Member Info for Penguins

Whilst composing this response the thread was removed - but here's my reply anyway

Steptoes,

I'm not sure that 'likely positive indications' makes my

'Whether this will increase or decrease the estimates of connected oil and recoverable oil % is a good question'

......a lie. I believe my whole statement, based on reading information published by the company, to be fair comment.

As for whether money is/was tight I agree but the company has raised £11mm in addition to stating they were funded for HH-1z and 2z + other stuff. £5mm went to Tellurian leaving £6mm - the extra 35% of the 1 well might be more than £1mm, but £2mm was 'saved' not drilling 1z.

So either the company chose not to drill HH-1z or is spending a lot more than it's earning in oil sales.

........to these bits of your post in the deleted thread.

I've explained my rationale in detail. Penguins complained not enough detail, so I spelt some of it out in words as close to one syllable as I could manage. Penguins complained I moved the goalposts. Penguins is a nimby pedant. And a compulsive liar

In the 23rd Dec RNS: "This finding has likely positive implications for the magnitude of connected oil in place and recoverable reserves seen by the field's two wells". Penguins writes on 2nd Jan: "a Portland reservoir model where production was assumed to come from the whole Portland ... not the lion's share from the sweet spot as mentioned in the recent RNS. Whether this will increase or decrease the estimates of connected oil and recoverable oil % is a good question."

So why hasn't SS drilled a KL horizontal yet? Penguins, on 5th Jan: "the Kimmeridge ... seems to be in trouble even at HH". Based, as usual, on nothing. As we know, cash is tight. We've bought out Tellurian, and we're now exposed to their "share" of the costs. Alba & Doriemus are broke. We've increased our share of other assets. PI's want no more dilution. So SS prioritises income & RBL potential of the Portland. Rightly so.

Penguins spreads non-stop fear, uncertainty and doubt. And claims to be invested. LOL. And balanced. LOL.

So who is balanced? Having an opinion contrary to Steptoes = lie. Not taking wishy washy statements from the Company as fact = lie.

PS I have missed out a paragraph about Kimmeridge production and calculations of future value based on SS aspirations for growth in a PowerPoint with 2 pages of caveats - which actually is my response.

PPS - you did change the subject - but that's yesterday's chip paper.

BL***y autocorrect, or mistyping:-

A well will be cased early on after drilling through the water table or aquifers - (not 'of aquifers')

The fact that I have been taunted on twitter about the lack of water production from both Portland and Kimmeridge suggests what is happening isn't 'normal'. - (not 'is normal')

Applegarth,

you don't have to be a geologist or petroleum engineer apparently to post about those subjects - but it would help.

Failing that a bit of knowledge helps.

You may have noticed oil floats on water (it's a density thing) so if there was any connection between the water table and reservoir the oil wouldn't be below the water. In the present day Weald the reservoirs have very good 'top seals'.

A well will be cased early on after drilling through the water table of aquifers (otherwise the swampies would have reason to be cross) and then cased down to the reservoir where whatever appropriate completion can be installed - casings might be required for a variety of reasons.

Water production is as you say normal - but the aim wouldn't be to produce much water on day one unless it was absolutely unavoidable - for example very high water saturations within the reservoir.
Reservoirs often have water drive - this means as the oil is produced the oil water contact (OWC) rises maintaining pressure.

Normally a completion would be set above the OWC and the water zone sealed off so only oil is produced - in a horizontal the aim would be for the whole length to be above the OWC.

Eventually the OWC may rise high enough, or a 'cone' develops where production has (effectively) 'sucked' up the OWC in the region of the well, and then (often increasing % of) water is produced.

What appears to have happened (current interpretation) in the HH-2z is it has intercepted an open fracture which is acting as a water conduit. This could reach down through the reservoir to the water leg of the reservoir, or even deeper to a water bearing layer, these can be relatively over-pressured. This isn't such a common occurrence with a non fractured reservoir - though there have been hints the Portland is also naturally fractured.

