Member Info for Penguins

Troll,

Can't wait to see what your cash flow forecast for Baasur-3 is - if successful - and what it's based on as UKOG have conveniently not mentioned any expectations of flow rates - it may be old news but the producing lookalike was only producing just over 400bopd average in September 2020, from up to 8 producing wells AME illustrated on a satellite image last November. They will need to save up their pennies to drill Resan-6 (6!) next year first, then, if they are awarded - UKOG's 60 days to hear something now over 160 days - all those new blocks will need cash spent on them. Not going to be much cash flowing to the UK methinks for a long time.

And although the cost of Basur-3 is capped at $5mm the list of exclusions means there's plenty of scope to spend a lot more even at 50% on Basur-3.

From the GM notice:- 'excluding coring, post well analyses, seismic processing and drill and seismic
related contingencies.'

and UKOG still hasn't corrected the link to the GM notice on the web site.

Ocelot,

So you posted it Saturday, a mention of it on Saturday, on this board this morning and also on the ANGS board this morning.

Several 'more than two but not many'. Close call.

Ocelot,

I know, you've posted that same statement several times in the last few days for no apparent reason. Any particular reason why it should be taken anymore likely rhan previos plans stated in RNS.

Ozzy,

To compare the company not doing things they 'plan' with the company not doing things posters claim the company will is ridiculous.

Old news is why UKOG is drilling in Turkey, and old news is why UKOG made the various decisions about the Kimmeridge - it isn't old news that decides these things it's past experience.

Ocelot,

UKOG over the years have said many things about the Kimmeridge that have not happened, I would go by actions not words from a company desperate to repair damage done in an interview and presentations where the Weald was foolishly unfavourably compared to the unproven Turkish adventure.

These include not deepening HH-2 as planned to gain additional information on the Kimmeridge by logging - even at that point they coring wasn't planned - at Broadford Bridge (BB) the whole of the Kimmeridge was cored.

Not drilling the planned sidetrack of HH-1 into the Kimmeridge as planned

Not dual completing HH-1 as a Kimmeridge and Portland producer.

Choosing the Portland over Kimmeridge for production from HH-1, latest figures (January 2021) are an average of 106 bopd being produced from the Portlaand.

The next well at HH is planned to be primarily a Portland appraisal well, though planned (see above for execution of 'plans') to be deepened through the Kimmeridge.

No mention, with about 9 months left before the current site planning permission expires, of follow up to BB-1 - a further well (or sidetrack) requires planning permission which has yet to be applied for.

Other operators elsewhere in the Weald have failed to flow any significant quantities of oil from the Kimmeridge at 3 sites where it is known to have been attempted in recent years, Balcombe, Brockham and Lidsey. Balcombe may be returned to for another attempt.

Ocelot,

As you say it was your, and managements, interpretation of the reasons for rejection.

It may also be the amount of authority and relentless placings over the years so significantly upping the requested authority may be a mistake.

We shall see how much appetite there is for more shares amongst pi. Stock market rules that an open offer can only discount 10% to the mid price at the time the open offer is made unless specifically approved by Shareholders.

The open offer must be open for a minimum of 10 days.

Ibug,

This is in the GM notice:-

'At the Company’s recent Annual General Meeting held on 12 May 2021, the resolution seeking
to dis-apply pre-emption rights was not passed and was therefore withdrawn by the directors.'

Of course the GM notice is linked on the website as the '2021 AGM', and somehow the actual 2021 AGM notice has disappeared.

Is there nothing UKOG can get right?

The date (21 May) gives it away as the GM notice.

Ocelot,

'Are you seriously suggesting they are seeking to raise about £16m at the present time?'

Th%'s up to UKOG and the SP but I'm not sure if you understand the use of the words 'up to' in the phrase 'up to 8 billion shares'.

What's you prediction as I have no idea what the SP might be after the GM, or even tomorrow, nor whether they might want to raise enough cash to proceed with more of the work programme in Turkey and the UK if Basur-3 is unsuccessful.

And yes it was voted down according to the GM notice so it wasn't a ploy, but why increase the authority by so much - would £200,000 + £200,000 authority be sufficient?- £300,000 + £300,000 would have guaranteed the same authority for placing as requested at the AGM.

It is UKOG's choice what they request but I don't see any reasoning why up to 3 billion shares was fine a short while ago and now they're asking for up to 4 billion to place, and 4 billion for shareholder participation.

Ocelot,

'How could the resolution be defeated when it was withdrawn?'

