Member Info for Penguins

Ocelot - should be Ostrich,

Has presumably either avoided reading the documents listed on the linked page (and other government documents) - or is intent on not being negative – ‘With hydrogen storage, UKOG has the wind at its back and the sun shining in its face :-)’ - not sure that's true - pity that wind won't be troubling more than one wind farm off the south coast.

From 'Chapter 3 of Hydrogen Transport and Storage Networks Pathway: Near Term Needs Case Building Emerging Regional Networks in Areas of Highest Potential':-

'it is important that early T&S infrastructure is located in regions with both suitable geology to develop storage at scale within these timescales and with high potential for hydrogen production and demand to connect to.

From the Introduction:-

‘To enable the growth of hydrogen demand necessary to meet our decarbonisation goals in the short term, the hydrogen economy needs onshore salt cavern storage, and the associated pipeline infrastructure, connected to hydrogen production plants and clusters of industrial and power demand. This needs case supports an ambition for the first hydrogen storage and hydrogen transport business models to support up to two hydrogen storage projects and associated regional pipeline infrastructure to be in operation or construction by 2030.'

From the Hydrogen Production Delivery Roadmap:-

'• We have announced the first successful projects from HAR1

• We are in negotiations with two CCUS enabled projects: H2Teesside and HyNet Hydrogen Production Plant 1.'

These are 'blue' hydrogen production plants - in the NE and NW - presumably chosen because of the proximity to industrial use.

The recent round of 131 CFD for power generation had 6 wind farm projects of scale in England - all offshore, but none off the south coast of the UK. For green hydrogen production wind farms will be a major part of providing power for electrolysis.

So join up the dots:-

2 Storage projects will be selected for revenue support in the first storage round

2 projects have been selected to negotiate for support of CCUS enabled H2 production one in the NE and one in the NW.

No new major wind farms negotiated CFDs for generation on the south coast of England.

There is one wind farm off Brighton - but there are already quite a few in the North Sea off the East Coast of England (12) and in the Irish Sea (9) with more to come.

So assuming there are at least 2 applicants for the first round of H2 storage support, which is to address storage needs in the early 2030s from the NE and/or NW and one /two from UKEn in Dorset - which 2 are likely to be chosen, and why? UKEn because shareholders want news?

That should have been happy to place at 0.015p....

But there's this belief that UKOG's plan to put H2 storage in Portland Port, or what is likely to be close by there if somehow the new site is deemed better, is in line witht the government's plan that underlies the allocation round that UKOG are set on applying for - it isn't and it's likely that if there are applicants for H2 storage sites in the NE or NW of England they would be a fit with the government's plan.

Certainly I'd be surprised if anything definite is announced before the final T&Cs for the round are published just in case there are significant changes. Assuming little changes getting funding and SGN to commit to a pipeline probably ensures a place in the assessment round - but only the top 2 ranked schemes go forward to negotiate their revenue support.

Screen jumps around.....

Anyway:-

What would be the temptation if the big news is delayed a while longer to do another placing?

The storage round final T&Cs are delayed - meant to be published Q2, and the round launch in Q3 therefore looks impossible unless they do both today or Monday

Coming up for 2 months since the raise ar 0.05p, they claimed they needed to do a load of work to prepare an application (for at least one of the sites in Dorset) in the storage round. UKOG like to place just after a pump though, presumably because the shares aren't allowed to be forward sold.

The question with UKOG still is what will the next RNS be, not what are the technicals.

What happened to punctuation?

Anyway the question is - is it? UKOG are hooked on placings and have equipped themselves with plenty of stock to do so. Happy to place at 0.013p what would be the temptation if the big news n

'April 2015 horse hill update was the big one 158m barrel per square mile and stretch 50 miles ? boooooooooom all over SKY news and a six month run in the SP people just could not get enough of it and the BOD use that moment to buy as much of horse hill as they could......'

No they didn't.

UKOG bought up more of HH over several years – but no extra equity in HHDL or the licence during the six months following the Gatwick Gusher hype in April 2015, The first purchase was in April 2016 for 7.8% interest from Angus and the last buy, for £12 million which I’m pretty sure has not been recouped, was for 35% of licence equity from Tellurian in 2019.

'.......with funding call after funding call on the back of it' - no there wasn't.

