Member Info for Penguins

Pboo,

The difference is I explain why your opinion, as that's all it is, is wrong.

If anyone were to glance at the SP chart they might find 'Just the expected negative replies from Ibug and Penguins.' an endorsement.

Perhaps you can quote where UKOG, a great source of positive information (again look at the SP chart to establish how accurate that is), has suggested since production started that injection would double oil production, let alone treble.

They did suggest it would improve recovery - ie improve the ultimate amount of oil produced - presumably by reducing the decline and enabling production to continue for longer.

Pboo,

If the water injector enabled even a doubling of production why would UKOG not do it even in the short term - with that sort of production increase plus the savings UKOG claim would pay back the cost in a short time.

But of course it' rubbish. The claim of a saving of £250,000 would mean even if the water cut didn't increase fhe cost per barrel of water disposal saved at 90bopd would be only about £8 per barrel of water.

But the water cut has generally increased with time even as oil production has dropped, and even slight increases in oil production have on ocassions also shown more dramatic jumps in water cut.

Doubling production would definitely see an increase in water cut to more than 50% and could see an out of control increase, overwhelming oil production.

But UKOG's own estimate of value of HH-1 belies any significant increase in daily oil production from the last annual report:-

'The Directors determined that the net present value of the HH-1 well was £0.8 million and therefore determined that HH-1 should be impaired by £2.9 million. The net present value utilised an internally generated depletion curve that was independently reviewed. Costs were based on current costs less any anticipated savings'

Note ' less any anticipated savings'. Which would reasonably be assumed to be from the injector as this was also in the same annual report:-

With both the Environment Agency and NSTA permissions in hand, UKOG can now further expedite its plans for produced saline formation water reinjection at Horse Hill.'

'expedite', that was a year ago.

Anyway, even at 90 bopd (a doubling of production) the value of oil would be at UKOG's price forecast of $81 for the NPV calculation about £2mm a year. They're even using a discount rate of under 4% rather than a more brutal 10% usually used to test economic robustness and end up with a value.

Even assuming OPEX with injection is half that the NPV of HH-1 would be less than a year's income - so something doesn't add up, they're even anticipating depletion rather than any increase.

So UKOG are not predicting a significant increase in production, in fact any plan to recklessly produce more oil with the inherent risk of messing up the reservoir or increasing water ingress to a level where reversing it could be impossible would be rejected by the NSTA.

Oh dear,

Adrian returns to lie

about the company

about other posters

Just because he bought £5,000 worth of shares in the hope of a P&D on the Finch case result which has been hoped for every next week since before Xmas.

Adrian will claim everything will go ahead after the Supreme Court judgement, which is unlikely to be in Finch's favour, but won't be holding on to the shares if there is a P&D. But the Loxley High Court verdict in January dismissing the challenge to that planning permission hardly stirred the SP.

Currently Adrian is obsessed with BB - a site with a well that was expected to prove that the KImmeridge could be produced throughout the Weald, and proved the opposite.

The planning officer has recommended that UKOG be allowed to retain the site, fencing etc. to enable the well to be abandoned and site restored or find something else to do with the site. The planning committee will decide though.

But a Supreme Court verdict won't make HH suddenly have wonderful reservoirs - and the PPP farm-in announced nearly a year ago, to save HHDL the cost of 3D and then a well, if PPP agree to drill, isn't agreed by the HHDL partners. There's also the possibility that PPP may be financially strapped having been silent for 3 months about the 2 workovers of shut in wells that were hoped to boost earnings, meanwhile the SP has dropped from 3.3p (the day before the announcement it was 5p though they did raise £1.5mm the same day) and is now 1.2p down 64% - and even has a mcap less than UKOG's at £1.2m.

As for the CLN - those shares were probably sold before the GM - impossible I know....but......wonder when UKOG will know what price YA/Riverfort choose.

Ibug,

they could write any old rubbish - they don't care as they are never pulled up on any errors - they even made the EBT buy a million more shares than they were allowed to own.

Of course it's the fifth tranche - and they're being very specific about what this conversion reduces - the FIRST (my capitals) cash sum of £2 million. So why say first if there isn't a second, and maybe third - though perhaps YA / Riverfort called force majeure on that one as UKOG had run out of authority to issue shares.