Seems it was defeated (not passed), then withdrawn:-

'At the Company’s recent Annual General Meeting held on 12 May 2021, the resolution seeking
to dis-apply pre-emption rights was not passed and was therefore withdrawn by the directors.'

Anyway, not long until Monday morning when shareholders can show their appreciation to SS for the eagerly awaited generous gift of up to 8 billion shares with the threat if you don't buy your allocation you'll run the risk of being left further underwater - or maybe not if it's seen as a lever against SS.

Could get very messy. I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few who have lost so much they'll risk the last few thousands their millions of shares are now worth just to get back at SS because of their perception he lied - he didn't, he just never mentioned the risks, just the possible rewards - unless you read the pages of disclaimers in presentatons but believed the posters saying it was standard wording and meant nothing.

Could be a lot of volatility with UKOG showing pictures of a site they can't put a drilling rig on to start drilling because they committed to expendiure they don't have the cash for. Then the build up to the GM - if the resolution gets passed potential placees waiting like vultures knowing UKOG will be desperate needing the cash quickly with a deadline of drill start before 27 June - not sure if the licensing authority in Turkey is as lenient on companies not fulfilling commitments on time as the OGA is.

If it doesn't get passed carnage.

Ocelot,

very funny.

I realise that precision in language is important and perhaps I should have said it 'would have been defeated if it hadn't been withdrawn'.

But your take was:-

'The simple fact is that resolution 6 (disapplication of pre-emption rights, necessary to make a placing) was withdrawn at the AGM, presumably because it failed to achieve the percentage of votes required to pass.'

Did anyone indicate (because obviously I wouldn't know the precise words)that resolution 6 failed to get the percentage of votes required to pass?

I get the feeling they didn't from you r refusal to even attempt to 'understand' that a reasonable conclusion from your statement 'failing to achieve the percentage of votes required to pass' is 'it was defeated' - certainly less wordy.

or is the insertion of the word 'presumably' because that's your opinion of why resolution 6 was withdrawn - and that's OK, but don't pretend it's the only possible interpretation. I disagree, and the massive increase in authority to issue shares via a GM suggests that alternatively that was the reason it was withdrawn.

Ocelot,

I would have expected considering that you've told us several times the resolution was defeated that the most interesting thing would have been someone saying that resolution 6 was withdrawn because it had been defeated, considering that's what you've been telling us happened?

I'll have a listen later - how far through the proceedings did someone say it?

As UKOG's mode of operation seems to be carry on regardless (Alba RNS about HH-2z:-Alba's technical team had flagged concerns from the outset as to the significant challenges that lay ahead in UKOG attempting to drill a horizontal well into this reservoir) I'm not surprised SS said they have categorically not written off the Kimmeridge.

the authorisation is for a value. The number of shares is determined by the nominal value which is 0.01p.

So they can issue up to 8 billion shares worth, nominally, £800,000 'wholesale' value out of the factory.

No one knows what the issue price will be (ie the 'retail price') it depends on eagerness for the shares and if there's a discount, and how much discount. Anyone aware of the total number that could be issued might be wary of subsequent issues if it's less than the whole amount.

Entirely predictable.

£800,000, forgive me for asking but where is your (or anybody's) post pointing out that the entirely predictable GM would request authority to issue 8 billion shares.

It probably was predictable that 3 billion wouldn't be enough but this amount seems to be making sure they have enough regardless of results and thus SP to plough on with their 'plans'.

Why does it have to be 4 billion shares? They only wanted authorisation for 3 billion a short while ago - obviously 1.5 billion + pi take up wouldn't be enough in your view, but you posted yesterday, before the RNS:-

'management is very conscious of the pressure that has been put on the share price by successive placings'

Perhaps you missed the 'but don't care' at the end of that sentence.

So why did it leap from 3 billion to 4 billion plus whatever the pi take up.

Maybe they did their sums between the AGM notice and the AGM and realised 3 billion wasn't enough as the lovely pictures didn't seem to be helping the SP, or they knew it wasn't enough but didn't dare ask for more. The pi element was at tnat point a cunning plan to get pi 'onside', allowing them to average down.

'The simple fact is that resolution 6 (disapplication of pre-emption rights, necessary to make a placing) was withdrawn at the AGM, presumably because it failed to achieve the percentage of votes required to pass.'

Fact is it was withdrawn, why - 'presumably' - did they not say. Maybe it was a ploy? Perhaps they wanted £800,000 (8 billion shares) but were well aware what the response might be - and members of the board were also up for re-election.