In the six months following April 2017 there was one placing in June.

In between 2015 and 2019 the SP bounced around as failure followed expectations of success at BB with UKOG’s habit of being very selective, and on occasions misleading, in what it RNS’d about ongoing activity - the placings to fund testing and BB and especially the £10mm CLN in November 2017 – when UKOG was far enough through testing BB to know that BB was almost certainly a failure – also caused drops in the SP.

'A BRAND NEW BUSINESS Module..but that does not mean that billion barrel of oil is not at horse hill ? if it was not for policy & regulation / protesters stopping those tankers ?'

Well the brand new business model is because all those promised producible barrels don't exist - nothing to do with policy & regulation - and protestors delayed through legal challenges - though UKOG did have full planning for years, and the planning issue is meant to be being addressed.

But there aren’t billions of barrels of producible oil at Horse Hill. The concept was the Kimmeridge didn’t need structural closure to flow. Even if that had worked the figures for OIP you quote did not take into account that a lot of that oil was immovable. Broadford Bridge in 2017 was deliberately located outside structural closure to prove that theory - and was an absolute failure, but the fact that following a June 2019 HH RPS Kimmeridge report (that UKOG hasn’t published) no further work was done to advance production from the Kimmeridge despite planning permission, and plans to do so, looks pretty damning for Kimmeridge production anywhere, even within structural closure.

The Portland in HH-1 looks close to being finished in just over 4 years, HH-2z was shut in because of water ingress – the risk of a repeat in a similar well could make a risked NPV negative – and thus undrillable.

The poor performance of HH was the reason UKOG panicked and got into Turkey, and the poor performance of that ended up with UKOG picking up the lapsed planning for Portland port NG storage......they've lucked into the H2 storage story - but the location isn't a good fit to the parameters set in the pathway document.

TH2,

No.

But it wasn't this morning, and neither investmant company looks even slightly likely to give a penny to UKOG.

Maybe doesn't realise 'The Thunderer' is what the Times thinks of itself......

another 'proud' filterer proving they're out of touch - next it'll be

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic - seems they want to prove how little reseach they're doing - preferring bizarre 'signalling theories or tittle tattle on other platforms.

Funny how they have to boast about how many green boxes they're seeing, otherwise who would know, or care - they never justify their ridiculos claims when challenged anyway.......just fantasy stories about other posters and the odd made up bits about UKOG continues - so sharebel reckons a TR1 nearly evens to appear today - I guess it's TH2's endless topping ups finally getting to 3%!

Ibug,

when they have nothing to say - UKOG say something again.

Can't wait for the 'even closer' to negotiating whatever it is they're negotiating tweet, or whetever they're called now - XBS?.

Looking at a previous RNS it seems that strategic partner engagement included getting LOS - 05/08/2024:-

'The funds will also permit the Company to fully prepare and engage with further prospective strategic partners to seek, as a minimum, Letters of Support'.

Pointless to point out to sharebel it's a two weeks old (as you posted) repeat and about UKEn - not UKGBEnergy - does sharebel even have a clue what UKOG's subsidiary is called.

Sharebel,

Charts only work if the chartist can influence enough people to buy shares (it's always buy), some have a lot of followers, but there have been some spectacularly wrong claaims previously for UKOg. But it's trying to predict the future from past share activity - without any company context. It has worked briefly in the past where the prediction of the future is an ever upwards curve that in reality stalls after a day or 2 as those promoting it bail out, fully aware that in reality a RNS or some outside positive is what is needed to shift the value of a company.

Occasionally a chartists pump will coincide with a positive event - but it's a coincidence or a lucky guess.

Even if a poster has been claiming for weeks the SP will rise significantly if one does eventually happen all the previous wrong guesses are forgotten and the last guess boasted about as a brilliant prediction of the rise - you'll be aware of a poster who has broadened their prediction of when to more or less whenever it happens.

Not sure what the driver of a rise might be but that poster claimed the announcement of JV funding (I guess meaning a JV partner willing to bankroll the devex) was imminent suggests very soon, though the enthusiasts definition of 'soon' for a prediction of something happening soon could be months hence, or in the case of HH-2z conversion to an injector years, as so far it hasn't happened.

