Member Info for Penguins

There's plenty of post reporting figures etc in the interims including for instance the 113,143bbls production and othe 'current' things going on.

ibug,

Have you been here long enough to have seen the ridicule I got for mentioning water in the Portland (and Kimmeridge)?

Just because the reporting figure 'might' have kill fluid etc in it (and I'm tending to think it doesn't) doesn't mean I don't expect this to be 'native' water.

I just can't believe that if UKOG saw that much water cut from the Portland in HH-1 in June it wasn't mentioned in the interim results RNS.

Tony,

Your tanker count of 28 implies production of over 6000bbls.

HH-1 OGA production 4743, so either quite a few were waste tankers and/or HH-2z was flowing.

Funnily enough if I add the water produced by HH-1 (1486bbls) to the oil I get 6229bbls - or 29 tankers, 22 oil, 7 water. Interesting maybe HH-2z wasn't flowed in June.

thats pprs guide (petroleum production reporting system) not person guide!

Just had a skim read of and 'search' for water in person guide (V5) and not so sure that kill fluid etc would be counted as only previously injected water is mentioned.

if it isn't then the water cut is about 24%........surely that's not right.

Cynderlad,

Only stuff coming out of HH-1 is included in OGA figures.

I did read the regs on rreporting and am pretty sure everything coming out of the well (HH-1) even if it's put in the well is reported - if they are injecting the amount injected is also reported separately.

Didn't look at the gas - increase in gas cut not good either.

Tony - the subsurface workover - moving the pump position and perforating didn't happen in June as it was still 'planned' at the end of June.

Now we have 2 figures for HH, exact OGA production from HH-1 and approximate production from the whole site over 2 months. The difference must be test production from HH-2z.

28 April RNS:- Total production 'over 100,000bbls.
30 June RNS:- Total production 113,143bbls.

Whilst not precise that suggests somewhere around 13,000bbls produced during May and June.

Meanwhile OGA has 871 and 753 cu metres for May and June respectively just for HH-1.

That's 1624 cu m total or 10,215bbls. Assuming UKOG weren't massively understating production on 28 April that suggests that HH-2z produced somewhere around 2,500bbls of oil in May and June

As for tanker counts, there were days that week, unsurprisingly, as even HH-1 needed about 7 waste tankers during the month, waste tankers were leaving the site that posters were still claiming contained oil. Here's part of a post of mine from 24 June:-

'Yesterday, when there were 4 tankers: and johnrogan9 mentioned N66 was around this is what N66 tweeted - 'One load of production water back in then yard ready for disposal.'

So maybe (at least) one tanker was water........it could have come from somewhere else in the Weald but it has got a 1267 plate.'

But even if every tanker Tony counts was oil there was also oil flow during the months from HH-2z, and tankers can leave with stored oil, not necessarily just recent production.

I'm more concerned about the water - about 1500bbls sounds excessive from a workover. With these figures now out in the public domain surely UKOG need to make a comment about what is happening at HH.

Tony,

I've already given one quote from the 30 June RNS to help you to not make unsubstantiated (and wrong) claims about HH.

But you persist in suggesting UKOG have chosen to not mention reperforating HH-1 in early June?

So why do they say in the interim results on 30 June 2020:-

'On a positive note we also firmed up our plans for the reperforation and recompletion of HH-1. The current completion and perforation scheme is less than optimal for both pump efficiency and oil inflow. Consequently, if successful we remain confident this programme can further improve the well's oil production rate.'

Note 'the current completion and perforation scheme is less than optimal.........' - That will be 'the current' as at 30 June 2020 - which on my calendar is after 10 June 2020.

Tony,

facts? even you put a question mark after Perf guns.

Don't you think that if in early June they had reperforated it might have been mentioned in the interim results rather than - 'Post-period, the Company also plans a significant intervention in HH-1 specifically designed to further improve flow into the wellbore. Together with a full reperforation of the entire Portland section'

As for tanker rate increase, errr - fact? When UKOG put out an RNS giving daily figures of production rather than export from the site that will be 'fact'.

wasn't the end of June when UKOG were hoping for Loxley planning and a spike 'helped' by the reports of more tankers leaving the site .....hmmm.

Cynderlad,

Dual completion won't be happening for some time if ever. It needs ESP's not rod pumping - it would require a major workover and could risk the only (significant) production UKOG can lay claim to - even if the majority is likely to be absorbed by HHDL just to continue operations.

HH-2z is probably unsuitable for water injection - location probably not ideal as they probably targeted the culmination of HH Portland - and fractures inflowing could with the application of pressure become uncontrolled and not understood conduits elsewhere rather than allowing a carefully managed waterflood - there's suggestions (waste tankers) they've had another go at flowing HH-2z, no official information since end June RNS though.