The fact that I have been taunted on twitter about the lack of water production from both Portland and Kimmeridge suggests what is happening is 'normal'.

So what's happening doesn't seem to be the same as water production in the later life of a field, nor the production of water due to high water saturation.

PS - this is not a comprehensive analysis of all the possibilities.

PPS - the Tellurian shares aren't admitted to trading until 8 January - so wouldn't the clock start ticking then?

PPS - there hasn't been an RNS about any extension of the 0.4p options - the linked 30 Sept RNS was detailing a whole load more options at 1.13p.

However if the options expire during a closed period they are extended for 10 days beyond the date the closed period ends (see RNS 16/4/2018 - previous extension to 31-12-19 - of these options where the previous expiry date was passed by a long way) - I'd assume there is currently a closed period.

Apologies,

You did mention 'if the Kimmeridge can be proven'.

Steptoes,

Yet you think posters are so stupid they need you to act as the board policeman handing out compliments to posters you agree with and claiming anyone you don't is a deramper or similar.

They are also smart enough to rumble a poster who has 83 posts since 27 December including 20 yesterday.

The problem isn't lies, posts can be removed with outright lies, but those posters that insist on using a best possible outcome in a presentation (which has a page of caveats) to calculate a future value for a company that has consistently failed to execute its RNS'd forward plan and has not been able to produce a CPR for HH with any SPE reserves or even significant resources despite having drilled the flagship well 5 years ago.

Yet the dream is a NPV of £3 billion which would equate to up to about 200mmbbls 1P reserves and require something like 150 wells, but no mention of when the sites needed to achieve this might be operational, or that the Kimmeridge play that forms the main part of this glorious future is still unproven.

No doubt Steptoes or one of his little helpers will claim all sorts of things about me and my posts - I encourage anyone to read them rather than accept the narrative put out by posters that have a different opinion.

Argus,

Quite a smell of BS from your post failing to point out that UKOG have only 10% of the other oil field (Horndean) ie 450 barrels a month.

you seemed upset I didn't join in your 'discussion' earlier - here's something from a post of mine - 20 September 2019.

'Whilst we wait for a CPR the best indication of value is NPV based on SS and UKOG figures.

For the Portland the November 2018 Corporate Presentation (slide 18) gives a recovery between 10% and 45% for the Portland at HH. Assuming the 2 wells connect to the whole OIP of 30mmbbls (rather than 22 to 28mmbbls connected oil recently stated) this gives a recoverable of 3mmbbls to 13.5mmbbls. The only recoverable figure for Kimmeridge is 1mmbbls per well – so 4mmbbls for HH.

SS gave figures of £15 to £18 per barrel for Portland and £15 to £20 for Kimmeridge so assuming an approximate mid price for both then say £17 per barrel gives a 100% value between £119mm (7mmbbls) and £297.5mm (17.5mmbbls) so 86% is £102 to £255mm = 1.5p to 3.8p per share (assumes 6,750,000,000 shares), but these are based on these two wells contacting all the Portland OIP.

This valuation depends on the estimates and values made by SS and Xodus being carried through to a CPR.

Apart from the number of shares these numbers need revising by UKOG as they appear to be based on a Portland reservoir model where production was assumed to come from the whole Portland (the 'Nutech' model used in the Geological Description included in the EA application), not the lion's share from the sweet spot as mentioned in the recent RNS. Whether this will increase or decrease the estimates of connected oil and recoverable oil % is a good question.

You also mentioned that the Tellurian equity based on your figures was worth 35% of £275mm just for the HH site. The question is why did they accept £12mm including a risky £7mm worth of shares for something you think is worth about £100mm. As a carried partner they would have access to all the data up to the sale and would be free to sell to anyone and make the data available to third parties under CA. They could also have commissioned a CPR to enable this and / or lending.

as for Wizard and his confusing connected oil for recoverable - I have several times pointed out this error including quoting the UKOG definition in an old RNS so it's pointless pointing it out again.

