Member Info for Penguins

Strange that they've kept quiet about relinquishing the whole licence - but it's no longer listed on the NSTA licence listing.

https://itportal.nstauthority.co.uk/information/licence_reports/onshorebylicence.html

Spent millions on BB - kept silent about how dire the testing was and issued a CPR for the Loxley 'field' that was based on a fantasy map and a wrong correlation with the Godley Bridge discovery well.

Still they rarely hurry to issue what could be perceived as bad news.

Posted this last week:-

'Ocelot,

if - it could be that's a management 'must' find additional finance before the auditors can sign off UKOG as a going concern with the site restoration/s required.

If they're trying to sell their share of HH or Horndean any buyer will be playing hardball and if they got anything for HH it would be a bonus - though as the surface equipment has already been removed then it's difficult to see any value.........'

No surprise it was less than the book value - which was calculated before the production increase that was boasted about on 15th April this year.

They really have strapped the company to the fantasy of becoming the developer of one, two (maybe more!) hydrogen storage sites with their only source of cash selling shares or equity in UKEn.

Usual BS from TH2 who avoids justifying or giving proof of posted information.

'But worth remembering the PM already mentioned the Crown Wealth fund will provide the money for the Southern Cluster Storage project.'

Certainly didn't.

Here's the PM's reply to a planted question from the South Dorset MP:-

'My hon. Friend is absolutely right about making Britain a clean energy superpower. We are committing £2.3 billion to support hydrogen projects, and I recognise the huge potential of South Dorset to become home to a storage hub. We are ensuring that public and private investment work together, which is exactly what the Crown Estate Act 2025 does, unlocking significant investment, boosting offshore wind and kickstarting economic growth.'

and partly because the name of the fund is National Wealth Fund.

Then there's this BS with the added word (hydrogen):-

'And again today mentioned delivery of the UK Energy company to manage the redevelopment of the UK Energy (Hydrogen) landscape.'

That is of course GB Energy which was primarily founded to generate electricity from wind and solar (from their web site):-

'That’s where Great British Energy comes in. We’re not just supporting clean energy - we’re building it. From solar projects to floating wind farms, we’ll invest in the next generation of cutting-edge technologies to deliver cheap, clean, secure power to millions of homes.'

Whenever the government talks about clean energy they mean electricity generated from renewables.

Difficult to keep up with the lies and the supposed connection to UKOG for anything with the word 'hydrogen' in it (especially when it had to be added).

BTW - TH2's guesses are almost always (almost?) wrong - see any previous post predicting SP or success of any UKOG project.

Perhaps they could announce the hydrogen storage funding that's not happening, except in Trish and th2s head, isn't happening and saves a billion that wasn't being spent anyway so ocelot's happy 20% of the 5 billion is safe.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said but there is no government funding for hydrogen storage - maybe because they realise that by the time it's available for use other cheaper methods for storing power may be in place. All the government is offering is a revenue guarantee to the 2 projects that are chosen out of those that apply in the storage allocation round which won't be launched until some time next year -and to apply it's likely (it was a condition in the abandoned round) those applying have to demonstrate committed finance.

Already this government has primarily backed hydrogen projects in Scotland, NW and NE England and Wales -what chance a site promoted by a tin-pot company in the south of England remote from any significant industrial demand - in a salt formation yet to be proved suitable for salt cavity creation will be selected?

Ibug,

That's not the UKOG way. Twice last year) they doubled the number of shares in issue after the share reorganisation – expect UKOG to request authorisation for at least 17.288 billion (LSE 16.42 billion number is wrong) depending on the EBT share situation (see below). If they can get 0.01p (unlikely) that’s just over £1.7 million less fees.

05/03/2024 – GM 3,253,992,610 shares in issue and authorisation for 1,626,996,310 (only 50%)

03/05/2024 – EBT gets another 62,087,925 shares, Total in issue 3,875,842,538 shares

29/05/2024 – AGM Authority to issue another 3,876,840,000 (to double shares in issue)

10/07/2024 - Placing for 3,333,333,333, including CLN shares, shares in issue now 8,167,456,073

05/08/2024 – EBT gets another 476,897,760 shares, totl shares now 8.644,353,833

21/08/2024 - GM Authority to issue 8,644,353,833 (to double shares in issue)

21/02/2025 – Following raise 17,288,707,666 shares in issue.

When will the EBT get another ca 864,000,000 shares? Otherwise at the next GM/AGM UKOG will only have a 5% guaranteed vote. Not sure if the EBT shares don’t count towards the authorised total – no doubt we’ll find out before the nexr GM/AGM.

Even if they issue the annual report and accounts will UKOG still have to wait for the interim report to be issued before returning to trading.

Either UKOG were (unusually - haha) optimistic over how quickly a new auditor could/would work, they deliberately appointed new auditors knowing it would lead to suspension or there was an issue with the previous auditors that came to light late in the process.