UKOG don't need to put out figures? Mayn=be they don't need to but UKOG are an oil production company yet they can't give investors an idea about what their expectations are for production of their first and only operated field - look at the SP they need to do something to encourage investors. Before being in production UKOG were very happy to quote expectations of 362bopd from HH-1, and variations on 720 to 1080 bopd from an horizontal - when they are in production though..........not even prepared to put out precise figures for their daily rather than average production which we can only get 3 months in arrears. I wonder if they will have the same reticence for issuing initial flow figures after reperforation?

and if you think putting others down is poor practice why the 'A load of rubbish responses from known detractors of UKOG. We all know why.'

'We all know why'?

Is it because almost every 'why' I've seen seems to revolve around 'swampies, xr, trolls' etc which is just a lazy response to avoid debate - rather than it's posters putting up genuine issues with what UKOG has and is doing and essentially there being no rational argument.

Cynderlad,

'So how about you lot focus on discussion rather than berating people like me for bring proper discussion to a board, a board that was designed for proper debate, and not for BS.'

So you keep going on about debate but don't want to respond to replies to your previous post but repeat the bit in your original post and declare responses (presumably those you don't agree with) as ' A load of rubbish'.

That's not debate, if you don't agree post what your opinion is and what it is based on, that's debate. Just claiming 'we all know why' is not debating an issue.

So in fact you didn't bring discussion to this board at all if you only wanted replies you agreed with.

As for current activity let's hope it is for reperforating and reconfiguring the production tubing, but until UKOG RNS that's what they are doing we don't know. June OGA production figures tomorrow, From UKOG RNS should average about 250 bopd, pity UKOG don't feel they need to tell their shareholders current and anticipated production from HH-1.

HH

what's to discuss - either they do what they plan or it just doesn't get mentioned again.

Loxley

They were advised by legal dept and planners to pass and they refused, date will be whenever they get round to it and may depend on covid restrictions as videoconferencing didn.t work.

Far more important is what happens after they get planning either from SCC or appeal. Not 'planned' to be drilled until H2 2021 and the record of UKOG fulfilling plans is not good. It's a test on a dodgy map of a failed discovery (GB-1) that had 2/3 appraisal wells that were all abandoned, as was the discovery well - yet posters believe it's a slam dunk, here's a definition of 'recoverable resources' from the OGA:- 'This is an estimate of the amount of gas that might be technically recovered if production were not constrained by economics. TRR estimates will therefore always be larger than reserves estimates'

and they need to discover not only a gas but also prove the GIIP that the 'recoverable resources' is based on.

IOW

Similar to Loxley except Xodus have accepted (without discussion) the UKOG explanation for the failure of Arreton 1 and 2 so calculated contingent resources and are drilling a well to test the Arreton structure deviated to be adjacent to Arreton 1 & 2. A risky 'appraisal' of oil shows.

They haven't submitted planning for the follow up well they claim to want to drill directly after Arreton-3. From the Final Results RNS:- 'Should Arreton-3 results prove encouraging we plan to move directly to drill, core and test a vertical pilot hole in the geological look alike Godshill exploration prospect'

Turkey

Not entirely clear that they will have the cash up front to pay for the well let alone the seismic - UKOG usually raise when the kitty drops below £1mm. End March 2020 there was £780,000 cash left. 28/4 they raised 1.275mm ostensibly to pay for stuff they had raised £2mm for in December and then raised £4.2mm in early June for the equipment purchase (again) plus paying off YA etc. and the summer intervention and Loxley site prep - neither done. That's about £6.25mm end march cash plus raises, but about £2.2mm to YA and PW so £4mm left less monthly costs of running UKOG and subsidiaries Even if HH/HHDL is now paying it's way UKOG won't be able to get it's hands on the oil sales cash. Assuming that the sums for Loxley and HH intervention aren't ring-fenced even zero pcm outgoings for UKOG still will mean UKOG need to raise for Turkey.

Tymers,

Hahahaha,

2.5p (or £275,000,000 with current shares in issue) based on what fantasy predictions?

It doesn't matter whether or not it free flowed as UKOG is not going to produce either reservoir without a rod pump or ESP, presumablty because that's what is required.

Free flowing in the early stages of testing or after shut ins, is no indication that it will continue for any legth of time. A crude analogy is opening a bottle of fizzy drink for the first time or after it's been recapped after taking some fluid out - it doesn't take many openings before it doesn't splutter when opened (unless you shake it up - but that's a different 'thing').

So the quotes from 2016 that ibug has kindly found are for the very first tests of the Kimmeridge and Portland in HH-1 - over periods of hours not days it free flowed.

