Member Info for Penguins

HH1AN2,

UKOG has permission to drill multiple wells at Horse Hill, all they are waiting for is revised permission to inject water into HH-2z which was drilled as a producer. If oil production was so desperately needed to help out the UK surely the patriotic thing to do is to drill those appraisal wells and not worry about the cost of water disposal - UKOG could just issue billions more shares to cover the well costs which I'm sure the shareholders would happily buy in the interest of the economy.

Or is it you're worried about the share price?

At the moment UKOG is waiting for EA approval, a body that currently might be busy dealing with water companies , nothing to do with 'swampys' anyway.

Arreton, Loxley are wells that weren't likely to be drilled until 2022 / 2023 and the delays are not caused by 'swampys' but nimby councillors.

The government won't step in because a lot of those nimbys are tory nimbys.

FOTH – it is FOTH.

Appears on LSE and then floods the boards with posts (over one an hour average since first post, and nearly 50% of today’s) – tick
Obsessed with the conversion of HH-2z, or at least a hope the EA permission will be accompanied by a spike – twitter – tick; LSE – tick
Doesn’t like the Resan/Basur project – twitter – tick; LSE – tick
Doesn’t like Sanderson - twitter– tick; LSE – tick
Ramps and deramps UKOG - twitter – tick; LSE – tick
At the moment deramps UJO - twitter – tick; LSE – tick
When on LSE ‘promotes’ Adrian’s twitter account – tick
Has a bit of a thing about my posts - twitter (often puts a penguin icon in a tweet) – tick; LSE (sometimes replies within minutes any time day or night – tick
Poor spelling - twitter – tick; LSE – tick

Exploration,

They're excerpts from stopstart posts. We shall never know but I don't think UKOG were running the show.

A few days ago - how it (stop)started:-
‘Sub 0.10 and I would be tempted to top up. But just a couple of K. This could go txts up .’

‘Seems like nothing is going to happen with UKOG until SS gets another placing away.’

‘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.’

Earlier today:- ‘I agree Ibug HH and Loxley soon.’ (please don’t read the previous excerpt)
and just now:- ‘I always said some of the raise would go on HH. It's obvious. Turkey will be held back until UK stuff is done. That's where the profit is . Dead cert imo and cheap’

As for genuine investor – does that mean short term trader hoping for a pump and dump?:-

‘Do people really just sit there and watch there money evaporate? I know I don't. Should have kept a stop loss imo.’

‘News creates volume to sell in to Justbe. News first. And that's when you make money imo.’

‘No I have made good money here. TS all about timing. Get in low and get out high ‘

‘SP will spike to .25 on a positive decision for Loxley/ Dunsfold easy imo. :)’

None of it sounds like a genuine investor just a wannabe pump and dumper - like those he criticizes on the UJO board.

Ocelot, what percentage of shareholders voted?

I'm not going to search through my posts to find them but here's one from just after testing started:-
RE: Loxley planning application25 Jul 2019 16:49
I'll leave you with this thought.

If UKOG is lumping together the Portland and Kimmeridge whilst I suspect that this doesn't mean the Portland is prospective everywhere - there's a lot of dry wells and the quality varies - it could mean that the Portland at Horse Hill could have a much greater OIP, and thus potential for greater reserves, with some form of stratigraphic trapping mechanism.'

I'm afraid that UKOG is like a football team where a draw is a positive result so can you give an example where UKOG have exceeded expectations - ie a proved positive outcome.

BTW don't expect any more instant replies- some of us have a life. If you want to flood the board with inconsequential comments - that's your game, not mine. If need be I'll reply later

I'm not going to argue about your opinion, but maximising recovery does not go hand in hand with increasing flow rates from a well.

But I don't assume the worst, all I do is outline possible alternative outcomes as UKOG doesn't 'do' downsides - the worst case in regard to using HH-2z would be that the reservoir was unsuitable for water disposal in HH-2z and productiin from HH-1 - perhaps because of the fracturing. It may be unlikely but it is a possible outcome - and so far UKOG's record on understanding the Portland has been pretty poor - or was it that they were aware but failed to also mention the downside?

