Member Info for Penguins

Cynderlad,

You are calculating on the basis of weight kg, rather than volume (bbls or cu m).

But I'd hardly rejoice in average production of about 130bopd during August. If September production was continuous for 28 days that will reduce to 100bopd.

Let's hope UKOG get round to an explanation before the September figures are released in January, in any case it will be interesting what optimising the flow from HH-1 has achieved in terms of predicted sustainable rates.

As for OPEX and 'profit' we shall see, depends on bopd and waste disposal. I wonder if the $13 includes a write down of some of the £1.65mm cost of the production kit.

The issue with water filled fractures is that as the well produces more oil will it effectively reach out and find more of them. HH-2z seems to have intersected 2 separate systems.

I was way out in my prediction. My excuse was I expected more in September.

Based on UKOG's 5 November figure of 28,060bbls produced in the 6 months to end September the OGA figures add up to 25,266bbls 5 months to end August. That leaves 2,794 bbls for September (444 cu metres).

In terms of percentage the water cut is marginally less 26.3% vs 26.7% in July.

The water cut going from practically nothing in April to about 9% in May, about 24% in June then two months practically the same is not a normal gradual increase in water. It is more likely some sort of breakthrough and given what we have been told about HH-2z a logical conclusion would be it's caused by a water filled fracture.

Unfortunately UKOG seem to remain resolute on not revealing details regarding HH-1 we have to go on the figures they have supplied to the OGA on what HH-1 has produced.

Wizard,

No.

Read the RNS - 'to power the site'. That's not going to suddenly make the Kimmeridge commercial.

I understand you're desperate to resurrect the Kimmeridge but UKOG have just recompleted HH-1 to produce only from the Portland. The Kimmeridge has been hardly mentioned since the Kimmeridge ewt was last stopped.

The provision for the site only suggests a fairly limited volume of gas expected. To generate more electricity would require connection to the grid.

There is a known gas saturation - there will be a given volume of gas for every barrel of oil produced at the surface. As UKOG have no facility to store the oil at pressure and thus keep the gas in solution the logical answer is that if there is any oil production there must be gas. For the Portland UKOG gave 140 scf/bbl in the EA geological report. The OGA reported volumes calculate between 103 and 177 scf/bbl. The 103 is anomalous for April - suspicious that the gas produced is exactly the same as March.

As this was in the 28 April RNS:- 'Installation of a gas to wire generator to power the site, saving around $1/bbl' perhaps that's what is happening to the gas? - though $1 per barrel probably doesn't offset the water disposal costs.

Troll,

No gas = no oil.

Either they are using the gas (maybe the heater's been converted to run on natural gas), venting it (significant amounts not allowed) or the flare is weak (I don't think it works on volumes that wouldn't give a significant haze).

HH1AN2 says it doesn't matter what the well was doing before the workover. It does if the improvement expected is 50% because 150% of 300bopd is a lot more than 150% of 100bopd.

Too often multiple tankers have been seen on a day (especially Monday) and immediately translated in to daily flow only for the next day to have no tankers.

Cynderlad,

I would be overjoyed if they (finally) gave some long term projections of production that are realistic (362 bopd estimated and never revised in 2018 being somewhat more then the 208bopd average seen April to September).

But thanks for reminding me to mention that short term initial rates mean very little in terms of sustainable rates.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said but the planning committee does not have to follow the recommendations of the planners. There is the availability of appeal if the applicant doesn't believe it was a fair decision and of course if the professional planners supported the application that appeal has much more chance of being upheld..

If all planning committees had to do was rubber stamp planners recommendations then there would be no need for the committee - like it or not the committee is there for precisely this purpose to put a local perspective to decisions.

SH in UKOG have a different perspective as may central government but this is a local committee sat on by people local people have voted for. The reasons for rejection may be weak and trumped up to mask nimbyism but some locals will be pleased their representatives rejected it, and to them being overruled by central government will not reflect badly on their representatives even if costs are requested and awarded. Others may disagree - the next election when the seats come up for grabs will see whether it was a good political move for them.

Cynderlad,

maybe they have a gas generator and are using it for site power?

The gas in the reservoir is in solution (like carbonated drinks) so any oil produced will also produce gas, free flow or not. Where that gas comes out of solution is determined by maintaining pressure above bubble point.

