Member Info for Penguins

Wizard,

How desperate are you. I don't think they have made a mistake perhaps you should email them - good luck with that

Redheadedrager,

You're mixing up the cash statement and the financial position and then not deducting the full liabilities of £4.097mm

You can't take the bits from an account you like and not the liabilities if you are going to use the financial statements .

and the figure of £850,000 isn't gross expenditure, it's net across the group.

We will see.

Wizard,

I have no idea why UKOG would say 'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub-commercial' in the Loxley planning application. What I do know is they did.

Perhaps it's because the 350 bopd you quote is not sustainable, where has that been quoted as a sustainable rate?

Thorpedo,

interesting you seem to have forgotten the ewt and other expenditures accounted for as 'Expenditures on exploration & evaluation assets' that totalled £3.975mm over 6 months or £662,000 per month. It also seems that although the minus £5.145mm net cash flow (about £850,000 per month) during the 6 months included 'one off' items the figure SS gave for cash remaining at end June implied that net cash burn per month continued at a similar level.

You seem determined to overestimate income (start April to end June test production was about 16,200bbls at an average of no more than $70 generating less than £900,000 not £1.2mm in 3 months) and as explained above underestimate expenditure.

Wizard,

at least quote what is printed:- 'Oil field with three productive and commercially viable zones, EWT ongoing, two further wells HH-1z and HH-2 scheduled in Q2 2019'

'Commercially viable' - not 'commercial' also something in that sentence that didn't happen...…..

Anyway which part of this don't you understand:- 'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub-commercial'

This is a statement in the Loxley planning application in Amended Planning Statement and Environmental Report (page 22 of 47).

Your continued distortion is total fabrication.

Ocelot,

Contradictory isn't it. Except 'commercially viable isn't quite the same as 'commercial', and there is a hesitancy about the Kimmeridge development in the half year report that wasn't there previously.

I see Rodders is joining in the abuse now. I suppose quoting UKOG isn't allowed if it doesn't fit their narrative.

jmhy,

I wouldn't worry about not seeing FOTH's nonsense.

He can't count - his latest post:-

'#ukog intresting that there are 7 gas to wire generators in the prodution planing.'

Not that intresting [sic]:-

From the '07/12/18 App C Local Air Quality Horse Hill' document in the planning application (page 37)

'Under normal circumstances the natural gas produced will used to fire gas engines for the generation of electricity. HHDL have indicated that there will be 3 off 1 MWe and 1 off 2 MWe generating sets'

I make that 4 generators, same as the plan:-'07/12/2018 ZG-HHD-HH-PROD-PA-19 R0 Proposed Layout Plan - Production Mode - Process & Storage Area 500 Scale A3'

Perhaps more interesting is 'Figure 3.5 Natural gas production over the lifetime of the project' on page 35 of that document showing the anticipated decline in gas production over the 20 year life of the site. By year 7 only one generator is predicted to be in use.

Still deluded here's another FOTH recent tweet:-

I see [three penguin icons] Is trying it on again tonight suggesting the kim is not commercial lol...…… SS said HH could be declared a commercial find if flowed 60 bopd day'

Well UKOG hasn't declared the Kimmeridge commercial, and it's UKOG stating: 'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub-commercial' in the Loxley planning document.

I suppose next he'll be repeating the lie that I said the Kimmeridge would need fracking - I have said the reason the Weald companies have said they wouldn't frack was that it would probably do more harm to the reservoir than good, not it needed fracking.

Sting,

Your post about forming the cellars for HH-3 to HH-6 ignores that the rig, sound proofing and ancillary equipment will definitely cover at least 2 if not 3 of the locations for the additional 5 wells and restrict access. Messing around trying to do this work to enable continuous drilling would be a bit odd as it was never the plan to continuously drill, they have the cellars they need for the 2 appraisal wells which they need to ewt to better understand the reservoirs. Immediately drilling the development wells wouldn't be sensible.

It also ignores the financial position that UKOG finds itself in with the drilling not starting earlier in the year. Whilst Pboo claims 40 tankers a month the actual average since the start of testing is less than 24 per month, even based on pboo's guess last week that by Friday there had been between 275 and 280 tankers (250 + 25 to 30) since the start of testing mid July last year.

Outgoings have been, net of the ewt oil revenues, around £900,000 a month during testing as shown by the latest 6 month cashflow balance sheet and the statement by SS that 'less than £8mm' remained at the end of June.