That's great for positivity, but not for reality.

A recent example is Basur. They must have been fully aware of the number of wells that had to be sidetracked either because of hole problems or there being no oil at the target location, presumably because the mapping was poor. Any mention of this possibility that became reality?

Ozzy,

Wouldn't 'megalomaniac attention seeker' apply to someone contributing nearly 50% of the posts on this board today - and it isn't skwizz (7 out of 63).

Or 147 posts in 8 days.....it's pretty obvious who the attention seeker is (and you can take that either way).

'Ohpps Pengo forgot to mention he meant Spring 2021 . What a surprise.'

I've no idea where FOTH thinks I meant 'spring 2021'?

.......though 'UKOG said the consent process was underway and a decision was expected in spring 2021' is another illustration of yet another naive 'plan' by UKOG not understanding the permissions required or timescale)

'This from The green Bible Drill it Drop is helpful ;)

'It will also help to maximise oil recovery by supporting reservoir pressure, the company said.'

1) maximising oil recovery is not the same a maximising flow rate - in fact maximising recovery requires careful production - not opening the chokes so often quoted as what UKOG will do. by rampers.

2) pressure support is a hope, probably like 720 to 1080 bopd was - except the rampers missed the caveats

'Who to believe. Penguins who has spent 6 years bashing UKOG'

3) I haven't been bashing UKOG for 6 years - I've been taking what UKOG say for 6 years and giving a honest opinion of the likely outcome. Who's been right - of course I haven't been right all the time, often over optimistic vs the results but how often have UKOG been right in any forecast or plan?

4) it's certainly been more realistic than most of what you've posted and tweeted whichever way you've been swinging.

how some posters think that those telling it how it is, often contrary to the hopes and plans in UKOG's RNS, means they would do anything but sell on false spikes. That just leaves Wizard, and according to FOTH the other eyes clinging on to their shares through thin.

Whilst getting rid of the waste disposal costs should be possible I'd recommend reading what UKOG say (perhaps their best outcome) with regard to higher production from water disposeal:- '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'. ie nothing until 'Once the injector is in place, to boost production and net revenues, we plan two more production infill wells, one in each of the Portland and Kimmeridge oil pools'.

They mention 'boosting' production from further drilling but that will run the risk of 1) the structure not being as mapped, HH-2z was meant to be horizontal and shallower than HH-1, but was deeper and dipped down to the toe, probably because of poor seismic control, having not acquired the obligation 3D seismic, and 2) hitting even more water conduits in untested parts of the field - and of course these wells have to be paid for.

Wizard,

complete BS. If UKOG is doing nothing because of the vexatious legal challenge to PP then xr know exactly what to do when this one fails.....

In that case why did UKOG drill HH-2/2z and not (as planned) drill HH-1z immediately after?

No the reason why the Kimmeridge is't being produced - or only mentioned as an aside - is because the testing has proved something that we're not being told.

What that is might be who knows (UKOG & Xodus but we won't be told) is it 1) it only works in closure, hence the (hopefully) updip target of HH-4; 2) even then the flow rates have declined during testing dramatically with modest volumes of production; and 3) that water injection to help into the naturally fractured Kimmeridge won't work.

Why else was the ewt reporting so vague with initial rates, instantaneous rates, average rates, but no mention of final rates. Lots of rebuttals to my posts pointing out the incomplete data pi were being fed - and in production even less information. Were it not for the OGA we wouldn't necessarily know how rapidly production dropped off illustrating the vast differnce between the carefully selected information being RNS'd during the ewt and what the Portland was truly capable of.

Mirasol,

Think you'll find that Tranquillo's previous alias was tollesburystu.

Which confirms 'Hah! It won't be very interesting, I can assure you!'

Main interest dissing other posters who had realistic expectations but didn't venture into any ramping and there was a bit of confusion over share holding.

Wizard,

it was in response to your:-

'Xodus produced the figures for the CPR so they were independently assessed.'

Nothing to do with the planning - that's my post of 13:24

and please quote the post you claim I stated 'one of the biggest problems was decisions were made to quickly without full consideration.' as too often your memory is either wrong or the context is different - 'If I remember correctly was it not you who said that' - so probably not.

