Not worth wasting too much time replying to someone who will be gone - so here's a reply from a couple of weeks ago when the SP was 0.345 and you were rejoicing your buy at 0.0329p but trying to encourage others to buy so you could sell, of course your posts are consigned to the ether:-
'It's hilarious you trying to mock someone about a non-existant short that would have been by far the most sensible thing to have done until two weeks ago - and may still be worth holding onto - after all there was a poster who was convinced that 0.06p was the floor when the SP steadied at that for a while, though anyone shorting (a CFD?) has had plenty of time to cash in while the SP has steadied over the past 2 weeks after two months of ever lower 52 week lows.
We'll see if a win in the Supreme Court will see the SP 'bag', the Loxley win was muted.
But are you living in the past - TW, shorts - next up BDI will be back and £1 party - sorry for those that held in 2017 because they believed the BS'
I see now you've added to your delusional claims about other posters. You seem to suck up to all the rich boys, Trump, Farage, Ticehurst that have 'fooled' so many of the poor that the millionaires and billionaires that own newspapers and TV channels that they aren't the enemy.
Truly the self styled fool on the hill, in your case we should add DL who's now coming for your cash not your hate.
BTW - You never did explain where and how the sort of pi posting on this board could borrow shares to short UKOG. I expect you still have no idea because it isn't possible.
So sweet to see a man child posting nonsense with all those pretty emojis.
But I wonder if PPP hasn't returned to trading because the Nomad isn't happy with the accounts - who knows, maybe they're struggling with the Whistling well and hoping something will turn up, though they must have been trying for weeks, wasn't anything in last Friday's RNS. Maybe that's why they're hoping the Supreme Court decision might emerge but it could still be weeks - it's a bit desperate when the farm in hasn't been agreed. At least, unlike UKOG, being suspended means the SP can't drop untl trading starts again.
As for 'I don't see you complaining about none stop deramping post from Stevesand and HmmNice whys that then. As if we didn't know ya hypoctit'
With you here so frequently doing it I didn't need to - stop crying that I didn't bother.
You posted:-
'Perf guns are arriving soon. And a court decision will land soon'
what's your definition of soon?
But of course these won't be any sort of result that will affect the value of UKOG. In the case of the Supreme Court decision change nothing as long as it's the expected 'win' for UKOG.
But no doubt there will be an attempt to 'pump' it, that may or may not be successful as the market is becoming wise to the fact the next thing that happens is a 'dump', there's also the likelihood that YA / Riverfort will join in if the price rises.
In the case of the perforating guns a wait while they're set up and then wait until UKOG deign to give the results of a test that they hope will confirm the previous test of the Germik (with no flow) was invalid. Bubblepoint mentions sugar coating in the RNS - will probably be about possible plans to shoot more seismic (long grass gambit) and waffle about a deeper accumulation (hope over experience).
This is by no means certain as at the time they ignored the oil smell UKOG's geologist noticed while drilling the Germik, the formation they are planning to test again. They also ignored the oil that returned to surface when the casing was run after drilling to the first casing point above the Hoya.
Instead UKOG bigged up oil shows in cuttings during drilling ahead in the Hoya (not just a smell) and tweeted a picture of the oil returned to surface after they had stopped drilling in the Hoya to perform a swab test which failed.
The delay in tweeting a picture of the oil in a bottle was devious and gave the impression it was from the Hoya section they were about to swab test - DL was fooled.
As for liar - as the Supreme Court is again 'sitting' and UKOG RNS'd nearly 2 weeks ago the perforating gun needed had been sourced it all depends on how soon rather than if. For the perforating guns the timing was stated as:- 'is expected in around 4 weeks once the guns are on site' - so a while yet.
You posted-
'Management are waiting for challenge verdict, and then they'll start up operations in Turkey.'
?????? - The challenge is in the UK, to do with HH planning permission.
As for Turkey AME are the operator and UKOG don't control when things happen in the Turkish licence - although AME have stated in their 2022 Annual Report that the partners are carrying the well cost despite that UKOG have a 50% WI. Even if UKOG are paying 100% AME would still be opereting the well as operator of the licence.
