Member Info for Penguins

Wizard,

don't you worry that there was considerable misjudgement by SS as to the worth of HH and buying up most of the equity was a mistake?

You might say that all the indications were it was worth it - but strangely there were detractors who, based on the snippets that UKOG RNS'd, advised that things weren't as great as the RNS suggested, and explained why - and got a lot of stick for it.

What was said internally at UKOG about the risks we shall never know vs the complete absence of caution in RNS and interviews made by SS about the possible outcomes in production. Perhaps the bonus shouldn't have been paid for SS splashing out large amounts of pi cash before it was found out if he got value for it.

As for the planning permission the additonal wells that enabled have yet to be drilled - but at least it enabled production to start and that promised RBL based on a CPR to happen - hold on.......

HH1AN2,

Is this your way of stopping a discussion on the board, just keep posting pastings? Nothing positive to actually say about UKOG, won't offer an analysis from your tanker sightings of prosuction but put up a page of waffle about something UKOG doesn't have - gas.

HH1AN2,

There will be tankers leaving the site, some will be oil and some will be for waste.

Who thinks production has stopped - so seeing tankers every now and then is non news, of course there's a few enthusiasts who every time 2 tankers are seen in a day translate it to a production improvement.

But so far since the 2020 'optimisation' including reperforating and simplifying the production tubing production has, despite FOTH wishing otherwise, generally declined even excluding the OGA figures he claimed were wrong - I think he meant the well was shut in for part of August and September.

UKOG could release more up to date figures if they wanted, especially if production has improved significantly but choose not to. So for accurate figures of monthly production we have to wait at least 3 months, October's figures reported at the beginning of February.

I have asked FOTH as you guys are so sure of your counting of seen and unseen tankers for an estimate of current production to compare with the OGA figures so we can in the future judge how reliable statements about improved production from your tanker watching are - but FOTH replied it was too early to do that for December and January - despite it being in January and being so sure production has gone up.

There, saves all that hanging around waiting for tankers - except of course some days N66 tips you off so hardly being lucky catching them.

Oops scrolling down hit the post button

You claim they are not UKOG's words - you just made all that up.

'then say they will then go on to drill HH3 and HH4 to "further" increase productivity.'

??? further? Increase productivity?

Ozzy

that was a lot of explaining your interpretation of SS's statement in the January 15 RNS. As you know I don't agree with your preferred understanding.

You can now explain this from the annual report and accounts:-

'I would also like to stress, that in the current pricing environment, the significant cost reductions achieved at Horse Hill over the year and the forecast reduction in water handling costs via the conversion of HH-2z into a water injector means that, going forwards, Horse Hill production is forecast to be profitable. The planned HH-3 and HH-4 infill wells are also designed to boost production as we move forward in developing our asset.'

'm sure that you'll read it 'your way' - although FOTH reminded me that what he called my misinterpreting RNS were mostly realistic interpretations of UKOG RNS, and have certainly proved more accurate that those by those ramping.

Skypole,

You posted:-

'Here's what Pingo doesn't mention when talking OGA figures. He is the master of misinterpretation of RNSs.

'Works included modifications to.......' and then the rest of the 20 Sept RNS

Why do you make stuff up? I have posted many times about the work RNS'd on 20 September - mostly to point out there's no mention of any well workover to counter your claims that the work included work on HH-1 (and your earlier attempts to imply the work was for HH-2z conversion). I also pointed out before that (12 September) that the work was mentioned in the interim results.

I'm pretty sure I've never made any comments about the August and September figures being representative of normal monthly production although you have made all sorts of claims about when the work was carried out as figures became available. First of all you claimed a lot of the work happened in August when the August figures were released and now you're saying a lot of August and September - I've also pointed out that you tweeted a picture of the flare working in early September.

About August figures:-

'Freeasabird@davethedrill1 Dec 6, 2021
It's why the tankers stopped for a week or so and why the OGA production figures for August were lower. #ukog They shut the well in'

and before the 20 Sept RNS was released on 11 Sept you tweeted:-

'Ps JR says #UKOG RNSs come about 2 weeks after most events happen. I agree.'

So was the work completed on 6 September?

You just make it up as you go along - the truth about UKOG, HH and other posters being the last thing you're bothered about - just desperate to ramp the SP in any way and discredit others to sell presumably before any more bad news lands having bought in during August on the hope of permissions for Loxley / Arreton / EA and the BoD buying in under the DDSPP.

