Member Info for Penguins

Troll,

Not sure how reliable this other place you frequent is:-

'TrollHunter2
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 1,383
Price: 0.21
No Opinion
Troll chat board busy today!
07 Sep 2020 09:00
I'll leave you to it.
I'm off to join actual investors elsewhere. Some useful new information developing :-)'

and

'TrollHunter2
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 1,383
Price: 0.215
No Opinion
RE: Oil price rising and aiming for $50 now
08 Jun 2020 12:16
Bit too troll heavy here this morning. I'll just say I'm happy to be on other streams and seeing very positive things.
Good luck investor.... ignore the swampy noise here. DYOR!'

.......and there's plenty more like that - like a broken record claiming there's'positive' news elsewhere (sshhh - twitter), or 'serious discussion', referred to in vague terms. Though those serious discussions don't seem to be very thorough.

'TrollHunter2
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 1,383
Price: 0.25
No Opinion
Troll board happy today
28 Apr 2020 10:51
Not even bothering to ready anything on here.... just feeding LSE ad revenue.
Have fun trolls.
Investor serious discussions going on elsewhere.
See ya.....
P.S. I happily grabbed a few more this morning to average along with the new II investors :-)'

Double fantasy - serious discussion and a 'top up' at 0.25p!! to go with all those other top ups....one day Rodders.......

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.

But can you quote me a post where I have assumed the lack of response means agreement with what I post, this seems to be something, like most of the content of your posts, you have just made up.

As you boast that 'I've been reading penguin **** for years' that should be easy but also you should be aware I am an investor having held shares in UKOG - in varying amounts since 2015 - even the post you seem so upset about has this, which certainly suggests this - 'But why shouldn't anyone who believes (and posts) that the spikes are unjustified trade on that basis'.

As for your 'rules' you didn't actually deny being a resurrected poster - 'Penguin, why should I have to be a resurrected poster' - but then I didn't actually accuse you of being a resurrected poster.

Ibroxonia,

I suppose that might be an excuse, but HH has permission from those pesky tree hugging councillors for a sidetrack from HH-1 (since 2017) and a further 4 production wells and an injector since 2019. Difficult to claim no further work at their flagship production site (or was that BB) because of lack of planning - lack of success maybe, but then the issue becomes why expect Loxley to be different with the same target reservoirs?

They've wasted a lot of cash which, unless they had suspicions there were issues with HH, should have been spent advancing HH development.

Ozzy,

I suspect, despite your posts you understand the difference between ramping (SP 'will' be multiples more of today's SP) deramping (the Sp 'will' be multiples less than today's SP), just criticising other posters (a hobby of some) - and actually reviewing the data and coming to a realistic conclusion - even using words like 'might',

Yes I've been negative based on the information available about Markwells Wood, Holmwood, HH, Loxley, BB and IOW and not only the SP but operational results have so far been in line with 'realism' - and the new focus on Turkey speaks volumes.

As for Turkey not enough information is available to decide, but the sparse information available does not suggest it's a guaranteed candidate for long term success for a variety of reasons. Oil shows probably, short term good flow rates maybe - it's a fractured carbonate.

I have no idea if you are a resurrected poster but frequently new arrivals post proclaiming how great the company will be because the price is at a new low - not because of any technical analysis.

But why shouldn't anyone who believes (and posts) that the spikes are unjustified trade on that basis - it's a more successful strategy (followed by Tymers who was constantly claiming to hold for an unrealistic SP, and then selling on a spike) than holding and constantly averaging down..

Mirasol,

UKOG have been rather coy about the Portland, and Xodus also used regional wells in the CPR rather than just the data from the 2016 flow test, which was admittedly only a few days.

But in 2016 UKOG stated the likelihood of the Portland being fractured based on the 100% dry oil produced.

(21/3/16 RNS) 'Nutech will now reinvestigate the presence of significant natural fracturing and oil in place figures for both the Portland and Kimmeridge units given that all flow periods produced 100% dry oil.'

UKOG have indicated there is compartmentalisation in the Portland - which which can be a result of fracturing (faulting). HH-2z produced water (twice) from fractures and the sudden increase of water in HH-1 ia a characteristic of water breakthrough from a fracture, not raising or 'coning' the OWC - and lowering the pump if that were the case would not be sensible (5/11/20 RNS) 'inserting a new production tubing string and thus enabling the downhole pump to be placed at a deeper level'

Neil Ritson of Solo talking about the HH testing said: "Now these are fractured reservoirs and they will have been offloading the oil from the fractures. What we are going back in this year to establish is if you leave them open for a period of time what is the sustainable rate, which you would expect to be down in the 100 to 200 barrels per day range if it's going to be commercial."

Whilst he was commenting on the Kimmeridge testing it might be what we are witnessing in the Portland.

if the monthly figures are in any way representative, and UKOG's few assertions about production are reliable (especially the over 300bopd up to end March), decline at that sort of rate is horrendous and probably means that production is dependent on oil in fractures not a porous and permeable reservoir with predictable water drive.

Probably explains why Xodus ducked any explanations in the 2018 CPR and went for a rule of thumb rather than based on the data to that point.

