Member Info for Penguins

Trish,

At last news!

But not good news as they must have spent some of the cash raised in October / November on something that wasn't even mentioned that these raises were for - even the last one in November 'Additional funding for UKEn Hydrogen projects'.

In the interim report in October they were still apparently negotiating with CeraPhi - but just after the final raise - without updating the market of the relatively important news that there was in fact no deal with CeraPhi and cash would be spent not on hydrogen projects but more on one of their failures - they started the abandonment, also without a mention.

Bigfoot,

exactly what do you mean when you claim UKOG is working on JVs with 2 companies - this is what UKOG RNS'd in November to partly justify the raise to soak up the remaining authority to issue shares - surely they hadn't spent a lot of dough raise 7 weeks earlier in October, or were they worried the SP would wither away after a slight rise due to Peel Hunt increasing their soon to be decreasing holding during what's turned out to be over 2 months of predictable silence, and a more critically timed raise would be at a much lower price, and less cash in the coffers?

From the 21 November RNS:-

'Specifically, these funds will also assist the Company in meeting the costs necessary to deliver a new collaboration between our wholly owned subsidiary UK Energy Storage ("UKEn") and a second substantive regional hydrogen pipeline provider, the collaboration being focussed upon the Company's South Dorset Storage project. This new work will be complementary to the collaboration with National Gas (see RNS 1st October 2025), which initially focusses on UKEn's Yorkshire storage opportunity.'

The last 'collaboration' was the MOU with NG - which they now say is initially only focused on the East Yorkshire site that would be in competition for a revenue support allocation with SSE / Equinor's plan for the expansion of the Aldbrough cavern storage site.

No serious company would JV with UKOG - maybe enter into a MOU where the full terms aren't disclosed - the NG MOU appeared to offer no more than NG are compelled to do by government - ie answer requests from potential customers. Though I'm not sure what expenses would be incurred setting up an MOU with NG?

Bigfoot,

'Currently working on 2 jv's I believe it would be against market rules if they purchased now'

Since December 2022 there's probably been quite a few periods (almost continuously) when it was more likely the information UKOG was holding back from investors would prevent SS selling rather than buying.

But the reason SS was able to buy in 2022 was because it was a share purchase scheme designed to foil a vote to remove him that could operate during closed periods - the BoD could easily set up another - if they wanted to.

Since then they discovered that they could stuff the EBT with 10% of the shares in issue and as the shareholders were mostly traders disinterested in anything other then 'pumps' the level of voting was always lower than the EBT could cast to keep the status quo.

'UK ENERGY STORAGE: Delighted to attend PGES (All Party Group for Energy Studies) event in Parliament last night to hear excellent speech by former Energy minister Claire Coutinho.'

erm....'former Energy minister Claire Coutinho.'

Presumably has nothing to do with what 'mad' Ed is planning though?

From the linked document hydrogen storage is one of several options but the technology for producing the hydrogen is an issue, this statement appears twice in the paper:-

'Green hydrogen is still in the pre-commercial stage but may provide benefits for seasonal balancing. It is receiving substantial government support through a separate business model in development, including one for hydrogen-to-power and hydrogen storage through the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund, as well as indirectly through CCUS investments.'

.....though hydrogen production requiring CCUS is not green hydrogen.

In terms of either UKOG site this paper acknowledges the need for hydrogen storage but the 15bn figure doesn't include hydrogen storage which as pointed out above is planned to be funded through the storage and transport business models:-

' While Ofgem’s Track 1 pipeline is at 24.5GW, the targeted deployment in window 1 is at 2.7-7.7GW, equating to an approximate overall capital requirement of up to £15bn through 2030, depending on the projects approved, final technology mix, site characteristics, and maturity.

This near-term capital will finance the UK’s first fleet of long-duration assets, mainly Li-ion systems, new pumped-hydro expansions, and a handful of first

of-a-kind thermal or flow projects. Construction timelines vary from 1–2 years for modular batteries to 5–8 years for civil heavy PSH, implying staggered

investment flows but a comparable cumulative spend by 2030.'

