Member Info for Penguins

Ocelot,

'The management of a quoted company has to be very prudent in what it says in public, if it doesn't want to encounter problems of a legal or regulatory nature.'

Interesting, but surely they could give some guidance about return on investments for each of about 25% of the mcap - they certainly didn't hold back when the numbers were 720 to 1080bopd for HH (times multiple wells) - was that in retrospect prudent. There haven't been any comebacks for the outrageously incorrect predictions - especially those given by SS in interviews rather than RNS where at least there are whispered caveats.

as regards the OP, which you like to point out when it rises - it has little current interest for UKOG - only yesterday you said about posters commenting on the SP 'Not sure people need posters to point out what they can see on any graph of the share price' - or if they're interested in the OP look it up.

There is an element of cooperation in OPEC at present, the 'covid' shock has encouraged unity. Maybe that will continue and the OP will continue to rise, although the current price will allow a lot of US shale production to be switched on. If the cooperation breaks down the OP can drop rapidly.

One thing is certain about the OP - that it's near on impossible to predict, and most predictions are wrong, either way, (as Harold Macmillan possibly said - 'events. dear boy, events') so what it will be if any of the projects are successful could be more or less than today's price, which is only relevant for today's production (except the price quoted is a 'future' anyway) - if in fact HH-1 is producing today.

Ozzy,

If you read back, or remember as you claimed to have been reading my posts for years, yes I have made unrealistic projections, almost always based on UKOG claims. Such as 1.5p per share or more based on SS claims about the Portland in his 2018 interview - yet was still called a deramper, swampy, non - shareholder, all of which were untrue, because I wouldn't take into account the Kimmeridge 'production' - still waiting for that - and the 362 bopd from HH-1 , and the 720 to 1080bopd from the horizontal and sixteen tankers a day.......

But of course I have also made some pretty good predictions of possible outcomes, not based on UKOG RNS - the stuff they would prefer you don't know.

Negativety relative to UKOG claims of outcomes is actually much nearer what happens, though still seems to be better than the actual results.

UKOG has declined to make projections of production for Loxley, Arreton and Turkey preferring to keep to OIP and GIIP and finger in the air recoveries despite having data at hand to do so.

Ocelot,

Yes, but it would be helpful if UKOG would go beyond GIIP based on a dodgy map and 'green' sounding promises as there's the Godley Bridge -1 well data (as short term as it might be) to help them in calculating possible flow rates etc.. of course they need to prove their map is right and the accumulation extends into their acreage but it would be helpful in understanding what it is they are pursuing.

Ocelot,

Perhaps if they had said undeveloped since discovery in 1982 following unsuccessful appraisal wells , it might have better described the project.

There is every chance that another appraisal of the Godley Bridge gas discovery hasn't been tried since them1986 for a good reason. One being the difficulty in depth conversion - the first and nearby appraisal was expected to be up dip, it was dry, as was the sidetrack from it.

Xodus would only calculate the GIIP in a 'study', which the claim about the second largest undeveloped gas field must come from, but Xodus wouldn't calculate it in the 2018 CPR as they would not use UKOG's maps and closure because of 'issues' - which they list.

Still UKOG like 'shows' and short term tests - it allows them, and others, to make unrealistic projections based on them.

About a week ago ibug posted excerpts from gazetted information about the blocks applied for.

Firstly Perenco had been awarded the blocks in mid 2015 for 5 years. Either they lapsed or were relinquished before mid 2020.

But in 2020 Petrogas had applied for the blocks but withdrew the application on 24 November 2020, gazetted on 30 November 2020.

So was AME's application an overfile of the Petrogas application? An application when Petrogas dropped out, or was the Petrogas application an overfile of AME's.

Depending on which scenario is true irt would affect how long after the application the blocks might be awarded. In any case if it were 60 days it would be dependant on the government, not AME or UKOG

Ibug,

Many thanks for reporting this and many other non-UKOG sources you come across. I did try ploughing through the Turkish Gazettes, but may have been looking through the wrong ones as it mostly seemed to be about universities.

Pretty clear from the text they are leaving the plug.