The question is how much of this was realised from the Portland ewt which ran for months? The FDP was only approved for HH-1 Portland, again I wonder what production levels were envisaged?

Gas production per volume of oil produced has increased by 33% from August. Perhaps the long pbu was to see if the reservoir pressure would recover - however that's only a temporary solution. Shutting in production for months to get what might be a short period of improved production after only 6 months of production a desperate measure.

Whether any of these conclusions are correct is impossible to know, but are nevertheless based on the meagre information that UKOG are prepared to tell, plus the information they are obliged to supply to the OGA.

I still believe the 5 November RNS was forced out by the Nomad, with UKOG only hinting at water, gas and decline issues, and releasing a broad figure for 6 months production, coupled with a number of days production because dividing the figure by 183 gave a worse result.

Yet posters still insist that HH is fine, and plans for further wells must be in progress - because UKOG have planning permission.

Loxley of course is targeting the same Portland reservoir so may encounter similar issues, and is a step out from a discovery already unsuccessfully appraised, IOW 2 wells already drilled in the same spot (both abandoned), and Basur / Resan has already had what appear to be 6 to maybe 8 wells drilled to date, mostly unsuccessful - and the recent AME presentation highlighted two dry wells recently drilled on the E Sadak field, only one being put into production following a sidetrack.

If these ventures fail, will it be bad luck or bad judgement?

Wizard,

You need to take into account that at the start of the period (beginning of April) HH-1 was producing over 300bopd, and UKOG made the claim that the new pump 'increased production' - though UKOG, for some reason, failed to mention either by how much, or from what production to what production. From the Interim Results RNS:-

'The Horse Hill-1 well (HH-1) continued producing at high rates of over 300 bopd almost continuously during the period. Post period a higher capacity and energy efficient linear rod pump was installed on HH-1, leading to increased production from the Portland interval.'

So the average almost certainly does not represent the production rate during September. Starting at over 300bopd, would in a constant decline with an average of 208bopd indicate a production level of around 100bopd at the end. Whether the well was flowing every day in September isn't known- but I seem to remember posts saying it was pumping almost continuously.

Not knowing the cost of water disposal means how impacted the 'robust' commerciality is by water production, and of course UKOGs 'robust' may mean enough to pay the salaries and keep going.

There are three current companies under the PW name, only 'holdings' with asset levels anything near what UKOG paid - though the equipment bought was surely not all the equipment across the group. It's possible PW rented equipment off another company and acted as a go between, or perhaps a private individual owned it though highly unlikely. Of course book value, which has to be written off over set periods, didn't represent a true valuation of the equipment.

At the time I suggested the price was inflated to cover share price risk as the agreement had no discount to a 5 day vwap if the debt was paid in shares.

Ibroxonia,

it will depend on it being successful and successful beyond the sort of success that seems to have occurred at HH.

But it's interesting TH2 should post this: 'the trolls on here know they are not duds and that UKOG now have a clear path to develop the SIX well site in 2021.'

I presume it's your hope that HH is not dud you are relying on rather than evidence - as there's far more evidence it is a dud than it isn't - for example HH-2z shut in because of water production and HH-1 having the same issue, and no word from UKOG as to the 'success' of the workover. As for the Kimmeridge perhaps the fact that UKOG didn't put a dual completion into HH-1 when there was the opportunity to do so is a fair indication that the Kimmeridge is also problematic. If your only reasoning is Sarah Finch's action rather than the actual activities on site that's a pretty poor argument.

FG

Sarah Finch started her action before HH-2z repair failed, and before HH-1 started producing water - also logic obviously didn't come into it.

Going back on an open window that saves pages is sometimes useful.

Here's the post you're referring to:-

'Felixcat

Posts: 1

Price: 0.1525

No Opinion

RE: Horse HillMon 21:58
I remember Sting winding us in his wife g had cancer. Who would put that on here?

Low low low. Imo.'

Wizard it was you that posted about FOTH's heart attack on this board, though some thought it was you because you just quoted his tweet (tweet on twitter).

'wizard125
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 3,351
Price: 1.15
No Opinion
FOTH 03 Nov 2019 20:37

"I will be out of action for a while. Heart attack last night. In hospital London for triple bypass. Gutted.
Atb UKOGERS
Adrian."
Wishing you well for a good recovery.
All looking good at HH take care'

Apart from that I doubt the news from HH will be good, if it was UKOG would have put it in an RNS ASAP.

kjk: you would hope so but UKOG has disappointed so often it's possible that even at this low SP it won't go lower.

Trollhunter2,

Merry Xmas to you,

Like a lot of the UK, Europe and sensible people of this world I'm spending Xmas Eve, Xmas Day etc with the same people I've spent most of the year with, a few minutes this morning won't be missed.

Ozzy,

at least on the 21st December I didn't post 20 times, mostly on a thread 'RNS out, good news' and not one comment about UKOG's 'business' oil and gas E&P in any of your posts on a board about a company you are so obviously super enthusiastic about (or is it trapped buying when others were selling like many unwilling lth?) - mostly about other posters.

