Member Info for Penguins

Wizard,

Good to see that oil majors are still estimated to invest £56 billion in 2021.

But surely more worrying for UKOG was 'Many banks and institutions are increasingly reluctant to fund the development of new oil and gas projects' - if banks won't fund developments they're certainly going to be unwilling to fund exploration/appraisal so interested to know how UKOG won't be raising money by issuing more confetti to fund their proposed forward programme?

But buddying up to FOTH - are you that desperate?

and Adrian you're not up against swampies on this board - some of the posters you don't agree with see through the selective RNS issued by UKOG because they understand O&G E&P.

Whereas you believed, hook line and sinker - I don't and I've always given my reasons why what UKOG claimed wasn't 'nailed on' - and funnily enough you're the one who's whining on twitter and here, desperate to post your 'positives' on here. Apparently this constitutes a 'slaping' [sic].

FOTH got his wish that no one mentions UKOG's projects - just get into a pointless argument on a board about an insignificant AIM O&G company about climate change / global warming. This board has no impact on UKOG so why you're arguing on this board where according to FOTH everyone he doesn't agree with (almostmeveryone) is a 'green' swampy - but funnily enough aren't bothered enough to join in the discourse

To return to the subject of this board, far more interesting though views just as entrenched.

One thing perhaps everyone should take from their UKOG 'experience' is that finding oil can be fairly easy if you drill where you know it is (and I suspect UKOG hope the same goes for gas at Loxley) but no one has previously bothered to produce it.

Producing that oil (or gas) in sufficient quantities to be economic to the extent the profits are significant in relation to the sunk costs is a wholly different matter. Of course it doesn't matter to this BoD that dilutes rather than generate profits to pay their way - as long as the pay check is covered who cares, might even buy a few shares to keep the numpties happy.

The main AIM is keeping the dream alive, even if delaying RNSing bad news and long periods of silence are needed to do it. The desperate will always fill the voids with tanker sightings, claiming things are happening on schedule (until proved they aren't), non-existant workovers, future guaranteed succeess - and failing that claiming that anyone who hasn't fallen for the BS is a green swampy shorter rather than any reasoned discussion.

Ozzy,

What happened to:-

'it would be great if all the stupidity disappeared on here and there would be honest debate from all contributors'.

and then you post today:- 'who dribbles coffee down her torso' - it's not even funny.

Nevertheless to everyone who can keep to debating other poster's posts regardless of whether positive, realistic or negative- rather than their fantasy imaginings about other posters,

Merry Xmas and a much better 2022 - including UKOG's results rather than hopes

Vernonya,

There's a lot of BS about these UK, shale resources.

No company has yet proved that any significant amount of these huge volumes of oil and gas locked into non-reservoir can be recovered?

Seems most of those convinced they can be and profess concern are share holders in insignificant AIM oil and gas companies.

UKOG are proposing testing the Kimmeridge updip from HH-1 having not dual completed the well. This, and the failure of BB where there was no closure, suggests it will only work in limited locations. Whether fracking would help or not is not known, being naturally fractured would add a significant obstacle to fracking.

As for the gas the testing didn't get to a stage of flowing a well in the Bowland shale. It might work, it might not. My view is it should be properly tested so rather than there being a possibility it's known whether it is actually a resource.

As for prices if either were successful they are not controlled, except for gas to consumers to a limited extent. Yes it would help the economy and reduce, in the case of oil and LNG transportation, cost and CO2 but it wouldn't help consumers who pay effectively international prices - in the case of gas eventually when the price cap catches up.

For information 'Volumetric study' sounds like 'here's the map - don't worry how good it is calculate the gas volume'.

which of course UKOG RNS'd the highlights, but not the report so if Xodus had any reservations or caveats we wouldn't kno - no doubt like the June 2019 Kimmeridge contingent reaource calculated by RPS - but didn't surface until this year.

A CPR has to be published warts and all - and there were so many warts Xodus wouldn't even calculate GIIP for Loxley in the 2018 CPR.

Ocelot,

there are, I suppose, other life style companies who prefer chasing unicorns rather than work the assets they have.

Companies that don't generate profits (those that do may be more cautious of spending hard come by profits on risky ventures) but exist to issue shares and not worry about the damage to the SP. With a tendency to exagerrating the upside, never mentioning the risk of not achieving the hoped for results as there's always people happy to repeat these transformational promises (often in the hope of shifting their shares) and shout down those that urge caution.

So another UKOG.

Insidious,

Unfortunately UKOG forgot to mention that the rates seen in 2016 weren't sustainable - and were never repeated during the ewt performed from 2018 to 2020.

