Member Info for Penguins

Yes Tony,

that's certainly true when there's not much noise.

and your quote was from my post about detecting the perforating - and it was my response to other posters where 'The only thing the seismograms tell you' ('you' as in other posters, and I'd include you in that group) is almost certainly true. Maybe not someone who has the necessary software to filter and process the data and correlate it to other receivers - and where there isn't the huge amount of noise. Picking out periods of high amplitude noise is not going to be perforating.

ibug,

4th was a Sunday according to my calendar - presumably not much going on.

Standing (still) beside the seismometer would be one way of being sure what was causing any particular event - and even then you might not 'feel' it, though you might hear things that translate to ground movement.

LSE,

which bit of the seismogram (graphs?) do you think John Rogan is claiming is the perforating gun as I'm intrigued. They set them off and it's instantaneous (bang!). Tony13579 insisted that in June he could identify the perforating gun being used on the Horse Hill seismograms, it wasn't.

Amazing the ability of these geophysicists.

and they aren't doing anything with the Kimmeridge, dual completion not mentioned since April 28 RNS when it was part of the planned interventions. Next RNS about intervention - Kimmeridge not mentioned.

Northfork,

very funny, but seismometers are very sensitive, and can pick up very subtle ground movements. I'm not suggesting the extreme amplitudes are livestock, though without knowing the sensitivity etc....... - just that there's a lot of background noise and almost everything (probably everything most days) on the seismograph will be localised surface 'noise' not subsurface generated.

The only thing the seismograms tell you is that there are surface activities going on nearby the seismometer - busiest sometime around 7 am to about 16:30 BST (UTC is an hour behind BST).

Hoping to identify when the perforating guns go 'bang' in amongst all that noise, some of which could be animals / farmer moving around very close to the seismometer, is not going to be easy, as it will be a single pulse, not a long drawn out period of high amplitude activity. The seismometer is located about 230 metres south of HH-1 and if you can't do lat longs and google earth (you can actually see it on the edge of a field) just keep zooming in on the BGS stations map.

Troll

really, buys flagged as sells, well I never?

thanks for your help - a daily update would be useful for all those investors (who you obviously think are stupid, though perhaps a prerequisite for buying UKOG shares) who buy shares randomly and don't understand that the buys and sells are based on the mid price, not whether they are actually buys or sells.

I had a quick look and on days when the reverse was happening (sells being listed as buys) I noticed you weren't so concerned that investors were being deceived that you had to post a warning.

It might be more appropriate based on UKOG's past record to warn new investors that any initial flow rates should be treated with utmost caution as long term flow rates have previously been disappointing in comparison.

btw: 'new figures' it would have been nice if UKOG had mentioned regularly (rather than never) between April and now what the HH-1 daily flows were before the workover so we could compare these new HH-1 figures when (if?) they come out rather than waiting for OGA to release 3 month old data that has no detail.

Well this tanker is clearly a waste tanker - and we know waste tankers also have 1267 plates whilst carrying waste from the site:-

https://twitter.com/JohnRogan9/status/1314545530073219073/photo/1

I note HH1AN2 doesn't call it an oil tanker though.

Ibug

Not necessarily 3000bbls in June - that's the UKOG oil production (approx) excess over OGA figures for May and June - unless you have spotted a figure from UKOG for production in JUne, or for end of May, but certainly they could be flowing HH-2z again - though it would be an unnecessary complication while they are working on HH-1.

LSE337,

In fact they don't have permission yet as there are still conditions to be met.

I'm more of the opinion that the current set up is there for the long haul and UKOG are in no hurry to remember they have this permission in abeyance. The cost of the development and drilling is currently, and probably for the forseeable future, beyond UKOGs ability to raise cash without completely crashing the SP......and of course uncertainty about what's happening in the Portland reservoir re water, and apparent unwillingness to complete HH-1 as a Kimmeridge producer.

The emphasis on untested previous 'discoveries' (oil shows) anywhere but HH (Loxley, IOW, Turkey) is also significant.

Does it really matter what is happening hour by hour at the surface on site as they have no idea what they are doing down the hole.

The workover will require many trips in and out of the hole to retrieve and replace equipment (production tubing, packers, pump) as well as the main event of perforating and hole clean up afterwards.

Simple maths as to number of lengths of pipe - usually 30 ft, made into multiples (or not) depending on ability of rig. Top Portland Sandstone is at 2035ft below the surface and is about 110ft thick. The well is more or less vertical to the base of the Portland. 100ft was perforated initially, second time in 2018 during the ewt.

10/9/18 RNS:- '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%.'

Whether the re-reperforation will produce material or merely optimised improvement in flow UKOG aren't sure, and we don't know what the flow was before this workover so what it will be after would be a complete guess, total flow hopefully more than 300bopd, improvement unknown.