'The injection area is located between the 4 ½ inches slotted liner (2990 ft MD) and the Thermatek plug encountered at 3964 ft MD.'

You beed to know where the slotted liner was placed relative to the 2,500ft of horizontal to work out how much was sealed off.

Mirasol,

I've looked for what UKOG have said about the interference test and (as usual) it's equivocal - if you have found a unequivocal statement that HH-1 and HH-2z are in separate compartments it would be in conflict with the responses.

The 28/1/20 RNS says '........have determined that both HH-1 and HH-2z can be produced from the Portland at the same time, without any detrimental effect to the reservoir's overall performance.'

Yes, there's a suggestion of separation, but the field's overall performance is a moveable feast and producing from the same contacted oil might reduce each wells EUR, but not the overall field recovery with more wells, and of course it's not happening anyway.

You might think I'm being picky but words in RNS are chosen carefully - it may be after the interference test they were still not sure - maybe more of a baffle? The fact that UKOG have said there are fractures responsible for the second bout of water ingress near the heel of HH-2z - which would be between the injection zone and HH-1 - may be more of an issue though.

Mirasol

The mapping is based on a few old, but usable lines. Instead of testing the map with an expensive well a single new seismic line through (or near) the HH site running south to north could solve the puzzle of faulting where the interpretation ignores the possibility of a further fault terrace on the line to the east of the site in figure 14. There is a risk that the proposed HH-3 location could in fact be in a downthrown fault terrace if the interpreted orientation and throw of the faults is wrong. In the text UKOG say the fault is very small between HH-2z and HH-1 so see no issue with injecting in HH-2z for HH-1 pressure support.

In the previous EA report UKOG reported from the 2016 test a minimum formation pressure in HH-1 of 844psi in the Portland and a bubble point of 705psi.

In this report the 2020 pressure was 600 to 630psi and a bubble point in 2018 of 515psi. They note that solution GOR was 120scf/stb, but producing currently at 180scf/stb

More worrying is the Kimmeridge formation with 2016 formation pressures between 1203 and 1306 psi, in 2020 502 to 619psi, no wonder they are not long term producing it from HH-1 and seeking an updip location in the hope, presumably, elevation will now help what was a regional, and not structurally controlled play.

Essentially they are no longer asking for EA approval for the tanker loading facility and the gas to wire generators. If needed the gas to wire will be the subject of a further application. Consequently the additional land required for these facilities is no longer shown as part of the application area.

Otherwise, as before, permission for a further 4 wells and ewt, but only details of HH-3 which is a slant Portland producer. Discussion of HH-2z injection, and the possibility of one of the other wells being used for injection.

The Geological section has not been significantly updated although the mapping has, with Collendean Farm in the same fault block as HH-1, thus removing the separate structural area associated previously with that well to the north. This may significantly reduce the 30mmbbls plus OIP in the combined structure calculated in 2018, but increase the OIP in the Horse Hill fault block.

The plans for HH-2z show the intended zone for injection.

I've not read through any of the detailed 'environmental' documents.

Gas production has also increased from just over 17 to nearly 20 cu m / cu m of oil, so there seems a delicate balancing act between oil, gas and water production. The tools at UKOGs disposal,are pump rate, choke setting and down time which UKOG are (presumably) trying to optimise in terms of maintaining reservoir pressure above bubble point across the month, so significantly increasing production is almost certainly not an option as gas rate would probably go through the roof which would be detrimental to oil production.

So in November UKOG were producing 85% of the time so 25.5 days.

3038 bbls produced is an average on production days of 119bopd (127bopd October) across the whole month of 30 days that's an average of 101bopd (47bopd October)

Water produced 188 cu metres. 28% water cut by volume, similar to September pre intervention, no water figures were released for October.

As for December according to UKOG they produced 7045bbls Oct to Dec.

With 1465bbls produced in October plus 3038bbls = 4503bbls leaving 2542bbls for December.

In December 50% of the time was producing from the figures given by UKOG = 15.5days = 164bopd, although the monthly average is 82bopd.

