Member Info for Penguins

So FTONewbie you said:-

'It is also very important to understand that when we get past 2p you'll start to see compulsory buying from the funds that track the AIM 100 as UKOG's market cap will put them in line to be in the AIM 100 and there are quite a few funds now that track the AIM 100 especially after it has outperformed the main market in recent years. FACTS NOT RAMP!'

Every now and then I see a post stating something is a fact and I think - is it?

Actually it's not a fact.

Entry and exit to the AIM100 is decided in December, March, June and September. The constituent reviews are based on data from the close of business on the Monday 4 weeks prior to the review effective date. A security is inserted in the FTSE AIM 100 Index at the quarterly review if it rises to 80th position or above, by full market capitalisation.

UKOG has 4637131652 shares

Mcap of the 80th position is about £260mm so the SP needs to be 5.6p on the date used for the next review.

If it's the same for all indices (FTSE100 etc) the review is held on the Wednesday after the first Friday in the month. So possibly early August.

There are some other factors that might affect the mcap calculation slighty, mainly free float. As UKOG currently has a large free float it won't be much if anything.

Thanks to free I've been pointed towards a post by elegance:-.

You posted this am:

@ penguins “All key equipment necessary to carry out a 150-day long-term extended flow test campaign at HH-1 is now on site.” And there you were yesterday saying it’ll be middle of July minimum, what an idiot you look now as well as many others. Existing and new investors should read the facts, extended well tests now to start, don’t be swayed by those that are shorting Ukog or those that give you misinformation.

Actually I said:-

'I don't think the actual ewt will be that soon.

From the planning application:

Workover and Portland EWT – workover 12 days, EWT 6 weeks.

If a workover rig is being used that has to arrive (2 days) and if not then the crane has to be sited over the well, not unloading lorries.

So if they are operating t the planning application schedule then there's a minimum of 12 working days from now before the ewt could start so mid July?'

So from the planning permission (not a number I made up) there were 12 days of workover once the site was set up before well testing actually started, and this was 'if' they are operating to the planning application'.

So being quite clear where my information was coming from and from information on twitter seeing that the site wasn't fully set up as they were still unloading equipment.

But what is actually happening next according to the RNS:-

'Following final equipment set-up and the subsequent removal of three temporary suspension plugs in the wellbore, flow will first be re-established from the Portland sandstone oil pool.'

So not (as you said) 'extended well tests now to start,' but actually setting up the equipment was not complete and then removing plugs from the wellbore.

So who is giving misinformation?

I don't think the actual ewt will be that soon.

From the planning application:

Workover and Portland EWT – workover 12 days, EWT 6 weeks.

If a workover rig is being used that has to arrive (2 days) and if not then the crane has to be sited over the well, not unloading lorries.

So if they are operating t the planning application schedule then there's a minimum of 12 working days from now before the ewt could start so mid July?

Tony,

I was having a look at planning docs yesterday and despite NR saying (privately as he doesn't say it during the video of his presentation) they would use a crane HHDL have specified a workover rig. In the application they also specified that prior to testing they would be performing a workover on the well for several days, including further perforations..

My view has always been that operations at BB were made more difficult when they were using a crane for downhole activities, taking much longer than if they had the right equipment, and perhaps being less able to deal with issues.

I suppose the question is whether the crane is there to prepare for the workover rig, or whether they attempt the workover with the crane.

I would assume the tubing is for the ewts not for drilling.

Memory is a strange thing.

The first well at Wytch Farm was drilled in 1973 targeting the Bridport Sands reservoir.

In 1977 the first well was drilled targeting the Sherwood reservoir. neither time was gas expected as the source was assumed to be the same for both levels.

Of course any calculation assumes that all the placing shares will be flipped.

BTW I actually mean that the small (ish) trades will account for much mor than half the volume.

The total volume includes sells and buys which will over a period of time be balanced.

So of 2000 million volume 1000 million will be sells.

I am dubious that 2/3 of all sells since last Thursday are from the placing as these won't be in small trades (or even trades that most pis would consider large) which probably account for much more than half of the trades.

