Member Info for Penguins

The fact that ocelot has not the slightest clue about BB or Loxley apart from what UKOG RNS means it's no surprise that ocelot is surprised UKOG didn't appeal the decision and now appear to have, or be in the process of, relinquishing the licence containing both BB and Loxley.

Maybe not doing anything at BB for 6 years and not getting a farminee for Loxley, that was supposedly the largest undeveloped gas accumulation onshore UK, was an indication of UKOG's deception, and that Star relinquished their portion of Loxley was yet another clue (and years ago relinquishing the licence just to the south of BB).

Filtering posters that research and explain is probably why ocelot is so often surprised by the outcomes of UKOG's projects.

Ocelot,

'concerning BB, I was surprised UKOG did not seek a further extension.'

Why?

Presumably because you believed UKOG's BS about the possibility of returning vs reading the testing report that essentially demonstrated that a significant part of RNS about the testing was misleading and there was hardly any oil produced to surface indicating the Kimmeridge was clearly not a viable reservoir.

As for HH UKOG need to resubmit a planning application - there are massive questions about the economic viability of spending any more money on trying to produce oil from the Portland.

I doubt production from HH-1 has recovered enough oil to cover the cost involved in drilling testing and developing that well let alone make a return expected on the outlay of the cash. A further consideration is that any new well to produce from a different part of the structure would require seismic but as that seismic would only help the structural interpretation the risk of intersecting or, as appears to be the case for HH-1, near a water producing fracture would mean substantial risk would need to be applied to any NPV calculation.

In short it would be unlikely more drilling could be justified - UKOG appear to be just stalling for time.

Don't forget the interims are also late (end June) - though they don't require audit and could feasibly be released the same day.

I guess you're keen to buy because the tale the results will tell that it looks like UKOG wanted to delay as long as possible releasing will be pretty dire and could crash the SP despite how low it is already. But just because they go down doesn't necessarily mean they'll go up later - with UKOG the next RNS is likely to be for a GM / AGM to authorise doubling the shares in issue and/or making the EBT up to 10% to ensure getting the proposal passed - and then followed by a massive CLN - UKOG's favourite way to destroy the SP - after all judging by posting history TH2 is a willing buyer as the SPcollapses.

With no launch of the first hydrocarbon storage round expected until 2026 UKOG will need to get at much cash as possible to last until 2026.

TH2,

Can't wait to see how you try and spin any reference (if there are any) to 'clean energy' or 'hydrogen' in the speech as being a direct reference to UKOG - though your previous links have tended to indicate the government is unlikely to support what UKOG are doing.

As for 'future assets' we've seen plenty of those disappear over the years as UKOG eventually admits failure of those potentially transformational and/or of national importance projects, and the accounts promised by UKOG by the end of July should clear out the rest.

Ocelot,

No financial debt, but some very expensive costs going forward to P&A Broadford Bridge and restore the site - maybe the tea farmers can be persuaded to take on the BB liability as it wouldn't require an exploration / production licence.

As for HH they might be able to avoid future costs if they can find a buyer who believes they can make enough to pay for the eventual abandonment of two wells - but have UKOG removed / sold the surface equipment making reinstating production more difficult / expensive.

Going forward, even if those costs are avoided, the problem UKOG has is whether they can realistically expect to obtain the required committment to fund their grand hydrogen storage ambitions.

It seems unlikely governement would choose a storage project on the south coast remote from any major industrial centre or planned and funded hydrogen production in the first round, and any diligent funder would surely realise this.

UKOG appeared to recognise the problem with the Portland Port location with their plan to obtain a site in E Yorkshire (and latterly swapping to a site a few miles inland west of Weymouth), but haven't mentioned that the site is secured since mentioning it in November 2024. Even if the site is leased there remains the issue of strong competition in the NE from Centrica's Rough storage and SSE and Equinor's Aldbrough gas storage site, then there's EPP in the NW who seem embedded in the NW cluster.

https://www.centrica.com/our-businesses/infrastructure/centrica-energy-storage-cesplus/

https://www.aldbroughhydrogen.com/

Not sure what you're posting about but perhaps you're pointing out that UKOG's comments about the Tellurian purchase of 35% of the HH licences for £12 million were complete BS. BTW this valued HH at £34million, production from HH was just under 120,000 bbls, with costs it's unlikely that was worth £4million - Tellurian had all the data and certainly spotted a good deal.....for them.

Stephen Sanderson, UKOG's Chief Executive, commented on 11/09/2019 on completion of the deal:-

"The completion of this transformational acquisition of a further 35% in our flagship asset means UKOG is now firmly in the driving seat at Horse Hill, holding a controlling 85.635% interest. Our operations team is now poised to commence simultaneous Horse Hill-2/2z Portland drilling and HH-1 Kimmeridge test operations before month's end. The remainder of the year at Horse Hill looks set to be highly eventful and, hopefully, financially transformative, as we drive to seek establishing permanent oil production by year end."

Never established continuous oil production by the end of 2019, and it was financially transformative - but not in the way Sanderson hoped. At least saying this - 'UKOG is now firmly in the driving seat' - it's clear where the blame lies.

