Member Info for Penguins

I did say good reason.

Dual completion would require the completion just put in being removed and completely replaced with a new completion with 2 ESPs. So the workover just done would be a costly waste of money, and two to three weeks of production. Portland production being poor or some sort of pretense to raise funds isn't in that context a 'good' reason - but then this is UKOG!

Perhaps it's my expectation that when something stops being mentioned in RNS (where a good ramp wouldn't go amiss) it isn't going to happen.

HH1AN2

if what is written on this board really affected the SP then why isn't it 10p? or is it that the so called 'swampy's' etc. are just posters that understand what is going on better than the 8p by Xmas brigade.

Better try the 'we're not there all day so there might be 3 or 4 gambit' rather than the IDK whether it was waste or not.

Apologies,

The posts didn't show as posted - and now they are.......

Cynderlad,

Can you think of a good reason why they would dual complete HH-1 any time soon when they have just had a workover of HH-1 using a rig?

The same goes for wizard thinking that UKOG having just bought production equipment sufficient for the current set up for £1.65mm (with jjst £1.1mm to pay, probably in shares) would embark on the 'planned' development. After HH-2z Portland mishaps and the very apparent not dual completing HH-1 in the Kimmeridge what would they use the extra 4 wells to develop.

It's all very well posting about what the plan for HH was prior to HH-2z and the Kimmeridge ewt (4 when the planning application was put together with 4 Kimmeridge wells), but like installing a production completion in BB-1 before testing the well, and then having to remove it, sometimes plans don't work out.

Cynderlad,

Can you think of a good reason why they would dual complete HH-1 any time soon when they have just had a workover of HH-1 using a rig?

The same goes for wizard thinking that UKOG having just bought production equipment sufficient for the current set up for £1.65mm (with jjst £1.1mm to pay, probably in shares) would embark on the 'planned' development. After HH-2z Portland mishaps and the very apparent not dual completing HH-1 in the Kimmeridge what would they use the extra 4 wells to develop.

It's all very well posting about what the plan for HH was prior to HH-2z and the Kimmeridge ewt (4 when the planning application was put together with 4 Kimmeridge wells), but like installing a production completion in BB-1 before testing the well, and then having to remove it, sometimes plans don't work out.

Cynderlad,

Can you think of a good reason why they would dual complete HH-1 any time soon when they have just had a workover of HH-1 using a rig?

The same goes for wizard thinking that UKOG having just bought production equipment sufficient for the current set up for £1.65mm (with jjst £1.1mm to pay, probably in shares) would embark on the 'planned' development. After HH-2z Portland mishaps and the very apparent not dual completing HH-1 in the Kimmeridge what would they use the extra 4 wells to develop.

It's all very well posting about what the plan for HH was prior to HH-2z and the Kimmeridge ewt (4 when the planning application was put together with 4 Kimmeridge wells), but like installing a production completion in BB-1 before testing the well, and then having to remove it, sometimes plans don't work out.

Sting,

Too nice, and busy, a day to squabble on here with you, I'm sure you're a great bloke, but I don't know why you bother anymore, but posting on LSE is not an analysis of my portfolio. Maybe I have followed and gambled on UKOG too long but I guess it's a habit I can't break. Posters citing me doesn't help.

Just to be clear though - you're wrong - as have been all those posters accusing me of this sort of (childish - 'queen') rubbish:-
'You wont leave because the hatred in your heart is clear
You will not leave until there is complete and utter annihilation of this company
You are the king or queen as some say of enviromentalists'

None of these are true.