You posted again, again:-
'If all you lot think UKOG is deliberately drilling and testing a well that they don't really think has got any oil in it lmao!'
No, but they are doing a test that has a very high chance of commercial failure - the swab test of the Hoya which presumably they considered a better option was a failure. But UKOG need to appear to be doing something - how long did they flog the BB dead horse, failed test after failed test.
and this:-
'How does their there JV partner and the actual operator of the drill Aladdin Middle East make any profit out if this so called scam? Bearing in mind they are also paying 50% costs'
Well they will be charging time spent on the project - and also in the 2022 annual report AME wrote this:-
'The only exception will be testing the Resan shallow accumulation. Not only will these wells be quick and cheap the costs are carried by our JV partners and if successful would be a first in the region.'
'costs are carried by our JV partners' - I'd also be concerned about 'be a first in the region'. Too often new entrants to an area think they know more than the old hands - did AME not want to drill but agreed to drill it if UKOG paid 100%?
UKOG are 50% in the licence - doesn't stop them paying 100% for drilling a well if they disagree with the operator or have a side agreement.
After PPP farm in and stump up the cash to pay up to 100% of HH-3 they will have a 49% WI in the licence - and UKOG will still be the operator.
Adrian,
Are you saying that PPP with a WI of 49% won't be paying more than that % in HH-3?
Just posting your opinion and claiming quoting what AME, the operator, have stated in their Annual Report is nonsense is nonsense
Slovakze,
I don't dispute ('know's better') that UKOG have a 50% WI in the licence, but it's not impossible that there's a different payment split for Pinarova, didn't you read what I posted:-
'UKOG are 50% in the licence - doesn't stop them paying 100% for drilling a well if they disagree with the operator or have a side agreement.
After PPP farm in and stump up the cash to pay up to 100% of HH-3 they will have a 49% WI in the licence - but UKOG will still be the operator.'
and the operator of the licence put in their Annual Report, which is compatible with UKOG having a 50% WI, this:-
'costs are carried by our JV partners'
which is what I'm going on.
Slovakze,
You posted again:-
'If all you lot think UKOG is deliberately drilling and testing a well that they don't really think has got any oil in it lmao!'
No, but they are doing a test that has a very high chance of commercial failure - the swab test of the Hoya which presumably they considered a better option was a failure. But UKOG need to appear to be doing something - how long did they flog the BB dead horse, failed test after failed test.
and this:-
'How does their there JV partner and the actual operator of the drill Aladdin Middle East make any profit out if this so called scam? Bearing in mind they are also paying 50% costs'
Well they will be charging time spent on the project - and also in the 2022 annual report AME wrote this:-
'The only exception will be testing the Resan shallow accumulation. Not only will these wells be quick and cheap the costs are carried by our JV partners and if successful would be a first in the region.'
'costs are carried by our JV partners' - I'd also be concerned about 'be a first in the region'. Too often new entrants to an area think they know more than the old hands - did AME not want to drill but agreed to drill it if UKOG paid 100%?
UKOG are 50% in the licence - doesn't stop them paying 100% for drilling a well if they disagree with the operator or have a side agreement.
After PPP farm in and stump up the cash to pay up to 100% of HH-3 they will have a 49% WI in the licence - but UKOG will still be the operator.
Slovakze,
Not a story - AME in their Annual Report.
As for DL I don't see him listed as working in any capacity in AME or UKOG.
He doesn't know what's going on in Turkey - he assumed the oil in the bottle came from the interval with oil shows in the Hoya:-
'David Lenigas@DavidLenigas
Apr 21
Brilliant. This is amazing oil from @UKOGlistedonAIM #UKOG quick look see from their ~50m of oil shows in their new #Turkey #oil well. This looks like very light sweet #crude to me. Any oil company would be happy seeing this. Main target still to come deeper.'
This was in the RNS the morning of DL's tweet:-
'UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that after drilling ahead within the target Eocene Hoya limestone sequence, Pinarova-1 encountered oil shows in drill cuttings from 358 to 400 metres drilled depth.'
Slovakze,
You posted:-
'If all you lot think UKOG is deliberately drilling and testing a well that they don't really think has got any oil in it lmao!'
