Member Info for Penguins

Did a bit more digging and although UKOG don't mention the production specifically during the final period of the Kimmeridge ewt prior to it being shut in in January 2019 they have given figures up to the suspension of production in November 2019 (492765bbls in 27/11/19 RNS) and a figure of total Kimmeridge production after it was long term shut in during January 2020 (52780bbls in 15/01/21 RNS).

Production recommenced after the November 2019 shut in according to UKOG on 18 December, and according to johnrogan9 the flare was till going on 19 January 2020 :-
John Rogan @JohnRogan9
Replying to @Adrianwfire
That flare is looking really good!!
1:23 PM · Jan 19, 2020

So in at least 31 days of production that's 3504bbls or an average of 113bopd. UKOG said that up to 23 December the average was 301 bopd so in the remaining 25 or so days the average would have been lower and suggests a very low rate just before the Kimmeridge was shut-in - probably explains why the Portland, which managed a few months before dropping to an average of about 100bopd, was chosen over the Kimmeridge and why an expensive dual completion wasn't installed.

Of course unless UKOG release more information about the Kimmeridge ewt (and Portland) we can't know the full story of why these average rates are so low against the rates they actually published during the ewt.

Cynderlad,

The last thing UKOG RNS'd I could find about Kimmeridge flow rates certainly wasn't 330bopd.

23/12/2019:- 'dry Kimmeridge oil flow was resumed on 18 December at an initial half-hourly rate of 354 barrels of oil per day ("bopd") with an average daily rate of 301 bopd.'

The Kimmeridge was finally shut in during January 2020 when UKOG performed an interference test - they didn't mention flow rates up to then.

UKOG have said very little of substance about the Kimmeridge or any of their projects of since then - our main source of factual information being the OGA monthly reports, delayed 3 months for Horse Hill.

Lots of plans, vague expectations and snippets from unpublished reports - no wonder nobody who just accepts what UKOG tells them has no idea what's likely to happen.

As for the Kimmeridge the unpublished June 2019 RPS report could have helped understand why there's been no progress - but for some reason UKOG didn't mention it until they decided to use the calculated Kimmeridge resources in the 2019 to 2020 Annual Report, issued in April this year.

Whilst, like the Weald and oil, there's estimated to be a lot of gas in the Bowland shale in the UK, what hasn't been proved is whether it can be produced economically.

Unfortunately the fracking tests weren't completed because of minor seismicity which was stupid as whether or not it would work was something the country needed (needs?) to know.

The same goes for Loxley - though the prize if there is only of significance to UKOG and may not exist at all given the uncertainties in mapping the Portland target.

Ocelot,

'but there is doubtless a lot going on in the background.'

Of course they've only had 6 months (extra) already to sort out what they want to do at HH and Loxley when the permissions come through with only HH 'stable' production to count which isn't exactly an arduous task,. As for Turkey they'll be paying AME to look after the seismic. Geothermal & reformation - consultants, and hopefully not too much spent until either is likely to happen.

Maybe working out for the last couple of weeks if they are going to appeal Arreton's refusal. But most of UKOG's 'work' seems to be done by 3rd parties anyway

Ocelot,

Despite the inference that all UKOG has to do is drill Loxley and they will find commercial quantities of gas that is by no means certain. Even if the appeal decision drops Monday they aren't likely to drill Loxley-1 until the back end of 2022.

If Loxley is successful enough to move to the next stage they will then need to drill appraisal wells to prove there's enough gas to make the economics work for building the infrastructure needed to sell it, and then build the infrastructure.

Even if the planning permission process isn't delayed for the further wells and infrastructure it's going to be years and a lot of expenditure to get to the point of selling gas.

Nomlungu,

Not sure why you posted that extract but the whole sentence was referring to the fact that UKOG had a Kimmeridge HH report (which they finally used the resources calculated in the 2019-2020 Annual Report, page 22) produced in June 2019 which despite it being within the period of reporting they didn't use in the 2018-2019 annual report, and instead quoted the billions of barrels of OIP in the Kimmeridge in the HH licences for the Kimmeridge - I suppose the question is why use OIP when they have Contingent resources?