Then. 18/7/2018, start of the Portland ewt, the reservoir had been shut in for over 2 years: 'The unexpected bonus of natural oil flow to the surface, without the use of a pump, gives us cause for further optimism regarding the Portland's overall commercial potential'

03/08/18 Portland testing continues no mention of free flow
10/09/18 Following Portland reperforation- no mention of free flow
Start of Kimmeridge testing 10/10/2018: 'KL3 flowed 40-41° API continuously and naturally to surface (i.e. without any pump) over a 50 hour initial planned oil flow period.'
15/11/2018: '10,248 bbl of KL3 oil was produced over 30 days of sustained daily natural and pumped flow from an 83 ft perforated interval. The programme included 9 days of pressure build-ups' - note no real details (as usual) and there were pbu for about a quarter of the test period.
16/01/2019 no mention of free flow- start of KL4 and KL3 and 4 comingle
18/2/2019 restart of Portland ewt, no mention of free flow
1/8/2018, restart of Kimmeridge ewt, no mention
etc.

There may be other quotes but in these after a short period of oil being produced free flow is no longer mentioned. The longest was 30 days of testing which had 9 days of pbu interspersed.

It isn't anyone on this board that said pressure (the driving force behind 'free flow') was a problem at Horse Hill and Broadford Bridge it was UKOG in the Loxley planning application 'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub commercial'.

The pressure in both Kimmeridge and Portland has only ever been stated as hydrostatic (ie that exerted by an equivalent column of water) which is neither over or under pressured so long term free flow was never going to happen.

About this OIP in a report nearly 5 years ago.

Since then there have been 5 tests of the Kimmeridge (we know of, there have been rumours other field operators have tried) at Horse Hill, Broadford Bridge, Brockham, Balcombe and Lidsey. Most ests were in wells specifically targeting the Kimmeridge except HH-1 which was targeting Jurassic conventional oil targets and a Triassic gas prospect. It seemed the Kimmeridge in HH-1 was serendipity, which is interesting in itself.

RNS 29/9/2014 whilst drilling:- 'The primary oil reservoir targets in this well lie in the Jurassic Portland Sandstone at about 2,200 feet true vertical depth below sea level ("TVD ss") and the Corallian Sandstone at about 3,440 feet TVD ss. There are also a number of secondary oil targets in the Jurassic aged formations, including the Great Oolite Limestone, estimated to be at 4,530 feet TVD ss.'

and

'Then an 8 ½-inch hole will be drilled to TD in order to test for Triassic aged formations which are expected to contain gas.'

No mention of the Kimmeridge up until then.

So after over 4 years since the first tests of the Kimmeridge in HH-1 and 4 further well tests how much oil is being produced from the 124 billion barrels OIP estimated in the hybrid and unconventional Jurassic today - 0 bopd.

So despite this huge OIP across the whole of the Weald the Kimmeridge seems to be very capable of keeping the vast majority of it's oil in place, well, in place.

Ocelot

Spikes - and I don't encourage them but if 'investors' want to pile in on the rubbish posted and tweeted I'm not going to not sell on a spike (in fact I do point out the fragility of these spikes), but I wouldn't advise anyone to buy in when the price drops after a spike as UKOG has an infinite ability to drop further - it's my 'gamble' rather than investment as it's very easy for the market as a whole to correct these aberrations. Most of my shareholdings are supposedly for income and I often unwisely invest that income in AIM - mostly oilers but apart from UKOG usually short term -

Why I post - my 'background', the April 2015 RNS, and I started reading this board for information (!) and realised either how deceptive certain posters were or, to be charitable, how they were prepared to post their unrealistic expectations extrapolated from what UKOG or others 'told' them. At the time the one pound party being the most ridiculous.

Ripley,

You're wrong.

1 Means I don't have to do 4 as much as you might think
2 Just because I don't for instance post '1.5p by 23 September 2020' (Tymers end August) doesn't mean my posts are negative, they reflect what's actually happening as I see it. It depends on your POV as to whether you consider my posts negative. I sometimes keep the possible (rather than probable) really negative stuff to myself as I hope I'm wrong because you are wrong about 5.
3 Because of 1, and don't like liars
4 I have a reasonable memory, been posting since mid 2015 but still get the odd thing wrong, and unlike some will apologise, if more did that then I might be less 3.
5 because in fact you are wrong about 2 you are wrong about 5, I probably have more shares than most that post but am not willing to post rubbish to try and tempt others in.

I've been positive, and wrong believing some of the misdirections in RNS

Argus,

Panicking - you're the one making stuff up about Schlumberger to give some credence to the Nutech figure that in itself is a distortion of what oil will ever be a volume that can be 'contacted', with only a small percentage of that recoverable.

you posted:-
'RE: SS 22 Sep 2020 11:28
Oil in place of 100 billion barrels and 120 billion barrels in the Weald claims were made in reports by Nutech and Schlumberger. World renowned oilfield analysts.'

