Member Info for Penguins

TH2,

yet another 'hydrogen' story that has definitely no bearing on the south Dorset proposed / potential probably not yet leased site - any thoughts why UKOG stopped mentioning the status at 'Heads of Terms' of a lease?

NG, developer of Project Union, explains why the East Coast section will be finished first:-

'Teesside and the Humber are two of the UK’s largest industrial clusters and is where much of the country’s low‑carbon hydrogen is expected to be produced by 2030. With major industrial sites, power stations and large‑scale gas storage facilities already in place, it is the ideal location to pioneer a dedicated hydrogen network. This region will lead the transition to cleaner energy, helping industries switch from natural gas to low‑carbon hydrogen.'

'and large‑scale gas storage facilities already in place,

So as well as all the other positives that wouldn't apply to south Dorset they can connect to the Aldbrough cavern storage site, phased possibly initially to already in place storage converted from natural gas and/or the extension for hydrogen which is already in the process of applying for planning permission.

Is anybody going to promise a billion quid to the project in the hope that the government doesn't choose SSE / Equinor and instead choose a company that spotted an opportunity to hype a tale that TH2 so willingly repeats without question.

....and by the way that was January - it's now May and Qatar may not be so flush with funds to splurge in the UK.

Ocelot,

if only UKOG was the only company offering a solution where it's more likely to be needed in the early 2030's - the NE and NW.

Others have advanced plans and will beat any application for revenue support made by a company with a 100% failure rate in achieving their 'expectations' should they get as far as qualifying to submit an application. Whilst ocelot mentions the constraint costs for early 2030's the government doesn't appear to be rushing the launch of the hydrogen transport and storage allocation rounds while advancing support for other hydrogen projects mostly in the North of England, though OFGEM have announced funding for Project Union in the North East - maybe the government is aware there are already advanced plans for storage already that they can quickly award revenue support to - this is from NG about Project Union East Coast explaining:-

'Why the East Coast?

Teesside and the Humber are two of the UK’s largest industrial clusters and is where much of the country’s low‑carbon hydrogen is expected to be produced by 2030. With major industrial sites, power stations and large‑scale gas storage facilities already in place, it is the ideal location to pioneer a dedicated hydrogen network. This region will lead the transition to cleaner energy, helping industries switch from natural gas to low‑carbon hydrogen.

Project Union: East Coast will:

• transport hydrogen from multiple producers

• connect industrial users and storage sites

• anchor a national hydrogen supply chain

• support decarbonisation across the region

But in the south minimal hydrogen production has been supported - so no sign the west of Weymouth storage will be needed for early 2030s - or perhaps ever as it's likely the national hydrogen grid will be in place to ship hydrogen from northern storage to cover any shortfall in demand in the south, or excess production to northern storage - with battery storage available as an option for short term excess power storage.

The problem for HH is that it's unlikely to fund anything much apart from the wages - so the support to the clean energy is keeping the failed executive well funded, not the project.

I wonder if, because the business model is selling shares, they don't assess what they do on a commercial basis. Everything they have done previously appeared to be riskier than UKOG suggested (though should have known) and thus not worth the cost of drilling

The work to return HH to production won't be free and production after a brief respite will likely continue on its downward curve - even if they convert HH-2z to an injector there will be a cost and a risk it might (probably will) quickly find a path to HH-1 and worsening water cut either through the high permeability layer or fractures - probably why despite RNS stated plans to convert HH-2z it didn't happen.

UKOG has avoided getting an HH CPR despite years of production data probably because it would reveal how selective UKOG has been with it's various claims about HH over the years - firstly about the testing, then during production.

Trish,

I'm sure that everything that UKOG/SS has stated is true - the problem is how selective they've been in releasing factual information (eg:- billions of barrels there, little of it recoverable except by getting a company applying unlikely expectations for recovery to produce figures) otherwise much of what is put in RNS subjective, though repeatedly choosing to 'expect' an obviously unlikely outcome (not just in hindsight) is perhaps difficult to justify - it would be interesting to see what the expectations were based on.

'the company ownership will no doubt be picked up by another from an administrator.'

Funny you should say that:-

Company Name: UKEN HOLDING LIMITED

Company Number: 14880485

Company Director: STEPHEN PAUL SANDERSON

& sole shareholder.

In reality UKEn (the company that UKOG is the sole shareholder of) is worth very little with a few reports and outline plans for the subsurface and a couple of sites identified but not leased - that's assuming we would be told if they were leased as they made a big deal of the heads of terms for the West of Weymouth site, and the negotiations for the East Yorkshire site.

Unfortunately for UKOG there's no exclusive access to the subsurface (unlike oil licences) so any company can try and pick up a site nearby as UKOG has done near the Aldbrough gas storage site - the difference being Aldbrough is operated by SSE and Equinor with planning already in progress for an extension for hydrogen storage leaving UKOG little chance (zero?) to secure revenue support for their fantasy site - there will also be Centrica (Rough) and in the NW EP competing for revenue support.

If a competent operator considered hydrogen storage was needed any time soon in the south UKOG would already be facing competition.