Here's the whole paragraph to give some context - the previous paragraph set out the various plans for the Kimmeridge that weren't executed (the 'evidence').

'Of course UKOG want to keep the rampers fired up by planning a Kimmeridge appraisal, but the 'evidence' - including 1.6mmbbls of 2C resources - suggests there is a problem, we just don't know what it is because UKOG hasn't released the report or anything in it except the resources - surprising they weren't used in the annual report covering the period it was done in - UKOG preferring to use the billions of barrels of oil in place.'

I'm afraid pboo forgets that UKOG are very selective in the information they RNS about flow rates - surely the decline (and maybe the water ingeress) must have been signaled by the ewt - but they published initial, instantaneous, half hour and other misleading rates - and then went radio silent about what HH-1 was producing - only the OGA releases laying bare the reality.

Yet everything must be OK with the Kimmeridge because they published some good rates.

Pboo,

I'm happy to discuss with anyone (even those you mention) their posts when they post misleading information as if it's the truth - and then qualify it with 'as they see it' or a supposed 'fact' qualified with 'imo' - let's start with your post devoid of anything about the Kimmeridge:-

'your questions would be more acceptable if you were a concerned shareholder'

I am a concerned shareholder - just willing to post about the company's shortcomings - and the 'question' was from your previous post which started:-

'HH Kimmeridge Production 04 Nov 2021 16:57
Ibug
You would make a great Fiction writer.
What problems did they find in the Kimmeridge?'

My answer to the question which you asked about problems with the Kimmeridge was surprisingly (looking at yours and ozzy's posts), about the Kimmeridge - not other posters which seems to be he sum total of any argument on this board - except imo - which trumps research of course.

As concerned shareholders everyone should be worried about the lack of any clarity from the company about what happened to all the plans:- this is what I posted:-

'Good point - is it a coincidence that they had an unreleased RPS (a step up from Xodus) report for the Kimmeridge in June 2019 (that they made no mention of until 2021) - then drop the plan to sidetrack HH-1, then decide not to core the Kimmeridge in HH-2, then not even dual complete HH-1.

Of course UKOG want to keep the rampers fired up by planning a Kimmeridge appraisal, but the 'evidence' - including 1.6mmbbls of 2C resources - suggests there is a problem, we just don't know what it is because UKOG hasn't released the report or anything in it except the resources - surprising they weren't used in the annual report covering the period it was done in - UKOG preferring to use the billions of barrels of oil in place.'

Then you say:-

'so much for free speech and opinion'

So free speech to you is allow someone to post 50 times a day - and no one is allowed to respond to posts where the justification is imo at the end and opinion is whiney stuff like 'you aren't a shareholder - which doesn't stop anyone posting on this board - but I am a shareholder and as I keep posting its a gamble - odds are against and I explain why

- and I haven't reported Adrian's visits to this board for ages as he at least has remained fairly civil if a little agitated - and I've never considered him a moron - just hasn't the knowledge, like so many on this board, about O&G E&P which is difficult and risky and not summed up by 'imo I think......'

Oh dear - I was wrong about Adrian, anger management required.

Ocelot,

It's all BS. It perhaps would be better if UKOG gave an update on where it is with the projects that it is involved in now rather than 'look over there - unicorns'.

Arreton - are they going to appeal?
HH - what is the current production. What are the possible outcomes to the water injection, and not only the best possible; why? When will HH-3 be drilled? Release the June 2019 RPS Kimmeridge report for an assessment of the Kimmeridge.
Loxley - what time frame to drilling assuming a positive result - maybe release the Xodus 'study'.
BB - current site retention permission ends March 2022 - are they intending to try and extend again or reinstate?
Turkey - is the seismic shot, processed, being interpreted? - any realistic timeframe for returrn to drilling. What about mentioning they didn't get the additional acreage? Realistic predictions of possible flow rates in production.