Pboo,

Kimmeridge -1 produces from the Cornbrash - a poor quality, fractured, limestone. It may be producing oil sourced from the Kimmeridge, which can clearly be seen to be above it at that location but it's preety obvious the Kimmeridge won't have any pressure as it outcrops nearby, any mobile oil would be long gone - they used to have to heat the rocks to get oil out of the Kimmeridge mined from Kimmeridge bay.

Adrian,

I've looked and ibug posted 'name a field that's producing from the kimmeridge', present tense, not past tense.

You're banging on about the test which lead to the decision to not 'produce' from the Kimmeridge.

Fact is there are no fields currently producing from the Kimmeridge.

I still don't get that this CLN seems to operate on a hand over the shares and we'll tell you what price we convert at some time in the future. Notice this time UKOG mention they can reach back 15 days to before the GM to name their price.

Before the GM there were end of day sells that were significant relative to the daily volumes, if not huge value, that had the look of the CLN holders selling although UKOG were unable to issue shares.

Also they're emphasising this is off the first cash sum - rather than the whole loan perhaps?

Anyway Adrian,

Oops, more shares - it took a week since the GM to announce it how delayeed is this announcement though - luckily they couldn't possibly have started selling shares before the GM, could they? Question is do they want a lower SP now?

Actions not words where the Kimmeridge is concerned, and there has been no action on this supposedly fantastic resource since 2019. UKOG has had at least one workover of HH-1where they could have switched to Kimmeridge production if it was any good, but they've stuck with the Portland's slow decline.

Any idea why - couldn't possibly be because after the initial flush the Kimmeridge would be worse that the Portland?

UKOG had an external report done on the Kimmeridge in June 2019, didn't mention it at all for 21 months when it was mentioned as a footnote to the resources table, but after June 2019 nothing was done on the Kimmeridge that UKOG had previously planned, no deepening HH-2 even to log it, no sidetrack from HH-1, and not even a dual completion.

This is the quote from the 2018 Annual Report, published end March 2018 (after the RNS you quote).

'Significantly, prior to the testing campaign these fracture-related data showed the key fracture sets to be open, i.e. likely able to transmit fluids under reservoir conditions. 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'

Seems the next excuse was the fractures closing up during pressure draw down.

Your quote states:- 'the Company and its consultants are currently investigating the possibility'

Possibility, and then later 'KL3 and KL4 could be partially blocked'.

I thought words like possibility, could were no nose?

But I've shown that one RNS at the time made out everything was fine, early on in the testing when it wasn't, and the next operational update had what appeared to be a blatant lie that they were about to test the KL2 when it had already been tested.

You also don't seem to know what's happened at Horse Hill - 'You need to post the rock cor infomation from the Kimmeridge Limestones at Horsehill to prove im wrong about limestones being damaged by acid at Broadford Bridge'

There hasn't been any core from the Kimmeridge at Horse Hill, it was something they drilled through as fast as possible I expect to get to the Triassic, Sherwood, target, and if they had deepened HH-2 through the Kimmeridge, which they didn't, they were only going to log it anyway - probably because they had hundreds of feet of Kimmeridge core already from BB.

I did not saying you lied by the way:-

'On twitter today you again mentioned that SS had told you that the limestone were softer than expected and there was skin damage'

But you've already posted you 'made up' skin damage'.

When was your visit - it sounds like what's in the RNS you quote, maybe they were, and maybe still are 'investigating', though my point is valid that they should have tested whatever acid they used on the core prior to using it I the well.

I'd also point out that even the early tests , soon after acidising were cr*p.

'the long residence times of spent acid within the reservoir prior to current testing and the perforating technique utilised'

Is that 'and' or could it be 'or',

Perhaps you should read the Annual report from March 2018 - that categorically states the fracture weren't blocked. For some reason I can't copy and paste that on this device.

From the BB test report, boring I know but for those interested:-

First a comparison of an extract from Test E KL 1,2,3,4,5 (across all tested KLs except 0) that took place 5/10/2017 to 22/10/2017, followed by extracts from the RNS 11 days into it.