The production was said to be mainly coming from ('lions share') a 35 ft interval which in previous reports clearly consists of two higher porosity/permeability layers separated by a low poro/perm interval.

Ibug,

Until any money is returned of the loans or there is a dividend there is no 'HHDL' money and individual shareholder's money - there may be income / expenditure attributable to Tellurian, as an equity holder in the licence, depending on whether it is retained by the operator against past / future expenditure.

The £47,694 was 9 months to Sept 2019.
The £2,410,945 was 2019/2020

Argus must either be a spelling mistake or a Freudian slip, if it is I should add Tymers.....

The only rewards from SS asset purchases so far have gone to:-

Tellurian / Magellan
Argus
Warwick Energy
Angus
Celtique
Flowermay
Regency Mines
Gunsynd
Primorus
Solo
Doriemus
Europa
Union Jack
YA & Riverfort
Unknown placees

Argus

Bit desperate is that the whole of Turkey onshore, for Resan no. If that was thes case why would AME farm it out?

From AME Business strategy:-
'We reduce initial investments invested in high-risk exploration'
and
'We will continue to high-grade our portfolio and consider divestitures and joint ventures where the underlying values are not reflected in our financials.'

ie get someone else to pay.

Cynderlad, the other party is putting nothing in unless the well is successful, UKOG are paying 100% of the first well and the seismic.

Ocelot,

placing for 'funding initial Turkey Operational costs'. 'Initial' - expect more before drilling and seismic is finished - or even started if AME want to see all the cash needed before starting.

Agreement not finalised yet, though I'd be surprised if it wasn't completed.

Wizard,

Still need more cash for Turkey, owe PW £1.1mm payable in 2 instalments by cash or shares (I think we know which). So no debt.....but.

Wizard,

On 29 June you posted:-

'Joint ventures should not be necessary for a operating company like UKOG.

This will become increasingly clear with HH1 & HH2 going into full production & a CPR being released'

So now joint ventures are great, and let's forget the CPR.

Ocelot,

OK I'll retract BS.

But I did note that the mcap was more then (actually significantly more), and of course he was hoping for success, unfortunately hope for success, plan for failure isn't apparent in UKOGs toolkit - and in my reply last night I did mention that it was also about the reluctance to produce a CPR which if the figures were good should help the SP regardless of RBL (which was favourite retort on this board earlier this year when fund raising was mentioned) - without actually saying that this reluctance is suspicious (I've said it now) - after all even 3mmbbls reserves would be a very positive step from the current less than 0.1mmbbls (reserves, not OIP, or any sort of 'resources')

Or is it just pride, promised 6 producing wells at HH, up to 45% recovery (though he forgot to mention the down to 8% without pressure support in the geological report he gave to the EA) of up to 28mmbbls (connected oil from 2 producers) reserves from the Portland plus 1mmbbls x 4 for the Kimmeridge.

A CPR would be an analysis of the data, maybes if we were lucky presented as such, just cold hard inescapable presentation of past facts and a third party expert opinion of the future.

Ocelot,

The easy answer is they shouldn't be here having spent one way and another over £70mm.

But the drip feed of what looks like bad news, which because the company goes radio silent is allowed to fester, doesn't help.

They have now done the only thing possible if Weald / Southern England isn't going to yield up to 27% of UKs oil consumption (and the predictions were said to be conservative) and anything less isn't worth having - go elsewhere, anywhere else, Turkey?. Unfortunately because they seem to be continuing with the 'positive news only' mantra the lack of information about truly analogous fields in this area on the margins of the play, but hey, look at these huge fields down here in the centre of the play, means assessing how good a move it is is impossible. So once again expectation might well exceed results.

In the past posters would claim how SS was being Conservative and understtating possible outcomes as a cunning plan to catch out shorters (incidentally at least the 'shorting' rubbish has at least dried up). If only that hadd been the case,

Ocelot,

But UKOG and SS in his cosy chats were responsible for not identifying the risks and raising expectations. If anyone pointed out the caveats in the small print it was met on this board with 'they have to put that' as if it didn't apply - but never that the caveats are there because the risks are real.

Continued use of the combined highest flow rates in the 2016 ewt in RNS, pouring oil and installing a production completion in BB before even testing (!), 'routine intervention before HH-2z water shut off, but after it was 'successful' 'However, success, particularly in horizontal wellbores and where water ingress is via open natural fractures, is by no means guaranteed'. Very apt.

UKOG have to deal with the geology they have, but they have a huge amount of data, yet seem to only put out the positive stuff until it is no longer viable to conceal bad news, and only proceed on the basis of the most positive outcome with no plan B. Continually cash raising to buy up the Weald before it was proven, massive step out to BB when HH could have been fully tested. There was no need for the haste, if the Weald was viable everywhere (as Nutech sort of promised if you didn't read the small print) there were plenty of clapped out fields that could have been rejuvenated with Kimmeridge prroduction.

