Member Info for Penguins

Ibug,

a barrel is a volumetric measurement so cu metres to barrels is always the same (as long as it's a standard 'oil' barrel.

Specific gravity of oil varies so lower SG means the number of tonnes per barrel goes down.

You'll note that cu m of water equals tonnes though I thought salty water had a higher SG, (hence you float better in the sea - the weight of water you displace is higher) and reservoir water is usually salty - which is why a resistivity log can help differentiate between a formation with water (salty water conductive) and oil (non-conductive). Maybe they don't care and companies only measure volume of water.

I'll have a think about the August figure. Thoughts on gas?

Jeez, working on this tablet it's too easy to accidently hit the post button - I was about to say perhaps it would be good to point that out to those who bang on about UKOG providing anything significant - nice to have but not strategic or significant .

Whilst it's good posts can't be edited so the b*****cks some people post is there for evermore it would be good to have a 5 minute window to remove accidental posts!

Ibug,

I missed the bit about Wytch Farm in your post. I presume it's in the planning application? May be no surprise but perhSp

It's puzzling as to what deeper perforations might achieve. In the November 5 RNS they also seem uncertain what would be the result, shutting in the well for a long pbu rather then going straight to production.

Previous production was according to UKOG primarily from a restricted 35 foot interval (lion's share). In the logs presented in the Nutech report this zone is clearly not all likely to be productive, consisting of 2 good porosity and permeability layers separated by a poorer interval.

Deeper perforations in this zone seem unlikely to significantly help production as it should already be plumbed in well to HH-1, though as this zone is also probably providing the water s well,as oil that's a good thing.

But maybe UKOG hope that deeper perforations will increase the contribution from the less productive greater part of the Portland, and perhaps reach oil filled fractures.

Perhaps the pbu is to check what the deeper perforations have done before opening the taps as it would give an opportunity to seal off zones if the perforations had, for instance, intersected a water filled fracture.

As UKOG are short on explanations for their actions I'm just trying to understand the reason they reperforated and then shut-in beyond the 'catch all' optimisation - which in itself is meaningless if UKOG avoids saying what the well was doing prior ro the workover.

Ibug,

BB may be closer but it wasn't a Portland test. There are old applications (available on UKOGL UK Onshore Geophysical Library) by previous applicants for the acreage that suggest the Kimmeridge might be better in that area (and UKOG have suggested the same), perhaps the Portland is just an excuse to have another look at the Kimmeridge there. Expect more BS volumetrics nearer the drilling.

Ibug,

Thats my thinking as well though I would expect the daily production in September to be worse than August. Whilst UKOG gave a figure for the number of days production April to September inclusive we don't know how many days in each month though simple subtraction of the OGA figures for April to July inclusive from UKOG's figure tells how much oil.

Simply on the basis that at the start of production the rate was over 300bopd and the average was 208bopd that suggests at the end of the period production was near 100bopd.

I can understand why UKOG didn't mention this issue (water and decline) in the June 29 RNS but was that withholding significant information from the market.

Belatedly in the November 5 RNS the market we get this gem:- 'various factors including the break-out of solution gas and increased water cut, translating directly into a production decline over time' - which seems to be a general statement about production wells. The problem is if the decline is truly over 300bopd to over 100bopd that is catastrophic. The Xodus CPR has decline from 350bopd to 150bopd over 4 years.

The irony is that for Loxley the analogous field is Horse Hill.

Is this why Xodus would only perform a 'study' only calculating gas in place, leaving it to UKOG to apply a recovery rate to achieve the recoverable resources quoted?

HH1AN2,

See the quote from UKOG above, 'breakout of solution gas'.

A stronger flare isn't necessarily a good thing, that gas replaces oil in the production tubing if they aren't able to maintain pressure. More gas = less oil.

Troll,

Expect OPEX to increase per barrel with lower production than the 'over 300bopd' from HH-1 when the OPEX cost was quoted, and now there's water disposal costs - which apparently made HH-2z uneconomic to produce, though presumably it was worse than the one barrel of water for every three of oil produced from HH-1 in July.

We're waiting for August's figures from the OGA as UKOG don't seem to want it's owners to know too much about what the production well is doing - or even what the plan is for HH-2z. Luckily they're happy to release RNS about Loxley and Turkey - where of course less is known.

The oil price may not be increasing fast enough to actually see an increase in profit If the water cut increases as production falls even if after the reperforation total fluids increases.

Silence and UKOG - not a good thing. During BB the claim was that only bad news had to be released (!) and another reason was RNS were too expensive to issue regularly.

BKP (not yellow) take well waste water. County clean surface water, not sure if they operate the 'honey wagons' as well.

and yes well waste water requires hazardous signage. There was much 'discussion' previously that they also took full loads of oil but N66 confirmed that well waste water required hazardous signage. The site runoff water is treated before removal as that may also be contaminated (oil drips from vehicles) but isn't released into local waterways 'just in case.