As for this:-

'I understand that there fortunes changed shortly after the deal and they are now doing well.'

Now doing well??????!!!!! words fail me - unable to get their accounts done in the 3 months after they should have submitted them, sold their only current cashflow - and 'lost' almost all their 'assets', and possibly all their tangible assets.

As for 'I understand some of the problems are down to the UK government policy changes but to date the Uk has not reembursed or supported UKOG or its shareholders who were supporting the UK government policy in the first place.'

Why on earth should the UK government reimburse a company so dire at what they were supposed experts at, O&G E&P, that every O&G project was flawed to the extent that anyone that was able to research (and understand what they were researching) could better predict the outcome - failure - than the hopes expressed by UKOG time after time. Having said that I'd be shocked if what they really expected wasn't very different from what they RNS'd with qualifiers like 'potential'.....and to avoid the truth UKOG mislead, avoided RNSing bad news for s long as possible, if not forever, and over exaggerated any slighlyt positive outcome.

They've already ditched what was their flagship hydrogen storage site having spent 4 years and millions developing their plan, leased another site nearby and got a consultancy to provide a conceptual plan for storage there - seem to remember the last conceptual plan was for Kimmeridge oil production sites across the Weald - that never happened either.

TH2,

Perhaps for the masses waiting for your wisdom you could be a bit more precise.

What significant announcement you are expecting

What forward looking statement - not a going concern perhaps

What assets - how much and are they intangible assets as I'm not sure there's anything tangible left except a few bits of equipment.

Ibug,

I'd be surprised if UKOG on the 30th told the NSTA they were relinquishing the PEDL (a determination) at the end of the month.

I suspect there's a notice period required. Can't quickly find onshore but they equire one month offshore for 'newer' licences.

No time limit mentioned in this onshore guidance but - read the bit about P&A:-

'If the licensees request to relinquish the acreage on the licence, before agreeing to this the NSTA will verify that all wells within the licensed area have been plugged and abandoned.

There are two ways in which a licensee can give up acreage on a licence:

A ‘surrender’ of part of the licensed area while the licence continues over the remaining area

A ‘determination’ of the entire licence. The surrender of acreage from a licence does not remove any company from a licence, even a company that is left with no beneficial interest under a Joint Operator Agreement (JOA). The withdrawal of such a company must be implemented separately by an assignment

A Relinquishment Report is required for any significant area surrendered or determination of the entire licence (see further details on Relinquishment Report guidelines).

An operator may submit a licence relinquishment application at any time to surrender or determine acreage. Such applications are processed through the UK Energy Portal using the PEARS User Guidance. For further information please refer to Licence relinquishment guidance.

Not Star - Servatec definitely will need a o ce over

Calm down,

1. The sale is subject to NSTA agreeing it - 'Completion is subject to the normal sector regulatory consents.' So it's likely there will be a short delay at least- though it's unlikely Star won't qualify.

2. We have no idea when UKOG notified NSTA they were relinquishing the PEDL. It wouldn't be the day before, probably weeks before so the NSTA would be ready to scrub it whenever the relinquishment date happened.

Ocelot,

'Centrica have stated they are looking for a cap and floor framework.'

As that was the government's proposal in the HSBM (Hydrogen Storage Business Model) released in December 2023 they'll probably get it, but as they read the HSBM because they lobbied government (and published their letter) to include depleted field hydrogen storage (eg Rough) which was excluded in the original HSBM they knew that was the proposal anyway.

TH2,

Not sure they'd be publishing the accounts until next year if they were waiting for any government announcement about hydrogen storage, but I'll have a half dose of whatever it is you're taking. Even if hydrogen is mentioned (and if it is it will be linked by the greenies on here) it's more likely to be about production and demand and thus negative for UKOG's ambitions in Dorset.

As for accounts with assets - assets will be massively reduced with almost all the 'intangible' assets that should have been classed as non-assets finally gone with potentially zero assets apart from office furniture (if the HH kit has been sold) and dire warnings about going concern

No doubt ocelot will praise the company for clearing out what has obviously been dross for a long time, although many have claimed (including ocelot) these intangible assets would be the future of the company prior to the 'green' future now being peddled by UKOG.

'Wouldn't be surprised if Centrica has an eye on UKOG in some shape or form'

Why, what could UKOG contribute, no expertise, no exclusivity for their site/s.

If Centrica wanted to acquire a site for hydrogen storage they wouldn't want or need to saddle themselves with a tin pot company as a partner. They can just go and lease a site in the NE or NW where it's almost certain the winning storage sites for a revenue guarantee will be as they would be close to early 2030s production and demand.

Given Centrica's experience and expertise (and wallet) they would be able to get a site and and a detailed plan sorted without UKOG who need contractors to produce just an outline plan as they did in Dorset. But Centrica would be unlikely to want to be involved in a second site at this stage which would be effectively in competition with Rough storage.

As usual anything about hydrogen as if it's a positive for UKOG - it rarelt is.