PCS,

what exactly will they be doing, could you price up each element for us?

Apart from the 4 1/2 inch slotted liner and esp with its production tubing what did the downhole horizontal completion consist of using only facts from RNS?

OK, I don't know either - but I do know unexpected (and even expected) well interventions can be expensive, which is why I said 'possibly expensive'.

Which is I presume why everyone is banging on about annular packers of various sorts and your guess they deployed the slotted liner with some already fitted.

What happens in Rocky films is not real life, its just stories with a happy ending I presume - did anyone see all 8, which I guess is illustrative that eventually the public realise it's going to always be a story with a happy ending no matter how many times you tell it, which unfortunately isn't necessarily like real life, but some just keep on telling the story with a happy ending and some like hearing it repeated time and time again.

Bendog,

UKOG is currently funding all the operations at Horse Hill where they are planning to embark on routine, but possibly expensive, interventions in HH-2z, and at some point a further workover of HH-1.
In early December they raised £2mm probably to maintain a cash cushion - by then were they aware that they might be shutting in HH-2z almost immediately after initial clean up, so no income stream from there until sorted, and that could make further cash raising difficult (the YA £5.5mm loan had the possibility of a further loan, but dependant on the performance of HH).

So although it's possible UKOG could pay cash it isn't in their DNA, and would almost certainly mean a loan on worse terms would be required almost immediately in the new year, the Tellurian debt is at the 10 day vwap without a discount.

It would be surprising if Tellurian kept hold of the shares, it isn't what happens. Even if the SP drops they may be happy to get less than the £3mm now rather than wait in hope.

Upside,

strong water drive? UKOG have never mentioned the extent or even if there is water drive so what gives you the idea that's what I think as water entering a reservoir via a fracture is more water invasion than water drive - why else does UKOG want to close the fracture they found off?

Injecting water into a fractured reservoir is also a possible issue, rather than sweeping the oil it may find a pathway to the well so voidage replacement could be an issue.

and where have I taken a pessimistic view of well deliverability for the Portland - There is insufficient data to come to any conclusion, but I did highlight that PCS had come to a conclusion based on very scant data. The rate data is for the Kimmeridge, not Portland.

From previous posts of mine:-

5/12/19 - 'To be clear I have no idea what any of the rates will be - I just apply a healthy dose of cynicism to anything in RNS but at least patience is something that investors in UKOG have had to have, but belief is no substitute for hard figures.'

23/12/2019 - 'There's still a good chance that eventually the Portland - with water cut or not - will, I hope, save the SP, '

Mirasol,
Any company can be selective in the flow rates they choose to publish, but continually publishing short term maximums and averages over short periods smells of BS, The two longest periods they quoted actual rates for were in November 2018 (30 days 342bopd, just KL3) and July 6 to August 1 2019 where a variable 200 to 266bopd was stated, although the initial max half hour rate was 332bopd,
The reason I mentioned wax was because PCS raised it as a possible thing to solve during a Kimmeridge workover, though when the heater was working recently the twitterati were calling it a heater separator.
But is it really likely that a CPR based on the horizontal test will emerge during the 90 day ewt? Even if all the data isn't needed publishing before the ewt is completed suggests it's faux production and the OGA may not be best pleased.
The FDP submitted for approval is just for HH-1 and HH-2z according to RNS so (hopefully) not full field development - preparation of which will be once longer-term well behaviour is more comprehensively understood.

Ibug,
I agree calculations based on probable days production and published volumes suggest much greater decline than UKOGs chosen statistics, but it's not worth 'discussing' when even the published figures show a general decline.

Tollesbury
When will you have something useful (or even interesting) to say?

PCS
I realise you need to characterise anyone with a different viewpoint as someone who doesn't hold shares but either wants to stop oil production, wants the share price to drop or for some reason has an axe to grind - otherwise their viewpoint would be just as valid (if not more so) than someone who is prepared to say anything because they just want the SP to rise so they can sell.