Bigfoot,

You're just hoping to keep 'on top' your unjustified hope that UKOG won't be fund raising the moment they have a GM/AGM (as they maxxed out the last authority to issue shares mid October last year) that will probably follow some vaguely positive news either about HH or hydrogen storage.

UKOG are experts at minimum information maximum ambition - giving the hopeful the ability to claim there's 2 JVs 'in the background' - whatever that means - and they're fully funded - which is a claim UKOG have made and then had a raise to fund the same things they were fully funded for.

Without consolidation they'll be asking for authority to issue at least another 36 billion shares if they follow their previous GMs, and if they increase the EBT by the circa 1.8 bilion shares to get to 10% that many more - though I'd expect a consolidation at the same time.

Bigfoot,

Fully funded for what?

There's salaries and consultants to pay for.

There's the BB site to restore and well to abandon unless in the next few days Ceraphi take it off their hands - and even that may come with expenses.

There's HH they appear to want to restart - probably because the hydrogen news out of government is not positive which needs PP restored. According to reports they removed a lot of kit which will need reinstalling, and if they want to drill another well some 3D seismic to shoot plus the cost of the well. Then there's possibly repurposing HH-2z as an injector that they've mentioned every now and then after admitting it was a failure as a producer.

They may have passed on the cost of leasing Portland Port but they have avoided mentioning the status of their potential sites for a long time and the costs they may be liable for. If they are able to apply for an allocation of revenue support (not guaranteed) there will be costs to prepare all the documentation required - reports and site investigations - and of course getting someone to commit to paying the £800 million required to build the facility

Not sure their already depleted cash pile - it's now approaching 4 months since the last raise - will last long.

Bigfoot,

of course UKOG would like you to think that there's 2 jvs in the pipeline - but are NG really planning to joint venture with UKOG = brcause it's difficult to see what UKOG could provide that NG don't already have - and NG's Project Union is terminating in the Southampton area, about 80 kms from the site that UKOG have 'Heads of Terms' over.

They've mentioned another pipeline operator. The only one that would be of interest is SGN to provide the link to their potential storage site - but until Project Union reaches the Southampton area there's not going to be significant supply or demand.

The government has so far not supported hydrogen projects in Central South England in the HAR 1 awards and the shortlisted HAR 2 projects are the same except for Fawley Green Hydrogen which appears to be set up to produce green hydrogen to the nearby ExxonMobil refinery - one of the customers I suspect UKOG were hoping to provide storage for.

The government's focus appears to be, by its actions, on the North of England and Scotland with some projects in South Wales and one in the SW. The first part to be completed of Project Union will be in the North East - and whilst UKOG also has ambitions for a site in East Yorkshire it's near the already operating Aldbrough natural gas salt cavern storage facility - which already is progressing plans to expand for hydrogen storage.

The government updated hydrogen strategy paper might not be the boost to UKOG's projects you're hoping for - more likely the opposite.

'The deadline for Broadford Bridge is 07/02/26.'

Looks like this didn't happen:-

Interim Accounts, 30th September 2025 - 'To that end negotiations continue with CeraPhi Energy Ltd regarding the transfer and re-purposing of the Broadford Bridge site into a geothermal clean energy agriculture development.'

and looking at Ceraphi's web site they don't go it alone so either someone who wants to use the hot water would need to partner them to develop it, or UKOG will have to - and the cost might be more than just restoring the site and abandoning BB-1z

As it will be a significant change from the promised restoration a new planning application will be required and, while the ultimate outcome will be 'green' energy, it may be that achieving that involves some significant work, possibly fracking, further drilling or long term flowing of oily water from the Kimmeridge - which was basically what UKOG flowed to surface during testing, despite the positive RNS at that time, so it still might not be free of protests and objections to the planning application - probably not the publicity Ceraphi would want.