'The initial spot samples showed an oil-cut of between 2% and 20% at instantaneous rates up to 370 bfpd. Following shut down of the pump, the well continued to produce gas at sufficient rate to light the flare and continued for a period in excess of 30 minutes before depleting. As pumping continued, ultimately recovering a further 46 bbl fluid from the well, both the oil cut and the strength of the gas flare declined. At the end of pumping, with 116 bbl recovered, the oil cut was around 1% with no gas flare and increasing periods required for pressure build-up. The large open interval prevented identification of the source of hydrocarbons seen in this test. A static gradient survey was run in the well once the rod string had been pulled however showed brine across the entire perforated interval. Total fluid recovered during pumping was 116 bbl over a sixteen day period. The final returned fluids were analysed with pH 5.4, 123,000 ppm chlorides with 1% oil cut. Due to the lack of stable flow from the interval, no pressure transient analysis was conducted.

RNS 16/10/2017

Broadford Bridge-1z ("BB-1z") continues to flow light sweet oil and gas from the Kimmeridge Limestones.

• Flow continues to clean up, demonstrating an increasing oil cut, together with sustained periods of associated gas flaring. The shrouded flare stack has been in daily operation, exhibiting a clean burn.

• Flowing Kimmeridge light oil and associated gas at both BB1-z and Horse Hill-1 ("HH-1") proves Kimmeridge contains a thick regionally extensive continuous oil accumulation.

The next 2 tests were over predominently shale intervals.

Test 1 Shale with stringers (5026 – 5114ft) - Tight - no flow 27/10/2017 to 2/11/2017

Test 2 Shale with stringers (4914 -5003ft) - Minor gas blow following nitrogen displacement. Flare lit. 2/11/2017 to 8/11/2017'

Then test 3 was of the KL2:-

'Test 3 KL 2 (4759 -4847ft) - Shows, live oil and gas blow. 10/11/2017 to 15/11/2017'

Here's the 2 mentions of recovered acid / brine from the KL2:-

'Following a soak period, the well flowed back unaided recovering 22 bbl before pressure bled down to zero at the wellhead'

'The well was pumped over a 2-1/2 day period recovering an additional 99 bbl. The test was terminated due to lack of stable flow and increasing build-up times. A gas blow sufficient to light the flare was noted'

In the 15/11/2017 RNS they claimed:-

‘Testing will now move directly upwards into the overlying KL2 limestone’

Forgive me for being cynical about UKOG RNS but do these 2 RNS truly reflect what was happening at BB during testing?

Sceptic,

Not only that but they are restricted to a maximum of 10% of the shares.

29/09/2014 RNS:- 'The EBT may hold up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital from time to time for the beneficiaries of the EBT'

As the EBT had 250,000,000 shares already (see last year's Annual Report) their total holding is 3,255,000,000 ( it was 3,005,000,000 shares bought by EBT)

Total shares 32,539,926,104, 10% is 3,253,992,610 which is 1,007,390 less than the shares held by the EBT.

Maybe they awarded some deserving employee enough shares just before they made the EBT buy their overpriced shares.

I missed this gem:-

'Penguins posts are full of might happen maybes what ifs and buts.

Butvposts them as though they are facts. Been doing it on here for years :)'

What you missed is that, fairly often after years have passed, they become the facts of what happened.

Your predictions, often based on either misunderstanding, or deliberately misunderstanding, what UKOG RNS, on the other hand...........

Water

The problem is your 'argument' is that everyone you disagree with is a greenie, nimby etc

It isn't a counter argument it's just trying to discredit a reasoned opinion.

When I disagree with your opinion (or as you claim 'doesn't seem to like') I explain why,.

For instance I give reasons why BB doesn't need information from 2 distant wells to decide what to do next, why I believe that Finch isn't the reason for no drilling at HH, what's wrong with Loxley, how UKOG misrepresented the Turkey venture and why they did it. Opinions maybe, but based on analysis of facts.

As for UKOG's bank balance neither you nor I know what it is, but they certainly don't have cash for anything beyond preparing for things and nothing in the near term to generate more cash to do anything except printing shares. That's why I would call into question UKOG's ability to pay for restoration of the BB site in the future - it depends on risky projects being successful or their ability to raise maybe £1mm in the future. Are you upset about a bond being requested because you don't think they have the cash?