Assuming UKOG figures are correct it seems that shutting in for half the time increases daily production, but reduces overall production. If it drops water production more, which we won't know until April unless UKOG decide to release more data (unless it's positive they won't), it may be that by reducing the cost of waste water disposal the lower production is just as profitable - OP may also influence how much water they are prepared to dispose of.

ZYX,

Lenders don't just accept the word of the company or even their consultants. Given the issues would they lend £20mm against a field with a single production well and an apparently tricky reservoir, so even if the money were ring fenced for further wells at HH there is no guarantee of success or significantly better overall production. I think they would pass.

Even if the above passed muster if it were based on NPV is there any certainty that the P1 reserves would be sufficient?

In the 2018 CPR the the recoverable oil in the downside case for production from a single Portland well was less than 300,000bbls - this had a production profile better than the apparent HH-1 production (in year 2 an average of 170bopd).

Things may change with water injection but until that's trialed it's an unknown.

It would be great if those who were so positive about the company would give a fact based description of these numerous and sizeable assets that UKOG has yet to monetise.

First there is Horse Hill where UKOG has failed to commission a CPR that we have repeatedly been told will enable RBL rather than dilution, alhough planning to do so (twice).. Production expected of 362 bopd from the HH-1 Portland, and 2 to 3 times that from the horizontal. Neither has happened. They now propose 2 further wells at HH but with little cashflow to finance them, nor a full understanding of 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) and whilst still characteriseing the fracture system, which could d.rapidly deliver injected water back to the production well they also propose to convert HH-2z to inject produced water from HH-1.

Otherwise they have 3 appraisals of discoveries that have already been appraised - Loxleey, Arreton and Basur/ Resan. These are respectively: appraising the Godley Bridge gas discovery to the west of the site. Discovered in the 80's it has not been developed, the previous appraisaL wells were unsuccessful; appraising an oil show and small gas 'blow' in Arreton-2; appraising a well test in Turkey in the 60's that flowed oil at high rates but only for 6 hours, the government departmental report at the time cited water production as the reason for stopping the test.

So 5 wells planned, plus a major workover to HH-2z, cash perhaps to partially fund the initial work programme at Basur/Resan, little production at present and no mention by UKOG of anything but figures of OIP and recoverable resources, but not production rates that determines cashflow / payback (or next well funding).

Unlike wildcat drilling where it's reasonable to hope for a significant find based on knowledge, but also luck, these are appraisals where hydrocarbon shows are almost a certainty, but knowledge of the reservoirs in production is also known. Even HH has, despite initial flows, conformed to the norm of low flows and water production of wells,in the Weald.

UKOG don't say what results they expect from the proposed appraisals but I suspect it isn't what many hope.

Reflecting on the discussions about HH in 2018/ 2019 some posters were convinced the planning permission would be uprated as even the initial estimates from tanker movements of a maximum of 3,500bopd was less than their expectations as it did not match number of wells times expected flows from horizontals RNS'd by UKOG - somewhere between 4,320 and 6480 bopd (6 x 720 to 1080).

I wasn't going to reply as your posts are filled with stuff made up because you don't know me (or any other posters.....hmmm...perhaps.....nah) and make assumptions that are wrong - I've already answered the question I never answer - fairly often - indeed you had a go because I said (again) that I traded the spikes.

But I had a look at your snide posts you claim were justified because posters say nasty things about you were actually almost all butting in on discussions where you weren't mentioned - so not the victim you make out.

The post where you refer to me - 'Pingu must be bi polar (penguins)'.

Was on 21 December - I had never mentioned you at all previously, although you had already made several sniping / snide remarks about my posts, and continued to do so until I finally 'bit' on Xmas Eve. Your second post on LSE was this:

'10 Dec 2020 19:14
Been in ukog years,now taken up soothsaying as I've been reading penguin **** for years'

To save wasting more time responding here's what I posted previously

03 Jan 2021 19:28
I didn't realise that there was an obligation to respond to posts, even with specific questions. Lack of response is just that. In that case I chose not to respond to a poster who makes accusations about other posters and little else - as indeed even your most recent post does.