Not sure that UKOG can just bankrupt the subsidiary - whilst it appears a grey area for HHDL the 100% owned companies have support guarantees. Whilst the raise was supposedly for UKOG's hydrogen ambitions it will probably end up being mostly spent on Horse Hill restart and hyping it, Broadford Bridge restoration (unless there's a last minute reprieve) and salaries, with what's left over keeping the hydrogen carrot dangling.

Trish

For hydrogen they're being so cautious they've taken about 18 months (and counting) to relaunch the first storage round, which won't happen until after the updated hydrogen strategy is released which was planned to be released H2 last year.

When they finally get round to launching the storage round they won't be funding it in any way until the storage is built and operating - that will be down to the applicant to sort out before they apply. What the round is for is to decide which projects, probably two, will get an allocation of a guaranteed minimum price for storage, the difference made up by government, but that comes with a cap beyond which they share the extra with government.

No surprise they've kicked the cost to government into the long grass but judging by the process for the HAR rounds it will also take a long time to assess and then negotiate the terms of the support with those chosen.

One further thought about this:-

'These salt cavern projects, costing ~£1 billion, are designed to support the UK’s 2050 net-zero goals by connecting to the national pipeline system.'

is probably the reason the government has dragged its heels launching the hydrogen strategy update and relaunching the storage round. Much has changed in the 2 years since December 2023.

Those costs mean that a lot of research and testing is happening to find cheaper methods to avoid the solar or wind generated electricity > electrolysis > hydrogen > transport > storage > transport > generation > back to electricity cycle where the large scale electrolysis is expensive as well as transport and storage. Whilst the government is improving the electricity grid which will be required anyway as the favoured future power distribution method to replace natural gas, hydrogen transport, apart from in the North and east of England, where the ingredients are already taking shape for the above cycle with heavy industrial users nearby, is tied to the timing of the storage round.

So......the government is probably being cautious with the timing of awards for large scale allocations for revenue support for hydrogen storage sites that may require years of subsidy to operate and may never be required remote from industrial use if cheaper simpler power storage becomes available. UKOG is promoting the idea of incrementally increasing storage but that will still require significant costs in similarly subsidised infrastructure - and for the west of Weymouth potential site it won't be nationally connected until Project Union makes it to The Solent. Forget the East Yorkshire non site, there's too much competition up north.

...and the likelihood of UKOG gaining an award of revenue support for west of Weymouth is extremely remote, though expect continued linking of any article etc. mentioning hydrogen by UKOG and/or posters despite - often having either no relevance, or worse omitting any mention of southern England. The only hope for investors is hype re some vague MOU or Partnership / investor, or hype about HH when it's clear hydrogen storage isn't a go - though surely nobody will fall for that again? - of course they will when the cheerleaders return to make a fast buck.

Trish,

Perhaps instead of worrying why I post you would be better worrying about what I post research a bit (repeating UKOG BS is not research) and if you disagree with my analysis explain why.

Over the many years I've been posting about UKOG the main thing I've got wrong is how bad things were, hoping that there's a smidgeon of reality in what UKOG RNS.

Apologies missed out a bit - 'for some time':-

'Given that Project Union isn't reaching The Solent maybe 2050 is nearer the date any large storage site might be needed (if any is needed).'

Given that Project Union isn't reaching The Solent for some time maybe 2050 is nearer the date any large storage site might be needed (if any is needed).

Trish,

keep pushing the hype.

The reality is they have nought but a plan for a site that, as last notified in August 2024, UKOG only had 'Heads of Terms' to lease - thus avoiding costs of leasing the site - maybe because they realise it won't be needed - the largest hydrogen storage site in the early 2030's will probably be SSE / Equinor's Aldbrough site in 2030 - near the site that UKOG were 'negotiating' in November 2024. SSE / Equinor not only have a natural gas storage site there already there's advanced planning for an extension for hydrogen storage.

'These salt cavern projects, costing ~£1 billion, are designed to support the UK’s 2050 net-zero goals by connecting to the national pipeline system.'

Given that Project Union isn't reaching The Solent maybe 2050 is nearer the date any large storage site might be needed (if any is needed).

