Member Info for Penguins

Occelot,

Obviously they want to show Turkey in the best possible light but they are comparing a whole lot of different resources and reserves. If they were about to move from Turkey to the Weald I suspect they would have compared OIP and recoverable resources - the sort of numbers UKOG used to like quoting for the Weald.

Can't wait for the oil pouring.

But wasn't Basur-3 originally going to be drilled late 2020 yet now they are still 'designing it:-'will now focus its efforts in the first half of 2021 towards the design and delivery of the Basur-3 appraisal well'

and while we get no details why or what they seem to be happy to mention HH but give nothing about the current status:- 'Along with further optimising Horse Hill'.

So the only 'new' news is jthe licence is now official (hadn't realised that it wasn't), Basur is further off than expected, possibly due in part to bureaucratic delays (!) and possible confirmation the workover at HH didn't optimise as much as hoped.

Tollesbury,

At least I'm thinking about what's going on. Speculation yes - but that speculation has served me much better than:-

1 just criticising other posters
2 claiming to have foresight as to what the SP will be

Perhaps you should try it?

Good question?

Like others I'm not buying the pbu for information line any more. From the outside, and silence from UKOG, it looks like UKOG are having difficulties with the well and perhaps trying different surface and pump set ups in the hope of finding something that works.

Prior to the workover it appears water cut was stable, gas was increasing, and oil was declining but UKOG appeared to be executing a plan that might have been made in April when there was dry oil, and gas in line with the published GOR.

Perhaps the deeper perforating and lowering the pump, surely an indication they didn't think 'coning' was a problem, had unintended consequences and they're figuring out a solution - or at least hoping one crops up without having to performm another workover.

ZYX

There's a lot unknown - and promises to update the market that never come, and not just following the workover.

About the OWC. When the HH-2 pilot was being cored they deepened it because a re - analysis of the HH-1 logs suggested a deeper OWC (full text in RNS 11/10/19). But apart from a 35ft interval (2086 to 2021ftMD; ca17 to 27% porosity from Nutech CPI in the CPR) the Portland is not a great reservoir (generally 5-10% porosity and less) - UKOG positioned the horizontal in this 'sweet spot' layer. Even in this layer there is a potential barrier - only about half above 15% porosity. UKOG has said the 'lions share' of production is from this composite layer.

A deeper OWC might still be within mapped closure in the Horse Hill fault block but cross fault seal to the Collendean Farm fault block would be required.- but where the water is coming from in HH-1 has never been stated - in fact UKOG have not directly said the well is producing water.

The sweet spot is about 25ft above the original (let alone deeper) OWC and 'coning' within the poorer 'reservoir' seems unlikely - so given this 'sweet spot' if it isn't from a fracture(s) then it's more likely to be drawn in edge water.

They have already performed interference testing between HH-1 and HH-2z but it was in January, UKOG didn't state there was separation - just producing both wouldn't be detrimental to ovarall field performance. (RNS 28/1/20

Querty,

I understand your sentiment and you're right it is mostly speculation and we should be being informed by UKOG - but.....

ART,

the OGA released production figures for HH-1 indicate that the Portland in HH-1 started producing water in June - about 25% water cut.

UKOG have never given a reason why they are not producing the Kimmeridge, they had the opportunity in October to dual complete, or even just produce from the Kimmeridge but only reperforated the Portland, changed the position of the downhole pump and revised the downhole production tubing.

The last mention of the Kimmeridge operationally was in April when dual completion of HH-1 was mentioned for the last time. In the application for Loxley they stated both Portland and Kimmeridge were sub-commercial due to pressure - what weight you give this........'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub-commercial which is why the ‘potential means of recovery’ needs to be tested at Loxley'........depends on what you want to believe, was it just BS to help the application (it didn't), they have previously in an RNS said the Portland was commercial.

They have a lot of ewt data from the Kimmeridge so they should understand it.

ZYX,

Another reason for having such a long term pbu, if that's what is still happening, is not principally for the information but to enable a better initial flow on resumption of production, though if 3 months shut in are required after about 5 months of production days that doesn't bode well.