Adrian,

Hilarious.

I've been accused of misinterpreting all those good, excellent etc RNS for years...yet somehow those posters and tweeters that claimed the same RNSs heralded thousands of bopd, huge revenues, no water(!) and I was a doom and gloom merchant, or worse, were what - right?

Have a look at the OGA production figures, practically the only reliable technical facts available about HH. Or the annual reports financial statements.

Even ozzy thinks the water cut increases during producing periods (but that post like so many is buried by the dross you post) one of the factors that determines what's possible even after water disposal costs are massively reduced. What we don't know is at what water cut they stop producing and exactly why.

Skypole / Adrian / many other guises,

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

Just because I explain why you're wrong to expect 24/7 pumping and 300bopd after HH-2z is converted doesn't mean your 'imo' becomes magically some kind of proof:-

1 because even at the start of production when no water was being produced HH-1 managed an average of 300bopd from the Portland for only a few days in March before production dropped off during April and May before significant water production in June 2020.

2 because water disposal cost is not the only issue preventing 24/7 pumping at the moment. If water cut remained constant during production peroods logically they would make more profit from operations at HH even now by pumping 24/7 and would not have allowed production to gradually tail off in the figures available for 2021

And despite water disposal being the most important thing that needs to happen at HH to improve profit UKOG have never claimed it will improve HH-1 oil production, according to SS that will happen with the drilling of further wells which should, in SS's words, 'boost' production, though the first well that should have boosted production is the one being used for water disposal.

In fact your 'imo' about UKOG changes whether you're 'in or 'out'. Your latest switch was in August 2021 when you started pumping the BoD share purchase and the EA, Loxley and Arreton permissions all of which you predicted would happen soon after. Apart from SS buying shares last month none of these have happened - your despair at getting it so wrong last August reflected in your ever more desperate appearances here.

Ozzy,

Earlier you claimed this:- 'Your saying that quote doesn't exist'

Still waiting for you to illustrate that with an extract from one of my posts.

'From the January 2021 RNS:-

'Consequently, to remove the need for expensive off-site water disposal via tanker and to also help maximise oil recovery by supporting reservoir pressure, HH-2z will now be reconfigured, subject to regulatory consent, into a water re-injection well as soon as practicable'

As HH-1 is the only producing well it's reasonable to suppose that the saving of water disposal costs is to do with that well, but they make no mention of anything else that would be specific to that well as they expect to drill further wells. My comments have always been in relation to predictions by certain posters and tweeters who claim it will increase HH-1 bopd - which certainly UKOG have not said - if I missed it I apologise - but please quote where in an RNS UKOG have claimed that HH-1 production will increase. Maximising oil recovery is a long term aim.

UK consumption in 2020 was 6 to 7BCF per day depending on source.

Loxley's total recoverable P50 volume, if it's there and recoverable, is about 7 days UK gas consumption. Every little helps but this is a board about an AIM minnow hoping to luck into some gas and doesn't change the reality that this project, even if were successful, will make little difference to the UK economy.

and yet again it looks like UKOG has witheld information they could have conveyed to investors, this time about the appeal. When were UKOG aware the likely timing of the appeal verdict changed from Autumn 2021 to Q1 2022?

'Whilst the Company had expected a decision from the Planning Inspectorate in the first quarter of this year'

and now possibly later following today's news. This might have saved tweeters and posters the embarrassment of claiming for months the decision would be soon.

OK you've quoted what was in the RNS - I didn't because you had already quoted it but please quote where I say that quote doesn't exist.

I just stated in response to what you seemed to think was contrary to my post in the sentence about 'supporting reservoir pressure' and 'maximising recovery' (in fact both things I mention) that:- 'If disposing water in HH-2z does support pressure, by no means guaranteed, it helps maximises recovery.
This is not the same as increasing flow rate - it's a long term effect.'

But as youalso said 'I'm not saying it will work or it won't' why are you so concerned that my view is it might not? You also seem to think what I quoted could be understood in different ways - so I choose mine - what's yours.

I see on twitter that FOTH is mis representing what UKOG say - claiming 'automated 24-hour continuous production operations' (what UKOG RNS) is the same as 'pumping oil day everyday . 7/24 oil pumping' - it isn't, shutting in the well is part of 'production operations' as is anything to do with 'production operations'. Even with water disposal they can't allow the water production (and probably gas) to get out of hand - the intermittent production operations are to allow the reservoir pressure near to the borehole to recover.

