Member Info for Penguins

Phimx,

'I'm definitely no chemist'

nor me, but there's no free hydrogen in an oil reservoir (or if there happens to be some it would normally be insignificant) - the oil needs to be 'cracked' to 'free' the hydrogen.

To check I've just googled 'reservoir in situ combustion hydrogen' and this is a summary of a scholarly article:-

'In-situ production of hydrogen from hydrocarbon reservoirs presents an innovative and cost-effective solution to produce hydrogen from fossil fuel sources. It involves the injection of oxygen-enriched air into the reservoir to initiate combustion within the reservoir. As the temperature of the reservoir increases above 500 - 700oC, thermochemical reactions take place to produce hydrogen: aquathermolysis, thermal cracking, water-gas shift reaction, and coke gasification. In this study, the strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to this technology are discussed. The weaknesses identified presents important research direction for this technology'.

So in situ combustion, maybe the high oxygen content (pure oxygen in the method linked?) means a higher temperature combustion than is used in EOR implementations - the purpose of the membrane in the method adopted by the company is indeed to only allow hydrogen out.

Tony,

you linked the article about the company that is doing this - but I'm not sure you understood it.

the methodology where a special membrane is put down the well can be used in depleted oil reservoirs - oxygen is pumped down so I suspect it's some sort of burning in situ but they don't say - and it was 'green' hydrogen from oil, not gas.

The title gives it away:

'Transforming Oil Wells Into Carbon Free Hydrogen Sources'

Here's the link:-

https://blog.ballard.com/green-hydrogen-sources

II,

the only sad brainwashed are those that believe everything that UKOG put in RNS with caveats is going to happen.

so for you this is what UKOG put in an RNS:- 'the inspector's ruling is likely to be issued in autumn 2021.'

I'm surprised such an invested poster can't even remember something in such a recent RNS (4/3/21) which has been posted several times on this board.

But when Loxley will be drilled is anybody's guess, assuming UKOG win the appeal mine is late 2022 but whenever it is UKOG will almost certainly need to raise more cash before being able to drill it.

Hi Fractcake,

looks like you know a lot about water injection into a fractured reservoir - what's your opinion apart from 'Complete Hor****e imo'.

I'm always interested in discussing outcomes - so often over the years the only comments are trying to infer that I have a green agenda, or a shorter or similar nonsense when it's just the way I see it - and whilst by no means perfect my opinions haven't been too far wrong about the projects, if anything too positive!

It's long winded because it takes a few more words to justify an opinion, but then if you can't justify a view it only takes a few words, but lots of posts eh.

I can always repeat it Monday morning.

Ocelot,

this is a reservoir that is naturally fractured - the fluids pass along the fractures much faster than through the matrix. We know that near the heel there are fractures in HH-2z and it's reasonable to suppose that there is a fracture feeding the water into HH-1. How the system is plumbed is probably not well understood though there will be an assumption that the stress patterns will indicate the main orientation of the fractures. Water forced into the Portland will preferentially seek lower pressure and there's the problem - the lowest pressure will be HH-1 and a halo around it.

They will also be injecting into the sweet spot (the higher porosity/permeability zone they were so proud of keeping the well within) which may also act as a rapid conduit to HH-1.

Only following testing will UKOG know how well it will work - increasing oil production will certainly increase water production which is being controlled at the moment by shutting in the well allowing the reservoir pressure to recover, it could mean when they are producing the rate is 200bopd plus, with 100bwpd although continuous production without pressure support may see water production rapidly increasing with any increase in oil production.

The best outcome would be that the water injection helps with pressure support without recycling water back to HH-1 - but there will still be decline, and the decline seen prior to the start of water production appeared pretty high though the sample is effectively only April with an average of 244bopd vs UKOGs claimed over 300bopd at the start of production. So even if they return to 300bopd (with more than 50% water cut) that may rapidly drop off again.

One piece of luck was that thier map was so wrong that HH-2z which was meant to be up dip of HH-1 (and pretty much horizontal) has ended up being down dip of HH-1, and dipping down away from HH-1.