It has been 15 months since UKOG has revealed their financial position.

They've raised, after costs and specified expenditures - mostly paying off the CLN - about £2.3mm and had £1mm at the end of March 2024. Possibly profited enough from oil sales less costs to raise the total to about £3.5mm.

The salary bill in the last annual report was ca £2mm, so just that would put a big dent in the funds, and there will be other costs related to securing the new sites and what appears to be simple 'desk' technical work (looking at what's been issued about Dorset), but perhaps they've cut the wage bill and they may have sold the equipment removed from HH - the sale value probably less than the book value of property, plant and equipment of £1.4mm.

So assuming other costs are not too high and they have cashed in the PP&E assets they are probably OK for a while longer - but going forward there appear to be some expensive site restoration/s that would clearly need more cash raised.

The Yorkshire site has only been mentioned as an aside since funding was raised in November 2024 - 'to acquire long term purchase and leasehold rights to the property' - so lacking a RNS announcing the site has been 'acquired' suggests it hasn't been.

As for raising more cash. The raise in February was an odd amount that cleared the last of the authority to issue shares - so unless they raise against shares they have no authority to issue they will need to hold a GM/AGM soon after return to trading - though due to the bulking out of the Employee Benefit Trust to 10% of shares in isssue they can practically guarantee gaining authorisation.

My opinion is that appointing new auditors was primarily to enable suspension while there's a lack of news coupled with (or because of) knowing that the storage allocation round wasn't likely until 2026 so no need to do now all the things they have claimed they would do to advance their application.

Maybe with a new auditor UKOG will find it easier to remove more than just the intangible assets proved non-existent - an oppotunity to clear out the dross.

PS Trish - there is no government funding - the government is having a competitive bid round for an allocation of a revenue guarantee when the site is built and operating - funding has to be secured privately

Ocelot,

if - it could be that's a management 'must' find additional finance before the auditors can sign off UKOG as a going concern with the site restoration/s required.

If they're trying to sell their share of HH or Horndean any buyer will be playing hardball and if they got anything for HH it would be a bonus - though as the surface equipment has already been removed then it's difficult to see any value as the cost of restarting production (asssuming planning was sorted) would probably swallow any remaining value in the oil taking into account the low oil production and high OPEX due to 50+% water cut water that needs disposal - though after the long shut in it might take a month to return to that level of water.

That presentation is just another example of UKOG BS, just like the latest tweet which I can find no basis for having searched the Government Industrial Strategy document/s.

'UKOG@UKOGlistedonAIM Jun 24

UK ENERGY STORAGE: Govt’s Industrial Strategy paper recognises Dorset Hydrogen (i.e. UKEn’s South Dorset hydrogen storage) as key part of the SW’s industrial future as part of the DCESC'

Not sure what bit they are relying on to conclude that there's recognition of Dorset hydrogen - no mention of Dorset or DCESC, there's one mention of the Solent Cluster (with others) - but only as 'committing' to prioritise clean energy whereas there's then a listing of multiple areas where clean energy is already supported. There are mentions of the South West in relation to nuclear energy, but not hydrogen. These mentions are in the Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan.

Seems UKOG's interpretation of the government papers is as imaginative as their Loxley interpretation. Telling they don't quote anything - just their assessment.

TH2,

Apart from what UKOG believe (economical with the truth, make up) could you possibly indicate where the government has said it's specifically backing UKOG?

With the First Hydrogen Storage round not until 2026, how many more shares are going to be issued just to pay the salaries? Following the announcement it might be 2027, supposing UKOG are allowed to apply, before it's clear UKOG lost.

Anyone that's researched what hydrogen projects the government is funding will be aware UKOG's west of Weymouth proposed site is in the wrong place for hydrogen storage this side of late 2030s - if ever. Once a national transmission network is in place, and other power storage alternatives in place / available large scale, expensive, hydrogenp storage in the south may not be needed

Should be:-

No doubt, for at least an instant, the well flowed at the high rate, and at 60% oil cut at some other time.......

Yes, not lying is not the same as telling the whole story.

I just realised that the end of well reports are now public for HH-2z which includes a brief statement about the testing that took place before the 23 December 2019 RNS. It will come as no surprise that what was in the RNS about 60% water cut and high fluid rates was misleading that lead to posters claiming all sorts of positive outcomes that unsurprisingly didn't happen.