Steptoes
I would suggest anyone who's first post is after 6 on a Friday and seems to have a prepared script may not be here for long on Monday, good luck whoever you are..........

Upside,
As I'm not a reservoir engineer (read back through my posts I have previously said that) I would, like you (and PCS if he understood what it meant), look it up, but without looking I believe oil wet is unusual. Anyway it isn't whether the reservoir is water wet or not, it's how ingressing water behaves. Just because they have actually intercepted a fracture doesn't mean there aren't others nearby the well bore that may find a path to it.

PCS, you stated:-, 'water is heavier than oil, so you cannot predict how the well will perform once the simple water fix is sorted, a professional oiler you are not! I'll be stocking with my prediction of 700+ bopd as a realistic figure. 1200 as a stretch target.'
OK – water might have higher density than oil, but the water ingressing into HH-2Z will be from a deeper higher pressure water bearing layer, and water also has lower viscosity than oil meaning it will more easily move through a reservoir. But you can stick any target rate you like, where you like, but it looks like a guess based on 2 numbers from the RNS that were almost certainly not coincident - ie the maximum rate and maximum oil cut (1087bopd and 60% oil cut = ca. 650), no maximum oil rate was indicated.
For real information the CPR might be a long time coming. Start of the 90 day ewt will be delayed presumably until the HH-2z workover is completed, and then that data will need to be analysed (CPR needed for 1P reserves based lending).
PCS asked:- show us the production rates across the various spells for Kimmeridge during 2019. I am not seeing the depletion, quote all the figures, not selected ones. Oh and don't forget the further optimisation of HH1, I wonder if thats choke setting changes and/or waxing, and/or bigger pump, or maybe even a downhole ESP. Hmmm, cannot wait to see.
I was referring to the latest test where there were 2 published rates, an initial half hour rate of 354 bopd and an average over the subsequent 4?days of 301. It doesn’t take a maths genius to work out that the rate for the remainder of the period was less than 354, and likely considerably less at the end of the period.
Unfortunately UKOG publish rates that are not really very helpful. Here’s the numbers I have (bopd then RNS date) - for KL3 (2018) and comingled KL3 & KL4:- Instantaneous (901 - 15/11/18; 374 - 12/09), half hour initial (771 - 15/11/18; 426 & 525 & 351 - 16/01; 332 – 1/08; 302 to 372 – 30/09;354 – 23/12) and average over assorted periods (342 – 15/11/18; 303 – 16/01;313 - 12/09; between 200 to 266 – 01/08; 301 – 23/12).
So generally dropping, but a bit erratic after shut ins, and averages over shorter periods (eg latest one) variable.
Maybe waxing is a problem – though the oil heater was used just before HH-1 restarted production – but that could have been for HH-2z. A bigger pump may not help – the current one seems to be operating flat out, and the choke setting is to help maintain pressure. I certainly can’t wait for the CPR, until then I suspect that there will be maximum initial rates and relatively short term averages, and then production volumes over a period where number of actual days producing isn’t definitely known.

Reading twitter as there's obviously some things FOTH doesnt understand.

Firstly the 1087bfd was a maximum rate (up to) not an amount that was produced. The 60% oil cut was also a maximum so most of the time it wasn't flowing at 1087bfd, nor was it flowing 60% oil, and almost certainly these maximums didn't coincide (I suspect that would have been mentioned) so what the maximum oil rate was we don't know, but almost certainly less than 60% of 1087bfd - a mistake others have made - and for how long the well was flowed also isn't known so saying

The fool on the hill@Adrianwfire 2hr
HH2z #UKOG prodoced over 1000 barells of fluid on clean up and 60% of that was oil

is misleading, like most of FOTHs ranting, if it did flow 1000bbls (and we don't even know that) 60% of it wouldnt be oil. Just to repeat stating that HH-2z flowed at up to 1087bfd is not a statement of how much fluid was produced in a day, it might have been for minutes when they opened up the valves.