Mirasol

You assume that the workovers I'm referring to have been dewaxing and they will be in the winter. Surface temperatures may cause problems in the surface pipework but downhole there will be no variation in temperature. If waxing is a problem it isn't necessary to haul everything out of the hole anyway.
There have been several workovers or maintenance worthy of reporting in RNS in addition to work on the well noticed by the passers by:-.
10/9/18:- 'Successful Portland re-perforation programme targeted 114 feet of oil pay, adding 14 feet of new pay. Following re-perforation, well productivity increased by up to 65%.
Independent oil consultants Xodus Group's ("Xodus") analysis of flow and pressure data interprets that further HH-1 Portland vertical well optimisation could achieve a forecast sustainable initial 24/7 pumped rate of around 362 barrels of oil per day ("bopd")....'
11/4/19:- 'The well is currently shut in for a 60 hour pressure build up test prior to the scheduled retrieval of down hole pressure gauges. Following the pressure data retrieval and other maintenance over the coming week, Portland test production will resume'.
28/1/20:- 'A short routine intervention on HH-1 is now underway, which aims to further optimise and increase the Portland production capability of the well'
30/6/20:- 'Post period a higher capacity and energy efficient linear rod pump was installed on HH-1, leading to increased production from the Portland'
....... and now the re-reperforation has just occurred. Unfortunately we don't know what production has been achieved on a regular basis since HH-1 production started in March but the available figures suggest it's less than the calculated 362 bopd - maybe this time.....
Wizard,
You seem to be obsessed with length of perforations - 'never mind the quality feel the width'. The previous perforations were just under 35metres (114ft) and no figure for the new perforations yet released,
Prior to HH-2z results being released you kept trying to suggest that oil flow per foot from the vertical well multiplied by length of perforations in the horizontal was a way to calculate production from the Portland horizontal even when the company was saying 2 to 3 times the vertical (or similar).
Perhaps tomorrow UKOG will RNS some BS initial flow rate numbers to keep you and your calculator happy.

I think some of the £12mm raised in 2019 was also spent on drilling HH-2z (plus money raised in 2018) which is why they keep raising cash for the same things. There was provision in the planning for HH-2z and HH-1z for tanker export (up to 20 movements a day (10 tankers!). There was £780,000 left 31 March 2020.

Wizard,

Very little maybe, but they have done less than the very little they could do - HH-1z and HH-2/2z. They also have been rather slow in clearing out the conditions- it was quite clear what was required and why did UKOG put this in the RNS immediately following the planning aproval - they weren't telling fibs?

'What Does the Consent Mean to UKOG and Horse Hill?

Critically, this consent means that the field's immediate oil production from HH-1 and HH-2/2z will no longer be limited to existing extended well test planning consents. The ability to produce over the field's economic lifespan also enables the transfer of current and future assigned recoverable resource volumes into the category of Reserves, which, by definition, conveys with more certainty that a known volume of petroleum can be produced commercially over a given time.

The commercial certainty associated with the allocation of Reserves at Horse Hill is therefore a critical step necessary to help facilitate the potential use of debt-based funding for field development and other Company working capital requirements. It is planned to commission a new Competent Persons Report to establish the Company's net Reserves following completion of HH-2z production testing in the Autumn.'

Enjoy the extra hour tonight acting as UKOG's number one apologist, meanwhile bit by bit the future promised by SS and UKOG dissappears. Carribean anyone?

Wizard,

your continued belief in the hype is testament to the ability of humans (if you're not a bot) to find any bizarre theory or belief to cling to deny what is clearly in front of them.

Maybe the workover will improve production rates but there have been a few workovers on the Portland, presumably because production tails off (declines) - which is normal, but with production primarily from a limited zone and also from fractures the decline rate may be higher than a 'conventional' sandstone reservoir. We await some information and will hopefully not be fed short term BS rates. Maybe this RNS will have details of the timing of the HH development they seem to have forgotten about. In case SS is reading this here's a reminder - another Portland horizontal, a Kimmeridge sidetrack from HH-1 and 3 further Kimmeridge horizontals, and don't forget the Portland injector (or is that HH-2z?) - all to be drilled by end 2020.

OGA or others making UKOG test for a long time - why - following all the hype & the share price hitting 11p it was a requirement of the OGA, the government or FSA........!!!!!!!!!!! Wow that's unbelievable - literally.

Maybe the delay was because of Magellan/Tellurian - but if the acreage was so great why couldn't they find a buyer apart from UKOG - in fact why is UKOG the only company buying up acreage in the Weald (and then relinquishing it).

They may have the permits - but no cash and having 'spent' £1.65mm on second hand production kit from PW (spent not entirely accurate as there's still £1.1mm to pay, almost certainly in shares one way or another) I doubt they are 'planning' to drill further wells at HH into the Portland or Kimmeridge for the foreseeable future.