A rare insight into rampers methodology here from madeitup:-

'UKOG is about to blow with no debt, LOL!! and once we jump into your pump they will leave us trapped with a funding call @ a 50% discount ?'

No UKOG usually restricts the discount to less than 30%.......and the lack of debt is nothing to boast about - nobody will lend them cash so they always have to trade new shares for cash - they must be itching to swap some of the 8 billion shares they have in their purse for some cash.

I wonder what the pre raise RNS will be, another LOS, even nearer international funding / JV, or some BS about the new site in Dorset - perhaps it's better than Portland Port so forget that one here's an even better one - stranger things have happened - in Turkey Basur-4 was next until the oil seep / Kezer well shows lead to the Pinarova distraction that helped UKOG out with news until they tested it - and even then they spun it out for another 7 months.

Madeitup,

As usual, just a fantasy commentary about other posters, nothing of any substance about UKOG. Just claims that challenging madeitup's made up stories equals being abusive - of course as the stories are made up it's difficult to prove they're not.

Not surprised it's easier to filter posters (or claim you have) - rather than justifying statements like this:-

'news of partnership funding....and what we know so far, is that milestone is imminent'

partnership funding......we know........is Imminent?

How do 'we' know, UKOG hasn't said anything since early September?

UKOG has put out mixed messages about what and who they're negotiating with. Sometimes it's international funding, other times JV partners - and they've been negotiating since January when it was 'a significant international trading house' but never soon or imminent - that's a guess - the best was the uninformative about 'how close' - 'moved closer'.

What UKOG put on X (not in a regulated RNS), three times (30 Aug, 2 Sept & 4 Sept), recently is:- 'We’ve moved closer to securing significant international funding' - 'international funding', last RNS mention was on 05/08/24 (placing and retail offer):-'The funds will also permit the Company to further negotiations with identified prospective strategic joint venture partners' - JV partners.

Which will it be, neither, one of them, or both - a partner would expect UKOG to pay their share so UKOG will need to demonstrate funding.

Erm,

madeit up,

......... if the MMs are selling (buys) more than they are buying (sells) they aren't having their fill but flushing away.

But the sells vs buys can be a fiction depending on where the spread is set and timing of trades, easily catching sells as buys and buys as sells depending on what the market is up to - as you well know as you often complain about 'manipulation' by the MMs. At the moment my dummy sells would list as buys (and yes that means I have some shares) so the buys count looks iffy.

Maybe they're on a percentage if anyone signs up through their X account?

Every little helps.........

........ finally works out that the filtered posters are just being honest in their opinions and more likely to trade successfully than someone who trades on the advice of other ramping posters or chartists.

Is the reason for filtering more from the embarrassment of constantly posting that the outcomes of the various ventures can't be predicted and UKOG's claims and hopes should not challenged as they are the only 'truth' - only for those outcomes to not only be as predicted, but for the reasons identified by those 'armchair commentators'.

Not researching beyond a SP chart or company RNS does not give a good insight as to what the likely outcome will be, but may indicate what might happen next - and obviously also worth taking into account for short term trading. But decrying posters that research extensively but don't guess what the SP might be in the future:-

'Note how many of the trolls speak about UKOG without ever speaking about its share price in any meaningful sense'

but iclearly stating what they expect the results of activities to be and why misses the point that the results of wells (or applications for revenue support) ultimately determines what the SP will be, and almost always that result isn't what UKOG hope for.

Seems strange that ocelot expects 'armchair commentators' to lie about what they expect and not post their honest opinions because in ocelot's opinion they are negative, especially as they have been more accurate forecast of the results over the years than repeating UKOG hopes.

Sharebel,

You seem to post a lot about other posters, which is completely made up. Is that because you know nothing about UKOG?

Still waiting for an explanation how and where a pi can 'borrow' shares to short UKOG.

But you just keep pointing out that certain posters have been realistic (correct) about UKOG's projects for years, and therefore more likely to make the right decision because they understand the likely outcome of projects vs the happy clappy followers of SS who post that holding at the top of a spike, or even topping up then, is what they're doing because the projects that one by one that have failed are so great and going to be successful.

No denying you can make money out of trading UKOG - but holding those golden tickets for success hasn't been one of them.

Not sure how lucky I've been but I keep getting quotes I could execute to buy 20,000,000 shares yesterday, this morning, and this pm - maybe because I've got the money in my account to do it?