Also not sure how a packer would work in 4 1/2 inch slotted liner that isn't, for obvious reasons, not cemented into the 6 inch hole, and as for it only went down 5% this is the flow test RNS that was going to boost the SP to multi pennies, not drop it.

Tymers take note - it was 1087 barrels of fluid, not oil ie bfd not bopd.

Oh Dear, don't Panic PeterCraigScott, (price prediction 31/12/2019 3.65p, all will be good, keep quoting the bits you like of the RNS (you obviously haven't noticed the 'good' bits often turn out to be a somewhat optimistic).

You really are full of it for someone who seems to have got every RNS wrong - if I were you I'd stop predicting, it's a (Xmas) gift that doesn't stop giving

Your extensive knowledge of O&G E&P leads you to post that the water ingress will be easy to fix - really, seems that the Portland is also, as hinted a long time ago, fractured. Not the toe dipping into the water leg (and it's only the current interpretation) but intersecting a preferential path from a deeper water leg - and thus presumably relatively overpressured.

The fracturing is interesting as the HH appears unique in the flow rates from the Portland being so high for such a generally poor reservoir (the poroperm worsens towards the centre of the basin so should be worse), and the same might be said of the Kimmeridge - so be careful expecting all the other sites to be as successful as HH (and we're not sure how successful even HH will be after over 5 years since the well was drilled).

Also note that there is an acceptance they might not solve thewater problem:- 'During the "long-term production" phase, which will follow after the EWT, formation water will likely be reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure and to minimise water disposal costs.'

So maybe the next well will be the water injector (£3mm?) - so not even a producer.

I wonder if the fantasists hadn't been on this board and twitter stating 1200, 1500bopd etc whether this RNS might have been better received though.

Anyway to address your Xmas theme Scrooge - no. Just because I back calculate expectations from company statements that don't agree with the expectations that so often prove wrong doesn't make me scrooge, just a realist.

There's still a good chance that eventually the Portland - with water cut or not - will, I hope, save the SP, but with £3mm of shares due to Tellurian before year's end (which according to your previous assertions they will dump on the market asap) - and the possibility that YA might not be keen to lend more on the same terms:- 'This Loan agreement also provides for further funding on the same terms of between £3.6 million and £4.5 million dependent on the operational performance of the Horse Hill asset.' especially as they still have £3.8mm to convert of the previous loan (RNS announcing more conversions excepted), could be a problem and extend how long it takes to get out (or should that be get back in!) of this hole.

Don't expect me to reply to any more of your ever more desperate posts.

& JTTALV - 31-12-2019 SP prediction 4.80p - you're as right about the SP as you pretending I'm Ruth.

Pilgrim 1 - 6 posts today - and no others in the last 30 days - congratulations welcome to the home of (surprised) long term holders.

Seems that the Portland is both compartmentalised and fractured with water conduit/s - two things I've previously mentioned as possible issues, though the compartmentalised bit might mean they can produce from HH-1 Portland without a significant impact on HH-2z - and it looks like they are planning to flow the Kimmeridge in tandem, is this because the flow from the horizontal might not come up to expectations?

Also predictably we get a series of initial short term and up to rates (354 for the Kimmeridge, 1087bfd for the Portland) and an up to 60% oil cut, suggesting it was mostly less.

Already these initial or relatively short term rates and maximums are being translated into a long term forecast of production on twitter or here despite previous estimates being constantly proved wrong by subsequent events/RNS.

So what do we know, Kimmeridge average of 301bopd over 4? Days seems to suggest a rapid drop from the initial rate of 354bopd (after shut in for nearly 4 weeks), straight line drop would be a rate less than 250 bopd by end yesterday, but maybe the initial drop was quite fast and it stayed nearer the 301bopd average, unfortunately long term flow rates from the Kimmeridge aren't mentioned.

