Member Info for Penguins

Wizard,

Yes UKOG is more than HH - but the conversation started by you at 13:44 was about HH.

When you post something supposedly factual (eg 'The CPR figures were worked out on a value of 11 - 14 million barrels recoverable') it would be useful if you would at least have a look yourself and check what you're intending to post is true, and maybe tell us where it's from. You'll note that's what I try and do (it's part of research). Otherwise there's a suspicion you're just making stuff up - and sometimes not just a suspicion.

Like family fortunes

YouSaid:
'As stated figures is from the HH1 verticle well only'

CPR says:- improved placement and they modeled short horizontals or slant wells, so not HH-1:-
'Xodus assumed that each well would be contacted to a STOIIP unit of approximately 10 MMbbl. Initial production rates were derived from the well test results, multiplied by a factor to take into account improved well placement, possible (short) horizontal or slanted well trajectories to increase contact surface, etc'

'You have not been able to put a figure on the value of HH have you.'
If you call putting a value on HH based on multiplying two numbers that aren't relevant then no, I haven't.

Nobody knows what the reserves are, nobody knows what the current NPV per barrel is and I'm afraid to say I can't really put any reliance on any numbers you conjure up for a variety of reasons so I'll wait for some information from UKOG that will enable an up to date determination of that.

$OP - Brilliant - if only we knew how much oil UKOG were producing, it will also be interesting what water disposal cost is added to the $13 OPEX.

Finally it's not an argument when what you post is a fantasy. I've given enough examples already.

Sting,

good evening - same to you?

I'll keep telling it as I see it, thanks - poorer maybe, but not trying to gain off untruths, funnily enough the market seems to be on the same page regarding news, but when something good turns up don't worry I'll say so, but of course I'll then be accused of having just bought in.

Wizard,

Pity that nobody cares what approximate figures someone with zero knowledge or experience of O&G E&P comes up with.

Demonstrated by the lack of understanding that there are no 1P figures for Horse Hill. The CPR has a 1C figure of 0.592mmbbls.

Wizard,

Keep the faith eh.

UKOG have permission for a lot of things at HH - it's just they might not ever use that permission.

The expense vs risk of failure of injecting into a fractured reservoir will determine whether that happens.

But on one hand you rubbish the CPR for being out of date, but you consider the plans made just after the CPR, with only the first 2018 Portland ewt and probably (hopefully) no inkling of the significant water issues, are set in stone and everything planned will happen - when UKOGs record on plans vs activity isn't particularly good anyway.

I suspect the plan has significantly changed - maybe UKOG will one day let the market know what it is.

Wizard,

'The CPR figures were worked out on a value of 11 - 14 million barrels recoverable'
'Your continued use of the 1.5 mmbo is a pre 2018 EWT that has not been updated in a CPR.'

So 1.5mmbbls is the only figure in a CPR? isn't that what I said? - 'The CPR only has 1.5mmbbls of Contingent Resources (P50 gross).'

So I wonder why 'This takes no account of the connected oil figures from the unreleased HH2 well statistics or undrilled 3rd Portland well figures.'

Could it be because those figures would have to include what appears to be a commerciality destroying water ingress, and a high risk for HH-3.

Sorry to break this to you but this is from the report UKOG quoted for their 'up to 45%':-

'Depletion drive Recovery Factors (without water injection) range from 8.6% using oil-wet relative permeability curves
to 10% using water-wet relative permeability curves.'

and here's the bit about water injection, funny SS didn't mention the 'down to' figure, nor the recovery without water injection:-

'Water injection to provide production support was also modelled using a single water injection well. The modelling
assumed full voidage replacement for the injector, however this has never been achieved onshore UK to our
knowledge. Voidage replacement theoretically increases recovery factor and range from 14.6% to 45% as highlighted
in Figure 15.'

This is a link to the EA Geological Description report, the above quotes are on page 15.

https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rh6-0hn-horse-hill-developments-ltd/supporting_documents/HHDL%20HH%20Geol%20%20Reservoir%20Parameters%20Final%20240919%20Rev1.pdf

Wizard,

The CPR only has 1.5mmbbls of Contingent Resources (P50 gross). Any of SS's valuations etc were not 'official'.

The OGA will have approved the transfer to UKOG of the Tellurian interest - comfort letter?

You still don't seem to understand that the 11-14mmbbls is connected oil, not recoverable - and isn't in any CPR. This from the 01/08/2019 RNS (after the CPR).