Certainly converting HH-2z to a water disposal well will save money but initially they will be testing and if there are issues with the testing the OGA may not allow it.

Assuming all is OK it will kick the ever promised CPR into the long grass (again). We may never find out what has really gone on at HH.

Scotty,
Nobody uses google rises and falls as it varies rapidly depending on whether a buy or sell is the last trade (15 minutes previously) on a low price high spread share like UKOG - just looked a couple of minutes ago now and it was -0.87% down because a trade at 0.1363p went through at 15:19:50 and it'll stay that way for a while as there haven't been any trades since.

But as a whizz bang trader you know all this - or are you - using google for prices 15 minutes delayed?

Your 5% depends on the last trade being over 0.144375p - we'll see. Maybe you could do a 1 share buy at 16:29 - the last buys were 0.142 & 0.143

Wizard,

This is what they put in the 12 November 2019 (a year after your diagram):-

'The good, clean horizontal trajectory, together with the continued indications of possible improved reservoir quality and significantly lower pressure-depletion than expected, led the Company to decide that there was little technical or economic benefit in pursuing drilling to the maximum planned c. 3,000 ft horizontal trajectory.'

Or about 150metres short.

But this is what they put in the YE 30/09/2020 annual review:- 'The horizontal drilling of the Portland HH-2z was completed in November 2019, with the length of the horizontal curtailed by the intersection with natural fractures in the reservoir and the onset of drilling mud losses at the toe of the well.'

Somewhat different explanation - it wouldn't have been such a surprise to find out they needed to block off the toe of the well on 23 December 2019 had they stated the real reason for stopping the well short in the November RNS.

Hardly surprising posters keep saying that UKOG withold bad news but instantly reveal,good news - even if it issn't the whole truth.

BTW This is from a post of mine 2 October 2019:-

'There could be issues - finding a water conduit, the well ending up in a less productive zone, or unexpected variation in the reservoir. But unless any of these are catastrophic the well should flow, either with or without esp help, the truly million dollar question is how well.'

Though at the time it looked like all the fractures were oil filled.

Wizard,

HH-2z drilling was stopped short when they encountered water filled fractures, however that wasn't the reason they gave at the time. They then isolated the far end of the horizontal section (the toe), but then water started entering the well near the heel hence the conversion planned to a water injection well. HH-1 did indeed start out testing 100% oil. For years I warned (and was mocked) that there was water present way before 2018 and thus likely to be produced at some point so I don't need reminding.

Very soon after commencing full production HH-1 started producing water at a high rate rather than a gradual increase suggesting some kind of breakthrough, probably from a nearby water filled fracture, so it would seem that it's not only whether the well intersects a water filled fracture but how close one is to the well - it would have been unlikely that HH-2z intersected the only one in the field (but of course that's something UKOG didn't mention in Decemner 2019) - and any future well/s will likely have similar problems.

As for future wells and producing from the Kimmeridge, we shall see. All 6 wells should have been drilled by now with permission granted in September 2019 - UKOG don't have the production (or funds) to drill one more. The water injection is not a guaranteed solution as the injected water may find its own conduit back to HH-1 rapidly massively increasing the water cut in this fractured reservoir.

Unfortunately 'finding water' in HH-2z won't help pressure support as the only injected water will be from HH-1 and will only be providing partial replacement of the volume extracted as the oil produced will be exported. Depending on the pressure of reinvention it may (as stated above) find a route back to HH-1 or possibly disappear into the water fracture system. Until it's tested I doubt UKOG know what will happen.

Wizard,

The naysayers (as you call them) have called the difficulties of the past years, not created them. Nor will they be responsible if the projects don't turn out to be transformational or as successful as UKOG hope.

Whereas the non- naysayers seem to have got it serially wrong about the projects.

But what is happening now?

Currently Basur-3 is suspended awaiting new seismic and a new interpretation and subsurface map - or possibly the first subsurface map.

The AME / UKOG partnership failed to be awarded the applied for licences, though UKOG have failed to inform the market of not getting these blocks despite in June claiming indications were positive in the recent Corporate Presentation.