As for the Portland the return of what appears to be significant drilling and completion fluids (minimum of 400bopd? including ?bbls of formation water) suggests the statement about higher pressures requiring higher mud weights than predicted might have in fact been a little over optimistic, and these fluids may have actually pressured up the reservoir a bit.

Some posters have also missed that the FDP is just for HH-1 and HH-2z for what might be a long time to understand what are turning out to be 2 very complex reservoirs that might require a long production testing phase to figure out.

Questions are can the intervention down a long horizontal be carried out using a crane or will a workover rig be required, and is this a unique water conduit (currently interpreted to be in the toe of the horizontal) - similar fractures may be undetected nearby the well bore only to reveal themselves after a period of production, and will the one they've penetrated find a path round any intervention they install.

Whatever the outcome HH looks like it's entering into a period of uncertainty and expense with little production to offset it, could be a long wait for any CPR following this dog's breakfast of the 'Happy Xmas RNS' predicted.

There are two separate accounts that figures are being plucked from - the Consolidated income statement and the Cash Flows statement.

The Consolidated income statement shows the loss of £1.717mm which Motley quote.  The main element of this is the operating loss of £1.555mm, made up of revenue of £103,000 less costs of £43,000 (Horndean), so +£60,000, Admistrative expenses of £1.560mm, Forex loss of £19,000, depletion and impairment of £41,000 and other income of £4,000. There is no mention of the income from test oil sales.

The Operating loss of £1.555mm is carried across to the cash flow statement (without the £4,000 'other income') as an operations loss of £1.559mm.

The cashflow statement specifically stated that the £1.773mm revenue is from test oil sales, and as the Horndean production is already accounted for in the Operating loss of £1.559mm there seems to be a discrepancy between the £1.62mm revenue from test oil mentioned in the text and the £1.773mm in the consolidated cashflow statement. Possibly because of the treatment of that revenue in the UKOG specific accounts.

The Cash Flow statement therefor shows, the Operating loss of £1.559mm, Oil revenue of £1.773mm, Expenditures on exploration & evaluation assets £3,975mm and other inflows and outflows that give an additional net loss of £1.383mm (ie not hidden, all listed applegarth ).

The group started the period with £12.427mm in the kitty and ended with £7.282mm meaning a £5.145mm loss for the period net of the oil revenue/s. Since then they've raised £11mm, given £5mm to Tellurian produced about 39,000bbls and drilled HH-2z.

I make that revenue of about £2mm from HH-1 (OP av ca. $65, Exch av ca.$1.27/£1), net income of £90,000 from Horndean (9 months @£10,000), maybe £3mm to drill the well (probably more but....) and monthly expenditure of about £900,000 (9 months = £8.1mm) ie less than the 6 month accounts indicate and less than that indicated by the statement by SS that at end June there was 'less than £8mm left' although £3.5mm had been raised + 3 months oil revenues.

Oil produced ca 14,000bbls = ca £700,000 revenue + £7.282mm left end March + £3.5mm raised = £11.5mm which with less than £8mm left end June suggests about £3.5mm net spent in 3 months ie about £1.16mm per month.

I make that about £4.3mm left in the kitty, food for thought with regard to the future programme.

Argus,

The problem is that's a very selective take by Motley, can't imagine why.

Firstly the £1.6mm income from oil sales goes into HHDL (it was actually £1.773mm), not UKOG and used to cover expenditures.

Secondly the £1.7mm is just the cost of running UKOG and takes no account of the costs of testing and other activities of the 100% subsidiaries.

So in fact expenditure is not just £1.7mm but additional expenditures on exploration & evaluation assets of £3.975mm and there were other expenditures resulting in a net outflow of over £5mm after the oil sales income over the 6 month period.

Before lauding a Motley Fool article (which if it's negative you would accuse of being wrong) I'd check the actual figures by looking at the accounts.