If both HH-2 and HH-1z had been drilled by end June (Q2) less cash would be left but presumably higher oil revenues would have been coming in during the HH-2z Portland test while HH-1z was being drilled, and then testing the 2 horizontals would be currently underway. Anybody thinking the wells not being drilled to the original schedule has no impact ignores that the company plus net ewt costs are considerable.

But it looks unlikely that HH-1z will be drilled immediately following HH-2 for technical reasons:- 'Whilst we remain very positive on the future commercial potential of Kimmeridge oil play, we have assessed that, for risk mitigation purposes, we now plan that the Kimmeridge development, commencing with HH-1z, will likely follow the start of full scale Portland production from Horse Hill.' - and it seems there are fundamental issues with the Kimmeridge that need to be addressed:- 'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub-commercial' - so a pause for the data from HH-2 through the Kimmeridge, and the KL3/KL4 ewt data is assessed also on the cards.

Too late at night to be posting - 6 months lock in would be 10 December - but anyway the fact that the 91 million shares would have had to have been disposed of on market or transferred to another entity that would ultimately had to declare them unless they were a foreign entity holds.

Simplest answer I'd the reason SCDM had all those shares in July was they started out with a lot in January.

Ocelot

The effective date of the transaction was 10 June 2016 with a 6 month lock in.

The simplest reason for the TR1s in January 2017 seems to be the transfer of shares from Celtique through a UK company to the ultimate owner (SCDM SAS) being a foreign company not needing to declare ownership until 5%.

There weren't even enough share trades between the 11th January 2017 (6 months after the effective date) and 20th January 2017 for the shares to have been sold. To declare on the 20th they had not only dropped below 3% but went to zero would have meant a sale of 91million shares on the 20th January 2017.

SCDM got out of UKOG immediately following the decision to recomplete the BB well. Obviously something in the RNS spooked them (quite rightly as it happens). Unlike the pis that continued to ramp UKOG despite the appalling BB RNS, SCDM will have had O&G expertise within the group to advise them and see through the BS.

They originally got about 122 million UKOG shares (directly from UKOG and some in settlement of a legal dispute with Magellan) from the sale of PEDL234 in August 2016. They were priced at about 1.58p.

They increased their holding some time between then and end July 2017 to just under 175million shares when SCDM SAS was obliged to TR1 their just over 5% holding. A second TR1 RNS'd 12 October was issued as because of dilution they must have realised their holding had dropped below 5% on 9 October.

Between 9 October and 17 October their holding dropped to just over 90million shares from nearly 175million and continued large sells after that looked like they sold out completely. Having avoided the train crash that then ensued I don't understand why anyone thinks that they would be interested in getting involved again, their original holding came about because they wanted out of the BB licence and they subsequently sold the shares they received, probably for a good profit, thank you very much.

It's just a completely unsubstantiated 'rumour', initiated every now and then by FOTH.

Mirasol - could well be a feature of the rig timing, HHDL wouldn't be able to contract a rig and start work without Tellurian's agreement. I'm sort of expecting an announcement about Tellurian about a carry or sale before the rig turns up - featuring either UKOG or less likely an outsider, but I could be surprised and they end up participating at 35%.

Apologies pboo,

It was an old tweet from March. Do you have a recent count though

Argus,

As pboo says don't believe rumours.

Wealdoilers aka pboo claimed early June there were 2 tankers most days when UKOG were producing at 220 bopd during the Portland test, just a bit more than a tanker a day.

Last tanker before the workover was on 28 June and was probably tanker 252 unless UKOG counted it in their 'over 250 tankers' total in the half year report.

The first tanker reported on twitter following the workover was 9 July and today wealdoilers said this mornings tanker was number 168 (though the tweet disappeared). Presuming he meant 268 that's 13 days there could have been tankers (not Sundays) and 16 maybe 17 tankers. FOTH is claiming there's often more than 2 but never tweeted a third tanker during July - so obviously he's been talking to that horse again - 'Adrian: how many tankers? Henry: scuffs the earth 3 times with his hoof'.

Pboo, can you confirm the current tanker count you tweeted briefly (or did I imagine it?). According to sightings tweeted there have only been 10 days in July, including today, with tankers, 3 of those with 2 tankers.

I'll leave you with this thought.

If UKOG is lumping together the Portland and Kimmeridge whilst I suspect that this doesn't mean the Portland is prospective everywhere - there's a lot of dry wells and the quality varies - it could mean that the Portland at Horse Hill could have a much greater OIP, and thus potential for greater reserves, with some form of stratigraphic trapping mechanism.