Amazing how many times posters appear trying to generate FOMO by claiming it's difficult to buy and there will soon be a massive price rise - and usually it just turns out to be a fib. The isssue with UKOG is when the SP rises it's often difficult to sell near the top.

...and no need to look - I've been consistently realistic about the chances of success of every project since the Gatwick gusher (the description of HH-1 which was producing about 30bopd + 31bwpd in June), many have claimed this is negative - given that not one of UKOG's ventures has been anything like as successful as UKOG claimed, most complete failures - I guess my posts might appear 'negative' against the ramping BS and UKOG's claims of a successful outcomes. Strangely most of those (except ocelot) who are 'positive' about projects disappear after P&Ds.

What's your excuse for being so positive apart from the SP being low (ca 4hundredths of a penny is certainly cheap) - and unpleasant about other posters and making up silly stories about other posters - scared they're right?

Maybe if you had researched UKOG a little before 'investing' you would have noticed that every day there are dozens if not hundreds of micro trades both buys and sells - so sells are 'manipulation' to drop the SP - what are the buys then, manipulation by someone desperate for the SP to rise?

Nonsense.

But if you properly researched UKOG you would realise that they repeatedly over hype their projects, and over emphasise the importance of things that are of minor interest or irrelevant - and if they don't then posters do - and it's still happening.

O

Madeitup,

You got this bit right 'Well the government seems to be determine to deliver green energy'

The 131 projects that were given CFDs for solar, wind and tidal generation was a good start.

.....and they are planning to support H2 storage with revenue guarantees through the first H2 storage allocation round.

But where the Solent cluster falls short is that there seems to be a lack of green H2 production planned (ExxonMobil's is at best blue H2, hence the CC pipeline planned) - probably because of the lack of offshore (large) wind farms nearby to provide excess electricity for electrolysis. It's also not a major industrial centre to use H2 - so how needed is the planned Portland port storage for 2030/35 - and why would SGN commit to building the western leg of the H2 Connect pipeline?

So this is absolute nonsense:- ' it looks like the only way to deliver this ambitious plan for cheap power for all is in partnership with the Solent cluster'

It certainly is not with large wind farms already in place in the NE and NW of England with more planned likely to provide excess power for electrolysis - and industrial areas located nearby H2 storage will be needed there in the early years of H2 production.

Even Centrica recommended prioritising the NE (see my post last night) in first allocation rounds for storage and transportation - and I suspect they are infinitely more knowledgeable than you.

BTW I suspect that your fingers in ears are because your idea of discussion is to make statements you just make up and are completely unjustified - and can be shown to be BS.

Imagine discussing a stock that has continually failed but post every day how great it is - you should feel sory for ocelot. Knowing that the projects will fail means not believing the BS posters like yourself post - and confidently selling on pumps knowing the SP will fall back - though after ocelot's post boasting:- 'the last time this share had a sharp rise was when the term Gatwick Gusher hit the headlines and the share spiked at around 10p/11p - what a payday that was' I suspect ocelot is well aware of the failings.

Ocelot,

.......and?

The problem for UKOG is the assumption that only salt cavern storage (geologic storage) is viable, when depleted field and even tank storage will have their place - as will battery storage which eliminates pipeline and storage tariffs and losses through electrolysis and then H2P. There's a lot of variables, as the two forecasts of national storage required in 2050 illustrate, National Grid 50TWh, Royal Society 100TWh.

But that's 2050 - UKOG were planning to apply in the first storage allocation round to secure government guaranteed revenue support for Portland port. 'Were planning' because they have muddied the water by stating it will be one of the two Dorset sites in the RNS updating progress on a second Dorset site lease negotiations - it seems unlikely the new site would be sufficiently advanced to apply, although the round does appear to be delayed.

Nowhere does UKOG mention the goverment pathway document which identifies that the regional need for early H2 storage 2030 to 2035 - ie the target of the first H2 storage allocation round - will be near where it will be produced and used as transportation infrastructure (pipelines) will initially be regional.

Where the regions might fit the pathway document's priorities is open to conjecture, but my opinion is that windfarms equal areas where production is likely to be and major industrial manufacturing centres equal use - there's one windfarm on the south coast - off Brighton - and not sure the Solent Cluster qualifies as a major industrial area - the main manufacturing industry appearing to be the ExxonMobil refinery - though they do produce (and presumably store) blue H2.