Ozzy,

Needed to check it wasn't just a coincidence.

So now I can see the glory of your 262 posts in the last 30 days, which included Xmas & New Year, I've not trawled through them all but anything of substance? anything about UKOG?

But you do make things up, all the time, about other posters that you can't possibly know. But you have no opinion about issues with the company you are so heavily invested in in terms of time spent on this board, the cash amount is always relative, one investors £5,000 is anothers £50,000

Wizard,

Looking at the questions asked almost certainly not. Have a read, it's easy to find, here's some excerpts:-

'would be viable were it not for the pandemic
has been adversely impacted by the coronavirus

You’ll need to provide documents that show you can afford to repay the loan.

These may include:

management accounts
cash flow forecast
business plan
historic accounts
details of assets

You’ll need to tell the lender:

the amount you’d like to borrow
what the money is for
how long you’d like to pay it back

I think we would all be interested to see those forms filled out.

Here's 2 statements about Basur-1.

'Basur-1 discovery (1964) tested oil at 2,000 bopd over 6 hours from naturally fractured and dolomitized Cretaceous Mardin limestones. Well not put on pump to continue testing.'

'In addition, although 44 tons of 35 -API crude oil was obtained in the tests carried out in the Basur-1 well, the tests were terminated because of the salt water coming later.' :- Translated from the Turkish using google translate - Thanks to 'The Haister' on twitter for linking the document.

The first is from UKOG, the second from '1965 Petroleum Activity, Petroleum Office Publication No 10.'

Maybe HH is just rehearsal for dealing with water.

On the positive side only 20 days until we find out if they did flow HH-1 significantly after the workover in October should UKOG fail to update the market in the interim as to what the workover, performed 3 months ago, achieved (which of course they are under no obligation to divulge unless it's good or bad news depending on your persuasion).

Ibug,

b b b but SS has a fag packet and 'times'd' the 30mmbbls STOIIP by 30% (which wasn't as much as 45%), and 'times'd' it by another number he called NPV per barrel and it's worth lots - he said so in an interview.......

but seriously understanding what's gone into the calculation of Contingent Resources is important. As they only had the 2016 test data for the Portland - which at least was longer than the Kimmeridge testing - the modelling for the resources was fairly crude. They also dodged the question of water production. The most reliable figure is probably the STOIIP where parameters from HH-1 were used, coupled with GRV from UKOG mapping.

.............needs a new thread......

every now and then you worry about my qualifications and experience - as long as amateur pleases you - fine, the problem is what are yours to back up your certainty you are right and flooding the board with posts.

I see the frequency of 'green lines' increases when you're posting - new BFF now Troll and Tymers have moved on? though I suspect they'll be back for the next P&D.

What with you spamming the board with cut n paste, and the green lines you two obviously want to stifle actual discussion.

I'll leave you two to your delusions until you calm down.

Wizard.

stop assuming things about me (or other shareholders) or telling total lies, or BS:-

'you do not understand is that SS is a employee of the company not a employer.' :- not true

'shareholders do not understand that when they give there rights to the chairman at the AGM to vote on there behalf he will vote to support the BOD' - not true anyway - you direct the chairman which way to vote

'The key thing that I think you forget is the role & responsibility of the company secretary & non of these projects that SS leads on will go ahead without the finance being signed off by the financial director' - I'm pretty sure I have a better idea how companies work in reality rather than the high ideals of 'codes'.

'The funny thing is that no one can say that the forward planning has not been done by looking at the presentations that have been released.' :- I think the thing about 'forward planning' is it actually happening to schedule - if there's any chance it won't that should also be mentioned rather than never mentioned again.

'resourses/ reserves may be able to be released sooner than later but I think we will have to wait further news on that at a later date but I think you can put that in your diary' - any idea how soon is 'released sooner'?

'What you may learn in time is that SS received a bonus for the successful completion of the HH EWT & the 25 years of production & planning for 4 more wells at HH.' - the bonus should have been for executing the development. Giving it based on an ewt and a 'plan' is like giving a football manager a bonus for being in the top 3 the first week of the season.