The 'site values' you refer to couldn't be put in an RNS - they were opinions - not hard fact, and depended on certain things happening that required further work to verify (obviously those things didn't happen).

The cash flow from Turkey may only be enough to fund the next wells for some time, and requires success - which sure ain't guaranteed as AME only farm out their poorer prospects according to their website.

'We will continue to high-grade our portfolio and consider divestitures and joint ventures where the underlying values are not reflected in our financials.'

Until UKOG produce a plan that includes Kimmeridge production at HH I would assume it's no longer considered a viable target on the basis of the ewt.

Wizard,

HH-1 was drilled in 2014, Tested initially in 2016, Testing and appraisal drilling applied for in October 2016, with documents submitted in support until July 2017, approved November 2017. EWT commenced July 2018 and continued through to March 2020. Appraisal drilling commenced September 2019.

The only CPR covering HH was released in June 2018, prior to the EWT – and it’s OK that ‘shareholders are to date unaware of the underlying value of the oil in place & recoverability’.

The question is why?

Yet you’re quoting this, having said we don’t know the value?
'Horse Hill £150 - £250 million & each other Kimmeridge site on the licence £100 million & there could be up to 8 sites in the licences before looking at other licences.'

That valuation is based on an interview with SS. No details, based on $70 OP and recoverable oil based on 6 wells - possibly initially producing the fabled 720 to 1080bopd. Whereas UKOG currently producing....?

As for 8 other sites in the HH licences which have to be for the Kimmeridge – when was that last mentioned, when was it first mentioned? Beware the over hyping of a reservoir which they now aren’t even flowing.

Just remember these 'plans'

2017 Master Investor – plan
3x 90 day production tests (2016)
3D seismic (2017)
Horizontal production wells (2017)
Show HH-1 resources can be repeated to south and west in the Basin sweet-spots
Holmwood -1 well (2016/17
2 others identified wells (2017/18)
Proved it wasn't repeated to south
Production test 20 months from Sept 2018
3D Seismic –no
Horizontal Production well – Nearly 2020
Holmwood – no
2 other wells – one in 2017

2017 Feb/Mar Corporate presentation Plan:-
HH-1 production tests in 2017
HH-1/1z production wellbores in 2018
KL production target >1000 bopd by end 2018
Replicate HH-1 within wider basin “sweet-spot”
BB-1 in 2017, approvals granted
H-1 in 2017 approvals granted
GB-3 in 2018, site selected
Bring HH Portland to production by end 2018

Erm –anything, except (unfortunately) BB drilled on plan.

Yet something said in an interview nearly 2 years ago is still valid?

Over the years RNS and statements and even tweets by SS have encouraged a lot of hype on here and twitter. Although RNS should carry warnings tweets and interviews have been less cautious when it comes to explaining the risks rather than the rewards.

When an explorationist like SS says something is going to happen it's actually a hope based on optimism. OK if you're selling to another company who will be able to review all the data, devious if your audience is flying blind because of the information you withold.

This has lead to all sorts of extrapolations of unlikely outcomes and complete misunderstanding of even what was possible. How many times were the initial short term flows added together to claim HH-1 would be flowing 1688bopd during the ewt. Claims that once in production the prudent pumped flows would be replaced by free flows of 2000bopd, ten tankers a day I tell ya. Release of short tern initial flows and ambiguous longer term averages or production over a period with no further explanation.

But still fool me once etc.
Once fantastic acreage bought, OIP or recoverable resources listed, then dropped: Baxters Copse, Offshore IOW, Markwells Wood, A24 which is why SPE has strict reporting rules.

For example, UKOG 'planned' to drill HH-1z immediately after HH-2z. Then only HH-2z was mentioned, but for months posters continued to post that this Kimmeridge horizontal was still going to happen.

The same happened recently with the dual completion. Almost anything was cited as a sign that this was about to happen, even though UKOG no longer mentioned it and RNS'd that they were only working on the Portland.

Maybe most now realise if something is no longer mentioned it ain't going to happen until/unless it reappears in RNS. Currently the cult of HH-2z has emerged, certain that UKOG are going to spring a secret workover of tne well, maybe, but UKOG do like to pre-'ramp' these things. If they start 'secretely' working on HH-2z I doubt it would be good news.