You now seem to accept, as you have not been able to find any such report, that Schlumberger have never stated that the Weald contains 100 or 120 billion barrels OIP - or any figure at all for the whole of the Weald.

For details see my earlier post, but even before discussing what might be recoverable less than half of the 124 billion barrels OIP in the whole Weald is within the 600ft of Kimmeridge that SS claims can be drained from the KL3.

The 'fact' that UKOG don't appear to be doing anything with the Kimmeridge at HH suggests that the 11 billion barrels OIP stands a good chance of remaining there. It was strange that UKOG only referred to the findings in an RNS about this 11 billion barrels (having released at least a summary of the other Kimmeridge reports), so there is no breakdown as to how much of the Kimmeridge total of just over 8 bilion bbls is located within the 600ft of 'connected' Kimmeridge, and takes no account of the BB and Brockham failures (sorry, for failure read 'success' at BB) which were after this report. Also Brockham is adjacent to the northern part of the licence.

Looks like SS was forced to make this statement at the end of his comments:-

'Schlumberger is acting exclusively for UKOG and for no one else in connection with the subject matter of this announcement and will not be responsible to anyone other than UKOG in connection therewith. No person or company other than UKOG may directly or indirectly rely upon the contents of its report. Schlumberger is acting in an advisory capacity only and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, disclaims all liability for actions or losses derived from any actual or purported reliance on its report (or any other statements or opinions of Schlumberger) by any person or entity other than UKOG'

Not sure Schlumberger had much faith in the volumes reported.

Argus,

To answer your specific point the Kimmeridge is just over 1500ft vertical thickness so already there's 900ft not connected. That 900ft below the KL2 contains a quarter (31mmbbls from Table 2- Mudstone 5) of the OIP in the Kimmeridge at Horse Hill in the April 2015 Nutech Report. In the Nutech Weald report (October 2015) over a third of the 124billion bbls is not even in the Kimmeridge (Table 5 31 billion barrels) and 16 billion barrels in the unconnected lowest shale (Tanble 7, P50 Total AOI).

After nearly 5 years from the October 2015 Weald report by Nutech UKOG hasn't had another technical report produced that has been released for the Kimmeridge despite BB and months of testing of HH-1. Perhaps you need reminding they didn't even bother to deepen the HH-2 pilot to log the Kimmeridge as planned.

Pressure in the Kimmeridge at both Horse Hill and Broadford Bridge was mentioned as a reason for it being non- commercial at both locations in the planning application for Loxley - are,you suggesting UKOG lied to SCC? Perhaps, considering the 'progress' made at HH on Kimmeridge development, it's a more reliable source of information than RNS.

Hollybean,

Well first you need to find out if there's anything to extract, which for Loxley despite your assertions that there's 'big gas' isn't known but given the fact Godley Bridge wasn't developed and there have been failed appraisal wells doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Loxley will be a 'slam dunk' success. But I'm afraid we live in a country where you can't just build anything you want where you want, you have to get permission and that's in the hands of the local authority amongst others, not the OGA that issues licencess that do permit extraction from day one.

Tymers

It's 23 September 2020, how's the 1.5p prediction for the SP going? It's a lot closer to an eigth of that price (your usual 8 times wrong),

Might be back at 16:30 to see if an 8 bagger happens today (though like most here I'll have sold way before that, once bitten etc.

Argus,

So there isn't a Schlumberger report with 100 billion barrels in the Weald?

Read my post about the Nutech report

Argus,

interested to see the Schlumberger report about 100/120 billion barrels in the Weald - could you give a link or where I can find it?

As far as I'm aware they mentioned at the end of 'Schlumberger Petrophysical Evaluation of Horse Hill-1 Well' report (June 2015) that they would be doing further work (under 'next steps') but as far as I'm aware it was either not done or not released. Perhaps the 2 pages of caveats preceding the report put either UKOG or Schlumberger off the idea.

Nutech make no distinction between oil that may be recoverable and oil that won't be, nor how many wells might be required or even whether it would be commercially viable, any figure for OIP is meaningless in terms of value to UKOG, indeed most ofmeven that figure is outside ofmUKOG acreage. They quote analogues for recoveries but these are basins that have required fracking, Nutech even state this twice 'These recovery factors are achieved with the use of well stimulation techniques' even the 124 bn bbls included deeper, untested, shales in addition to the Kimmeridge zones that UKOG claim recovery from.
UKOG's lack of activity even at HH is far more informative .
I wonder how soon you will run out of oil companies that have performed worse than UKOG. I'm sure as long as you are selective of the time period you can do better than UKOG is the forth worse oil company on AIM, or have I missed something.