Anyway what margin, why couldn't they split £300,000 as easily as £800,000 between pi and placees? Or are they worried take up by pi might not be that strong and they are left with 'unsold' shares - but can't they be reallocated to placees (if they want them)?

Ocelot,

Any explanation why the AGM authorisation for issuing shares wasn't £800,000? Any reason you can see why £300,000 was OK a couple of months ago, but now it isn't enough. Are they hoping that holding a gun to the head of investors by offering 'cheap' shares that if they don't participate it will dilute them anyway and encourage a take up.

'The placing and open offer are the logical response to the withdrawal of resolution 6 at the AGM.

Since the AGM, the market has been in a position to predict the placing and open offer.'

I don't think you understand - if they had asked for £800,000 that would have been contentious, so they asked for £300,000 and withdrew it.

'If it was a ploy, then it was unsuccessful, the board members up for re-election were re-elected at the AGM.'

Ocelot,

There is no CPR with reserves to back Alba's valuation, or even UKOGs valuation of under £5mm.

Neither company has published any justification showing any calculation of these sums.

The subsurface map of the Portland at HH has changed completely, though based on exactly the same seismic data, because HH-2z proved the previous map incorrect. Rather than being updip of HH-1 and horizontal, as preciously mapped, it was downdip and possibly separated from HH-1 by a fault. Collendean Farm-1 is now shown in the same fault block as HH-1.

UKOG must have volumetrics based on this new map but keep them to themselves, using the 1C 0.6mmbbls from the pre ewt CPR.

In yesterday's RNS we learn:-

that some seismic was reprocessed for Basur-3, paid for by UKOG, perhaps the reason for delay.

that the next well, Resan-6 will be next year, not quite the near continuous plan of July last year 'in the success case, we plan to have a near continuous drilling programme'

That the expenditure on Basur-3 and seismic is not capped at $5mm, excluding 'coring, post well analyses, seismic processing and drill and seismic related contingencies' - at least UKOG will only pay 50%.

From 23/7/2020 RNS :- 'UKOG's net expenditure for the one well plus seismic programme is capped at USD$5 million maximum expenditure'

So why is £800,000 requested now, if it was needed why did they not increase the amount requested at the AGM.

Was the withdrawal a ploy to remove what is likely to be a contentious item from the meeting and result in votes against the re-election of board members.

Is the plan to raise a considerable amount of cash before the results of Basur-3, and even any disclosure about HH and timing of future Weald operations, to guarantee funds to proceed regardless of the outcome of Basur-3.

It certainly, like the GM last year, doesn't demonstrate that the BOD believes the SP will be much higher nor 'internal' funding of anything is happening in the medium term.

Although searching on Rodders74 returns no posts they are still (mostly) there. To read a few rodders74 posts before joining up, you need to go back between about 66,000 and 90,000 posts ago, easily done by editing the page address (at 100 posts per page currently between page 664 and 897), probably not so easily done on a phone.

This is one of the last before getting banned (no, I didn't report him), the SP was about 1.2p, 0.2% of the shares was maybe 10,000,000 shares, possibly bought at a higher price:-

'RE: Pingu v Rodders 12 Mar '19
Good.
For the record, I am a UKOG LTH'ers with ~0.2% holding of all shares.
I am a supporter of SS as CEO, and I have huge praise for the plans that they have shared for 2019 and 2020.
All need to remember that it is SS who is CEO, and not Penguins.
Penguins has never revealed his position, but he takes every opportunity to talk down the company and he twist the facts that the company provides by way of formal RNS. His agenda is clearly one of dislike.
I'm happy to respond to each and every post he/she makes, and I'll keep putting facts ahead of hearsay.
Simple'

The issue is probably less SS but not understanding that AIM RNS are little more than PR with only positives unless it's no longer possible to withhold bad news. If something isn't mentioned it isn't because it's good news. What rodders calls hearsay is the result of knowledge and research - it can also be wrong, but takes account of more than what the company chooses to tell.

Before anyone asks, no, I'm not joining the baying mob - and that isn't because I think he's so bad he'll destroy the company.

The only reason many have made money, or those underwater might get out with profit is because of the RNS, not necessarily the performance of UKOG, any new board would (should?) have the same approach.

Maybe Turkey will be good long term, that won't be known for some time (not soon, that's the P&D), but the best indication today of the likely long term outcome of Resan / Basur UKOG are silent about in RNS.

