- 'I do not hold any #UKOG shares, my last holding was sold well over 2 years ago at a very nice profit.'

Yet in late June 2020, certainly not well over two years ago, you claimed you were holding shares:-

Pboo
Posted in: UKOG Posts: 4,687
Price: 0.28 No Opinion
RE: 11.6 Million Share BUY 23 Jun 2020 13:21
Kingalfred
Lots of people making money especially those like me that bought at .20, they are now nearly 40% up

But UKOG have never given a balanced view of what might happen at HH - or any of their projects, apparently transformational is as bad as it gets.

Though I suspect that UKOG were as aware as the so called swampies or negative posters as to the possible downsides, just didn't bother to mention them.

Ocelot, pity with all your positive posting about the oil and gas price because of a war that UKOG produce so little oil, and no gas (that they sell, or even will sell for years even if Loxley is successful).

Good news for offshore then.

No news for onshore apart from a report about fracking from the BGS to be delivered June I believe (mentioned elsewhere), nowt about O&G planning - if anything no change.

Looks like UKOG will just have to make do with transformational Turkey. Still the EA should finalise the HH-2z injection soon, and June isn't far away if the Loxley appeal is won.

As usual certain posters prefer to avoid reading what's written and making up a supposed positive for UKOG when it isn't relevant to UKOG at all.

XYZ - None of the historic fracking was for shale gas - most in 'conventional' reservoirs and mainly it seems for oil - some CBM and a specific mention of Elswick (conventional gas). There was no detail I could find (on a skim read) as to how 'big' these 200 frac jobs were - multi stage etc. I wonder how much of this 'fracking' was effectively heavy duty proppant squeeze?

Strange there was no detailed commentary with 200 to choose from - but maybe as the paper was about shale fracking they weren't relevant.

Ocelot,

10/08/2017:- 'Completion of BB-1z as a potential oil producer is now underway and on track.'

BB-1z was never put into production, the production completion had to be removed. UKOG not testing the well before installing it - it was unsuitable for the testing thay needed to do, which subsequently failed to produce any significant oil anyway.

Now they're declaring B-3S a production well before it's been drilled and a target chosen.

Fool me once, shame on you............