Ozzy,

If disposing water in HH-2z does support pressure, by no means guaranteed, it helps maximises recovery.

This is not the same as increasing flow rate - it's a long term effect.

Perhaps you'd like to predict HH-1 average daily production following conversion of HH-2z so we can compare it to the outcome - as you're so confident that UKOG are wrong only mentioning injection will save on water disposal costs - a boost in production relying on further wells.

UKOG also pick their words carefully in the knowledge that most readers of RNS have little understanding of the technical aspects of O&G E&P - previous examples are their stressing of API, a pressure with no context - and the regular quoting of short term flow rates from instantaneous to daily - all meaningless without more information.

The problem is that the expected positive Loxley decision is just a step on the way - so the decision is 'pumped' and then what - nothing for months or possibly year/s but almost certainly more cash required for the well that is another appraisal of a discovery that nobody has bothered to progress for decades - but it might just have an all important show.

The HH-2z conversion is an obsession for some - but even UKOG,proved not conservative with expectations, only expects it to save on produced water disposal costs vs posters and tweeters who claim it will significantly increase HH-1 production immediately - FOTH has claimed to n average of 300bopd. But if the Brockam decision process is followed the EA decision will be a preliminary yes followed by a month for public comments, presumably followed by review of those comments, before final permission is granted, and then UKOG need to sort doing it - and it needs to work.

15 January 2021 RNS:- '"We look forward to the conversion of HH-2z into a water injector in the Spring and to the resultant increase in net revenue from the reduction in water handling costs.'
&
'Once the injector is in place, to boost production and net revenues, we plan two more production infill wells' so UKOG see a production boost with further wells, not from HH-1.

Then there's Turkey - waiting for an update on the progress of the seismic acquisition - which needs significant processing and then interpretation - hopefully a target will be found within reach of the Basur-3 site - then a rig hired and drilling recommenced. I wonder if UKOG will show the mapping and seismic this time. But would even a successful result similar to the lookalike E Sadak field be 'transformational'.

None of this is free - what cash was left at end September we will know end March giving an idea of recent 6 months expenditure and income, unless final results are delayed, and soon after, assuming UKOG continue their silent running, we'll know what October and November's production was following the shut in for the site works - apparently FOTH claims it's gone up, but refrains from putting a number to it.

Emporer,

Interesting - so if UKOG were selling gas you would be happy, as a shareholder, if they sold gas at lower than market price (same goes for oil), as even if Loxley is successful the volumes are likely to be miniscule vs demand (or even overall UK production) so not going to affect the price and it certainly won't be 'now' or in the near future.

Ocelot,

Let's hope that one day HHDL has enough cash to pay at least some of the ££3mm back plus whatever else UKOG lends them in the meantime if the 2 further wells planned at HH are drilled. Unfortunately, like HH-2z, there's no guarantee they will be successful (or actually drilled).

So when repayment might be who knows, maybe never.

Pboo,

stop your silly games.

I didn't say they weren't carrying crude - just they might not be as produced oily water has to be transported with 1267 plates - but it is odd that they used a vacuum trailer to transport oil when by chance an oil trailer wasn't usable - and their shouldn't be an emergency (rather than convenience for UKOG) as they can and should shut down production if there's insufficient storage to comply with SCC transport conditions that they've agreed - or else there's something seriously wrong with their HSE procedures.

As for believers, this is a company that relies on belief as it hardly ever reports facts except when legally obliged to do so. It's within UKOG's power to tell all - but for some reason they don't. Yet those that research and challenge the ridiculous claims by some posters based on UKOG's hopes, misunderstanding, or nothing at all, are branded swampies or shorters - for being realistic.

Now silence seems to be UKOG's friend with tanker drivers (do they hold UKOG shares?) seemingly part of the data release of HH production.

I've said it before, I don't understand why UKOG have abrogated their responsibility to stop share dealing by individuals who seem to be in receipt of information not available to all (the 'lucky' turning up and seeing a tanker - was it a tip off?) - and then they choose what they tweet or post.

HH1AN2,

It's called failing to plan ahead.

UKOG could have shut down production for as long as necessary - they have said they are producing intermittently, and if they did the extra recovery time should mean the flow rate would improve briefly when switched on again so not much lost production.

So why have a waste tanker doing two trips on a Bank holiday when oil tankers are prohibited - did BKP only have one 'oil' tanker trailer available on a bank holiday to hitch up and that had a problem?