History repeats itself.

ozzy,

the lack of self awareness in that post - 'you have made a fair comment and recieved a snide reply....that is the mark of the person you are dealing with....a complete attention seeking fantacist.....read the history'

is astonishing.

'Cynders....I dont know what pantomime your in this year

Who's this new guy...ray chortle.....not another "joker"

Pingu must be bi polar (penguins)

Ignore fizzocks ...a total barmpot

Mirasol....with all your deramping you deserve to lose the lot

Tollesbury,,, don't worry mate its lockdown..I'm just amusing myself with a moron'

Ocelot,

UKOG in generating all those tax losses, goodwill 'assets, exploration and evaluation expenditure 'assets' have generated about £1.5mm of oil and gas properties (audited oil and gas reserves) and spent over £70mm.

Bad luck, or bad judgement?

Production planning before testing and knowing not just the prize, but if there is one, at both BB and HH.

They've not even bothered to get a CPR to move HH contingent resources into reserves - is it because CPRs have to be released? Ozzy seems to think that my criticisms of UKOG are unfounded, that my views are those of a swampy etc.

They're not - it's just too much belief in UKOG's claims and holding onto shares as they decimated in value has lost some investors a lot of money. Being aware of issues is not wanting the company to fail - but being aware it could and weigh up the risk, regardless of the OP.

Criticised for years for posting my opinion - I would stand by most of them, probably the ones where I accept UKOG estimates - perhaps not.

Bornagain,

UKOG have full permission for the development of HH with 6 production wells, associated equipment including tanks and tanker loading for up to about 3,500bopd export.

It's pretty obvious why that isn't happening. But UKOG are spending time (and money) getting permission to drill an appraisal well targeting the same reservoirs at Loxley, and paying 100% for 50% equity in an appraisal well in Turkey that may only have similar production to that managed by HH-1, if successfully brought to production.

As UKOG are considering further drilling at Horse Hill where they operate wouldn't it be better to execute that plan on a field with proved production and 86% ownership, even at the low rate seen, rather than getting 50% of what may be much the same production and the risk of failure.

There is cheaper drilling in Turkey (but they still want to drill Loxley and HH so it's not a real barrier) although apparent failure rates and shut in wells of what appear to be 50% at E Sadak may wipe out that advantage anyway.

They will also at some point have permission to drill Loxley - in the meantime more wells at HH could mean a better understanding of the reservoirs - which bizarrely was one of the reasons given for drilling Loxley.

over thenyears has consistently chosen to not give substantive details of the projects and activities that it is involved in, and seems to go into denial when they fail.

If UKOG ultimately fail it will be because UKOG has over promised, though with ignored caveats, and underperformed - though reading RNS without a calculator you wouldn't know it.

Posters pointing out the fragility of the promises or the failures won't have caused it.

Maybe Turkey will be different but UKOG need to say more than it has about the possibility of the projects, if successful, being worth 100s of millions when the field they suggest as being an analogue appears little better, and possibly worse, than HH might be if they got on and drilled the 6 wells originally planned.

Readers of this board are quite capable of determining which posts are grounded in fact, and which are based on hope, despite certain posters need to classify other posters.

Ozzy,

OK - just analysing data / information is 'biased science'. If you can't be bothered to investigate further than UKOG RNS and presentations then so be it - but if others wish to report information they've found then that's wrong? - caution with AIM oilers is a sensible attitude when they are being frugal with information. Thanks to Ibug the figures are no longer missing so you can see that in almost all the periods quoted monthly production declines until another well is brought on stream. I said E Sadak-1 was producing about 30bopd in 2015 :

Dogu Sadak Jun 894 bbls (30bopd) Jul 868 bbls (28bopd) Aug 894 bls (30bopd) Sep 4472 bbls when E Sadak-2 on stream (149bopd)

Production perks up with a full month of EV Sadak-2 production, but then declines rapidly:-
Oct 2015 15,016 bbls (484bopd) Nov 2015 11,852 bbls (395bopd) Dec 2015 9350 bls (302bopd) Jan 2016 7216 bbls (233 bopd) Feb 2016 6286 bbls (225bopd)

484bopd to 225bopd in 5 months - from 2 wells.