Unless they haven't done what they said they have done to HH-1 'the intervention's objective was to optimise oil flow by reperforating the full Portland oil producing section, inserting a new production tubing string and thus enabling the downhole pump to be placed at a deeper level.' Please don't try and suggest the deeper position of the pump is in the Kimmeridge - UKOG don't have an FDP approval for Kimmeridge production and under test would need full monitoring, not mixing with Portland.

Therefore UKOG can't currently have any access to the Kimmeridge as HH-2z wasn't deepened through the Kimmeridge.

The change in language about the workover is interesting - 'optimise' sounds like a lower level of improvement expected to the 'significant increase' (April 28) or 'materially increase' (4 June) mentioned previously - perhaps when little water production was in evidence.

The heater pre-heats the flow from the well which then goes on to the separator, though it running might indicate production.

UKOG had at least 2000bbls of storage (depends if the extra tanks are still there) or 9 tankers.

Wizard

What planning permission haven't they got? They haven't bothered to get planning permission for the seiamic obligation at HH, and they've had PP for the Kimmeridge sidetrack (HH-1z) since end 2017. They weren't intending to drill Loxley until H2 2021.

I don't blame UKOG for failures, that's mostly just bad luck. The problem is they know their audience and have played heavily to it in RNS failing to include importent information, just supposed highlights to feed to those that would repeat them. So most of the time I'm pointing out misconceptions of posters. They also don't like RNS ing bad news, an AIM trait, so often it has to be dug out of other information sources or deciphered from what they say, or rather what they are avoiding mentioning.

For instance did they ever confirmed that HH-1z wasn't going to be drilled immediately following HH-2z, yet it was in the original plan.

Oh Wizard,

you've just pointed out to Victoria that there's risk and some other BS - now you're telling me because they once said they had years to submit an FDP for the Kimmeridge they have to.

also UKOG had to assure the OGA they had planning permission for production for the FDP to be approved.

UKOG were meant to do all sorts of things (seismic, wells at HH) but the OGA is kind and lets companies off because the OGA also doesn't make a company spend money doing (seismic, appraisal wells) something the company can demonstrate isn't worth doing.

Anyway every time you run out of argument you changed the subject - you really like this Kimmeridge thing because it's still got time to happen though UKOG actions speak, in regard to the Kimmeridge, far louder than your words.

If they were going to produce a Kimmeridge FDP they've already got months of ewt data to do it with and they certainly need the production - that they haven't is also telling.

Can't drill - but they weren't going to until H2 2021 (earliest) - and you keep saying the appeal is nailed on so maybe a delay.

Wizard,

The UK won't have energy security if it continues to depend on O&G, the shortfall will be imports - and I'm afraid Loxley isn't going to close the gap.

BTW:- I seem to remember you constantly dissing Hurricane, a UK company producing oil West of Shetlands, and reveling in it's problems.

If Loxley's mid gross recoverable resources (40BCF) are there and if they can be produced at an economic rate then that would be equal to about 5 days UK average consumption in 2019 (about 8BCF per day).

Windmills - at least they work some days, there's also a good chance that there will be one more gas well and no gas..............HH seems to have one disused oil well - and then there's BB.

There's posters seemingly suggesting if Loxley isn't drilled it's a disaster for the UK - it isn't. But it is significant for UKOG so everyone is disappointed in the delay (if there is one) - it's just a hoped for boost to UKOGs SP, which is fine - but stop wrapping it up in some greater cause pretending it has any national importance.

Not sure what that rambling post about 6% meant but I think the answer is yes I don't think it was time limited or location specific - otherwise make sure you upset the locals that do support the drilling by reneging on the promise - incidentally I don't think UKOG are that petty.

Anyway this started because you posted that it could be taken out on appeal - but as it isn't in the planning it can't be, you're just changing the subject.

'If under national policy if it is not a policy to pay 6% of revinues in taxes & benefits to local causes anything which is not due could be taken out at appeal'

anyway where's your abusive mate gone - just to be clear I mean Sinbad.

Wizard,

please stop digging.

The comparison to national guidelines is what gets a positive result.

Have a read of the Wressle decision - it's attached to the Applicants (UKOG) Final Statement in the Loxley docs. on SCC. You'll find this after the inspector went through and confirmed that the application conformed to national guidelines.

Conditions
39. A set of planning conditions was agreed by the appellant and the Council in the SOCG39. I have made only minor changes in the interests of precision.

