Member Info for Penguins

Wizard,

BDI has no idea what he's talking about which he proved time and time again before he was banned from this board.

He's now tweeting this:-'There are significant proven gas reserves under Dunsfold'

The reason that UKOG are drilling an appraisal well (appraisal not development) is because there is no proved gas beneath Loxley. There was a discovery at Godley Bridge of gas at a lowish flow rate on test. An appraisal well of Godley Bridge and sidetrack of it, was dry, and the Alfold well to the East of Loxley was also dry. Depth conversion in the area is known to be tricky so subsurface depth mapping is uncertain - a reason given for the failed appraisal and sidetrack.

HH1AN2,

'Unfortunately, as the test progressed the formation water cut significantly increased to over 70% rendering production of the well technically and commercially challenging'

So that's more than 2 bbls of water and perhaps 3 (more than 70%could be 75%) for every bbl of oil and it's possible the water cut was still increasing. Fields can operate with high water cuts as long as they can dispose of waste water cheaply - and they want to use this well to dispose of water not produce it. At least they have restricted water production in HH-1 and get more oil than water.

ShouldveSold,

unlikely that fracking a naturally fractured reservoir will work - the fluid and proppants used for fracking will just disappear into the oil filled fractures and could destroy oil production - which must already have issues judging by UKOG's apparent reluctance to produce it at Horse Hill. Sad to say even if legislation was changed tomorrow it would be months before even one well could trial it and, even if successful, years before production was significant. Who knows what the world would be like by then?

Gideons

perhaps there was something in the RPS report of June 2019 that only surfaced in the latest annual review (although only to the extent of the calculated contingent resources) or happened in subsequent further testing that made them reconsider further logging in HH-2, dual completing HH-1 and / or drilling the sidetrack.

Vernonya

I'm sure oil majors have plenty of projects around the world where they understand the subsurface far better than UKOG appears to in any of its projects that they could spend £160mm, or even £16mm on.

Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm.

I'm not sure if it's sad or disgusting the obvious glee ocelot is showing with regard to the current crisis causing increases in oil and gas prices whilst lives are being lost.

Continually posting the OP here (when it rises) as if it has any relevance to UKOG who were producing considerably less than 70bopd last October

The incremental margin even at prices over $100 won't stop further cash raises being needed to fund any drilling which won't be guaranteed to be successful, and may be more likely to be commercially unsuccessful - though UKOG have never produce formal cashflow predictions or possible production forecasts for the projects whilst making what were proved to be ridiculous forecasts for HH and devious announcements during testing at Broadford Bridge.

UKOG presumably don't care about positive risked NPV of their projects (ie risked they will recover their costs if successful) when they issue confetti to pay for drilling - the pi instead pay by dilution.

The expectation of impact on World economies of this crisis is likely to negatively impact all shares, including oil companies.

Wizard,

That's just drill or drop jumping up and down and shouting wanting to advertise their presence as if they are relevant. As long as the government sys no fracking there's no point having more licencing rounds - it's only tiddlers apply who can't rapidly progress exploration anyway because they've got no cash and the convention plays left aren't going to make the slightest difference to UK's production - except in the minds of investors in said companies.

Just like keeping repeating that Horse Hill will be the second biggest onshore field because UKOG said so - not mentioning that it's a pretty low bar anyway (few hundred bopd), requires a lot more luck than they've had already, and doesn't mean it's just behind Wytch Farm in production terms - ca,12,000bopd..

Mirasol,

I suspect as there has been no change in equities in HHDL cash calls to Alba are being set against the loans Alba has made to HHDL.

Section 46 of the Articles of Association allows deductions from dividends or other distributions - which I presume would include loan repayment.

HHDL year to September 2020 shows £57,000 owed to Alba accrued for Directors Fees and loan balance of £2,517,314 (owed to Alba). Haven't read everything to see if there is mention of any liens from non payment of cashcalls.

Ocelot,

Looking etc the SP perhaps it's the tail end Charlie's who presumably believed that a court decision would change the geology at Horse Hill (or the management) which is what actually as and will determine what can and will happen there.

Maybe they've had an important learning that charts that show rises into the stratosphere (with rockets!) for a company where sharp rises on supposedly (and pumped)'good news', rather than results, are more often than not followed by a sharp fall and are just so much hokum.

Those who sold Friday are probably today trying the same elsewhere leaving as usual a few stragglers who wonder what happened to all those posters and tweeters who thought this was going to 1p/2p/3p/4p/5p etc. - hi justice.

Insidious,

it's rubbish like this thread title that has lost investors money - not those who have been pointing out that UKOG choose to RNS highly selective information and avoid explaining the possible, if not probable in the case of HH, downsides.

and not forgetting the ever 'positive' posters with their unjustified predictions of SP.

Wizard,

There are no estimated reserves for Horse Hill.

The last annual report only had 2P reserves attributable to UKOG of 130,000bbls - from Horndean.