HH - 1 is probably currently producing an average of about 100bopd and about 50bwpd - but we will have to wait 3 1/2 months for the OGA figures to find out as UKOG have never given flow rates since the early days of production but as they have said production is currently stabilised that's likely to be correct.

Loxley application is awaiting the (probably positive) appeal decision - expected by UKOG in the Autumn. Arreton UKOG submitted further documentation in July. HH-2z awaiting EA approval of conversion to water disposal well, which will then require testing and the next HH well was planned to be a Portland appraisal.

So lots of expense on projects with risk, which will almost certainly require further fundraising, but I don't think the pricing of options determines how successful the company will be in it's ventures.

Presumably just the original $1.5mm worth (plus processing and contingencies).

But how long has it been obvious they have no subsurface maps of any worth, although UKOG were prepared to cite figures given in a sales brochure of resources.

But the same could be said of Loxley, calculating resources of a claimed appraisal in a 'study' when almost every other applicant for the area in the 2008 licencing round (including Magellan who were awarded the acreage) would only identify leads - needing more seismic and a better understanding of statics for reprocessing and a better depth conversion before drilling anywhere. No seismic was shot and it seems none was reprocessed.

Unfortunately companies with little cash might see spending money on seismic which has every chance of destroying a map based on an optimistic interpretation and depth conversion, as a waste of money.

So why are you so desperate to get back on here with a new identity - I suppose twitter has you rumbled if you start ramping there:-

'#UKOG #AGM
BREAKING!!
Look to be in trouble after they withdraw placing item 6.
Can't even manage to get a death spiral pay day loan for Sando and his cronies.
An open offer will be coming but who is mug enough to participate in this lifestyle company?
Fool News.
3:56 PM · May 12, 2021·Twitter for Android

and hundreds of others.....

andy pandy,

No there's quite a bit right in that post, but then you know that, but I didn't need to put 'not because they want to' about the directors being forced to buy (if only to prop up the SP) as that's obvious, but obvious about UKOG is so often missed.

Perhaps this will help:-

Assuming the directors eventually do buy shares, only because they have to, not because they want to, it will be a meaningless gesture, they've taken hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the company between them and are being forced to collectively buy shares for maybe a few thousand pounds a month - who cares it's too little too late.

But this is so often posted, yet it rarely happens:-

'This should move up much higher on news.'

Tell that to anyone who bought before the last 'news' (sidetrack and delay) or even the 'news' before that (placing). But of course the 'good' news about drilling progress which might have encouraged buying was just before the placing.

What you mean is it should move up if UKOG manage to conjure up some encouraging news rather than what's happening, and don't follow it with a placing - virtually UKOG's MO.

Pboo - thanks, there's many things we disagree on - but this isn't one of them.

Scotty,

they can't buy tomorrow, though I suppose they could change the day as they haven't started.

The scheme has a specific day of purchase to avoid any accusation that they are not buying with any insider knowledge - and reading the RNS it looks like they choose a percentage of their net salary and stick with it.

Unfortunately failing to buy on the first Friday of July looks like they chose not to because they did have insider information.

Changing the purchase day would be 2 changes from the May RNS which would be difficult to explain - though UKOG don't go in for explanations of failures.

Assuming the directors eventually do buy shares, because they have to, the lack of haste hardly shows the sort of commitment that the board ought to show, having avoided buying so far (except the FD).

Surely it wasn't handyandy who was begging LSE last night on twitter to let him back in to post on UJO and UKOG.....because the post count goes up! - 19 so fa today on UJO and UKOG - they're mostly handyandy's.

that tweet is now deleted - 'This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more'

but we'll see about this bit - 'I'll behave. 10:30 PM · Aug 8, 2021·Twitter for Android'

Ibug,

I had read quite a few of the more modern reports and applications at the time of BB and had a quick relook yesterday through the more recent applications. The common theme in these was that there was a small closure to the East of Godley Bridge in what is now UKOG acreage. Most defined it as a lead as they were unsure as to the accuracy of their mapping (much like Xodus comments about UKOG mapping) and required more seismic and better control on statics before committing to drill. The one company applying in 2008 that had calculated recoverable resources had about 7BCF recoverable (about 9BCF in place) whereas the Xodus study on UKOG mapping had 34BCF mean recoverable in UKOG's licence.