I'd be surprised if the placing shares are anywhere near gone.

As for YA there were 2 sequential trades yesterday (21 June) that added up to a nice round 14 million (at 15:46). During the 2 early June conversions there were quite a few double trades that added up to round millions, perhaps to disguise their activity.

Maybe a coincidence but maybe the start of the next conversion so maybe a conversion RNS today (Friday).

ninetails Just keep pressing his buttons...…..one day he might realise that not ramping is not the same as deramping - here's a previous tweet of his (June 15):- #ukog #Horsehill this guy penguins is a shorter. Never ramps ukog over the last 5 years. Always wants to knock ukog subtly . Don't be fooled. Even thinks he knows more than David Lennigas regarding 2016 flows lol. So which one was on site. It's wasn't Pingo! Anyway no idea, testing kit, drilling - not what I comment on unless it's pretty obvious - maybe ask Alan2017. AS for DL there's an interesting contradiction in what DL says about the testing:- 'To start with there was a 50:50 mix of water and oil gushing from a one-inch choke. When the flow was choked back to a half an inch that flow improved to 99% oil after the old drilling fluids spewed out'. But wasn't it DL that was complaining that BB didn't use oil based mud - like was used at HH?

Flapping chicken, Look no further than free's description:- The fool on the hill @Adrianwfire #UKOG reply.. Paid bullsh*tter and shorting deramper :) The only bit that isn't true is that I'm a shorting deramper . If I was shorting I wouldn't need to post on this board would I? Just leave it to UKOG to release RNS. As for deramper, just a realist, oh, and not paid to post on this board - just like free I do it for free - just not 24/7

LEJOGB are you talking abut the recent one or what Redheadedrager has termed a CPR mentioned in an RNS in December 2016? My quote is from the recent CPR. My reference to the report not being a CPR is the December 2016 report.

No - you can look at it as much as you like, but it isn't a CPR. In fact it is more or less dismissed in the 'proper' CPR just released. 'Because of the uncertainty inherent in many aspects of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation reservoir properties there are likely to be many alternative interpretations and scenarios which could be applied which could give different results. The Nutech P90, P50 and P10 property models essentially represent three very similar cases of a single scenario. As a consequence, it is not possible to determine that the P90, P50 and P10 volumes, which come from the Nutech models, represent the full range of possible outcomes for the Kimmeridge Clay Formation OIP. It is possible that the P90 and P50 values could be materially different to those reported if all alternate interpretations and scenarios are considered.

Red, not a CPR, just an estimate of OIP, if it was a CPR it would say so. As for the Portland flowing 2000 bopd - they're not bringing in that big a pump. As for 'opening up the chokes' it won't work. The KL4 for instance had a one inch choke for both tests. The first test flowed at a stabilised rate of 901bopd for about 4 hours. It was shut in and then flowed again for abut 7.5 hours. Flow didn't stabilise and it flowed at an average rate of 838 bopd. The KL3 flowed at a stable rate on it's first test of 464 bopd with a half inch choke. The second test flowed at a stabilised rate of 456 bopd, the choke was reduced to 28/64 to stabilise flow. So what would be the effect of 'opening' the choke' on the KL4 - it already was open more than it should have been to keep the flow stabilised. As for the KL3 the evidence is that they want to maintain stability, not maximise flow rates.

Redheadedrager, for someone so hot on 'facts' There has never been a CPR on the Kimmeridge. Also earlier today you posted (12:28 today) that the well flowed 1688bopd over a 7 hour period - not true. This number is the sum of the best flow rates from each of the 3 layers tested. and you inferred that the flow rate fr the ewt would be 2000 bopd over a 150 day period.

TheMov, At no point has UKOG stated that the drilling fluid was an issue (it was DL/Vonk). In fact they have categorically stated it wasn't, (annual report and accounts):-. 'Consequently, neither the drilling fluid nor drilling and coring methodology appears to have “damaged” the reservoir (i.e. blocked or plugged fractures surrounding the well bore). As to whether these fractures remained fully or partly open during the necessary pressure draw-downs following acidisation used during testing is currently under investigation.'