'But Penguins says the only reason why peeps post positive things in here is because they have invested here. No Shxt!!'

No what I posted is about you specifically and your continual insulting and trying to discredit other posters making counter arguments to your claims of how wonderful UKOG's assets are.

'You're posting because you recently gambled £5,000 in the hope that the Supreme Court would give its verdict on the Finch challenge.

They haven't so you're on here insulting and trying to discredit other posters with your lies and fantasies about them, and posting how wonderful all the assets UKOG have are, despite the evidence they're not, in the hope that your posting would encourage anyone to buy shares in UKOG'

I'm not a Green, nimby or any of the other stories you post here or on twitter.

Saying something might happen is not the same as wanting it to happen, though the difference between my posting and UKOG RNS is that what I post might happen has, over the years, been more likely to happen than what UKOG hopes will happen and anyone repeating their claims, like you, more likely to be wrong.

You're posting because you recently gambled £5,000 in the hope that the Supreme Court would give its verdict on the Finch challenge.

They haven't so you're on here insulting and trying to discredit other posters with your lies and fantasies about them, and posting how wonderful all the assets UKOG have are, despite the evidence they're not, in the hope that your posting would encourage anyone to buy shares in UKOG who have just been given authority to issue 50% more shares against the wishes of shareholders owning 1.4 billion shares (apparently all TW supporters) - something you think is great.

Just fed up with my posts disappearing when admin get rid of you and sometimes delete whole threads.

On the other hand yours are often so embarrassingly wrong I guess you're happy to have them deleted regularly.

I might point out that the Surrey planning committee ignored the planners recommendation for Loxley, but all they're allowed to do under the planning permission they've sought is to retain it for restoration, if UKOG want to drill they've got to apply for it. Though I did think the council should require a bond for restoration as UKOG's finances are so fragile.

Funny how you come up with these little srories about how soeone else feels - spitting feathers, ha ha but I just think it's a waste of time, and already explained why - but I suspect UKOG can retain some of the expenditure as intangible 'assets', and it's a bone they can throw the punters when they need a list of how busy they are.

'Funny how derampers like this Caracter Penguins with their over inflated ego think people should believe their mostly guess work posts on here. Crazy.'

Pity you didn't notice 'character'

But I don't care about spelling.

Ego? But you seem to think you have a right to post on a board you're permanently banned from, and btw you're only mentioned on this board because of your ridiculous posts need to be challenged.

Still what more is expected from a trader who lies about being a genuine investor having bought £5,000 worth a few weeks ago for 00074p / 0.0075p so it's understandable why you're desperately trying to big up UKOG when they've just asked to issue 50% more sharess - and insults other posters because in the fantasy world you inhabit you 'win' an argument by making up more stories, this time about other posters, not putting forward any reasoned argument - just hope and UKOG PR which has turned out to be so accurate so far.

As for BB - if after hundreds of feet of core, a full logging suit and testing the s**t out of the every Kimmeridge limestone for months they haven't already decided to redrill BB they aren't d waiting for information from HH and Loxley - it's just a ruse to avoid the cost of reinstating the site.

Adrian,

your 'facts' are as believable as your fairy tales about TW.

But I have posted before that the high risk of failure at HH and Loxley means a farmin is a good deal for UKOG - but it doesn't change the likelihood of success, nor that UKOG shelled out a fortune for the equity in HHDL and the licence.

If HH was as good as you seem to think UKOG allowing the share price to collapse while having an asset that could have prevented that happening is a pretty dumb thing to do.

Actions not words tell the true story.

But now we're in the end game for UKOG with not enough cash and no means of raising enough to drill they need a farminee as desperate as they are for just a hydrocarbon show, rather than an economic success, knowing that it takes a while for failure to become apparent - HH-2z, BB and Pinarova being prime examples with months of testing or waiting between drilling with initial results and failing. The only exception being HH-1 where it took a short while for water and decline to be revealed, and Basur where they drilled in the wrong place.