'While everyone says SS has not bought any shares reported director shareholdings state the executive finance director Kiran has held shares since 2015.' - seems 'everyone' is correct then - and I suspect a lot of SH have more shares than KM

'From memory you told me that the presentation figures for the IOW was not in a RNS & was only posted on the UKOG website so could not be relied.' - from memory? you're wrong, and I gave a recent example (December 2020) of me quoting the resources for Arreton from an RNS.

As for Company Secretary it's an administrative position, in small companies often given to the missus so she can be paid to save a bit of tax . More a 'ticking boxes' role even in AIM companies.

Wizard,

There can be a separation between decision making and responsibility. But SS almost certainly leads decision making as CEO, especially on technical issues, and has responsibility for most of what UKOG does, in the Annual Report it claims for 'all components and departments of the business'.

Some O&G CEOs have a finance background and therefore need a technical team and 'team decisions' predominate, and 'prudence' a reality. Perhaps the fact SS is not from a finance background is why there has been little restraint on the spending. Failing companies often eject their technical CEO and replace them with one with a finance background.

This all started with your post 'As I have pointed out it seems finance, resource & communication is the responsibility of Kiran the executive finance director but delivered by Steven Sanderson.'

I disagree - do you think KM lead the strategy in the Weald, decided on acreage deals, well placements, discussed the technical reports with Xodus and then decided to go to Turkey, clearly SS is making those decisions and is responsible for them.

Read your posts - 'I think' is not a argument on its own - nor is 'I remember'. Examples, facts explanation. Posting reams of a Corporate Governance 'code' reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean when Barbossa says this about the 'Pirates code':- 'And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules'.

I suspect anyone who has actually been a director of a company, or near the board of an AIM company will know that the strategy is often one person's vision who effectively runs the company. KM might be the one raising cash, SS is certainly responsible for what it has been spent on, and communicating why.

As for Turkey that isn't the 'dream' that was sold by DL and then SS to investors for 4 to 5 years, although SH won't care if it comes off.

Wizard,

Arreton, who cares - neither will be 'right' - what will matter is if the well is successful.

The Chief Executive is Steven Sanderson. Why are you posting about the Chairman who is the Allen D Howard.

Wizard,

So you're saying SS hasn't any shares but that's OK because Morzaria has some - worth about £6,500. Phew, I was worried for a moment that the board weren't invested.

Btw on 4 Jan, from post of mine:- 'As for investors and your supposed 'facts' - no shares held by the BOD except Morzaria - '

and one thing I forgot to mention is your update from 2020 has the same number for Arreton as the 2018 RNS, and come from the 2018 CPR..

'Seems' , the part time FD is responsible for Finance, and from the last annual report and accounts 'The Chief Executive has the overall responsibility for creating, planning, implementing, and integrating the strategic direction of the Company. This includes responsibility for all components and departments of the business.'

I'll leave you to it, correcting your posts is getting boring, and you're slipping back into your role as chief apologist.

Wizaed,

stop making stuff up - this from my post 13/12/20 at 13:14, addressed to you:-

'Wizard,

about that slide with 2.6mmbbls in Arreton you linked.

Not quite what has been the selling point, from 20/9/18 RNS:-

'The Isle of Wight PEDL331 Arreton licence is, in the Company's view, one of UKOG's premier appraisal stage assets, which, as per the Company's 2018 Competent Person's Report ("CPR"), contains 14.9 million barrels ("mmbbl") of UKOG net P50 case recoverable Contingent Resources within the Arreton oil discovery, plus a further 10 mmbbl of net recoverable Prospective Resources in the geological look-alike Arreton South and North prospects......................'

So I'm well aware that UKOG have RNS'd the IOW numbers.

I certainly agree anything in a SS interview is not necessarily reliable - I've already given the example of 'multiples of today's value in 2 years' when the mcap was £68mm in a January 2019 interview - mcap now about £18mm.

Recoverable oil is described as Contingent Resources or Recoverable Resources because the data is insufficient to declare them as Reserves - and because those numbers are liabe to change - and any value ascribed to them is equally likely to change, often downwards.