My suspicion is that UKOG don't want to better define Loxley as it may disappear with further seismic or better controlled static corrections over a low relief closure.

Spending money on unglamorous seismic and upholes and then remapping with the risk of removing the largest undrilled onshore gas field wouldn't be the way UKOG do things until it's too late.

I notice that in the Horse Hill PEDLs extension RNS the seismic obligation has either been dropped or UKOG forgot to mention.

SS is a geologist, not an interpreter - is his view make sure the maps have large blobs for closures and spend other peoples money testing the accuracy of those maps, on AIM every well is going to be a success until it isn't.

Exploration,

GB-2 was sidetracked so even with the benefit of the time / depth from GB-2 Conoco still failed to be successful, .

TVDSS to Top Portland (from UKOGL) were:-

GB-1 2926ft (Discovery)
GB-2 2945ft (Dry)
GB-2z 2967ft (Dry)
Alfold-1 2922ft (Dry)

Which suggests a saddle between the GB wells and Alfold - which is not within the Godley Bridge closure, or any closure. Let's hope that Loxley isn't in the saddle between Godley Bridge and Alfold.

UKOG hasn't given any indication of the flows required for natural gas reformation (for hydrogen) or even for profitable gas to wire but GB-1 well tested gas with 5-30 ppm H2S at rates of 1.44 MMscf/d from the uppermost zone of the Portland Sandstone (from IGas CPR).

If there's no, or poor gas flows at Loxley, UKOG can be certain of oil shows through the Kimmeridge to keep the punters happy, and then take years to get round to testing it, and then not produce it.

Seadoc had some sort of matched bet but no one was ever able, when claiming shorting rather than spread betting UKOG was happening, to say who was accepting shorting, and seadoc kept complaining he couldn't increase his bet.

Ocelot,

I keep hearing that the SP doesn't take account of the potential, right back to the HH-1 ewt which should have enabled UKOG to make accurate assessments of 'potential but were exceptionally wrong.

Now with failed wells all around Loxley is the great hope.

Ocelot,

it all depends what you mean by negative and your assumption those posters are not invested, or perhaps gambling while studying 'form'..

So called negative posts have a habit of turning out to be overly positive with the passing of time, whereas the results rarely match the expectations of positive posters even when they regularly reduce them.

Investing with an understanding of the projects through research helps understand what rises are and aren't likely to stick, so far none.

Going short (although not possible) when the SP was 10p would have been a very lucrative decision, yet holding wasn't but I don't remember the positive posters suggesting selling then, more likely suggesting holding as the SP would soon be a pound, and continued to do so as it dropped and dropped (until the pound became 50p, 20p, 10p, 5p, 2p, 1p, 0.9p!, 0.5p and even 0.2p ) - probably while trading the highs and lows.

Kaisersuzae,

the summing up of their evidence by UKOG and SSC is scheduled for 13th August - UKOG say the decision should be announced in the Autumn.

4 March RNS:- 'Based upon the earlier than expected inquiry date and the inspectorate's average post-inquiry decision timescales, the inspector's ruling is likely to be issued in autumn 2021.'

Not sure that the directors buying because they are made to will make much difference, though not buying would be two fingers to pi, though getting close to double the shares they would have had they bought as expected in July

The amount is likely to be low, probably even cumulatively less than most who post, and considerably less than some who 'believed' the tales about BB & HH or continually top up or average down.

Turkey looking less promising before even reaching the first, but secondary, target and UKOG appearing to maintain their only releasing good news immediately record - still no mention of the failure to be awarded the applied for blocks

Loxley might be some time next year but will need a cash raise so HH-2z conversion might be the next real news although they are waiting for permissions. However it will require a visit with a coiled tubing unit or workover rig which won't be cheap and additional surface equipment hired or bought, followed by testing.