Lots of Turkish hype to come. Hopefully a successful well though it's currently planned to be on the smaller structure (Basur) and of course UKOG (keeping to the 'mushroom' tradition) haven't separated the OIP or recoverable resources per structure. The 'blob' map shows Basur as considerably smaller than Resan.

Tony,

Even if they had gone ahead as far as I can see the permission doesn't specify targets, so you're right no breach would have occurred, so that's nothing to do with SCC, nothing to do with me and the protestors campaign seems pretty inconsequential as well.

and just to tidy this up - from the 28 June 2019 Interims:-

'the HH-2 vertical pilot hole will be deepened into the Kimmeridge'

Vertical pilot deepened, not sidetracked, into the Kimmeridge.

As far as I'm aware this was the only time it was mentioned.

Whilst it wasn't stated how far into the Kimmetidge this statement suggests it was meant to be a lot more than just tagging the Kimmeridge:-

'to obtain key fracture imaging and rock data'

Ian
Yes - it's a discussion aboit 2019 events, but as Tony decided to make up stuff I thought I'd reply.

Well Tony I'm not a resident, nor a campaigner, nothing to do with drill or drop.

,,,,,,,,and I've never seen UKOG using it as an excuse. Nor as far as I'm aware was there any enforcement from SSC. Anyway it could be classed as appraisal of the Kimmeridge, I'm pretty sure details of the pilot and sidetrack aren't within SSC remit anyway..

Here's a just as fanciful reason for how I stopped UKOG (who were the ones to publicise they were drilling through the Kimmeridge anyway):-

UKOG must read this board and read my posts and despite all the information they have they realised that my analysis of the Kimmeridge meant it wasn't worth bothering with and they could save the cash drilling and logging HH-2 in the Kimmeridge, which would entail another whole return trip with a new bit, then cleaning up the hole, logging runs etc, rather than go ahead with the sidetrack - and then have a bit of cash left over to cover some of the cost if there was a water issue - having read this on 2 October before they had finished the Portland drilling.

Excerpt from my 2 October 2019 post about the HH-2z ewt:-

'There could be issues - finding a water conduit, the well ending up in a less productive zone, or unexpected variation in the reservoir. But unless any of these are catastrophic the well should flow, either with or without esp help, the truly million dollar question is how well.'

I wonder how catastrophic it is?

Really,

How exactly did I prevent that?

How did protestors and Surrey prevent it?

As far as I'm aware UKOG just didn't do it, having said they would, it being in the plan etc. I've never seen a claim they were prevented from doing it. As far as I can remember it just wasn't mentioned again?

I'd like to know how my posts on here stopped it though.

Tony,

'There is no evidence of water in the oil. So there is no reported smoke from the heater stack, dirty flare or water/waste tankers.'

Bit desperate, why not wait for the RNS?

Have you seen the gauges for oil, water and gas? What relevance does no smoke (reported) from the heater stack have with regard to water production, or for that matter production of kill fluid etc during clean up following the workover. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to whether there's any hard evidence of no water production.

Like anyone else, including me, who is not on site and in the loop just looking doesn't tell you the detail of what's happening. I'm afraid too many reports of waste tankers as oil filled tankers has even taken the shine off that side of you and your chums reports.

Keep to the facts of what you see. The pump is running, the flare is flareing. Maybe they're running the heater stack using gas not diesel, maybe it's running without smoke, maybe they don't need to run it.

and how many times have subjective opinions about the quality of the flare (clean, strong etc) turned out to be meaningless.

'The flare is clean far earlier than expected for a workover.'

Even if the company said that I would be suspicious about the motive.

I see your mates on twitter are claiming that the full development will start now because the planning permission conditions have all been met. Presume that's going to be done for free?

As I've said before the purchase of the kit they're using for production suggests the current set up is the development for a long while, maybe for good, the finances also say that there's no cash for 4/5 more wells plus the facilities at HH. They also have the problem of where to place these wells within these reservoirs that frankly they seem to know too little about, and unfortunately to understand more needs more wells that may be as successful as HH-2z. They didn't even bother to drill and log (let alone core) the Kimmeridge when HH-2 pilot was being drilled.

Troll,

Funnily enough nearly nalf my post was your 'drivel' anyway.

Still good to know you're the WB of UKOG investing!