First an extract from the 23/12/2019 RNS:-

'During the initial clean-up phase, HH-2z achieved initial rates of up to 1,087 barrels of fluids per day and oil cuts of up to 60%, demonstrating the horizontal's ability to flow at rates significantly greater than the HH-1 vertical well. Produced oil, brought to surface via an electronic submersible pump or "ESP", has been exported to Perenco's Hamble oil terminal for onward sale at market price.'

and here's the report on testing in the Geological End of Well Report:-

'Horse Hill-2z

The well was put on extended well test on the 9th of December 2019. After an initial clean up the flow was diverted through the test separator on the 11th of December. The well produced a total of 466 bbl of oil along with 2,708 bbl of water (350 to 400 bbl of this was completion brine), before being shut in on the 18th of December 2019. 79,000 scf of gas were flared in the Horse Hill enclosed flare, giving a producing Gas Oil Ratio of 170 scf/bbl.

The well flowed at a stable oil rate of ~150 bopd, with a water rate of ~380 bwpd (~70% water cut).'

No doubt, for at least an instant, the well flowed at the high rate, and at 60% water cut at some other time but the fact that the well flowed at a stable rate of 150bopd with a 70% water cut was surely something relevant to understand what was happening that somehow UKOG forgot to mention - and overall there was an 80+% water cut (excluding drill fluids).

Couldn't find any reference to South Dorset or UKEn in the Government Industriall Strategy, or the associated papers - it's a pity that UKOG didn't include an extract to see how relevant it was

What I did find was that the Hydrogen Storage Allocation Round wasn't happening until 2026 - this from the 'Clean Energy Industries Se tor 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.'

Not exactly prioritising hydrogen storage, with a revised Hydrogen Strategy paper due this year.

The Climate Change legislation was introduced in 2008 and the planning legislation was the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017:

These regulations require environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for certain development projects, which must now consider the indirect emissions resulting from the end-use of products generated by those projects, such as the combustion of oil extracted from a well.

As the development planning application was in 2018 then whilst the Supreme Court ruling was last year the legislation was in place before the application. That neither UKOG nor Surrey planning realised the reach of the regulation it isn't in fact retrospectively being applied to UKOG's application.

Mysteron,

Have you looked at UKOG's share price chart - and because of the 10 to 1 consolidation even that doesn't show the true extent of damage done by UKOG to the SP - that's because UKOG keeps failing not because of posters that post 'foul ideas' that then happen. Any rises are either due to UKOG being somewhat economical with the facts about HH, BB, Basur, Pinarova and many other plans that didn't get executed, or a 'pump' based on even flimsier hopes.

In contrast there's posters like TH2 constantly claiming ridiculous share price rises will happen because, well because, that then don't.

Mysteron,

Bad vibes???? Except for the BS RNS them's the vibes of UKOG.

The only positive about UKOG is that there's enough mugs out there believing the BS that UKOG RNS and tweet so that those who promote the pumps can make a bit of cash (as can those that predict the inevitable fall), leaving the mugs sulking here blaming those that have explained the more likely outcome - which has so far been either complete faiure, or falling far short of UKOG's 'expectations'.

As for retrospective legislation - not sure that's the case. The ultimate test of law is the Supreme Court - which (eventually) adjudicated in June 2024 that the company needed to submit information it hadn't (an estimate of the end-use carbon combustion emissions of produced hydrocarbons) and thus Surrey were wrong to pass the application having not requested it. Following the verdict Surrey allowed UKOG to continue production expecting UKOG to submit a revised application - but it seems that UKOG didn't engage in the process and eventually Surrey had to enforce the Supreme Courts decision and stop UKOG producing oil.

Whilst UKOG originally made claims about multiple wells, production from the Portland and Kimmeridge and using HH-2z for injection I suspect that further drilling did not make financial sense with the high risk of encountering water bearing fractures and high early decline rates - and any other major activity (eg converting HH-2z) also unlikely to achieve payback.

If anything the Supreme Court ruling was a godsend to UKOG - avoiding having to close down production in the near future because the site was no longer profitable. Though that the site would need expensive restoration might have seen production continue regardless, like the 'plans' conjured up for Broadford Bridge to support applications to extend the site permission for many years after the 2017/2018 failure to test any significant oil. That was refused earlier this year - so restoration of that site is required in the near future

The return to trading will indeed see a clear out in the accounts of the fantasy intangible assets which UKOG surely knew (or should have) were unlikely to be made tangible and no doubt the report will explain how the company can continue to trade and meet committments by selling billions of shares, as it always has.

What will change to get 'decent updates' - more of the same linking any article mentioning hydrogen when it has nothing to do with what UKOG is trying to do, mentioning lobbying meetings with a government that is focussed on the North of England (and Scotland) or mabe another meeting of the Dorset Green Energy Super Cluster - and maybe the distant Solent (presumably not so super) Cluster.

Knows Jack,

'thought you'd might have soft spot for Portland' - why? I've been pointing out for a long time it's wrong time, wrong place.

Yep 'plans'.

Well UKOG have had plenty of plans (some even supposedly transformational) and yet, having spent over £100 million on projects the management supposedly were qualified to pursue, they've created a company that has a mcap of £1.68mm - or quite possibly nothing.