From a quick look through the RNS:-

'This will keep the lights on and support the decarbonisation of the South and East Coast’s gas-to-power plants - Drax Power (the UK’s and North’s largest CO2 emitter) and Fawley Refinery, the South’s largest CO2 emitter.'

Interesting phrase - 'this will keep the lights on' - forgot to mention 'and keep the salaries paid'.

Unfortunately there's already two capable gas storage companies in the NE that will be vying for revenue support if the government ever gets round to relaunching the first hydrogen storage allocation round - as for Fawley, Fawley Green Hydrogen a subsidiary of EDF seems better placed to supply ExxonMobil with hydrogen and will be operating well before UKOG has any storage.

Didn't see any mention they had advanced fro heads of terms for the S Dorset site or beyond identifying a site in E Yorkshire.

Still no mention of how poorly Horse Hill was in production - just the headline figure of oil produced from Portland and Kimmeridge (212,000bbls) over 6 years which includes testing, not the fact it was producing less oil than water when it was shut in.

Then there's this 'Cash and cash equivalents at the financial year end stood at £0.04 million' - down to £40,000 - of course they had to take a salary cut until they had hyped the NG MOU and issued another 18 billion shares - though paying the board over £400,000 for a company just losing money seems excessive.

....and finally:-'Following the impairment review disclosed above, the carrying value of development assets at the Company as at 30 September 2025 is £152K, representing assets associated with projects where management continues to expect future

economic benefits.

Ocelot,

' £8bn of constraint costs in 2030 and stresses, therefore, the pressing need for long-term energy storage solutions.'

....and where will this constrained electricity be generated, and where will the large scale electrolysis plants to produce hydrogen be in the early 2030's with nearby industrial demand, not southern England as it will be, in England, the North East and North West (obviously of interest to EPP) where the UK government is already supporting with both cash and revenue contracts. More important the North East is where the first part of Project Union will be completed - and of course there's a push for large scale battery storage.

Ocelot translator:-

I want to remind posters that I only want to read posts I agree wth, are meaningless or don't challenge what I post because I know nothing about this investment except what UKOG tells me as research might scare me.

It may be convenient that the shares are suspended.

At some time during H1 2026 the government has said (in July 2025) it will relaunch the hydrogen storage and transport round and it may not be the good news UKOG is hoping for - or more likely are well aware of but wouldn't want to mention it - as the government's focus to date has been funding or giving revenue guarantees for hydrogen projects in England in the NE and NW.

Keeping the shares off market could give UKOG an opportunity to hype Horse Hill (again) to try and prop up the SP - but though UKOG has never revealed how dire production had become the NSTA publishes production figures which showed Portland oil production in October 2024, before the field was shut down in November, averaging about 26bopd and 30bwpd - a water cut of 54%.

Expect a return to hyping the Kimmeridge - which was obviously so good that following a ('secret') RPS Kimmeridge report in June 2019 almost all plans to work on the Kimmeridge never materialised - HH-2 drilling through it, dual completion, sidetrack - though they did continue to test it before revealing the HH-2z Portland water incursion news (a routine intervention according to UKOG - to the rampers delight), and about 21 months later, to the Kimmeridge being assigned about 1.5mmbbls 2C resources in the early April 2021 Annual Report instead of the previously quoted ca.10 billion barrels OIP.

The Kimmeridge was never put into production and the planned Portland horizontal producer, HH-2z, was eventually, after months of no information, slated to be a water injector - which also never happened - though if the hydrogen dream collapses expect that to be hyped as well.

Maybe topping up the EBT, followed by a GM.................to get authorisation to issue more confetti & maybe another consolidation.

After is the suggested in the suspension RNS 'very shortly' a month?

This from 29 July 2025 RNS:- 'UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) wishes to advise that the Company now plans to publish its audited 2024 Annual Report and Accounts along with its Interim results for the six-month period ended March 2025 no later than early September 2025.'

Ended up 30 September.......

Just to clarify - that's doubling the number of shares at each of three General Meetings (one of which was an AGM.

'Since then they've issued over 32 billion shares doubling the shares in issue at 3 GMs'

and for these three meetings the EBT RNS was either the same day or the day before - they're that worried their resolutions might get rejected - which was probably why the early 2024 meeting was 'adjourned' - and the EBT was topped up to 10% before it's resumption.........

Before the consolidation in March 2024 there were just over 32 billion shares.

That went down to 3.25 billion.

Since then they've issued over 32 billion shares doubling the shares in issue at 3 GMs and topped up the EBT to 10% of the shares in issue before each GM to ensure winning the votes on resolutions.

Surprising they haven't added to the EBT since the last raise that took the share total to over 36 billion, an RNS about that will signal a GM is on its way (adding about 1.8billion shares to the EBT).....where they'll seek authorisation to double the shares in issue. Given that last time they had about this many shares and an abysmal SP (though dropping the nominal value at the same time means they can still issue more shares at the current SP) they consolidated at 10 to 1 - I wouldn't bet against that happening as well.