My views remain not only consistent but also justified - as skwizz posted:-

'They remain the same regardless of whether I want the share to rise or fall.
Circumstances influence my views, not whether I can sucker someone else into losing for my benefit.'

anyway as it's the season of goodwill,

Merry Xmas Ozzy

may the SP rise so you may exit with dignity rather than recourse to endless trolling of other posters.

Troll,

oh (ho ho ho) the irony!

Ocelot,

Maybe my pain threshold is higher than most, or I'm prepared to accept the high level of risk which I appreciate from research and analysis rather than taking RNS as gospel - which I'm also willing to convey much to the annoyance of some posters so at least I'm not pretending I expect the SP to always rise.

Accidentally held when the 2016 first test results were RNS'd, sold on the Hoyer P&D (Xmas 2017), and during the BB ramp, but all those profits eventually gone in the hope that the Portland would underpin the SP at 1.5p plus when the SP was about that. Now I trade on the P&D when they happen - though not encouraged by my posting - quite the opposite.

At least we're on the same page regarding the OP.

Let's hope Turkey isn't a case of SS having a Turkish and it rescues all those underwater - though I suspect the lifeboat might not be that big.

As for Turkey watch for the P&Ds - believers take Tymers advice and beat the traders at their own game, though of course if everyone does it.............it doesn't work.

Merry Xmas,
and keep safe if you have the option to not

Crocqman asked for a short positive post from me - Crocqman's post now sadly gone, here's the start and finish though:-

'Congrats on this short and concise last post.'........'Maybe keep future posts this short too?
As its Christmas, perhaps you could even make a positive post today, you know, just for fun?'

Crocqman

The most optimistic thing I can think of is that the OP might rise.

Is that short and concise enough?

After that optimism depends on increases (HH-1 optimisation anyone) or success where only UKOG knows what that might mean and, in their words, 'if successful'.

It seems UKOG prefer optimistic guesses by pi rather than revealing what they know.

As for the current embargo on HH, I've seen all manner of optimistic 'explanations' over the years when UKOG go silent, none have proved correct, so far.

I still find it bizarre that BKP have a better idea as to what's currently happening at HH than investors.

'Believers' post optimisticallty in the hope the dream is alive, but the most optimistic posters are traders (aka lth) who appear in droves when a mildly positive RNS appears and then disappear just as fast - I suppose Tymers at least is honest in dishonesty.

Hollybean,

'now its our turn to have our day'

Over the past two years, hundreds of days, certain posters have been promising ever lower higher SPs to come, UKOG and those encouraging buyers probably bear most of any blame for putting anyone through the mangle

If only those claiming constant rises in the face of the SPs dire performance would eat humble pie every time they were wrong - they would certainly be sick of it by now. I don't think I've ever seen an admission of being wrong - just a lower forecast of SP.

Troll,

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat a fairy tale it's still a fairy tale.

It's about time, instead of the only positive news being posts and tweets about how great everything will be, that UKOG issued a plan, with figures that reflected that optimism.

Wizard,

It isn't a net figure it's gross, 2C, for the Portland, and Arreton Main only, in the CPR as well. If you think they are only quoting the minimum net to UKOG then all the other figures should be the same otherwise it's even more misleading - they aren't. I won't waste space copying the relevant table but it's on page 56 of the CPR.

As you point out your figure is not correct and UKOG would have changed it to reflect the current equity - a gross figure in the CPR is still valid.

Troll,

I know it's Christmas, a time for fairy stories, but at least on this day calm it down a bit in memory of 23 December 2019 when all those predictions of thousands of barrels of oil coming from HH started to crumble with the news the new horizontal well was shut in because of water ingress.

Your 'guess' SS had Turkey in mind
Six wells to drill on HH - but no cash and probably no idea where to place them
Broadford Bridge spent about 6 months trying to get one layer to work, even drilled a sidetrack - yet might return after trying again at Loxley, but might not. What is it about HH that they won't try there to find a solution?

IOW, UKOG quoting a recoverable of some sort of 2.6mmbbls at Arreton in the latest Turkey presentation, hardly a massive oilfield.

as for Turkey they still need to drill the first well and test it for longer than a few hours before there's really a project. Of course there are those buying in the hope of a P&D on news of drilling starting.

But all of these do offer opportunities for the shrewd trader, just not LTH. But as long as UKOG remain silent about operations at HH, and clearly a fragile cash position there are also possible negatives on the near horizon as well as possible failure in all the other 'many projects' long term.

Wizard,

across the whole of the Weald - 1200 sq kms. In 2 other intervals (Oxford Clay & Lias) as well as the Kimmeridge and most of it 'locked in' and unproducible in shales and clays, but they don't mention that bit. Nutech made that calculation. Schlumberger (truly world class) did perform a study on Horse Hill only and was going to do a similar Weald study for UKOG but either it wasn't done, or it wasn't released.

I've asked Argus to give a link to the Schlumberger study for the whole Weald or any mention of it by UKOG rather than just the HH licenses when he previously claimed this - he was unable to do so - because it doesn't exist. He did refer to one of the Horse Hill reports by Schlumberger and repeatedly to the Nutech report - but no Weald report by Schlumberger.