But as far as the delay from planned application in 'summer' 2018 to actually submittimg it in March 2020 - you'd think they could have got it right talking to the planners during those 18 months (on top of the 6+ months from the January RNS) without having to submit another 15 documents.

PS I presume you're not talking about UKOG 'It is not as if the haven't any cash in the bank!'

Ibug the fee is per sq km (year6 £100) and the area is about 200sq km I believe.

Looking at the licence docs they are meant to be shooting 20km of seismic and a well to either 3200m or 50m into the Aylesbeare Mudstone (Triassic) - whichever is the shallower. That's quite a bit more than even the base of the Kimmeridge (about 1200m in Arreton-2.

Wizard,

I think the paper trail shows that UKOG have been at least as 'tardy' with the IOW application as the council.

RNS - 23 March 2020:-
'Arreton oil discovery planning application submitted to Isle of Wight council'

Strategy & drilling plans January 2019
'An application to drill, core and test an A-3 pilot hole and horizontal wellbore is planned to be submitted to the Isle of Wight Council in the first quarter of 2019'

Interim results - 29 June 2018:-
'Arreton-3 appraisal and Arreton South exploration well sites chosen, lease negotiations are near finalisation, and a planning application is expected to be submitted this summer. Drilling is targeted for late 2019.'

RNS - 31 January 2018
'Arreton site selection and regulatory permitting activities are now underway to permit a planned appraisal drilling campaign in the first half of 2019.'

UKOG don't have the excuse of Covid during their preparation up to submission, and they submitted another 15 documents after the application was submitted including ones in July and September 2021.

Still at least the BoD were paid during the delays.

They also mention the sparse data coverage and the faults need to be sealing at Arreton for the full closure

But they're contingent resources so only need a lower level of 'proof'.

As for Loxley Xodus wouldn't even calculate gas in place in the CPR because of failings in the mapping.

UKOG have since produced a new map for Loxley, included in the appeal dataset, which Xodus (presumably) calculated contingent resources from in a 'study' - but UKOG only published the calculated results.

For Turkey UKOG have never published the subsurface mapping for Resan / Basur that lead to the OIP and estimates of recoverable oil.

HH also has new mapping following HH-2z, which proved the previous mapping wrong, but have failed to publish any resource calculations based on this mapping.

Arreton and Loxley and are tiny beer when it comes to the UK's energy needs and that's if they're successful to the extent that UKOG are guessing. Any suggestion they (and HH) will have any effect on global, European or even UK gas or oil prices is insane. Balance of payments a little help - but lost in zeros at the end of the enormous deficit this country runs.

Chances are the wells will just be a waste of money - and whilst Arreton could be produced at low levels (like HH) Loxley has to reach a (unknown) level of success to be economically developed as gas will require multiple wells and a great deal of infrastructure for export. Gas to wire being a poor option.

So all this wailing about unfair local decisions by nimby's worried about house prices so the whole system of local government needs overhaul (because UKOG was refused planning permission) - it's all really about UKOG's SP so equally about personal gain (quite rightly) - or really about hoped for P&Ds to sell out based on getting permissions to perform the drilling rather than the results.

The planning system has checks and balances - and nobody expects these decisions to be upheld on appeal - a delay in permission but it was always unlikely Loxley was going to be drilled before the end of 2021, and IOW the end of 2022 - UKOG aren't exactly Mr speedy when it comes to submitting and finalising applications anyway.

Maybe reflect on the difference between what UKOG said before and during testing of HH and BB and the comparative silence afterwards. The lack of information about what is (or isn't) happening in Turkey. The fact UKOG has spent tens of millions pounds - and by the time they've raised enough to drill Loxley and IOW almost certainly approaching 100million - dilutig the SP to so far produce about 100bopd.

Be honest it's a gamble - unfortunately UKOG's roulette wheel has more zeros than the national debt and it doesn't even need a spin of the wheel for the SP to fade whilst waiting for the cry of 'faites vos jeux' before the next RNS.

Vernonya,

Do you understand how shares work?

Egdon have considerably less shares and their share price translates to a mcap of about £9mm.