No, but they are doing a test that has a very high chance of commercial failure - the swab test of the Hoya which presumably they considered a better option was a failure. But UKOG need to appear to be doing something - how long did they flog the BB dead horse, failed test after failed test.
and this:-
'How does their there JV partner and the actual operator of the drill Aladdin Middle East make any profit out if this so called scam? Bearing in mind they are also paying 50% costs'
Well they will be charging time spent on the project - and also in the 2022 annual report AME wrote this:-
'The only exception will be testing the Resan shallow accumulation. Not only will these wells be quick and cheap the costs are carried by our JV partners and if successful would be a first in the region.'
'costs are carried by our JV partners' - I'd also be concerned about 'be a first in the region'. Too often new entrants to an area think they know more than the old hands - did AME not want to drill but agreed to drill it if UKOG paid 100%?
Ocelot,
it's all very well just repeating UKOG RNS - but what does it really mean?
The previous test was 'interpreted' to have been invalid because there was no flow or pressure change - but the same might occur if the formation is tight - and the Germik (the formation they are going to test) was not identified as a reservoir.
Odd that the oil smell during drilling the Germik was reported on 3 may when the well reached TD although it happened before 18 April.....and the oil that came to surface was first tweeted on 21 April when UKOG RNS'd that they were going to test the Hoya, which had just been drilled, with no mention it happened when the casing was set (ie before 18 April) until 3 May. DL was fooled by the tweet and thought the oil was from the Hoya interval about to be tested.
The geochemical analysis also included a sample from E Sadak - was that a close match, why no mention? It's sort of irrelevant anyway - what would be the issue if the samples weren't a close match though it would be a surprise.
Why does testing being positive have a bearing on shooting 3D to identify (or not) a deeper structural closure (not oil pool) - the amplitude anomaly business didn't end well.
If the formation is tight fo the test is no good is a deeper structural closure not worth identifying? One further point is that if a deeper structure is spilling oil then it assumes oil is migrating into it - otherwise it's slowly emptying.
Don't worry. The traders have their list - and luckily P&Ds depend on news plus wild unjustified claims of the outcome, not results.
Supreme Court decision - though UKOG has never suggested the challenge was delaying anything, and it certainly shouldn't have. UKOG expects to win - and that would be the logical, and sensible, result.
HH-2z conversion- UKOG claim £250,000 saving a year but don't mention the cost of doing it. In June UKOG were still waiting for EA final approval despite years of posters and tweeters claiming it was about to happen - then currently months of claiming it wouldn't happen now because of the Supreme Court challenge to planning permission.
PPP HH farm in - with the shooting of 3D first, with the ability to not drill, it accentuates that drilling even appraisal wells at HH must be risky or else why farm it out - the valuation by UKOG of all future production at HH of £11.4 (before farming out 49%) certainly suggests something isn't as great as some suggest.
Pinarova - it's unlikely that an interval they didn't mention before the well TD'd without success in the primary target is anything but a long shot. Then mentioning an oil smell and emulsion collected after the casing was inserted - that UKOG passed off as Hoya oil when drilling recommenced - doesn't scream discovery.
Loxley - still not farmed out, without a farm out will require far more cash to drill what is a risky well with one undeveloped discovery some 5 kilometres to the west and two (plus a sidetrack) failed appraisals already. Is the plan to acquire seismic after drilling sensible or are they concerned it might show the eastern closure as non-existant?
Luckily there's enough 'traders' to shout out how great it will be 'this time' - though YA / Riverfort will be first in the queue to get a return when the SP they appear to have dragged down rises. It will be interesting to see if they will be able to circumvent the limit of no more than 20% of the previous months trading provision. Recently someone has had a lot of shares to sell with no sign of a TR1 indicating a conversion.
Ocelot,
The Supreme Court decision will just recognise the reality about how planning permission is decided. It isn't a political decision, it's a legal one. Perhaps you can explain in what way it will send a strong signal in favour of onshore production apart from restoring the status quo where interest, apart from unconventional which isn't supported by any party likely to be in power, was practically zero.
In regard to UKOG the geology at Horse Hill and in the Weald generally will remain the same, the Portland able to produce at a poor rate (compared to offshore) for while, at HH short while, then decline. The Kimmeridge, a source rock with fracturing that can produce at similar rates to the Portland for short periods, hasn't been developed possibly because of the results from long term testing at HH and Broadford Bridge.