There were net contingent resources (2C) for Horse Hill of 1.3mmbbls for the Portland and 1.4mmbbls for the Kimmeridge - yet they ducked dual completion of HH-1. Both figures pre date the RNS anticipating dual completion of HH-1 - the Portland figure is from the 2018 CPR which was based on a map and assumptions proved wrong by HH-2z, the Kimmeridge figure is from an unpublished report by RPS in June 2019 which would have incorporated data from the long ewt

UKOG has had years to get another HH CPR done based on the 2018 to 2020 ewt yet keeps delaying, even though reserves are one of the most important metrics for an oil company along with current production - which UKOG also prefers not to mention instead expecting investors to wait for the OGA figures delayed at least 3 months - currently waiting for November 2021 figures.

In General:-

As for Angus - a company that has hedged gas production way below market price. I hope that they are certain they can deliver or they'll be passing round the hat to buy gas in the market to make up the shortfall. I'm sure UKOG pi are well aware of the difference between anticipated flow rates, even after months of testing, and actual production. Let's hope SS can remember that far back although he's failed to update pi with a full explanation of why they got the RNS'd estimates of production from HH-1 and HH-2z so wrong rather than oops we got lots more water than oil (HH-2z) which we never mentioned volumes in production although an injector was planned.

As for Basur-3 progres in Turkey has never, so far, been as fast as UKOG has anticipated / expected. They aren't operator so timing is dependant on AME's priorities. Latest example is anticipating seismic start August 2021, but no mention by UKOG of operations until December with only 55km acquisition completed by February 2022 - perhaps sensibly the rest of the programme (and cost) - is paused - presumably awaiting the result of Basur-3.

Nevertheless let's hope the drilling restarts ASAP and we find out how 'lookalike' Basur is to E Sadak beyond needing a sidetrack.

Wizard,

I now understand why I should ignore your posts.

you posted:-

'I think that you could even ask Penguins if UKOG have permission to drill a sidetrack well from HH1, duel complete and get a positive answer'

I replied:-

'they can either drill a sidetrack or dual complete HH-1 but both require the agreement of the OGA'

Could you explain why that's not a positive answer - agreeing with your 'if UKOG have permission to drill a sidetrack well from HH1, duel complete'.

I think you raise an important issue though - was HH economically viable without cash raised by issuing confetti. The share price of UKOG suggests it wasn't. Will further wells have a positive NPV if they assume similar production to HH-1?

Wizard,

they can either drill a sidetrack or dual complete HH-1 but both require the agreement of the OGA. UKOG have never stated the reason for failing to do either - though they have performed a workover in 2020 on HH-1 which could have enabled a dual completion at little extra cost. Perhaps neither proposal met economic criteria.

I think the linear rod pump is tied to the planning permission as it's quieter and given the supposed arrangement of wells nodding donkeys might be too large - the number of barrels produced is irrelevant - I think it's grasping at straws to suggest the production will increase signifcantly to match the pump - which when it was replaced in H1 2020 was already oversized for the production - why wasn't it increased then - of course they were producing water from HH-1 that they must have 'forgotten' to mention to their owners.

I think we're all waiting for positive news from UKOG - but so often news that some posters claim is positive isn't.

ozzy,

in your unbiased opinion does this RNS make any difference to how UKOG will progress Horse Hill.

Have they any cash to drill?

Will the judgement make any difference to HH production?

Is it likely that HH-1 production will rise significantly even with EA approval.

just asking....

Wizard,

nothing's changed - there won't be any turning on the taps etc. and UKOG have no money to drill in the UK and Turkey is stalled while they decide where to drill to.

EApermission when it comes will help with not having to pay loads to dispose of water but the less than 100bopd UKOG produce won't suddenly become hundreds of bopd, and thhe conversion of HH-2z needs to be paid for.

It's simply a P&D - deciding when to sell not buy is the question now, UKOG weren't holding back progress because of this case - nobody expected UKOG (or rather SCC) to lose.

Bigfoot,

Note the word expected, and only for the seismicto be processed and interpreted.

UKOG has had many expected, anticipated or planned dates for things to happen in Turkey (and elsewhere) few have happened as planned.

Basur-3 and the seismic were expected to commence before the end of 2020 (RNS July 2020).

Basur-3 drilling commenced June 2021, and when that was suspended the seismic was scheduled to stat in August.

The first mention of seismic operations was 10 December 2021 and what has become the first phase of seismic of 55km declared completed on 1st February 2022.

Northfork,

It isn't necessary to keep repeating the obvious, this is part of what I posted during the last mini spike on 10/11 Jan when the mid was 0.12p (11 Jan 2022).

'Unless the promised news turns up ASAP the SP could easily return to last weeks levels. That of course assumes the news is good. Those that bought on the mini spike egged on by the likes of FOTH might wonder when the claims about the 'overdue' news and price predictions might turn up.'

Not naysaying just being realistic having seen it time and time again.