Nomlungu,

Uncertainty seems to be what UKOG and FOTH depend on. When the OGA figures are published we won't know how many days of production they represent. Of course UKOG could publish daily production figures, or current month data but for some reason they don't. There's some would like you believe it's because they are producing more because they did some work on the well - also not mentioned by UKOG in the RNS about the site work - but FOTH & Co ignore the detail in the RNS about what was done and prefer to throw doubt on '2 weeks'.

But conversely this from FOTH on 2 September:-

Freeasabird@davethedrill1 2 Sep 2021
#UKOG Things are starting to heat up on The Hill. Nice flare

So was this flare picture after the works were done or before? There was also a tweet on Sept 3 saying FOTH and JR hadn't been down the path for a while (yet there's that tweet from FOTH with a picture from 'John' on Sept 2 - I suppose not from the path):-

Sept 3
'Going to cut our way through the foot path running along side #Horsehill oil site. It's over grown. We will be able to see hands on what work is or isn't going in'

Then there's this:-

Freeasabird@davethedrill1 11 Sep 2021
#Horsehill. Bunding liner rolls onsite a week ago. Ready to be laid.

So at the beginning of September these weren't laid - so how much work was carried out in August when FOTH didn't view the site from the path, 2/3/4 September to 20 September is a little over 2 weeks assuming UKOG RNS'd immediately, but then there's this BS from FOTH on 11 September:-

'Ps JR says #UKOG RNSs come about 2 weeks after most events happen. I agree.'

Smoke and mirrors - just like UKOG.

HH1AN2,

you do know that waste oily water is transported with 1267 plates don't you - the afternoon picture is of a waste tanker so could have been produced water.

I also see that FOTH is now saying the 2 weeks work on the site was not only carried out in August but also in September - I suppose just in case the September figures are poor.

'Freeasabird@davethedrill1 Dec 6, 2021
It's why the tankers stopped for a week or so and why the OGA production figures for August were lower. #ukog They shut the well in'

Today:-
'They were still working on site in the first half of September'

Yet UKOG RNS'd the work took 2 weeks:-

'UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that it has completed a planned two-week production facility upgrade at its 85.635% owned Horse Hill oil field............Following the shutdown period necessary to undertake the works, oil production has now been re-established.'

Skwizz,

The only way to make money here is to follow the pump and dump crew latching on to a supposedly 'good news' RNS and make sure you get out before, or as, they do.

Previous rises have all been based on expecting the over blown and highly selective statements in UKOG RNS to actually be followed through - despite some pointing out the extremely skewed information that UKOG were releasing, and lack of funds for the plans necessitating constant dilution - even raising funds for projects but then not progressing them without any explanation.

Maybe there's still enough 'investors' out there waiting to be mugged again by wells being spud or workovers that don't deliver the rewards that UKOG hint at. Of course 'positive' posters and tweeters claim anything hinted at is guaranteed, producing fantasy cash flow spreadsheets or share price charts 'proving' that soon/next week/next month etc. the SP will multi bag claiming any detractors are swampies or shorters - never mentioning that previous rises based on hope that UKOG will deliver the goods are followed by a lower SP than before they started as the P&D crew exit, the trapped bail out and/or UKOG raise more cash to keep the show going.

The most predicted pump and dump initiators coming up (or according to some good news comkng soon since Q3 2021) are the EA permission to dispose water into HH-2z, a well that was meant to be producing 720 to 1080bopd; victory in the appeal against the planning refusal for Loxley - an over egged appraisal/exploration well of a minor gas discovery; and 'news' about the Basur-3 suspended well - and of course the transformational estimates of the huge volumes of oil or gas these projects will achieve.

Bad luck - or failure to convey the risks inherent in the projects - ie bad luck was likely

For instance:

Weald:-
UKOG / SS - transformational, billions of barrels recoverable, high flow rates, - easy to solve water ingress, dual completion
Kimmeridge - lack of water drive and pressure issues (predictable)
Portland - water filled fractures in/near both wells, rapid decline, low flow rates, pressure issues (after HH-1 predictable)
Both - not stressing that the test flow rates were not likely in production (predictable)

Turkey

UKOG / SS - transformational but hardly anything said about the adjacent E Sadak 'lookalike field', rapid activity but no prediction of flow rates.
Reality:-
Slower activity than indicated
Poor control - high failure rate of recent wells in E Sadak due to poor seismic
Risk of poor flow rates and high decline of better rates in the E Sadak field