Argus, There is a difference between geologic time scale (millions of years) and production timescals, at best tens of years. Oil produced in the shales can over long periods migrate into the fractures. In the limestones there is also water present that is locked into the rock matrix (look at the Nutech report - water saturation nearly 50% ie there is nearly as much water present as oil) which is why HH produced only oil during the main part of testing. If the water wasn't 'locked in' the rock it would have been produced in significant quantities throughout the tests. Perhaps what Neil Ritson said about the KL layers at the UK Investor Show 2018 (he is Executive Chairman of Solo Oil, 10% owner of HHDL) might be useful':- 'Now these are fractured reservoirs and they will have been offloading the oil from the fractures. What we are going back in this year to establish is if you leave them open for a period of time what is the sustainable rate, which you would expect to be down in the 100 to 200 barrels per day range if it's going to be commercial.'

I think the small amount of water during the first stabilised flow was residual water from the initial 1 inch choke rate where the KL3 flowed at 700bfpd at 50/50 water / oil. Anyway DL claimed no formation water flowed at all so based on that claim its all completion fluid or neutralised acid (I don't agree though - it doesn't make sense, and there has never been an official comment as to what that water was), though he is also the one that put about this idea that 'opening the chokes' would be something HHDL would do.

Ironic, the reason the flow test of the KL3 was choked back was to maintain a stable (not dropping) flow rate. But this was still about 1 bopd less for each hour of the first flow test. The KL4 managed a stable flow for 4 whle hours at 901 bopd with a 1 inch choke, the next test failed to stabilie and dropped to 838 bopd with a 1 inch choke That represents about 15 bopd less for each hour of the first test.. For long term testing they will be utilising significantly smaller chokes and thus testing at a much lower, but sustainable (hopefully) flow rate.

KenniGT, I have already read the CPR and note that regarding the Kimmeridge what Xodus say is (page 104):- Because of the uncertainty inherent in many aspects of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation reservoir properties there are likely to be many alternative interpretations and scenarios which could be applied which could give different results. The Nutech P90, P50 and P10 property models essentially represent three very similar cases of a single scenario. As a consequence, it is not possible to determine that the P90, P50 and P10 volumes, which come from the Nutech models, represent the full range of possible outcomes for the Kimmeridge Clay Formation OIP. It is possible that the P90 and P50 values could be materially different to those reported if all alternate interpretations and scenarios are considered. Not exactly a confirmation of what Nutech said, which is the basis for UKOGs claims regarding OIP across the Weald. Anyway OIP has no value until a reserve can be calculated based on testing - what is about to happen. As for the rest of the CPR most is a repeat of previous work that's been available some time and although there may be differences the total P50 resources estimate (contingent and prospective) is very similar to previous estimates (21mmbbls vs 21.7mmbbls).

that one of the non reservoir related issues that was hanging in the air has been possibly answered in the CPR. They don't definitively state a cement squeeze job wasn't done but I would from the wording suspect it wasn't as how would they assess the original cement job was OK if they had performed a cement squeeze:- 'Subsequent analysis showed that the cement bond, between casing and reservoir, was less than optimal over some intervals. The result of which would be that the well bore is not connected to the best open fractures of the reservoir. The decision was made to pull the completion string and work over the well. However subsequent analysis and testing demonstrated that over the main zones of interest the well�s cement did not require any remedial treatment'

It looks like the guidelines are being tightened up but otherwise I suspect little change. The DECC tended to be less prescriptive and could perhaps bend rules a little. This exercise is removing that discretion. The OGA is moving towards a streamlined 'tick box' online bureaucracy. The burden of this on small company applicants will be much greater than medium to large enterprises who can easily demonstrate both financial viability and capacity. The OGA would probably prefer small oilers to not be binvolved, especially as operators, unfortunately it is the small oilers who tend to try new plays which often carry a very high risk, but can open up new reserves if successful.