These are all things that should be communicated to investors before joining the greenwashing circus.

Pboo,

'What problems did they find in the Kimmeridge?'

Good point - is it a coincidence that they had an unreleased RPS (a step up from Xodus) report for the Kimmeridge in June 2019 (that they made no mention of until 2021) - then drop the plan to sidetrack HH-1, then decide not to core the Kimmeridge in HH-2, then not even dual complete HH-1.

Of course UKOG want to keep the rampers fired up by planning a Kimmeridge appraisal, but the 'evidence' - including 1.6mmbbls of 2C resources - suggests there is a problem, we just don't know what it is because UKOG hasn't released the report or anything in it except the resources - surprising they weren't used in the annual report covering the period it was done in - UKOG preferring to use the billions of barrels of oil in place.

Fruitextract,

They also weren't going to commingle production, it was a dual completion - and your post wasn't the reason why, it was your opinion as to why they aren't doing it now - which of course was 'made up' or maybe 'someone told you'.

If they had any ambitions to produce the Kimmeridge they would have found the cash to core it in HH-2.

BB - That quote is from 2018, 2018! They've done nothing there since then except kep the site. They've got the site until March 2022 - will they get another extension - they've had their throw of the dice so it couldn't be claimed the planning committee was stopping exploration - and they haven't the cash to drill even what they say they'll drillelsewhere - let's hope they've put some aside to restore the site.

Fruitextract,

The Portland started production with dry oil.

HH1AN2.

As UKOG's whole planning for Horse Hill revolves around Adrian they probably switched from the Kimmeridge because they hoped it would annoy him.

But seriously the only reason they would have switched was because the Kimmeridge was worse than even the dire Portland.

Fruitextract,

If the Portland and Kimmeridge could have started at 6-700bopd why didn't they dual completed HH-1 as they planned?

See my previous post re Kimmeridge 2C Resources (1.6mmbbls) - for some reason UKOG didn't publish any background material about these resources - being Contingent Resources they wouldn't be constrained by there just being one well to recover the resources, I wonder how many wells that required and what the risks are.

Cynderlad,

there is something they've kept very quiet about - this from the 2019-2020 Report and Accounts (though you'd have to search hard to find it):- '6. RPS Jun 2019'

and guess what '6' is - 'Horse-Hill Kimmeridge 6'

It's presumably a June 2019 report by RPS on the Kimmeridge at Horse Hill almost certainly utilising the ewt data with gross 2C resources of ........1.6mmbbls

I wonder why they didn't publicise this report and resources - sounds a bit different from the billions of barrels OIP they used to RNS.

As for Tony, pboo & HH1AN2 - it looks like they've kissed and made up and the troops are following orders from Adrian to post, post, post - regardless of content.

Mirasol,

Not sure what conversion factor you're using but I make the volume of oil 2849bbls (6.2898bbls per cubic metre x 453) and with 31 days in July thats just under 92bopd (June just under 95bopd, 8% drop since May's 100bopd) - water cut is slightly up although bopd is down. Gas (although the published figure is very imprecise) per bbl of oil has also dropped considerably (about 15%) since May.,

I use cubic metres because a barrel is a volumetric measurement - the number of bbls per tonne varies with the density (API) of the oil.

Sam,

'cleared that up'?

your doing the old trick of claiming you're right when you were wrong.

- you said 'Thats why XR are up in arms. They are arranging a huge rally at Horse Hill this Saturday'

That's not true is it, and I'm not sure, as you haven't provided a link, that this is true either: 'They are outraged that HorseHill is about to become the 2nd largest onshore site in Surrey.'

Frack free surrey on your twitter page say 'could soon' - a different statement, and not xr.

as for the rest of your post you're just making stuff up you hope will happen - with the big giveaway - all in your opinion.