All the BS seeemingly based on the theory that because UKOG have a plan they will get the revenue support doesn't acknowledge that the government also has a plan regarding H2 storage and transportation.

It's irrelevant now but because ocelot filters some posters who do proper research ocelot silly mistakes ensue:-

'From the BB extension refusal decision notice:-

'Your appeal and essential supporting documents must reach the Inspectorate within 6 months of the date shown on the Local Planning Authority's decision notice'

Decision Notice was dated 21/03/24,'

Posted last week, Friday.

....and doesn't acknowledge that most of those assets are 'intangible' - 'unable to be touched; not having physical presence'.

As for HH have they the spare change needed to sort out the planning?

TH2,

Those 'assets' are unproven 'intangible' assets.

Property, plant, equipment and oil & gas properties & decommissioning assets (?) are £3.7mm according to UKOG - the things that are tangible ie are there.

Stockcheque,

yes, salt cavern storage, old technology - but there are vast differences between UKOG's claims of required 2050 storage and the 900 caverns.

The Royal Society report says 100TWh required - UKOG say each of their sites would be 6.5 to 10 TWh with 19 caverns ultimately at Portland port, I'd assume the same for the others:-

'Each UKEn hydrogen storage site aims to provide around 6.5-10 Terawatt-hours ("TWh") of working storage per annum'

I make that between 10 and 16 sites required - 190 or 304 caverns

and National Grid's July 2023 System Transformation Scenario was 50TWh.

I make that between 8 and 10 sites required - 152 or 190 caverns.

Yes there's plenty of room for these sites, but the question is will it be UKOG providing any of them?

You and TH2 are ignoring the assessment criteria for the allocation of revenue support in the first round - or the existence of competition that do fit the assessment criteria.

You both assume that just because UKOG has plans that means the government will just choose them over any other application - the recent '131 contracts' were solar, wind or tidal schemes so it looks like the government is prioritising getting the power produced at scale, and perhaps once the 2030 level, and location is known they'll work out what and where storage will be required - as regards the H2 stoage round the full application guidance should have been published Q2 for the round to be launched Q3. The full application guidance is still not published.

'In answer to the lies from the trolls that post endless fiction about Hydrogen Storage in Salt Caverns, here's the facts in black and white.'

Where and what is this 'endless' fiction about H2 storage in salt caverns.

The fact that it's unlikely anyone would back a H2 storage site without the revenue guarantee says plenty about the economics but no one has said it won't technically work wuth the right salt thickness - just that Portland port is in the wrong place against the assessment criteria - and there are technical questions about te suitability of the salt for the large caverns envisaged - as you point out (as I have, post 18 Sept and before) there are already caverns in the NE and NW:-

'There are already 3 natural gas cavern storage sites in operation, 2 in the NE (Aldbrough 9 caverns with plans for more for H2, and Hornsea/Atwick 8 caverns) and one in the NW (Stublach 20 caverns), Centrica also have Rough - which they want to make H2 ready.'

For esearch there's Centrica's letter in response to the Storage and Transport rounds in the public domain - I'll put the link below but this is an interesting paragraph which recommends the government targets the Teeside and Humber area for storage and transportation infrastructure:-

'There are benefits to the Government being more directional at this stage, to accelerate the development of the hydrogen economy. Industrial clusters such as the Hynet and East Coast (Teeside and Humber combined) clusters are being formed. These clusters will comprise producers, industrial users of hydrogen and hydrogen-fired power generation assets. Geological characteristics in these areas are already known. We think it would be efficient for the Government to target and support the development of transportation and storage infrastructure in these areas in the first instance. Early decision-making in this respect represents a ‘no regrets’ approach and is likely to de-risk future storage, transportation and production projects.'

But their main points are the absence of funding for 'first of its kind' storage - this connected to converting Rough to H2 storage - and the exclusion of conversion of existing natural gas storage to H2 in the first allocation round.

If this plea from Centrica is taken into account it adds competition for allocation - and the recommendation for the NE not helpful.

https://www.centrica.com/media/dnfl0k1n/centrica-response-on-hydrogen-storage-business-model-first-allocation-round.pdf