Regarding tanker counting there was also the issue of tenker loads being rejected and returned to site for further separation, thus one tanker load produced equalled 2 tankers leaving the site.

Tanker counting is interesting but needs a degree of disbelief (cf westcott's posts).

PS this was the post I thought I was adding the reply to Wizard - that one about Loxley and Turkey I started and thought I'd deleted as it would just be wasted time.

Apart from agreeing with my last paragraph based ion your post perhaps I should concentrate on Loxley and Turkey. I realise it's of no interest to those that will have sold long before either have progressed but use in case they're interested in what they're promoting:-

Loxley has a brilliant analogue field nearby where oil rather than gas is being produced

Wizard

I think on further reading I got that wrong. Although the hearing was stated as an application for a judicial review as I now understand it it was the judicial review - apologies

Interesting question.

Presumably just the approx 15bopd from Horndean, which seems to have high OPEX. UKOG have said HH-1 is shut in and would update when they had analysed the pbu data. Westcott reports 2 tankers from a private twitter group (joined LSE yesterday, 17 posts) though has it rained recently and HH-1 is producing water - are they 'oil' tankers?

The equipment purchase is sort of ongoing as PW are still owed £1.1mm which will probably be paid in shares, half by mid January.

The OPEX savings of $4 a barrel meant overall OPEX was low at around 300bopd but recent figures from the 5 November RNS gave an average of 208bopd and figures from the OGA for July production had one barrel of water production for every three barrels of oil. All these will add to OPEX per barrel of oil.

As for the buyouts I suspect if UKOG hadn't paid for them with shares they might never recoup what they paid in terms of the time value of money. At the moment as partners didn't seem to want to pay for UKOG's plans at HH at least UKOG now clearly would get 86% of the profit if there was any, but on the downside are probably paying 100% of the costs as the remaining partners can't pay or won't pay.

But I'm sure everyone would prefer to talk about Loxley planning, Turkey and the JR, and even the IOW, than UKOG's flagship production site.

Wizard,

The Wednesday before the meeting it (very briefly) went over 0.5p, following an absolutely genuine sighting of 4 tankers on Tuesday, unfortunately as some were waste the tankers had absolutely no relationship to daily production. I feel sorry for the mugs that bought at 0.55p only to see those pumping it bailing out. I'm just surprised these pyramid selling schemes work.

By the day of the meeting it was much lower than 0.5p.

Free-money,

I suspect that most of the current crop of new 'investors' posting and tweeting how great Loxley / Turkey (probably with no idea what they are) will definitely to be out over that weekend, if not before the meeting.

Tymers,

'Very clever Tymers'...'no cgt no inheritance tax clever Tymers'......'low level this one'

Tymers,

are you slowly turning into Smeagol?

I have this awful image of you in a dark cellar poring over your accounts, muttering to yourself how clever you are and all those nasty Hobbitses daring to post on your board with their nasty opinions when only you know where the ring that rules them all is and will make UKOG succeed - but nooooooo it's gone!

It was an interesting week leading up to the previous planning meeting.

There was a lot of tweeting and posting starting the end of the week before, the SP was hovering just above 0.2p. Many thousands of posts with a lot of new names (never to be seen again) and lots of tweets by a concerted band of traders during the week. On Tuesday there was the sighting of 4 tankers which generated a lot of 'discussion' about 880bopd etc. but unfortunately they weren't all oil tankers - but the deception was done. Wednesday morning was when the price peaked at over 0.5p but closed at 0.355p. Thursday and Friday the price peaked during the day at around 0.45p closing a little higher than on Wednesday.

The day of the meeting the SP wavered.

There were lots of posts during the week before, and the day of the meeting, certain that as the application was going to be passed as it was recommended for permission by the planning officer - there was no doubt it would be passed - it wasn't, and the SP closed at 0.275p.

Indeed there were loads of posts along these lines: The SCC Planning Officer recommends PERMIT. To vote against that will leave SCC in a massive legal hole.

The next day UKOG revealed that HH-2z was producing significant amounts of water, with no details, and there was no mention of HH-1 production levels since the start of production, and the SP dropped again.

So this time will UKOG end the extended pbu of HH-1, and release a short term initial rate to help things along (if good - whatever that might be). Or will the best tactic be silence and just let the void be filled?

Hopefully they can delay a cash raise for Turkey until after next week, hey don't feel obliged to release poor figures if the pbu is ended - if UKOG are silent on HH production the next 'event' will be OGA figures for August that will reveal whether the oil / water / gas ratios have changed from July won't be until Tuesday the following week (Ist December).