Several things wizard,

A lot has changed since the prediction of up to 45% recovery, and the development plan was formulated.

I don't believe that water production of 25% was expected just months after the start of production, and the HH-2z well wasn't planned as an injector, and according to Alba horizontals for Portland production shouldn't even have been tried. The up to 45% was based on 3 horizontal producers, 2 injectors and full voidage replacement (ie as much water pumped in as oil and water pumped out) - it also needs to work, by no means guaranteed.

Permission was in place early enough for the development plan to have been completed by now if UKOG had proceeded with it. The length of permission is a red herring, I think it's pretty clear the production levels envisaged will never be achieved, but even very low levels of production can be economic depending on oil price, and maybe production will limp on for 20 years and possibly even longer, as extension to the planning can always be asked for. Citing the length of planning permission as being anything but what UKOG asked for based on an over optimistic plan that isn't being executed made before the ewt had hardly began - that even partners didn't believe in.

Cynderlad,

they do - I should have checked, bit of time now, from annual reports and accounts:-

At 30 September 2020, the outstanding loan balances owed to HHDL's shareholders were; Alba £2.60 million (2019: £2.43m), Doriemus £0.59 million (2019: £0.55) and UK Oil & Gas Plc £16.60 million (2019: £11.67m).

So they're not reducing the balance as they go along, even accruing interest - but presumably HHDL are keeping track of what's owed to them. UKOG were still sending bags of cash to HHDL.

UKOG also say it's up to HHDL to determine when to pay them back - which isn't as I remember the agreement - but I'm not going to read it again - it might be that's the condition of allowing the freeloaders.

btw the 'rodders' post was from late 2019 after a SS interview with all sorts of claims.

Cynderlad,

Yes there are loans to HHDL shareholders.

When Alba stopped paying I looked it up and I'm pretty sure the loan part has a clause about when repayment could be requested - which is why I believe other clauses about non-payment of cashcalls weren't enacted as it looked like Alba could have requested repayment then. I suspect there are other agreements between the parties not in the public domain though. Are HHDL effectively 'drawing down' the loan, you would have to look at the accounts to see if the amount owed to Alba has reduced.

As for free ride (though it probably isn't) and how long, no idea, depends how much owed and what HHDL do about it. Certainly better to write off the loan, if that's what's happening, than wait for enough profits from HHDL to repay it.

Rodders74 from super ramper to:- I was deceived by SS!

Yes indeed, I tried, but he didn't listen.

Many exchanges here's an apposite one, if you don't read it all read the first paragraph:-

Rodders,

Everyone has the same opportunity as you to read the RNS and listen to interviews If the only conclusion that could be made from these facts is that UKOG was undervalued surely the SP should be higher. I know you want to blame everybody else, MMS, shorters, derampers (really - the volume of ramping on here has reached a new high) anything but a different point of view to yours.

I know SS said a lot of apparently positive things but what was missing was how the 'values' were arrived at. Some numbers were revenues, others were based on an NPV without mention of the discount rate (but based on $70 oil which won't be what Xodus will use) and others were unclear whether it was per well, several wells or per field.

But most of all will UKOG deliver. There seems to be a problem that deadlines are missed sometimes by years and expressed confidence in outcomes turns to silence, then bad news (BB).

Previous work by operators at Godley Bridge and Arreton places risk on their non Kimmeridge targets and they won't be tested until 2020, which looks like the earliest any further Kimmeridge sites will be tested by UKOG.

Hopefully upcoming CPRs will stop some of the bickering over value - certainly of HH, but the rest of the Weald is still a massive unknown with uncertainty over what exactly happened at Balcombe (big flow rates over very short periods) and BB supposedly messed up (though HH which wasn't targeted at the Kimmeridge flowed OK).

Brockham looks like it might be delayed a little (but perhaps not) and success there should help, but failure wouldnt be a great result for UKOG either for all those that seem to think UKOGs and Angs futures are not intertwined.

Tony,

At least I'm able to distinguish between what's written rather than what someone wants to be written. The fact Ocelot's interpretation required a rewrite surely shows that it isn't the interpretation of what was written.

It's in English and it says 'a review carried out by the company'.......'and the directors determined that the fair value'...........

Nothing about a third party.

I'm afraid not properly reading RNS and making assumptions that the words should be something other than those company put is probably why so many RNS have, over the years been described as 'good', when they have resulted in SP falls.

Unless elsewhere it said the valuation was based on a third party valuation I'm sticking with what it says, in plain English, with a full stop before àny mention of a third party valuation.