Initial HH-1 Portland production rates were more than 300bopd in March 2020 according to UKOG but this rapidly declined and in June significant water was being produced as well. Last OGA figures, possibly lower due to work being performed on site for HSE and 24/7 unmanned operations, were an average of 81.56bopd and 32.46bwpd.

Now they have to interrupt flow to enable the well to recover just to get an average of less than 100bopd - which from the published OGA figures has been generally slowly declining.

The EA permission to test what using HH-2z as a water disposal well will achieve is till awaited.

An interesting statistic is that the PW purchase of surface equipment, costing £1.65mm and claimed to save about $4 a barrel, has so far saved about £150,000.

Ocelot,

First UKOG need to find gas in their PEDL, which isn't 'nailed on. There are difficulties with depth conversion which meant that the appraisal well (GB-2) of the meagre discovery (GB-1) didn't find gas, nor the sidetrack of GB -2, even with the data from both wells in the immediate vicinity, neither of the wells close to UKOG's PEDL.

Xodus would not use UKOG's map for GIIP in the 2018 CPR, although Xodus did perform a study in 2020, highlights RNS'd but not the report, but it isn't clear what map was used.

The reality is that there's a strong possibility there will be no gas for UKOG to sell whatever the gas price is.

Ozzy,

Last year when UKOG did a workover on HH-1 they RNS'd it before and after.

Are you seriously suggesting they've performed another workover to improve production (--like FOTH's gang) without mentioning it?

So if you haven't made up that they did some work since the UKOG RNS'd surface work what have they done to the well to make things better?

As for ridiculous comments there's plenty on both sides of the argument - but strangely whilst 'less than 0.1p' trades have happened those predicting 2p/5p or an even more modest 0.9p over the last couple of years have been spectacularly wrong. The same goes for expected timings of wells and production levels - anything longer than UKOG plan or less flow than UKOG expect has proved correct.

Seems you just have to wait for some posts deemed 'negative' to be proved realistic, others, well we're still waiting and the rise needed for some is astronomical.

Ozzy,

So what in my post was denying anything. Is this distraction because I asked for some justification of statements you had made and I explained why I knew what work UKOG had carried out - because UKOG RNS'd it, not because I guessed it.

BTW you made the statements you find the posts - I reckon they don't exist so no point looking for them because you're just making stuff up

As for ocelot and the oil price - zzzzz, not mentioned it recently though.

Ozzy,

OK where's the posts where these mystery posters posted that HH production was approaching 50% water cut - oh and while we're about it those saying there is 'no oil'

As for the works - do you not believe what UKOG said they were?

'Works included modifications to prepare the site for automated 24-hour continuous production operations, together with the installation of the first tranche of permanent facility equipment required under the Health and Safety Executive's Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations'

Don't you think if they had performed any work to improve production they might have mentioned it

Ozzy,

Instead of indulging in vague references could you quote which posters have said the water cut was 50%, and when. I don't recall any poster saying the water cut is 50%.

'the usual frequent posters saying that the water cut was approaching 50/50 and plenty saying there is no oil.'

I don't why surface works to adhere to HSE requirements and enable unmanned operation would make any difference to production. Perhaps you can explain?

Ocelot,

how often have oil and gas price forecasts been correct one or two years in the future, let alone beyond that.

As for gas prices when exactly will they be relevant for UKOG even if Loxley is an economic success - proved by further drilling - so that the necessary infrastructure can be built?

If only it was as simple as drill a well, build a pipeline, sell the gas - as UKOG has proved with oil even with apparently good flow rates in testing those flow rates aren't necessarily indicative of what might happen in production. We don't know what UKOG really expected from HH-1 though - but perhaps the decline anticipated by certain posters, but not mentioned by UKOG, was in fact no surprise to UKOG.

As for oil, the price historically fluctuates - depending on $80+ oil forever to justify drilling more poorly performing wells can be financial suicide for an oil company.

Ocelot just accepts anything that UKOG RNS as 'gospel' - so obviously the oil and gas price is all that matters - unfortunately it isn't, far more important is the likelihood of success which UKOG skirt around, and never (except in the small print) mention poor outcomes to balance expectations - was 720bopd from HH-2z really the worst possible result?

Ocelot,

only a few more loose ends to 'tidy up'

Like what happened to all those plans for the Kimmeridge, - what's wrong woith it that they didn't dual complete HH-1 for starters.

How come there's spare space at HH for Geothermal and Solar?

What's the current production at HH?

What's happenign to BB - must have decided as PP for the site ends March next year?