Ant,

As a limited company the 'value' of PW is unknown, even PLCs with publicly traded shares could (and do) argue that the mcap doesn't reflect the true value of the company.

But their accounts prior to the sale don't reflect tangible assets of much value and the cash doesn't appear to stay within the company even as more assets so ultimate ownership of the equipment bought from (via?) PW may rest elsewhere with PW renting out equipment they themselves rent and thus acted as an intermediary in the sale - so buying PW wouldn't have transferred ownership of the equipment.

I was just pointing out the sale to UKOG of the equipment was for a RNS'd £1.65 million.

AntC,

It's so easy to fact check.

The cost of the equipment at Horse Hill from PW was £1.65mm - and even that much was probably not good value.

RNS 25 May 2021:- 'The Company acquired the Equipment from PW for £1.65 million.' RNS following the final instalment payment.

But the date of first mention was 28 April 2020 when the aim was to reduce OPEX by £17 per barrel with production at 300bopd - but during April the average rate, based on government published monthly figures, was 243bopd which by the end of 2020 was hovering around 100bopd, when production stopped in November 2024 production was down to about 30bopd with a water cut greater than 50%.

In June I posted this in reply to another poster:-

'Penguins

Posted in: UKOG Posts: 6,294

RE: Where are we... 8 Jun 2020 22:52

Jimmy,

that got me thinking.

Is this kit any good for the planned development of 6 producing wells with supposedly far more throughput. If there's success elsewhere they could move it on for testing but that's probably going to be a while yet, but when will the planned development commence? - the reason for renting is the ability to shed equipment when it's no longer needed. Is this admitting that this is 'the development'.

'is this admitting that this is the development' - it was but only UKOG knew after only a month of production, and have never admitted it or mentioned daily production of oil (or water) since this.

28 April 2020 RNS:- 'Consequently, with daily flow rates from production start at Horse Hill averaging over 300 barrels of dry oil per day ("bopd"), asset-level opex, inclusive of tanker export, sales and marketing, now equates to $17/bbl.'

Then there's this one......

https://x.com/UKOGlistedonAIM/status/1974052717736624221

Again not showing Project Union going to Portland.

But it doesn't matter who is supposedly laying the hoped for pipelines shown on any of these maps going to south Dorset - none of them are going to be laid by the early 2030s - required timing for the first hydrogen storage and transport round.

Trish

Not sure that 'giving hope' is anything other than trying to deceive.

As for 'funding from government' it would be helpful if you could say why? The government will almost certainly only award revenue support (not upfront funding) for storage in the North of England because there will be hydrogen production there because there are wind farms there already and demand for hydrogen in the early 2030s because the government is supporting these things there.

TH2,

Oh hilarious - the bit about your 'research' is about as ridiculous as your claims about anything being looked into legally.

If anyone needs investigating it's a poster who somehow is always buying shares and surely never selling because they're expecting everything to be successful and the SP to rise 10 fold - but somehow is in profit.

Either they're lying about the buying or their expectations of constant success are a lie.

Not sure that any of the work mentioned in the last GM notice requires significant expenditure apart from salaries unless somehow the management team can't do the job they're paid to do which is negotiate and conclude the LOS or MOU that UKOG likes to hype.

I do agree that some of the raise might have been to cover costs already incurred, and apart from the work specifically mentioned in the GM notice they will have incurred significant costs preparing the long awaited rewritten planning application for Horse Hill production resumption.

As for the hydrogen BS I would hope that UKOG has stopped any work on the potential East Yorkshire site (if in fact any was started) with no hope of submitting an application that would realistically stand a chance against a SSE / Equinor or a Centrica application for Rough

Whilst UKOG currently appears to be the only potential applicant for cavern storage in the south of England the lack of news of any competition suggests the lack of hydrogen connectivity, demand or production, certainly for the early 2030's, makes a first hydrogen storage round application in South Dorset pointless (unless you're a company with no other opportunities for hype) - it's not as if the salt interval is secret (shown on every map highlighting areas of potential salt cavern storage) and UKOG does not have exclusive access to the salt interval - although any limited area covered by planning permission would be - so a nearby site could be leased and an application developed by any more capable company (note apart from the capable bit precisely what UKOG has done in East Yorkshire, near to Aldbrough).

Twice at least apparently.........

One surprisingly posted, and then the corrected one!

...and of course UKEn have to be selected.

With probably only two projects being selected in the first allocation round - they will almost certainly both be in the North of England where production is being supported, demand will be from nearby industrial heartlands (government terminology) and multiple windfarms are already in existance for excess energy - and in the NE the first part of Project Union is already funded.

Trish,

How many times do you need to be told

There is no government funding for storage - any company wanting to build storage needs to secure funding for the project before being allowed to apply for revenue support - ie a guaranteed tariff price - which would only be once the site is in operation and has customers - for S Dorset maybe 2040....

Trish,

How many 5imee do you need to be told

There is no government funding for storage - any company wanting to build storage needs to secure funding for the project before being allowed to apply for revenue suppor5 - ie a guaranteed tariff price - which would only be once the site is in operation and has customers - for S Dorset maybe 2040....