'Preliminary Company analysis of the final Portland pressure build-up test, indicates that the Portland connected oil volume accessed by HH-1 has significantly increased from 7-11 million bbl to 11-14 million bbl, a robustly commercial volume.'

What is connected oil? This is UKOG's explanation at the bottom of the 05/10/18 RNS:

'A volume of OIP that is demonstrated by reservoir pressure and flow data to be directly accessed and drained by a well during production. Only part (or a fraction) of the volume, known as the recoverable volume, will normally be recovered to surface during oil production. The percentage of the recoverable volume compared to the total connected OIP is known as the recovery factor for that well.'

If you have a look at the Geological Report prepared for the EA (mentioned in an earlier post of mine) you'll see without pressure support the recovery could be 8 to 10%.

Another thing you need to realise a valuation of the oil will be based on a conservative oil price forecast, and wouldn't have been based on the extreme lows seen during last year. I doubt the CPR hasn't been done because of the OP.

Morning Cynderlad,

If you're interested there's a Geological Report submitted by HHDL, can't give a link but googling

'EA Geological Report Horse Hill '- it comes up in the results.

In it theGOR (gas oil ratio) for Portland and Kimmeridge is given. The Kimmeridge has nearly twice the (in solution) gas per barrel of oil as the Portland so lack of flare is not likely to be an indication of Kimmeridge production.

The only way they can be producing oil and the flarre not being used is that they are using the gas in some other way - perhaps the heater is gas burning or they have site electric generation operational.

Whilst HH-2z is (was?) shut in and of course it is acting as a very long term pbu they also needed to decide what to do with the well. Maybe there will be an OP where water disposal costs make it possible to produce 'as is' rather than repurpose.

The gold standard information about HH ought to be an RNS from UKOG, but so far even BKP and the OGA have revealed more about what's going on at the site than the last HH operational RNS on 5 November.

There's lots of other interesting stuff - and a little more revealing about the Portland than perhaps UKOG have been in RNS.

Shouldhavedone,

The last TR1 for SCDM (0/10/17) was for less than 3% so there wouldn't be another TR1 if they sold more.

Solo have put in their 2019 report they have no UKOG shares left

Perhaps you should also consider that 3% is now about, 375,000,000 shares so if any of the company's mentioned in your list held the number of shares stated, and had previously issued a TR1 they should have issued a TR1 when their holding dropped below 3% when UKOG increased the shares in issue.

But it's pretty clear that TR1s isn't something companies worry about too much, has the regulator ever punished the company responsible, the shareholder, for not informing the share issuer?

So other than not seeing a TR1 what's the evidence any of the company's in Barclay's list hold the number of shares stated.

UKOG's list of significant shareholders updated on 16 December 2020 doesn't have Tellurian or Canaccord listed - who do you believe UKOG the share issuer, or Barclay's whose list is demonstrably flawed?

Crocqman,

Yes there is some speculation based on, for instance, share trades seen whilst SCDM were selling, and that Canaccord are smart, and Tellurian have a record of failing to notify their holding.

But perhaps you should have had a look at the evidence that Solo have definitely sold all their shares. So that entry is wrong - so much for the accuracy of the list.

As for Barclays - that's who made this list, they don't hold any UKOG shares, so yes the companies listed do know whether they hold any shares, and if they do how many - just that Barclay's don't because they are relying on an unreliable source - TR1.

There is one error - I listed Tellurian's shares value instead of Canaccord's which should have been £643,390.

Shouldhavedone,

Barclays seem to just collate TR1 - and if there isn't a 'sale' TR1 they assume the holding is still there.

I really can't see Cannacord still holding shares that had an original value of just over £919,000 (now £719,000) when there have been opportunities for them to double their money.

Pretty sure the SCDM shares were sold - and they missed the last TR1 on 20/10/17 - when SCDM had 90,204,179 shares left and went below 3%. There was a sale on 30 Oct of 12,954,179 - maybe a coincidence.

Same goes for the Standard Life shares.

and Solo oil has sold all the shares listed in the 08/10/18 TR1 (221,342,221) even though no TR1 showing further disposals, from Page 65 Scirocco (Solo) annual report:- 'At the end of 2018, 106,842,221 shares were held as a Level 1 quoted investment. Subsequently, the company received 17,989,326 shares on disposal of the UKOG PEDL 331 interest. All of these were sold during 2019 for a loss of £236k as seen in Note 10.'