Mirasol

PP for the EWT of f HH-1 and drilling of HH-2z and 1z has been in place since October 2016 with conditions. Final condition was submitted March 2018, passed in May 2018 - so who caused the delay, SSC demanding conditions or HHDL not submitting them?

The planning for the development was submitted December 2018 with submissions up to July 2019, passed September 2019 with conditions. Latest application addressing a condition submitted by HHDL 5 December 2019, not yet approved - not sure if there are any more needing addressing.

The ewt had to wait for the final bit of the puzzle but once the ewt started they could have stopped testing after the planned 5+months that workovers, flows and shut ins were expected to take - so about December 2018, which would have fit in with the possible plan (Nov 2018 Corporate Presentation, ) to drill the first horizontal in Q1 2019 dependent on rig availability.

The 'delay' was probably a mixture of needing as much ewt data as possible to decide where to place the horizontal (and which reservoir?) and rig availability.

Ohmetoe

Have you seen the 'Isle of Wight community engagement brochure' on the website (under Investors/reports presentations).

No commentary on how the meeting went though.

While you are trying to unravel how many full tankers of oil are currently leaving the site from a few pictures here's a prediction about the site.

There seems to be a gas tank on site. This can't be for sale of gas as that would require a massive facility to purify and liquify it. Perhaps what we are seeing is a revised production & ewt facility being arranged with the gas storage for the planned generator/s if production is halted or dropped for a short period for any reason.

The plan submitted to the EA was to flare a considerable quantity of gas whilst drilling and testing the planned 6 wells. The placing suggested the permission to flare for about 18months was refused so the £2mm which as well as paying for non paying partners was to 'accelerate long-lead time gas-utilisation, facilities and other related works necessary to bring HH-1 and HH-2z into stable long-term oil production.'

The amount of work and rearrangement of the site may not be just a short term upgrade but fairly long term solution for the proposed additional wells, getting the site ready to minimise further disruption for those wells which won't be until the generator/s is/are installed and hooked up to the grid.

The production facility they have planning for probably won't be built until all the wells are drilled which would seem a sensible way to progress, if they need more tanks they can get them as needed.

But before counting those chickens I'm interested to see what the company has to say about the Portland and Kimmeridge testing that seems to have started / continuing.

Stop making things up on twitter.

'Pingo. Stop making up stories about me. Im here to stop your lies. To prove you wrong. You said HH is tight .'
and
'The Kimmeridge oil pingo on lse said would never flow with out fracking tight oil and all the rest of ****** as to why the Kim wouldnt flow. VIVA!'

I have never said that the Kimmeridge (Portland or any layer) would need fracking – in fact I have said because it is naturally fracked that could be to the detriment of the reservoir.

It also wasn't me that said that to get a sample of the Kimmeridge oil HH-1 might require swabbing (it was HHDL), and as for tight look no further than the NUTECH OIP Executive Summary 21/10/2015:-

Table*1 – Jurassic Tight Oil Section OIP (billion barrels, “BBO”)

and fyi the Jurassic is the section containing the Kimmeridge.

tight refers to the permeability of the rock - fracturing, where it seems the produced oil is coming from in the Kimmeridge, is likely to only make up a very small part of the total porosity of the rock, but the OIP figure includes the oil locked inside the very low permeability rocks, shale and micrite, that make up the Kimmeridge section.

Mind you there might be a few tight holes around at the moment judging by the tweets and posts.

Yet you did sell at 8.6p according to your tweeting - and it wasn't until after my post about withholding information that a tweet appears showing a picture of a tanker...……

Roganjt - you were the one that said you posted the picture of the tanker which I presumed was the picture FOTH attributed to 'John'. Apologies if that's not you:-

The fool on the hil@adrianwfirwl

#UKOG #HORSEHILL
3 X BKP Tankers on site just now.
Pic by John.
Fool News.