Troll,

It's only a 'give away' price if it doesn't go down further.

Multi-well? - can you explain.

Are those the wells UKOG needs to raise cash to drill - Turkey, Loxley, Arreton - of which two need permission to drill - Loxley, Arreton - and assuming permission is granted won't be drilled until late 2021.

Even if they know where the oil (or gas) 'is' they have no idea if it's in commercially producible until they've spent the money drilling and testing.

Or are they the three wells UKOG has drilled already. One has just come back into production (HH-1 drilled 2014) after yet another optimisation, if we get news of sustainable flow rates (or even daily flow rates) it will be a first since production began in March; one might be returned to for another try in 2022 after Loxley is drilled in late 2021 (BB, drilled in 2017), and one has an issue with water production (HH-2z drilled in late 2019) and months after being shut in no news of plans for the well.

Oh dear, tanker counting. I suppose you mean this sort of speculation (your post 26 March):-

'Yep, FOUR tankers per day now!! We know there's been at least two every morning so far this week so this is not an emptying the tanks day. There could have actually been four any other day this week.... difficult for eyes to be there all the time now.
So oil production in the last 24 hours was about 880bopd..... That's quite an increase on the last official reports.
Are we still trading below 1p.... what a bargain with this knowledge!!!'

Not only a 'bargain' (SP was 0.375p) but whilst I don't think it's intentional this is the 'tanker trick' that FOTH refers to, aided by reporting of just 'tankers' when waste tankers are being used.

Ibug

yes - and so have I since earliest STOIIP review by Xodus (high SW throughout the Portland), reinforced by the inclusion of an injector (though subject to OGA and EA approval maybe Kimmeridge water was expected first?) though many didn't. But it's the nature of delivery that is more concerning. Water from fractures can overwhelm oil production as seems to have happened in HH-2z (though UKOG have given no details so maybe it was just OP vs water disposal cost) and stuffing it back in (technical term) to a fractured reservoir can lead to more problems than it solves. Producing water 'locked into' the matrix is controllable, and water from OWC very predictable.

I'd be certain they are aware of the risks and whether they are worth taking.

Mirasol.

I find the wording about the separation of HH-1 and HH-2z to be equivocal, and equivocal from UKOG means not everything is as it seems.

The wording was:
'UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that as a result of a successful reservoir pressure "interference" testing campaign, undertaken to assess the degree of communication between Horse Hill-1 ("HH-1") and the new HH-2z horizontal, the Company now intends to accelerate the start of up to 25 years of continuous long-term production'

from which you might assume the pressure test found separation, but whether a baffle or a complete separation - ? But they don't say anything specific.

Then later in the same (28 Jan) RNS: 'and have determined that both HH-1 and HH-2z can be produced from the Portland at the same time, without any detrimental effect to the reservoir's overall performance.'

'not detrimental to the fields overall performance', which could mean they are connected but far enough apart - like any multiple wells on a field.

You're right about the haziness in the description of where the water ingress is from 30 June Interim Results RNS:- 'It is now clear from the image logs recorded in the well, that both the oil and water flow originated from a series of extensive natural fractures, primarily at the toe of the well, although there are also further natural fractures observed higher up in the well.' So further up the well (in terms of MD rather than nearer the surface) could mean anywhere along the horizontal.

Although only mentioned a couple of times over the years about fracturing in the Portland (and just after the HH-1 2016 testing being the first) this also caught my eye on the re-read of that excerpt:- 'both the oil and water flow originated from a series of extensive natural fractures'

Presumably the additional perforating in HH-1 is hoping to intersect more fractures - but how short lived additional production might be becomes a further question, and the possibility of water ingress deduced from the latest OGA figures (let's wait for July's before any conclusion on that) might urge caution in deeper perforating.

Troll,

I see - investors are the ones that predict future SPs and flow rates without any explanation
whereas 'trolls' investigate what the company has said and compare it to reality and draw conclusions based on evidence, not a random number generator, moving the decimal point every year or so for the SP (2016/2017 £1.0 , 2018/2019 £0.2, 0.08, 2020 £0.01 & £0.0025), for flow rates thousands to hundreds.

Enjoy your other place, I'm sure it's more comforting being amongst like minded 'investors'.