Tellurian have form on not notifying their holding - have a look at the additonal information at the bottom of the 07/01/20 TR1 - exactly a year ago - and the 08/04/20 TR1.

So I wouldn't have any reliance on that list as to current major shareholdings in UKOG - it's pretty clear once a holding goes below 3% then Barclays don't know they've been sold. .

UKOG - Significant and Directors Shareholding as of 16/12/20

No listing for Canaccord, either as a holder or as nominee.

Tellurian held 6.1% on 8 April, but also no mention

Just a list of Nominee holdings.

Make of it what you will.

Ozzy,

Saw the green line and thought I'd have a peek, by the way your post tally yesterday was 30% of the total, quite an achievement.

Twisting facts?

Last night you claimed I was twisting facts when wizard claimed a figure of $4 saving per barrel I quoted for the saving in OPEX from the $1.65mm was wrong and wizard misquoted the interim RNS implying the saving from the equipment purchase was $11 (which was actually a total saving from all cost cuts).

But in the 28/04/20 RNS it was clear the $11 saving wizard quoted was made up of $7 of savings made previously ('a reduction of around $7/bbl from extended well test costs') plus the $4 saving from the equipment purchase.

Not sure that defending a correct statement is twisting facts in most peoples opinion.

But please carry on with your 'victim' narrative, having a go at other posters for quoting facts presumably you don't like (twisting?), and then when you get push back complaining.

Wizard,

As usual when you're found out you change the subject. But as you ask it depends if both sets of equipment are used. At the moment UKOG haven't even paid for them, with £550,000 to pay by mid January, and then another £550,000 in the next 6 months - almost certainly with shares which is zero cost to UKOG, but may impact on the SP. There's also a question whether the kit was worth that as PW total assets weren't that high.

But the quoted OPEX doesn't take into account water disposal costs which we don't know so the $4 saving per barrel in production may be relatively insignificant.

Of course when they aren't producing they don't have to pay rental - but they have a set of production kit they're not using - but not producing is a different problem.

Wizard,

In the 28/04 RNS they also mention that costs had already been reduced at that point by $7 ('a reduction of around $7/bbl from extended well test costs').

Now forgive me for being pedantic but $7 + $4 = $11

Wizard,

Perhaps your time would be better spent reading rather than 'lecturing' which then turns out to be misrepresenting what UKOG have actually said - the 'facts'.....did you miss this bit:- 'and other savings'.

'to date, via the £1.65 million purchase of rented surface production equipment and other savings, we have seen Horse Hill operating costs significantly reduced by $11 per barrel (bbl)'

RNS 28/04/20:- 'Outright purchase of key surface facilities (e.g. stock tanks, oil and gas separator, flow lines, choke manifolds, export pumps etc.) currently expected to further reduce opex by up to $4/bbl compared to current rental costs.'

...analogue field E Sadak suggests flow rates drop to fairly low levels. 4 further areas applied for chasing the same play

IOW - stll awaiting planning permission

BB - no planning permission for further drilling

A24 - relinquished

Markwells Wood - relinquished

Baxters Copse - relinquished

Should have been nearly 40 green stripes today, not 4.

Every now and then someone joins the board fairly quietly, posts on other boards a few times and then ramps up posting solely to disrupt and possibly goad posters into getting banned, not discuss UKOG - anyone seen a post with even a slight mention about UKOG rather than other posters or their posts.

Looks like wizard and insidious got to join the fun.

I rarely filter anyone but I now have, for today nearly 4 green stripes, and the others in my list are long gone. Here's a suggestion - filter and don't be tempted to have a look.... of course I do have a peek every now and then to see when they become full on crazies.

Here's my list:-

WhatnonewsyetRiggers777youneedhelpSpruceGoose2goldforefingerinvestors55olidav8savidanpoe353Ozzy52

As UKOG (oil production company) seems to have been forgotten here's a recap:-

The company claimed production of 362bopd was expected from HH-1 Portland. We know from the 5 November RNS HH-1 averaged 208 bopd on days of production over the six months prior to the workover. The workover was intended to optimise flow - yet UKOG instead of flowing the well chose to shut the well in for along term pbu, can't imagine what that will tell them that they don't know already about the reservoir from the months of ewt.