Pboo,
1000 oil tankers since mid 2018. Thays an average of 200 a year or not much more than one every other day. Currently of course it's more like 2 a week.
As for BKP tankers full of oil currently there's one of water to two of oil. Historically there weren't that many but since June 2019 the water cut has been around one third, and since then nearly half the oil from Horse Hill has been produced, at the start of water ingress a bit under, now over. So even since the start of the ewt not far off one in six tankers has been water, especially as the waste tankers have less volume. That doesn't take into account water produced by HH-2z described as overwhelming soon after it was supposedly cured.
As for the tanker trick. This was about UKOG sending out a number of tankers in a day which somehow Adrian (more often than not) was there to see. This would be heavily reported on twitter and here and posters then would equate the inferred volume of oil they contained to a current - often absurd, flow rate. This was aided by the twitter reports not differentiating or between waste and oil tankers, or mentioning some were exhibiting the 1267W code (non hazardous but containing some oil contamination) not 1267WE - for instance this poster:-
'Pboo
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 6,894
Price: 0.245
No Opinion
RE: Tanker30 Apr 2020 10:05
Penguins
Tell us why it looks like a waste tanker???
It has 1267 hazard plates on the side and orange warning square on the front.'
The RPS Report was first mentioned in the 2020 Annual Report and accounts - issued in March 2021, actually 21 months after June 2019. Even after the report was available to UKOG they persisted in quoting the billions of barrels of OIP in the 2019 Annual Report in April 2020, when they were still talking about dual completion of HH-1.
It's like whack-a-mole.
There are dozens of wells in the Weald that have been drilled through the Kimmeridge so what's required to drill through it is well understood, so drilling it is not a problem. Why UKOG changed the plan at HH and didn't drill as planned through the Kimmeridge isn't known - but it could be they knew they weren't going to be drilling it any time soon so wouldn't need the information - drilling the extra 300m and logging would add time and expense to the HH-2/2z programme and there's always some risk of losing the hole drilling and running logging tools in a well.
It looks like RPS's June 2019 report must have been disappointing as only the contingent resources have ever been revealed from it, and that was some 18 months later in the 2021 Annual Report, in the resources table - perhaps very disappointing - was that why the Kimmeridge was no longer explored or developed, not only by not deepening HH-2 but also not sidetracking or not dual completing HH-1.
Trying to pretend there was an issue with drilling the Kimmeridge is a bit lame. But it seems producing from the Kimmeridge is an entirely different problem.
Over the years so many posters have acted as apologists for UKOG offering all manner of excuses for UKOG failing to keep pi informed and why things haven't happened. One of the more popular was UKOG didn't need to inform the market immediately of good news but did bad news - how disappointed those posters must have been when finally UKOG admitted failure each time - for instance at Broadford Bridge.
Making up a story about the Kimmeridge being no longer accessible following a workover of the Portland is an example of trying to explain away why the Kimmeridge in HH-1 hasn't been developed.
However if it was such a good opportunity surely the planned sidetrack into the Kimmeridge could have been kicked off above any 'bung' (as pboo described it) in the way but below the sweet spot in the Portland.
Pboo,
you posted:- 'I and most on this forum don't care what you think or say'
I suspect in fact they don't like what I say, mainly because it's often right.
But it's just deflection because you don't have any explanation for the inconsistencies in your account which doesn't at any point have any factual evidence - just hearesay.
You saw exactly what was happening - a workover of the Portland which was consistent with what you described in posts here at the time, only now are you and Adrian making up this story about the Kimmeridge being messed up. If anything would have been messed up it was the Portland which they went on to produce in March under the FDP.
The workover end January / early February was nothing to do wth the Kimmeridge - but that spoils your story that UKOG can't access the Kimmeridge in HH-1, which you need as a reason for UKOG not bothering to produce from the Kimmeridge, even though they continued with statements that they were still planning to dual complete the well even in an 28/04 RNS - 'These include interventions to add commingled Kimmeridge oil flow.' - long after you claim they messed up and blocked access to the Kimmeridge.