UKOG has billions of shares and a mcap of about £23mm.

whether or not the application is approved tomorrow it will eventually be approved, but there is no oil until the well is drilled and flows oil.

How likely is that?

This is from the Angus application (UKOG were a joint applicant) for the licence in 2014:-

'8.3 Arreton-2
Arreton-2 tested a low relief inversion related hanging wall anticline at Jurassic Kimmeridgian level, defined by a sparse grid of 2D seismic (Figure 5). The structure lies within the southern-most fault segment of the Purbeck-Isle of Wight Disturbance, up-dip and to the north and northeast of the Application Area.
The well tested an interpreted 20 feet of net pay, with porosities of 10-19% and low oil saturations of up to 30%, within the Portland Limestone at 2570-2636 feet, but it achieved no flow. Further shows and moderate quality reservoirs were proven in the Corallian Osmington Oolite, Great Oolite, Inferior Oolite, and Upper and Lower Liassic limestones.'

The main reason for application was the offshore 'M' prospect - the Arreton closure was tiny

The 2018 CPR utilises UKOG mapping - and Xodus suggest the depth conversion should include velocity information from Chessell-1 to the West. The Arreton Structure extends a long way west.

The main parameters used in the volumetric calculations in the 2018 CPR appear to be from a Nutech CPI, their only QC being that they fell in the range seen in the Wessex Basin - with very different pay and water saturations to those in the Angus application.

Given that the Nutech CPI seems to have been misleading for the Portland at HH there must be a possibility that they are over optimistic at Arreton.

Also from the CPR:

'Xodus agrees given the permeability profile and other available data it is a reasonable assumption that the entire Portland zone has contributed to flow, as in the model suggested by Nutech. However, there is no definitive evidence at this time and other scenarios may explain the lack of water production during the test which cannot be discounted at this time'

This contrasts with the later well drilling and testing where UKOG stated (RNS 22/10/19):-

'The significant oil saturations and high permeabilities observed in HH-2 core and logs, indicate that the "sweet spot" has likely contributed the lion's share of the 29,568 barrels of Brent quality oil produced to date from Portland extended well testing ("EWT") operations at HH-1.'

Ocelot,

UKOG expected the seismic acquisition to start in August, but perhaps they said that to offset the disappointment of stopping the Basur-3 drill, but no mention since. This was from AME in their annual report, dated September 1st:-

'A seismic program to fill-in the data gaps on the licence is also expected to be completed in 2021.'

Are AME interpreting it now ....you know this or just guessing?

Expectation is growing of decisions / permissions for things that don't have a decision date attached to them.

Wizard,

the injection ssuming it is approved - and I expect the OGA to allow UKOG to trial water injection because it's unlikely anyone knows what will happen. Despite months of testing and nearly a year of production UKOG in January were still trying to understand the reservoir:- 'Technical work is ongoing to further characterise the Portland reservoir's delivery mechanisms and, in particular, the prevalence and role of the natural fracturing within the Portland section.'

There are fractures, there is compartmentalisation and it's pretty obvious the reservoir pressure drops with relatively minor volumes of oil being produced - hence the intermittent flow periods.

The trial will establish what's allowed with regard to injection, clearly with HH it isn't as simple as 'If so the water sinks the pressure builds and the oil rises'

But quoting anything from prior to HH-2z to support an argument ignores the results of that well and the fact the current map is massively different - for instance Collendean Farm is no longer in a seperate fault block to Horse Hill-1.

The 45% recovery dates from prior to HH-2z and UKOG failed to mention that required something Xodus didn't believe had been achieved onshore UK - full voidage replacement - and they also failed to mention the downside in the same report was 8% recovery.

Sam,

'UKOG will be using a professional completions firm who will have done this sort of work a thousand times.' - if that's true that's the best news given UKOG's poor record with well decisions - but I suppose a professional completions firm wil expect payment.

But just a moment - sam knows the completion (surely not by watching from a footpath?) installed in HH-2z and its suitability for injection - so why do UKOG need a professional completions firm? Just attach the water pipe to the production tubing already there and away you go - apparently.