But the last one was a plan that they were 'diligently working on' for 4 years for salt caverns in Portland Port tomstore hydrogen (from UKOG's web site, 'Welcome to UKOG' page):-

'UK Energy Storage (UKEn), has been diligently working on a £1 billion underground hydrogen storage project in South Dorset for the past four years'

Though when did they decide it wasn't suitable, and why haven't they updated it to 'working on a new site west of Weymouth for a few months'?

Unfortunately the 'plan' for Portland now depends on anybody choosing Portland for hydrogen imports, the government supporting a windfarm offshore Dorset, and a pipeline being laid to connect to demand that probably won't be significant in southern England before 2040.

The government has shown its hand by supporting hydrogen projects mainly in the NE and NW where early production and demand is expected - maybe SS is looking forward to another 10 years drawing a salary until there might be a requirement for storage in the south - although there might be plenty of competition by then as there's no exclusivity over access to the salt layers.

For those that missed it in March this was a planted question by the south Dorset MP which the PM answered and then mentioned all the HAR1 funding, none of which was for projects in Dorset. TH2 doesn't seem to read the links posted.

The PM saw the potential - which with UKOG plans is about all they ever have, never fulfilling UKOG's dreams, and now it seems UKOG haven't even signed up the site they're boasting about developing.

Unfortunately as deltavegatheta pointed out last week the stated clusters were mentioned as follows:-

'This major infrastructure boost will help deliver clean energy while creating thousands of skilled jobs in industrial regions such as Merseyside, Teesside and the Humber, as well as in the supply chain.”'

Be very wary of any suggestion that UKOG is specifically mentioned as being 'supported' by government or is somehow likely to recieve funds - the business model for gas storage was guaranteed revenue support which would only kick in when the facility is generating revenue.

As for this BS:-

'No one else has a solution to offer the government that comes anywhere close' -but as the first allocation round is for storage available early 2030s there are at least 2 possible projects - one an expansion of natural gas salt cavern storage and Centrica adapting Rough natural gas storage - that would not only be achievable by then but situated in the NW. The site to the west of Weymouth is nowhere near industrial demand nor any hydrogen production.

TH2,

this was the PM's response to the planted PMQs question by the South Dprset MP in mid March:-

'PM: 'My hon. Friend is absolutely right about making Britain a clean energy superpower. We are committing £2.3 billion to support hydrogen projects, and I recognise the huge potential of South Dorset to become home to a storage hub. We are ensuring that public and private investment work together, which is exactly what the Crown Estate Act 2025 does, unlocking significant investment, boosting offshore wind and kickstarting economic growth.'

So not a key part and includes that dreaded word 'potential' which the government 'recognises.

The 2.3 billion refers to the cost of the HAR1 projects receiving backing and you'll notice the 'significant investment' mentioned at the end is for offshore wind (Crown Estate permits offshore windfarms).

As for hydrogen storage the government still hasn't rereleased the modified Hydrogen Storage Business Model market engagement document originally released in December 2023 - that round was abandoned after Labour came into power. This will be the first step in the process of launching the Allocation Round with competitive applications for a restricted number of projects (2 in the original) to negotiate the revenue support - ie no t cash up front. Once the revised proposed Business Model is published companies will be able to comment / discuss with government the proposal - so probably several months before the allocation round is launched.

UKOG may not make the cut as there were strict conditions to qualify to apply including committed funding which was last estimated at £800,000,000 just for the west of Weymouth site.

.....or the economics of production at Horse Hill.

If UKOG didn't install injection, drill more wells or put the Kimmeridge into production when in RNS they were claiming planning permission was still in full force then it was probably a welcome get out that they lost the Supreme Court case rather than closing the site down 'voluntarily' after all the BS about testing followed by years of silence about production.

Ninetails,

Unfortunately there won't be any investigation of past irregularities - no doubt the blatant forward selling will have somehow been covered by shady share transfers - legal if not in the spirit of statements made by UKOG - ie no forward selling. Any statements about transformational deals - despite the obvious problem that for instance the lookalike field in Turkey was a Turkey and any lookalike field extremely unlikely to be transformational it will be covered by qualifiers like 'potentally' that were conveniently forgotten by those that only research using UKOG RNS or tweets and think UKOG's predictions somehow conservative despite being in fact, and proved to be always positive outliers for projects that are complete failures or in the case of HH nowhere near claims made by UKOG - and one wonders given the amount of information gathered whether UKOG knew how unlikely those predictions were, just like those that predicted poor performance based on analysis of the crumbs UKOG did release and other proper research - also explaining why.

This seems to be continuing with the hydrogen storage claims, already the flagship site dropped after 4 years (according to UKOG) work.

But first the accounts - then a GM to authorise more shares and then a funding round.