Arreton appeal, three weeks after Loxley was refused they RNS'd that they were appealing.

Seismic progress in Turkey - how much has been shot?

When Loxley was refused UKOG announced aboutt 3 weeks later that they would appeal. It's nearly 2 months since Arreton was refused. I suppose they're too busy choosing new green colours for the logo while they've been chatting to geothermal companies to find one that will play ball.

Probably explaining to them how to keep drawing their salaries for years while running a loss making company - finding new projects to keep the dream alive for investors because the previous dream didn't work.

Nothing like a 'conceptual' plan to try and divert attention from failing to run an oil business.

What about a conceptual plan for HH, BB, Loxley and Turkey that actually had some honesty as to what might happen, what the results might really be rather than the best case scenarios where everything succeeds and is transformational until it isn't.

At the moment a transformational increase in oil production (trebling?) would probably not justify the current SP/mcap.

Previous gems were the Nutech report, EY report and Barton Willmore study.

I don't know when this is all supposed to happen, who pays or where these local businesses are (let's hope they don't go bankrupt in the 10 years this would take if it happens, maybe the fuel pipeline can ship hot water to Gatwick when those planes are run on electricity.

I'm sure a bank would be happy to fund the BoD's salaries for another few years while they conceptualised.

Ibug,

interesting, looks like TPAO drill cheap finder wells, minimal site, small rig, slim hole, minimal casing. If successful come back later and drill on a production site with 'production' size hole with full casing programme based on knowledge gained.

Could it be that the targets are hard to define, so high risk?

Don't gold plate it - big rig, big site, long access track, lots of planning based on dodgy maps - hmmm.

What would AME have done if UKOG weren't paying - or perhaps UKOG wanted the performance - and weren't worried about what happened next - like BB and the production completion installed before testing, which had to be removed

No mitigation of the risks - expecting only for a most positive outcome - or certainly appearing to, perhaps for the gallery?

Mirasol,

'Surprises' - indeed, at HH best illustrated by the new map following HH-2z, which was meant to be up dip of HH-1 but was down dip - fortunate now they want to use it as an injector, though the compartmentalisation mentioned by UKOG could be a negative.

The HH seismic data is pretty good - but sparse, which enables an awful lot of 'positive' contouring in the gaps between the seismic lines. When they get round to drilling HH-3 it will be a test of the new map where the updip closure from HH-1 seems a result of 'moving' Collendean Farm from a seperate fault block into the same fault block as the HH wells.

Of course it could be cleared up by acquiring 3D - but that costs may be difficult to acquire and could destroy the updip HH-3 target. It also won't solve the riddle of where the water filled fractures are.

As for Turkey, looking at the example line in AME's anual report, I suspect UKOG's drill and be damned approach was because they felt new seismic wouldn't help much until there's a few subsurface data points (wells) to tie the seismic to.

Not sure how valid it is to compare what something costs vs what is probably a minimum licence spend committed to by AME.

Lots of countries expect a committment to spend a certain amount on activities in a licence which if it isn't spent you have to pay the govrnment.

UKOG have already said that they understand (oh dear) there are penalties for not drilling committment wells, 23/7/20 RNS:-

'however UKOG understands that should any of the commitment wells not be drilled, a modest penalty of c. $30-50,000 is payable to the government.'

Presumably that's in the licence period they entered after commencing drilling. Given the number of other wrong expectations in the 23 July RNS let's hope those penalties are correct if Basur-3 and any follow up wells are duds and not all the committed wells are drilled.

So that Lira amount might be a minimum send in the first period of the licence. But as UKOG has been rather lean on information about Turkey who knows?

Ocelot,

This recent discovery is not in the the Eastern part of the fold belt running SE to NW out of Iraq / Kurdistan as E Sadak / Resan / Basur, so not in the same petroleum system.

There's a map in UKOG's 15 Jan 2021 Presentation. This discovery is most likely in the area adjacent to the Syrian Border where there are already oilfields.

I had misunderstood that the discovery was in the Mardin, rather than in Mardin province - the announcement makes no reference to which formation the oil was discovered in.

The 2011 article pre dates E Sadak. The TPAO field (Sambayat) mentioned as the largest discovery for 20 years produced in September 2021 7,714bbls from an unknown number of wells (number 20 had spud in 2015) - an average of less than 250bopd.

Like E Sadak it looks like the productivity of Mardin production drops off to a steady tens of bopd per well. The OIP and claimed ultimate recoveries may look good, but it looks like many wells are required and decades, if not a century, to get it out.

Hope this doesn't turn out to be a double post, tried once and it didn't appear. Apologies if it is.