Of course much will be made of Loxley, and Turkey, recoverable resources but neither have guaranteed success and/or commerciality, and Loxley is scheduled for H2 2021 (more likely 2022), will need paying for and if successful gas is harder to monetise quickly, impossible during testing - and of course it's targeting the same reservoirs as Horse Hill.

Be careful out there.

This case may be a good excuse but UKOG has planning permission, FDP and every other approval needed to produce oil from HH-1 and drill further production wells and sort out HH-2z - and UKOG has never mentioned this or any other previous case as a reason for plans not being executed as, well, planned.

They have also stated in RNS that the case s unsounnd.

If they stopped progress because of it they would be hostage to any group that wanted to disrupt the business by challenging the planning permission (or any other permission).

Anyway I've seen posts, presumably from legal experts (?), saying UKOG wins either way - production or compensation - so not continuing with the development could mean a challenge on compensation because the field wasn't being developed.

As for the case the decision is whether it goes to judicial review or not - so even in the very unlikely event Ms Finch won it will be a while before the judicial review when the real legal arguments happen.

In the greater scheme of things I'd worry more about HH, rather than this challenge, with water ingress seen in production figures and decline suggested in the 5/11 RNS, and this statement:- 'The well has now been shut in for a long term pressure build up test ("PBU"), designed to provide data necessary to understand whether the Portland reperforation programme has achieved the desired optimisation of well inflow performance.'

Given the extended testing to obtain data with statements along the way about possible production levels, contacted oil and recovery rates; obtaining the FDP for HH-1 Portland which would require a good reservoir understanding; shutting in the well for four weeks for more information at this stage rather than actually flowing the well to find out is odd,

Wizard,

They had eight months testing and drilling a sidetrack at BB. They had core from the first well and they couldn't work out what to do with the Kimmeridge.

They didn't even deepen the HH-2 well to get logs through the Kimmeridge st Horse Hill. The last rites may not have been said - but UKOG tend to stop mentioning rather than admit defeat - actions speak much louder than words where UKOG are concerned.

I wouldn't relate a deadline to mean UKOG will do anything.

Wizard,

Unfortunately there's also no one sharing costs or offering an opinion on the risks - or to put it another way nobody to stop stupid decisions - or what you call being 'disruptive'.

Would UKOG have installed a 'production' completion or tested for so long at BB if they had had a partner?

The only reason they had to buy out partners at HH is because they were selling and nobody else was buying and in Tellurian's case the carry ended - those that remain aren't paying cashcalls - looking at the OGA data, and information about HH-1 and HH-2z in the recent RNS suggests they understood Horse Hill better than UKOG.

Partners are a pain having to convince them that what you want to do is worthwhile in terms of reward vs risk - but it is a review process that UKOG seem to lack.

Tony,

It wasn't you who mentioned Carrie, so ignore the 'you're right .......'.

I think I read it on twitter!.

Tony,

I wouldn't worry, we'll have a world beating taxation system to stop people buying cars or fuel. Driverless electric taxis for the plebs, 2 Jags each for the political classes (mustn't forget their wives automatically get a job as well). Tory donors and SpAds get a special exclusion. Perfect solution, and they'll know where you're going during lockdown 37 - eyesight testing obviously an essential journey for those with cars..

Sorry just realised it's the Tories. They'll be too busy trying to rejoin the EU to prepare before December 2029, though there will be government advisories on TV and forcibly downloaded to your phone etc telling everyone to prepare.

Joking apart (conspiracy theorists rhis is a joke not reality) you're right it's just another diversionary policy put out there to confuse the greens and keep Carrie happy.

Sorry that's another conspiracy theory........

Apologies

Given you said you didn't see any reason why the case would be delayed I assumed you meant, like others, that the ruling would be today.

Despite your suggestion I ignored the 'may' in regard to waiting for the Heathrow decision previously I also put 'if Judge Holgate decides to wait' in last nights post.

I realise the rampers here want a reason why everyone should buy today ahead of this momentous life changing decision (apparently) but even if the case went against UKOG (though as a non-law person it's hard to see how) this is the application stage for a judicial review, not the actual review though passing this stage would be a major hurdle and suggest the JR could succeed :- 'a hearing regarding an application for judicial review'.

Cynderlad,

Even if the decision is not delayed until after the Heathrow decision, though as you say it may be, note that that decision has already taken over a month - these cases are not decided abruptly.

As the judge says it's important decision, may have far reaching consequences, so any ruling will be examined carefully, and may be appealed.

The decision in a case like this will be written and take the arguments put before the court and assess then against the law and precedent, hence why an earlier case decision may be awaited.

Maybe the judge will just throw it out, though I don't think that's actually an option as this is a throwing out decision that will need to be fully explained, common sense certainly isn't a concept the law necessarily applies so crazy of not the decision will have to have the full weight of the law behind it.