Centrica lobbied government and got a change to allow depleted gas field storage to be considered for the allocation round. They will be a competitor to any E Yorkshire site (should UKOG secure a site) - where the Aldborough natural gas storage facility is operated by SSE/Equinor. SSE/Equinor intend to expand Aldborough to also include hydrogen storage - 'In July 2021, SSE Thermal and Equinor announced plans to develop one of the world’s largest hydrogen storage facilities at the Aldbrough site. The facility could be storing low-carbon hydrogen as early as 2028.'

As for Centrica:-

'Our long-term aim is to turn Rough into the world’s biggest methane and hydrogen storage facility - bolstering the UK’s energy security, providing flexibility for decarbonised power and creating 4,000 skilled jobs.'

Unlike UKOG these companies will have no problem funding and developing facilities, and will be strong candidates for an allocation of government revenue guarantees.

Last time ocelot mentioned the contents of the 21/02 RNS (on 24 March) my response was that the previous mention of funding was with a single potential funder:-

'advanced discussions with an energy infrastructure investor' in November 2024.

My opinion that seemingly signalling that these advanced discussions went nowhere and they were back to finding a suitor was in fact bad news - as they've been touting the deal to potential investors for at least 18 months who's left that hasn't already seen it?

TH2 misspelt directors.....

TH2

'timing wise it has to be soon...they need to get cracking'

Strange then that the government has stated that they will not be re-launching the first hydrogen storage allocation round before next year, this from the 'Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan':-

'New investment rounds: We will aim to launch the first transport and storage allocation rounds in 2026, and our new Hydrogen to Power business model will be launched in 2026.'

Nor the paper that will determine the basis on which allocations will be made.

...and as it's a competitive bid round they won't be making announcements about favouring any specific project - but the government has certainly shown, by where it has chosen to fund or allocate revenue guarantees, where in the country they favour hydrogen activities and it's not southern England.

Given previous timetables for determining the winners of the allocation rounds it could be nearer 2027 before the projects being allocated revenue supportare known - not funds to execute the projects, that has to raised elsewhere.

Meanwhile UKOG has sold its only current income stream, and apparently removed the production kit from HH - though it's debatable there was any profit from that operation.

Ocelot,

Unfortunately just repeating someone else who is saying the message from a report is "the need for more energy storage" does not, when you read the report, in fact support the idea that UKOG is aligned with government energy strategy unless they're planning to move into battery, hydro or air - if anything the report aligns with the idea that hydrogen is not the right pathway.

Here's what I posted about the NESO report in November 2024 in reply to ocelot then:-

'RE: 0.01's coming before Xmas 21 Nov 2024 19:55

Ocelot's trying very hard but obviously didn't read the National Energy System Operator's (NESO) 'Clean Power 2030' report that was mentioned and linked on 5 November by Ocelot and TH2 - or they've chosen not to mention what the grid operator has given as advice to Government.

The report had 70 references to storage - but only mentioned hydrogen storage once dismissing it thus:- 'However, large-scale hydrogen storage appears unlikely before 2030 and relative costs for hydrogen and gas with CCS are uncertain.'

Battery / batteries were mentioned 28 times - presumably seen as the near term option - with hydro and liquid air for longer term storage.'

https://www.neso.energy/document/346651/download

BTW - when anyone from government talks about 'clean power' they're most likely referring to electricity generated by wind or solar.

Ocelot,

PPP are aligned with what the government is backing not just linking every statement that mentions hydrogen, often demonstrating that UKOG is not aligned with what the government is backing. No mention since November of signing up the E Yorkshire site - which unfortunately would be in competition for revenue support with Centrica's Rough H2 storage and SSE & Equinor's already existing - but planned to be expanded salt cavity natural gas storage. From the placing RNS 'The Placing's proceeds will firstly be employed to enable the acquisition of the Company's first salt cavern hydrogen storage site in the East Yorkshire salt basin'

and btw - if this is true 'This should come as a surprise to nobody but will still make a poor impression.' why have you (and even TH2 yesterday) proclaimed how valuable the supposed 'assets' were when they clearly, and demonstrably - though you insist in filtering anyone that explains why so you don't have to justify your ramping - weren't. Even you, over the years, surely noticed that UKOG's 'opinion' about their projects was suspect.

I suppose saying something is worth a lot and knowing it isn't is OK? It certaily seems to be the rule many on this board have adopted - ramping any slightly positive RNS and then boasting about having profited from the ensuing spike.

Yes TH2 that's right, you do endlessly troll the board with mis-information - but how, considering you claim to have endless posters filtered, do you know what, apart from ocelot and trish, they're posting.

29 March 2025, after UKOG announced (unnecessarily) that they wouldn't publish accounts in time to avoid suspension:-

'Even the Loxley GAS field asset is worth far more than the company market trading value based on share price....even minus any liabilities any of the trolls on here make up!!!'

But almost any post can be an example of exaggeration about UKOG, or ridiculous claims about other posters.

Sometimes it takes less than a day to prove TH2's delusional posts wrong:-

'Think they'll keep Loxley in the portfolio since they've talked about producing H2 from it'

Although if there was anything there it would be natural gas.