So conditions feature.

as for the 6% that isn't in the planning - it is a direct promise to the local community (less business rates) and I didn't see any 'conditions' attached to it.

As mentioned in the Annual Report and accounts to 30/9/2018:

'UKOG has also committed to set aside around 6% of gross revenues from its production for the community. This royalty would pay local business rate taxes, with the remainder going into a community fund for the benefit of those surrounding our sites. We believe it is right that communities benefit from our activities, however temporary.

Breaking a promise wouldn't be good.

PS Sinbad01?

Wizard,

doesn't sound like you're so certain about this 'voluntary conditions' business - to be honest it sounds like you're guessing / making it up. I don't see much advantage or disadvantage to UKOG regarding local suppliers.

I don't think that UKOG can change elements of the application in the appeal because that would mean the appeal was reviewing something different to what the committee was considering.

Sinbad,

Let's see what the decision notice says.

As I understand it the application as a whole was rejected. What were these 'voluntary conditions' which presumably were not part of the written application?

Wizard,

I agree that the council won't want to risk another farcical rerun.

But I don't agree that any 'voluntary' conditions will be lost. Anything 'offered' in the planning application or subsequently in writing will be part of the application. If it isn't in the application it isn't a condition, and the full planning application considered by the committee is what an appeal will consider.

and unfortunately the appeal decision also won't stop any committee rejecting any future applications - Egdon's successful appeal decision was attached (perhaps not the best idea) to UKOG's final statement.

Ibroxonia,

Depends - if you mean that in a virtual dictatorship citizens rights might be steamrollered - then maybe. Meanwhile the UK system which might be buraeucratic where there are at least some (but not complete) protections against government, businesses and individuals doing as the please without justification

Sting,

I'd be far more in favour if SS used his own money for this pig in a poke.

Double negative required :-

Loxley is obviously more challenging but there is no suggestion that eventually planning permission will not be granted.........

Ocelot,

''Rapid success case monetisation possible - months versus years in UK:'
E. Sadak was discovered and put into production in the same year, 2014, and has seen a total of 10 wells drilled to date.'

Getting planning permissiom in a densely populated country rather than a barren, mountainous barely populated part of Turkey is going to be different. I also suspect that the operations are less regulated, and the company allowed to produce not necessarily at a rate to maximise ultimate recovery.

But perhaps your second word 'success' is more the reason that HH has not been developed quickly.

2014 the well was drilled and the primary target was dry, 2015 reports were produced calculating vast quantities of Kimmeridge OIP and suggestions that significant volumes could be discovered.

Early 2016 UKOG ran 3 short tests, 18 months afte HH-1 was commenced, nearly a year after the Nutech report. October 2016 they submitted a planning application for 3 x 90 day tests, a new horizontal and a horizontal sidetrack. New documents were submitted for the application up to August 2017, and permission granted in October 2017. But they were busy 2017 and early 2018 concentrating on, and failing at BB.

July 2018 they commenced the ewt and in December 2018 submitted planning for 4 more wells plus an injector. The testing continued and in September 2019 planning granted, 2 documents were submitted in May and July.

End September 2019 HH-2/2z Portland horizontal was started (planning permission granted October 2017) , HH-1z into the Kimmeridge was already no longer mentioned and HH-2 not drilled through the Kimmeridge for information. The delay to HH-2/2z was almost certainly to do with partner issues(Tellurian) rather than planning which was granted October 2017.

So is planning difficult - yes, are there delays between submission and getting approval - yes but there are discussions ongoing and changes made that cause some delay.

Is planning the only reason for UKOG not having 6 horizontals within 6 years of drilling the well - no. The reasons are more likely obvious cooling regarding the Kimmeridge potential (4 of the 6 wells at HH), Portland issues (success), plus partner issues and the distraction of BB.

Loxley is obviously more challenging but there is no suggestion that eventually planning permission will be granted and UKOG's own schedule of H2 2021 probably achievable, which would in any case would be a surprise.

One more point. E Sadak is the only true local analogue to Basur / Resan (on trend, same reservoir). More details of what those 10 production wells are doing would be helpful in understanding what Basur might yield.

Sting,

I don't report posts about me- I prefer them to stay on the record. Racist, homophobic and misogynistic posts I will though.