I'm afraid it shows SS's big company background, unable to nurture a small company's assets but spend, fail and move on.

Ocelot,

I stopped following Angus a long time ago, though I made some, then lost some, and still have some shares lying almost forgotten - but thanks for that - I'll remember it when it's next brought up.

So SS was BS-ing when he put in a RNS:-

'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.'

Yes the mcap was higher then - £20mm would be greater than today's mcap - but a CPR with good figures (my point really) should help the SP and thus the mcap.

Incidentally I suspect that no one would actually do RBL for a single well development anyway.

At least this was a placing not CLN - someone might even keep the shares!

I suspect SS has been somewhat clever with the rules regarding disclosure, but much can be gleaned by what hasn't happened / what we're not told. Maybe they're things UKOG doesn't have to tell - but this is AIM and so far eventually the (not so good) news emerges. I think the muted response to yesterday's announcement (before today's RNS) shows that the policy of silence on the fundamental reason for being a production company - production - undermines what should be positive news.

One particular line of credit that SS seems to stubbornly refuse to explore is getting a CPR done - even for HH Portland surely they could conjure up reserves sufficient for RBL of a few million quid. It was waiting for HH-2z but that's no longer an option so why haven't UKOG got one done?

What would be in a CPR? a review of the test data, STOIIP, recovery factors, connected oil?, reserves, a production profile.

Then it would be possible to compare what we've been told vs what would be in a CPR.

Seadoc,

Since you've been 'away' sadly even your most pessimistic predictions have been exceeded.

Conversely none of the positive predictions have even been threatened.

HH1AN2

you don't think that if the current daily rate was 300+bopd UKOG wouldn't have mentioned it, or if UKOG expected a significant increase they wouldn't have flagged it? They've been very coy about flow rates - last mention was in the 30 June RNS - and then only for the period to 31 March ('high rates of over 300bopd' - I'm afraid the cynic in me automatically thinks 301).

Interesting the language change describing the improvement this work is anticipated to produce.

4/6 - 'planned to further improve oil production rates' or 'designed to materially increase the ability of oil to flow
30/6 - 'can further improve the well's oil production rate' or 'specifically designed to further improve flow'
1/10 - 'seeks to further optimise oil flow'

seems the latest is a bit less certain - 'seeks' and 'optimise' rather than improve - and the first two, 'materially increase' then 'can'

Fingers crossed that reperforating the whole Portland when they previously stated that the lions share is produced from a 35ft zone delivers something between a material increase and a less demanding optimise.

Cynderlad,

when they bought what might have been 2 sets of 'testing' equipment from PW, which they are using for production (stock tanks, oil and gas separator, flow lines, choke manifolds, export pumps etc) that's precisely what I thought (and posted) - this is it for HH for the time being. There has been nothing about the proposed development for a long time.

As for dual completion maybe there are risks/problems with the Kimmeridge such that they aren't prepared to dual complete (not comingle) HH-1 - or they are not prepared to take the risk of losing the well whilst doing it. I suspect a bit of both.

HH-2z - if they had decided what they were going to do with it I'd expect it to be done when there's a workover rig there.

If Turkey is in any way successful maybe Loxley and IOW (and A24 and BB) will be quietly forgotten rather than spending cash on them - especially if even the Portland at HH is really proving troublesome.

PS - my last post should have included the possibility that there is no problem with HH-1 Portland at all - after all the watchers only see oil tankers........

As for perf / moving the downhole pump in June (Tony) - see today's RNS, though still no current bopd and forecast benefit of the work. Suppose it will enable a 'better than expected' RNS whatever the result. I'm surprised they are using a workover rig, they've done similar operations using a crane/s. Also note even using a workover rig no mention of dual completing (no doubt posters/tweeters will claim the rig and 'deeper' pump means they are, or they are doing it without saying).

I'm sure they'll reluctantly manage to squeeze out an initial rate RNS if it's good. Maybe the mythical 362bopd might come to pass as an initial sustainable rate........

Ibug,

I get what you're saying, - because they only reported bopd during 'the period' (incidentally I've also moaned about them not giving a current figure) they can quite rightly say they weren't misleading anyone. Perhaps that's why they didn't give a current figure for HH-1 flows?

If that's true then it's a tenuous reason for not informing the market of significant news.

It's disgraceful that this might even be thought of as a possibility.

As happens too frequently we await clarification from UKOG, are they waiting to bury it in news of the Turkey deal being executed, Loxley planning or a placing getting the 'good' news out at the same time.