So UKOG just reporting an initial rate from E Sadak of 1300bopd that is clearly not representative of oil flows from the E Sadak field - though not mentioned by UKOG, is not biased in any way?

I think you need to understand who is 'twisting the data / biasing science.

As regards Wytch Farm (which SS has mentiond in dispatches) it has little in common with the Weald production - different Basin and different reservoir - whereas a lot of the fields in the Weald, producing from the Portland, have never had exceptional flows or reserves. Using Wytch Farm as an analogue is like UKOG quoting reserves for 4 of the nearby fields where the reservoir is the Garzan, not the Mardin (slide 10, Turkey Resan Licence Overview, July 2020).

You don't seem to understand the words of UKOG where they say 'Both the Basur-1 well test and East Sadak field performance give confidence in this respect.' UKOG believe the E Sadak field performance is relevant - as do I. It's the only information available about the performance of this reservoir - UKOG and investors use it to understand what could, and could not, be.

Ozzy,

Yet again a statement made with no justification.

'penguin...tries to blind you with biased science'

'biased science'? Could you give an example. Whenever I've requested an example from you to justify a sweeping statement like this before you fail to do so.

I'm intrigued as to where I have used 'biased science' or even what you mean by it in relation to my posts. Using production data from the analogue field that UKOG quote as being part of their justification for the project isn't bias - it's quoting data they choose not to.

Perhaps I do suffer from an expectation that when UKOG fail to mention something it means that it's bad news, but I don't think that's bias - it's a result of experience - and so far it's difficult to find an instance where that hasn't been true - and that's nothing to do with 'science', biased or otherwise. The fact I'm prepared to point these omissions out has meant that my posting appears negative - until - well perhaps you can work that out by looking at the SP.

Skwizz,

I rarely follow a tip off from strangers but I sometimes have a look and bought a few (too few!) RR with dividends hanging around in my ISA at around 92p. Now about 114p . Now I'll have to decide whether to stick or burn.

Ozzy,

The data I'm using is E Sadak field production data given at some of the scout meetings between 2015 and 2019 - so a lot more than UKOG have given which is inadequate, in fact non existent. UKOG stated that 'East Sadak field performance give confidence in this respect.' so it's strange that they don't publish any information about that production, not even what it was producing in 2020, and from how many wells.

Ocelot,

I didn't disagree - just pointing out that an economic case is not a guarantee of success and isn't necessarily a rigorous process.

Ozzy,

as Ocelot agreed with it can it really be a criticism rather than a statement of fact?

12:07:-

'Let the partnership find oil and produce it for longer than 6 hours at Basur before worrying about operating margins and payback time.
------------------
Agreed, Penguins, "let the partnership find oil and produce it ...", but let the prospective operating margin be a healthy one, too.'

and could you specify what figures you are referring to- 'stop posting figures that have nothing to do with the joint venture at all'. If you are referring to E Sadak production figures and well performance I'll remind you this is how UKOG refer to it - in the same RNS Ocelot keeps quoting from:-

Basur and Resan are also both geological look-alikes to AME's producing East Sadak field, discovered and put on production in 2014, some 20 km to the south east. East Sadak lies directly along the same folded elongated anticlinal (dome shaped) geological feature containing Basur and Resan and produces light 42° API oil from the Mardin limestones, with initial well rates of up to 1,300 bopd.

Based upon East Sadak field performance and geologically similar producing fracture-enhanced oil fields, including those in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, Xodus cite that, in the success case, the percentage of OIP that can reasonably be expected to be recovered to surface over field life will likely range between 10-20%.

......................Both the Basur-1 well test and East Sadak field performance give confidence in this respect.'

Yet they have never given any details of East Sadak well performance.

Ocelot,

Estimates of potential return are reliant on production estimates and COS. Production estimates and COS will have a large subjective element and in large companies these would all be subject to peer review.

In UKOG maybe it just needs to be available, have the potential for high initial flow rates to become irresistible (and not the Weald).