But according to you UKOG will 'no doubt convert oven ready already drilled well HH2/z in to a water injector.' Exactly, and a saving, according to UKOG, of £250,000 a year. They've been claiming they would do it for at least 2 years, and you've been tweetig as if it will happen soon for even longer.

The Fool on The Hill@davethedrill1

'Jan 20, 2021

#ukog I'm guessing a placing of 8 to 10 £million @.10 to cover Wages. The Turkey shoot and a water injector at Horsehill to try and make HH commercial again.'

I don't believe it's because of Finch, there's something else - is it a technical problem, injecting into a fractured reservoir with a limited thickness of reservoir quality sand - or economic, it might not save enough to recover its cost - or both.

You're welcome...

Yawn,

Maybe TW keeps getting it wrong, but then so do you

I suppose it depends whether, like some, you believe that the reason UKOG has done nothing except for workovers of HH-1 for 4 years is because of the legal challenge or that the extensive testing, result of HH-2/z and the decline in production of HH-1 has indicated that the risk of drilling a Portland dud is high - and not getting a CPR done, something that enables 'booking' reserves but has to be published, allows UKOG to avoid any published audit of Horse Hill. Also companies usually farm out their riskier projects, not appraisal or development wells.

But before any well is drilled there's 3D to acquire, and that could, like the 2 phases of seismic in Turkey destroy the updip target for HH-3. Without extra sesimic the HH-2z target was mapped as being updip to HH-1 but was in fact downdip.

UKOG are now depending on others to advance any of the projects, except maybe in Turkey - although the way ahead there is unclear after the failure of Basur and Pinarova.

PPPs farm in to HH must be in question with silence for 3 months about the workovers of the 2 Chalk Talk wells.

The Loxley challenge was defeated in early January, no news of any progress on the farm out since the 'pre-planned' farm out was initiated in July 2022 - maybe if potential farminees have spotted the obvious errors, suspect assumptions and meddling by UKOG in the 2023 CPR it has highlighted that Loxley is a high risk well.

and of course UKOG's latest money pit, the Portland gas storage project, is swallowing the cash in the hope of getting government support.

The fact is that UKOG plan a lot, claim a lot, and fail to execute plans but as far as claims the only success HH-1 has not lived up to expectations with dire decline, water ingress in a few months, which with the results of HH-2z means any further drilling is risky - hence trying to get a farminee - handing over costly equity for an uplift of £2.4mm for 49% of non HH-1 future production.

The extension of planning permission doesn't permit any drilling, or anything else except site restoration.

If UKOG thought the the extensive core acquired, logging or long term testing (the report is available on the BGS site and is sorry reading) indicated that further drilling was justified why wouldn't they have applied to do that that instead of farming in to Turkey which despite their claims would have been at best, based on the nearby lookalike E Sadak field, similar to Hoerse Hill-1.

UKOG's claim that further work at Loxley 17km away and Horse Hill, much further away and the other side of the Weald Basin, would have any bearing on their understanding of the Kimmeridge at BB was complete BS.

Looks like just a way of avoiding the cost of abandoning the well and restoring the site while UKOG thinks up further ways to tempt the foolish into buying their shares.

At the moment that seems to be to make them ever cheaper by promising success and achieving failure, meanwhile issuing ever more shares. Unfortunately the promises of success ever more dependant on others coming to the rescue, be it PPP, the UK Government or someone to farm into Loxley.

UKOG had the confetti machine running so fast they ran out of authority to print more, had to ask to print more, got refused and came up with a cunning plan for the BoD to be able to outvote the shareholders that voted over a billion shares that against the resolutions.

Paraphrased the 23 January RNS, this is what was written about the £0.66mm due to YA Riverfort:-

Conversion of these Equity Shares by the Investors now reduces the balance of the £2 million gross first cash sum received to approximately £0.66 million.

Maybe the description of what this conversion has done to 'the balance of the £2 million gross first cash sum' isn't important - but to me this is part of the craft of RNS writing - keeping on the right side of honesty whilst not telling the whole story - I would assume that with a 'first cash sum' there's at least another, and further cash sums were supposedly 'committed'.

I'm surprised ocelot didn't quote the RNS, I wonder why?