You've claimed you're a business owner, support your staff, property worth millions, earned £300k last year, yet you wish ill to the business adjoining the Loxley site - and presumably their staff just because you might lose a few (well a lot of) grand gambling on a less than successful oil company that might have to wait a few extra months at worse for permission to drill.

I also feel sorry for anyone that needs the cash but are underwater, but posts about unrealistic expectations are mocked - and of course only posted by swampies etc.

You may have millions - but I'd rather have my tree (haha) and not need anger management.

btw talking about anger management - what are you ranting about - an incinerator??? I can't stand Hunt and don't even live in Surrey. You really need to get it into your head - I'm not, nor ever been, a nimby, swampy, teacher, lecturer, professor, Ruth, shorter, deramper, MM, or any of the things that you and other posters have imagined. Out of that list I do know a teacher - mea culpa.

what ridiculous claim will be made next about my posts, but apart from all the hand wringing about the planning meeting what else is there to discuss – plenty but the information is sparse.

If UKOG want to drill Loxley an appeal will enable it, and probably in H2 2021 if that's really the schedule. The system might be creaky but it will eventually spit out a fair result.

But It’s easy to fall back on the simplistic conspiracy theory stuff about swampies etc confounding UKOG’s progress, and of course it’s popular in the age of it’s always somebody else’s fault to find someone, anyone, to blame.

Yes I’ve posted for a long time that the flows that UKOG published weren’t representative of what was likely in production, that the calculations of value for HH were unrealistic, that the Kimmeridge wasn’t working (obviously these things haven't actually happened because UKOG have refrained from mentioning them specifically since starting production) - but if they have happened they would be presumably be my fault for articulating them only because I didn’t have enough positive belief which always trumps reality, and definitely nothing to do with UKOG knowing that the audience they were playing to would lap it all up and make 1 +1 = any number they could come up with rather than a sensible analysis. I’ve also complained that UKOG don’t publish sufficient information about new projects and speculate why when they must have the information. How disgusting thinking UKOG are hiding anything, unheard of.

I say it as I see it - and at least I stay polite, you can always filter me..

Conversely is it only swampy's and derampers complain when all the unrealistic (positive) posts are found to be incorrect - after all it's positive innit.

Sting,

SS’s sleeves must be mighty long, posters have been saying he’s executing a cunning plan for a very long time.

PS - you're wrong, which would have been a much shorter way of saying the above.

Sinbad,

No damages. Just costs, and they would have to be 'reasonable.

To obtain damages UKOG would have to go to court, not appeal the decision.

Whilst UKOG has the high moral ground winning a planning appeal and costs I'm not sure that the Surrey voters would be sympathetic to an oil company suing for damages when as you say the well wasn't planned until H2 2021, though it would be an interesting court case hearing UKOG explaining about 'plans' and execution thereof.

I see you're still making ridiculous wild accusations about other posters. Perhaps your 'style' would be more suited to twitter or AD*FN, where conspiracy theories abound and offering no evidence for an 'opinion' is the norm.

Anyway whilst you haven't explained what the mechanism was according to you these posts have apparently helped SCC 'fall into the trap., more fool us eh.

I'm sure troll, tymers, wizard etc will return with the 'good' news you crave rather than those posters who's posts reflect more accurately what is, and what might happen.

Interesting thread title.

As I can very easily prove I hold shares (since 2015, continuously though varying amounts, and not just a few) and prove I am not in the pay of SCC 'or their agents' and you even post you have no evidence............

Perhaps they realised that the only good news likely in the near future just happen - and that's because as long as UKOG haven't spent it already the money for Loxley site prep can go towards the $5mm needed for the Turkey project.

Then there's the lack of a RNS about HH-1 yet according to 'N66' tanker 600 (and 601?) left the site today. BKP seem pleased anyway - perhaps they've made more out of trucking the oil and water than UKOG have producing it. I expected at least a tweet of a picture of the tanker & SS but I suppose he was busy preparing for the meeting.

Assuming UKOG stay silent then the next news will be OGA August figures on Dec 1st.

As for Loxley, refusal was always a possibility. UKOG will still have to pay up front for an appeal - and then there's permission for the development if the well is successful - and in the meantime Loxley = expense.

For most I hope that UKOG will pull something out of it's threadbare hat - if only UKOG would actually let the SH know more about the bets UKOG are making with their money.

I guess we've gained a few more disappointed lth as well.