Mirasol,

just looking at the JOA (probably excerpts) in the re-admission document no one can sole risk until all working obligations have been completed 'Any participant may undertake sole risk drilling or development once all working obligations have been completed and.......'

So Tellurian can't be sole risked and I'm assuming they won't want to default. As it's obligation work it also has to be done so I suppose it could result in a stand-off until either Tellurian participate (which they might already have done), sell out or get a carry.

.....and the JOA does specify who pays what:-'All risk, obligations, losses, damages, liabilities and associated expenses incurred in or arising out of the conduct under the joint operations shall be borne by the participants in proportion to their respective participating interests in PEDL137'.

and I didn't even infer thatTellurian wouldn't have a say - just that the carry ending would have nothing to do with any declaration of commerciality (and why would HHDL have allowed a clause that Tellurian could use to block the ending of the carry?).

redheadrager

I presume you are looking at the revised access road planning application SCC Ref 2019/0108 (titled 'TEMPORARY THREE YEAR CONSENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND RESTORATION OF A HIGHWAY JUNCTION IN-OFF DUNSFOLD ROAD WITH BOUNDARY FENCING, ENTRANCE GATES AND AN ACCESS TRACK ANCILLARY TO HYDROCARBON DEVELOPMENT - apologies for the capitals, but doesn't sound like there's a well site application in there), which doesn't make the earlier application invalid, merely adds to it, revising the access road.

The full document title is: 'Alternative Access Arrangement Planning Statement and Environmental Report'

and anyway even if the document has been superceded it doesn't make statements in it invalid.

Redheadedrager,

The document is in the planning application filed by UKOG and is SCC Ref 2019/0072 (the original application), is on page 3 of the attachments and called:-

21/05/19 Amended Planning Statement and Environmental Report.

Page 22 of 47 (there is another document in the pdf that also has a page 22, but not of 47.

If you can't find it please don't try to infer I have made it up.

on page 21 there's a bit about maturity (the apparently dodgy reason Angus gave for not testing Brockham).

As for more positive, maybe, but I think there's a lot of wriggle room in 'commercially viable' and 'very positive' - SS was actually confident about BB testing:-

'I am confident that the revised forward testing plan will be able to deliver the results that will help demonstrate BB-1z's near term commercial viability' (RNS 10/10/17)

'The test results to date are technically significant and highly encouraging and I am confident that the more finely focussed and optimised testing plan can establish commercial viability.' (RNS 16/10/17)

So an opinion by SS vs a statement by the company, which actually gave reasons.

Mirasol

the Tellurian carry is through the ewt of HH-1. They will have to pay their way through HH-1z and HH-2 both of which are obligation work programme wells agreed at the change to 14th round model clauses (I think) unless they get out or negotiate another carry.

Nothing to do with a declaration of commerciality - which incidentally means very little until it is done by a third party with details.

Bridgedogg,

Tankers leaving the site ( the rarely seen lesser spotted two tankers a day- presumably your 440bopd) are a indication of flow rates decided by UKOG by altering chokes, pump rate and performing shut ins for pressure build ups. How a horizontal well might flow long term is a completely different issue, and in the case of the Kimmeridge there appears to be some risk that needs mitigation.

Leewayne,

you know that Liverpool haven't won the premiership, but they might.

This is a statement in the above in Amended Planning Statement and Environmental Report (page 22 of 47):

'Flow tests and pressure data from the Broadford Bridge and Horse Hill Wells Sites have been sub-commercial'

Which they are giving as a reason for having to test at Loxley - but then the plan appears to be to do the completion testing in the Portland.

If you read the thread I have verbatim quoted part of the planning application in the first post of this thread and explained what sub commercial means, and made some general observations based on recent RNS.

Bridgedogg,
As for tankers I have no idea what they mean regarding commerciality, it wasn't actually me that used the term sub commercial for the flow rates and pressure of HH, but the thing with fractured reservoirs is decline rates, not initial rates. UKOG have chosen to publish for the Kimmeridge initial rates, rates following shut ins, average rates over some short test periods but never start and finish rates of the longer flow tests, notably over Christmas and then during the time following the January operational RNS. Even the 30 day test an average rate (342bopd) was published, and a start rate (771bopd with a maximum half hour rate of 902bopd) - but no final rate.

Kevin,

Here's a theory if the smaller shareholders just walked what would that look like. UKOG gives them lots of shares which cost UKOG nothing which they then (it appears) sold. Even if they gave them cash UKOG just issue some more shares for cash, heads they win .......

As far as UKOG is concerned the Portland is commercial so there will be plenty of cash to keep paying their salaries regardless of the Kimmeridge.