Strange that at the time you were posting inJanuary / early February no mention of the Kimmeridge, though there was this on 4 Feb 2020:-
'Could be moving / resetting the Portland plugs or putting more monitoring equipment down hole.'
But now you're posting 'it was well reported by people watching the site.'
As for the overheard conversation - perhaps Adrian forgot he posted this:-
'Adrian The Fool on The Hill@davethedrill1
Oct 14, 2020
Replying to @HillWhos and @JohnRogan9
Yea number of times I've walked down the path and then heard them shout out what they are doing next LooooooL. Brand new twitter account . Herd THE PERF MAN shout out firing today . Oh my sides.
B****cks! #ukog'
Pboo.
sooooo
they shut it in for a long term pressure build up in mid January - because pressure is a problem in the Kimmeridge - when they swirched from Kimmeridge to Portland production starting 13 January.
Then for a short period flowed the Portland until nearly the end of January (therefore the KImmeridge was indeed separated by a 'bung' as you put it.
Then at the end of January RNS'd they they were going to perform a workover to optimise the Portland, you then observed and reported here UKOG were repeatedly taking the pump in and out of the well (that had been producing from the Portland)
The well was then flowed and according to your posts there was further work done before eventually in March the flow was classed as production under the FDP.
You have claimed that the work you observed in February, after the Kimmerdge was shut in, was when they 'messed up' the Kimmeridge when they weren't even working on it - and UKOG repeated in several RNS after they switched from Kimmeridge to Portland production that they were planning to dual complete HH-1.
I don't think that at all suggests the Kimmeridge was messed up by any workover - it's just what it is - a source rock with barely pourous / permeable micrite intervals that have fractures.
Alternatively your fantasy suggests UKOG is lying saying they could dual complete HH-1, in several RNS after the Portland workover you suggested was the cause.
THough you also came up with this lie as the workover was specifically to optimise the Portland:-
'They were trying to switch from the Portland to the Kimmeridge and could not get the downhole bung to disconnect. They were fishing for about 7 to 10 days.'
You also quoted from a workover in October 2020 which again was specifically for the Portland as some sort of justification.
You posted about dual,completion:-
'It never happened. But what went wrong?'
What went wrong was that it wasn't worth doing. It would have been costly and dual completion would be a more complex solution which would carry some risk during installation and in production expensive shut downs as, if an ESP failed, it would mean pulling the whole completion to replace it.
There are indications that flow rates of the ewts of the Kimmeridge dropped off rapidly in the later periods of testing for whatever reason despite UKOGs carefully selected figures in RNS, much faster than the already rapid decline in production seen in the Portland OGA / NSTA figures - and of course the RPS Report in June 2019 was obviously unfavourable because UKOG kept it quiet for over 18 months before only using the HH resources figures in it rather than the billions of barrels of OIP.
Even now there doesn't seem to be any rush, after the Supreme Court decides in UKOG's favour in the near future, to test the Kimmeridge again though UKOG do have an obligation well to test the Kimmeridge (although the NSTA keeps putting the drop dead date back). HH-3, that PPP might drill if the farm in happens and the seismic confirms a location, is designated as 'a new crestal infill production well' which places it as a Portland producer. Let's hope that unlike Basur-4 the crestal mapping survives the new obligatiin 3D which also appears to depend on the PPP farm in.
Your whole fantasy appears to depend on the late January / early February workover of the Portland to optimise production from the Portland somehow messing up the Kimmeridge which had been 'shut in' in mid January when production was switched from the Kimmeridge to Portland. On a few occasions soon after in RNS UKOG were stating that plans to dual complete HH-1 were being advanced - were they lying?
You can't even sort out dual completion and co-mingled and where it was planned to be used - so your ridiculous claims of anyone else 'shooting themselves in the foot' look rather hollow.
I suspect your 500 to 600bopd would have lasted days and with both levels declining the sum of production down to an average of a few barrels more than just the Portland figures qute rapidly.
Of course the deception would have lasted a few months as it did with the Porrtland production with UKOG having never reported production rates in RNS or reports since the start of production in March 2020 - investors having to wait until the OGA then NSTA reports the figures 3 months later.