Wizard,

An 'update' from 30 March 2020 - I suppose it's more recent than a lot of numbers you like to quote.

There's a more recent update in the Turkey New Licence Application presentation (10/12/20) - slide 2, Titled:- 'Resan licence, application blocks (blue), field sizes mmbbl'

As a comparison to illustrate how poor the UK is they've put:-

'Arreton (UK) 2.6 MMbbl'

Seem to have lost 12.3mmbbls in 9 months from Arreton, and it hasn't even been considered by the planning committee yet, let alone drilled.

...................and where's the application for 'the geological look alike Godshill exploration prospect' ('The Godshill planning application submission will follow') which is going to be drilled directly after Arreton 3.

So are they going to get Arreton passed then apply for Godshill and wait for planning for that before drilling Arreton-3 - and finding out if it proves encouraging? Kicked a long way into the long grass.

and no I'm not emailing UKOG or the nomad.

.........just 3 days ago you put this at the end of a post to me: 'you only seen [sic] to have copy & paste nothing in between!' (Saturday 01:07).

Assuming UKOG were right about the 60 days it suggests they're in the final stages - this was from the presentation about licensing after the AME presentation - CGEF Nov. 26, 2020 Webinar - Turkey - the mp4 is (was?) downloadable.

'Applicants can apply for open blocks in a grid system as a first applicant at any time.
Upon the first application, GDMPA will announce the specified sheet number of the applied block in the Official Gazette
Other applicants can apply for the same block within 90 days from the first application.
Exploration license evaluation and awarding process will be finalized within 60 days after the closing of application period (90 days) including Ministry approval. (Total 5 months).
GDMPA will notify the licence holder upon completion of awarding process'

Presumably they would have been told if there was a competing application at the end of the 90 days; if the final 60 days started between mid November and early December the application would have been mid August to early September.

Cem Sayer's language is a bit different though if he suggested the application was made mid November.

Wizard,

I've avoided listening to the interview, as I did then. This is the only post from about then from me:-

'SS 28 Jan 2019 22:18
I just looked in here and at FOTH twitter and saw this:-

'Towards the end of yesterday`s interview, SS stated that "in 2 years time the company will be worth many multiples of were it is now.'

I haven't listened to it but I also saw in FOTH''s feed a tweet from eyes on the prize that he also said a company was valued on its reserves.

Current reserves are under 100,000 barrels (2P 85,000 in Xodus CPR).

I'm sure someone will say multiples meant 100 times.......'

So how much reliance should you place on anything else in that interview. The SP was about 1.2p and shares in issue about 5.7billion so mcap about £68mm, currently about £18mm.

Admittedly there's a few days to go for the 2 years to be up but I don't suppose anyone thought it might be around 68 x 0.4, and as far as shareholders that day were concerned the SP being a bit above a tenth.

Looking at other posts around that time there was much rejoicing at his PR - unfortunately that's all it was, no substance, there must have been a suggestion there would be no more fund raising as well as all the PR about NPV per barrel and 30% recovery (in a very specific and limited way) of the OIP judging by the posts.

Not sure that covid/OP are the only factors holding UKOG back.

They seemed perfectly capable of bringing a workover rig onto the site to not dual complete HH-1, and there's been a bit of an issue with water production from HH-1 that they failed to mention although the OGA figures show it started in June so could have been mentioned in that RNS, like the same problem with HH-2z was, as a post period event.

But thanks for cutting and pasting that - Angus have said that RBL isn't available below £20mm (according to Ocelot), and if they were so keen on it and HH is so good why have they kept delaying commissioning a CPR, excuse after excuse.

Even if they could only register contingent resources a figure better than 1.5mmbbls for 2C gross contingent resources at HH would be a help to investors.

Wizard

If you're basing your view of HH, which you seem to be - even though you misquote and seem to not understand a lot of it - on anything said or written prior to 2020 good luck with that.

When UKOG get round to properly updating the market about HH based on the current situation with a forward plan then there might be something to base a valuation on, until then it's just guesswork for all the justification you try and give, for all any of us know HH-1 producing from the Portland might be it.

We shall see.