UKOG expected that the water disposal will save the water disposal costs and maximise oil recovery - a long term aim, not the same as daily production. UKOG have made many claims over the years about HH - have any come true?

OK xr co-hosts with a lot of others including frack free Surrey.

But you said 'Thats why XR are up in arms. They are arranging a huge rally at Horse Hill this Saturday'

Not niggled - you'd be surprised how unmoved I am about claims I'm some sort of green, the delusion that to be a realist about UKOG projects you have to be one is pretty dumb when the SP over the last few years has dropped from over 10p to 0.125p - with the rampers constantly claiming the SP has bottomed out as it dropped.

It would be nice to see UKOG do something that actually improves production at HH, but UKOG haven't made any such claim about production so even if xr, frack free surrey, drill or drop etc do say it's about to become the second highest producer onshore UK it would be meaningless exaggeration (no surprise there) to drum up support.

Despite hoping UKOG will divert funds from Turkey eventually drilling Basur will recommence (why wouldn't AME insist as UKOG are paying 100%) and has to be paid for - although I doubt UKOG have enough cash to drill HH-3, nor time to actually do it before Basur-3 restarts - and HH-3 could easily end up intersecting water like HH-2z even though it won't be horizontal.

Sam,

you posted:-

'Thats why XR are up in arms. They are arranging a huge rally at Horse Hill this Saturday . They are outraged that HorseHill is about to become the 2nd largest onshore site in Surrey. Check it out on Twitter if you dont believe me.'

I did check it out, and it's frack free surrey arranging the rally and as far as I can see the only quote I could find is 'could' - not 'about to become'. If you don't understand the difference here's an example to help.

I bought a lottery ticket and I could be a winner or £22mm.

I bought a lottery ticket and I'm about to become a winner of £22mm.

If it's your opinion that's fine, but don't attribute it to others.

No Sam you said 'is about to become the 2nd largest onshore site in the UK'.

'Is about to' (how - 2 to 4 more risky 'appraisal' wells paid for with confetti, when - no one knows) is very different from 'could become'.

Sam,

I think the word was 'could' become - a bit like HH-2z could have produced 720 to 1080 bopd, I'm also not sure why they even say that - UKOG certainly hasn't.

Another question is what production does the current second largest onshore oil field produce - how high is that bar (about 350bopd) and how much more will UKOG have to spend to get to it - and what are the chances of success just to get that level - which was what UKOG said HH-1 would be producing anyway.

Stopstart,

'your "very informative" posts are always designed to discredit UKOG and any positive posters'

I'm interested - where have I discredited UKOG to the extent you have in just these two posts from a few days ago?

'StopStart
Posted in: UKOG Posts: 350
Price: 0.131 No Opinion
RE: Similar UK based fledgling oil companies 24 Oct 2021 15:26
It's obvious to me that SS had no intention of drilling to TD (total depth) in Turkey. When you look at this companies assets you realise they are ALL stuck in the mud and going nowhere for a very long time, if ever imo.'

or this just before that:-

'RE: Similar UK based fledgling oil companies24 Oct 2021 14:02
wizard123.
It doesnt matter what's down there. If you can't get the oilout at commercial rates it's a waste of space. The pressure in the well has dropped and the water ingress disposal costs are eating the oil sales profits at Horsehill . Yet the BOD continue to bleed the company of cash in huge salaries. Go on wild Turkey chases and tell porkies in an RNS they would buy shares in the company just to get a placing away.

it seems your 'argument' might be 'you're right but you're a swampy' so you're wrong - over and over again. Just posting rubbish endlessly doesn't mean you're right - it means you're getting agitated and desperate.

PS as I'm not a greeny. swampy, xr member, shorter, or any of the things I've had the joy of being accused of I'd point out that your attempts at goading are about as pointless as shouting at a ....erm.. .penguin you hate swampys - and but not even that funny.

Why not try putting what you think about UKOG projects other than the water injection (or do the above posts cover that?)