They bought £1.65mm of equipment to produce both wells to save $4 a barrel OPEX, since late July when the purchase was completed the wells have produced perhaps 12,000bbls (assuming about 2000bbls produced since the workover) saving $48,000, with a further payment of £550,000 due within the next 2 weeks.

It's claimed that the lack of progress at HH, CPR etc was due to the JR which was rejected last month, expecting big news soon then.

Early this year UKOG will initiate an appeal against the Loxley planning refusal - estimated 6 to 9 months to be determined, according to some the well will still be drilled H2 2021.

Turkey - the well was originally expected to be started in 2020 - no news yet but expected (weather etc permitting) early 2021. Very little information regarding flow rates though AME information about the

ART,

There's many possible reasons the minority partners exited, lack of funds and not prepared to dilute to get them, better opportunities elsewhere in their understanding of HH a couple. Unfortunately SS background in 'big oil' might not have helped where cash was more easily come by (same in UKOG some might say). The handling of BB was a clue, and the plan to build the development facilities at HH before the wells were drilled may have been too risky - and it was eventually changed after everyone had either exited or stopped paying their way.

A warning perhaps was that only UKOG were buying when HHDL partners, or the only other licence equity holder was selling.

Maybe they better understood the ewt, or SS was aware but carried on regardless, hoping that he would be lucky - certainly updating the 2018 CPR, which would have revealed a better understanding of HH, was kicked down the road a few times - which still could have been done pre FDP, just wouldn't have reserves, but if what SS was telling the world was true would have had far more than the gross 1.5mmbbls P50 gross Contingent Resources in the 2018 CPR which could have steadied nerves.

We shall never know, and without a CPR investors are likely to be fed only what UKOG want to.

Like SS, Investors hopes for recovery are now probably focused on Turkey not HH, where unfortunately the lack of openness, and 'plan' delay continues - but hey leopards do change their spots........don't they?

Troll,

Although I am invested (thanks for wishing us good luck - we'll need it) the board is not reserved for investors nor just for views you approve of - all (reasonably polite) views are acceptable. But it's not hate - it's realism - when posters point out the yawning chasm between what's been promised vs what's been delivered, the lack of information about the current situation at HH, and a lack of information about the proposed appraisals that would enable a judgement of risk vs reward.

Do you not find it strange that you are so often buying at a lower price than the previous low level you were buying at considering your predictions of SP?

Ibug,

I'm not sure initial refers to the cost of the inital (ie first) drill, rather than initial (ie set up) costs of the drill and seismic (which is scheduled for later in 2021) - which incidentally for the first well will be $3mm as UKOG are paying 100% ($1.5mm is 50%). Their total 'initial' commitment is up to $5mm including the siesmic, after that they revert to 50%.

UKOG have 'form' on borrowing money more than once for a stated purpose, but there is a possibility that UKOG has enough cash to fund the well - but that may take their cash down too low - and the £550,000 is going to become due soon - though I suspect PW would accept delayed payment from such a good customer, though the message that would send out would not be good.

The unknown is whether all the previous raisings for the workover etc haven't been spent on the workover and everything else while (apparently) HH hasn't been producing any significant volumes of oil for 3 months, which presumably UKOG didn't expect.

Adam,

I noticed that yesterday, a vast majority of trades less than £500 (ca 350,000 shares) - is it pi 'investing' in the hope of Turkey drill news first, or good news about HH, or selling in the fear of a fund raise or bad news from HH? But also the 10,000,000 seller/s (judging by the trade price relative to those around them) still in evidence.

Ozzy,

it's pretty clear which camp you fall into 'a fool speaks when he needs to say something....a wise man speaks when he has something to say.'

Making a statement where belief is a pre-requisite is certainly in the category of not saying anything, but in the eyes of believers always trumps facts.

Here's a tip, as you worry about poster's agendas and whether posters have shares or are 'investors' - this might surprise you - the company has an agenda, seeing through that is investing 101 on AIM. If the company is quoting very specific and limited data it's for a reason. Even silence is an agenda - leaving space for commentary by those who really do have an agenda.

As for investors and your supposed 'facts' - no shares held by the BOD except Morzaria - and tens of millions of options allowed to lapse even when re-priced lower. Perhaps you should go on UKOG's twitter and demand to know why SS failed to take up options when they were 'cheap' - even with that bonus - did he know something?

I do hold lots of shares - but being in love with UKOG is not a pre-requisite, understanding risk, O&G E&P, and pi behaviour is.