The SP not only returned to the previous levels - it managed to go lower even with a couple of updates about Turkey and SS's share purchase.

At some point news will arrive - and UKOG's SP often rises on news about permissions or startig work - but whether anyone has insider knowledge of EA/OG permission is doubtful.

Today's rise has similarities to the 10/11 Jan spike - charting BS, new posters, returned posters, twitter BS.

This time rodders........

Ocelot,

You're right - UKOG haven't mention to pi what results are possible - apart from 'transformational' - despite presumably being in possession of more information than AME choose to present to the scout meeting in Turkey about E Sadak -which UKOG have described as a geological and producing lookalike field.

Not mentioning any expectation means it's impossible for pi to assess whether 'transformational' is a reasonable assessment, nor assess how good their 'expectation's are - so far they have been extremely poor.

They instead chose to quote a couple of initial flow rates which are unrepresentative of production flow rates at ESadak, OIP (though UKOG haven't shown any map of the subsurface structure) and possible recoveries - though this in the AME annual report:- 'proving the recoverable reserves to international industry standards and to the satisfaction of financial institutions allowing for a possible IPO at the London Stock Exchange.' suggests that figures presented by AME aren't to SPE standards.

Of course those that promote the Turkish project tend to want to ignore the historic data - and UKOG seem to be happy to oblige.

Ozzy,

enough of you rewriting what you actually wrote, perhaps you'll give us one of your paraphases of what was written rather than what was actually written.

you posted:- 'the model shows water into shale,fracking ( not UKOG )' - it doesn't as I started my post:-

'The model shows production from a fracked shale, but that's not the problem being illustrated..........'

You may have correctly identified one of the proposed theories but you seem to have misunderstood the model.

I'll put it simply for you - the model shows water into a porous formation which isn't fracking.

But I agree that that theory had nothing to do with the current proposal at HH, the other theory mentioned might.

'I did not suggest the photo was rigged from someone from the USGS' - yet:-

'indicating a possibility of a faked photo'

however the photo was credited to 'Brian Sherrod USGS' which suggests he took it.

Ozzy,

The model shows production from a fracked shale, but that's not the problem being illustrated, and a conventional reservoir - the problem being being disposal of the associated produced water into a deeper porous formation - not shale.

One of the proposed theories was to do with the density of produced salt water being disposed of into the basement (the deeper porous formation), where the water was less salty, migrating deeper and affecting the pore pressure in the rock. So it's a possible explanation for the continued earthquakes that requires further data.

As they are proposing disposing water from the Portland back into the Portland it isn't relevant to HH.

The other theory may be more relevant to HH as it suggested the disposal of water into an already stressed regime made earthquakes more likely.

Nevertheless both theories attributed the continuation of earthquakes, after water disposal was discontinued, to the earlier water disposal.

But you seem to think someone from the USGS might use a faked photograph in an article in Scientific American.

A magnitude 5.6 earthquake is pretty strong and can cause damage - but it could mean there was already a problem with the chimney triggered by the quake.

Ozzy,

Surely you've seen that over the years a lot of those nasty negative posts keep on coming true, and the positive ones don't. That's because a lot of the negative posts that justify that opinion are in fact realistic - some may be bamboozled by UKOG's RNS that only mention 'positives'(though on closer examination often aren't )nd the associated ramping, not everyone is.

As for ZYX here's a taste of what honest posting looks like:-

'ZYX098
Posted in: UKOG Posts: 424
Price: 0.105 No Opinion
RE: Really big YAWN 09 Jan 2022 14:45

Adrian,

"It's the one subject Penguins trys hard to dismiss and put down so I must be right"

No. You make incorrect claims about HH and what water injection into HH-2z will achieve. He then uses FACTS (which you ignore) and TECHNICAL EXPERTISE (which you and Ozzy both clearly don't have) to explain why you are WRONG'

and before you claim I'm against fracking - I'm not. There's a vast difference between not knowing if it will work, as I've previously posted, and being against it.

Ozzy,

I originally posted:-

'Did UKOG push for drilling before the seismic which was a mistake, and seem to now be into detailed well planning of the sidetrack before the seismic is available - perhaps that reflects UKOG's opinion of the seismic interpretation - not worth having?'

Nothing you've posted suggests that's a wrong conclusion.

As for:- '(obviously to save face)' - obviously?

'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'

'Remains unchanged' - just saving face when they didn't actually say that in the August RNS. Looks like they wanted to get it out there.

Erm,

Another ozzy paraphrase because UKOG haven't said what you want.

But if they didn't want to wait for the seismic in December and haven't received the processed seismic what's happened to change their opinion rather they're now just reporting the sequence of events decided by AME.

I think what I posted was a reasonable analysis:-

'Did UKOG push for drilling before the seismic which was a mistake, and seem to now be into detailed well planning of the sidetrack before the seismic is available - perhaps that reflects UKOG's opinion of the seismic interpretation - not worth having?'