Some have plans, some plans are needed - others have plans and execute them.

Ocelot,

but production and demand in early 2030s won't need multiple large scale storage sites in the north of England (probably 2 out of EPP, Centrica's Rough and SSE/Equinor's Aldbrough expansion. With no national transport network, even if UKOG conjure up a loosely worded SGN MOU (which of course investors will only be party to the highlights - eg the NG MOU), there's almost certainly none needed in South Dorset. Unfortunately for UKOG Fawley Green Hydrogen is planning (and shortlisted in HAR2) to provide hydrogen to the current most likely early adopter of hydrogen in the area - ExxonMobil - and they are hoping for other customers, probably in competition to UKEn's ambitions in Dorset.

BTW - the 90 million you mention is not going towards infrastructure for hydrogen.

RIIO-3 Draft Determinations Overview Document, page 103:-

'While hydrogen will play a significant role in the energy transition, its precise role remains uncertain. We also note there is the potential for overlaps with other funding mechanisms, including DESNZ's Hydrogen Transport Business Model (HTBM). As such, our SSMD decided that RIIO-3 should not fund further development of hydrogen transport infrastructure - since this can be supported through the HTBM'

...and RIIO-3 is where the £90 million figure comes from:-

'Ofgem has approved £28.1 billion of upfront funding for investment, within a wider investment pipeline of around £90 billion over the RIIO-3 period.

Ocelot,

For UKOG with two potential sites for hydrogen storage, one in South Dorset and the other in East Yorkshire, what matters is where hydrogen demand and production is likely to be and when it will be in place. Almost all current government support for production is in the North of England and in Scotland where there already multiple wind farms generating that curtailed energy coupled with anticipated demand from heavy industry.

Government releases about hydrogen during 2025 certainly illustrated that focus, yet UKOG appear to want investors to believe their potential hydeogen storage site in South Dorset, remote even from the eventual southern end of Project Union will somehow be awarded an allocation of revenue support in the first allocation round - though UKOG has not indicated they've got beyond heads of terms rather than a signed up lease for the site

As for negotiating for a potential site in East Yorkshire that could be a plausible candidate - that may not have been as smart as it initially appeared as it is close to an already operating cavern storage site at Aldbrough operated by SSE / Equinor that is already progressing a planning application for additional storage for hydrogen.

Seriously, given the choice between SSE / Equinor, experienced competent and credible, and UKOG, erm, which site / company would be likely to be awarded.

Whilst the level of revenue support is down to negotiation between the government and applicant the model has been been 'minded' by the government to be cap and floor - ie above a certain price the government would share revenue, below it they would make up the difference.

July 2025 update to the market:-

After engaging with the market and exploring options for the design of the Hydrogen Storage Business Model our minded to

position continues to be that the most appropriate business model is a revenue cap and floor mechanism to be awarded via a subsidy competition.

Easier to find something that someone else has written (UKOG mainly) or said than express a view that's proved later to be BS.

Though ocelot will join in with a rampfest - favourite is endorsing other posters rather than coming out straight with a ridiculous claim.

Then there's this idea that there's enough detractors so I won't express my opinion when it's negative - in fact given the number of filters ocelot probably hasn't any idea what the 'detractors' are saying and how often what they are saying comes to pass whilst ocelot lives in the dreamworld of ignorance - bolstered by UKOG's unattainable hopes rather than their disastrous outcomes - which of course are history and should be ignored and in now way are an indication of how hopeless UKOG are, flitting to the next failure just as the pr3vious failure is about to be realised.

Trish,

the hydrogen storage dreamers have kept UKOG's life support from being turned off despite UKOG failing to explain why either of their potential sites would be chosen for the first allocation round rather than just repeating anything positive about hydrogen that ignores location - or doesn't and it's all about the north.

You'll know the game is up for UKOG's hydrogen storage if UKOG start pushing Horse Hill's millions / billions of barrels - absence of real analysis of Horse Hill worked well for UKOG before RNSing misleading flow tests, an unmentioned (until 2021) report in 2019 about the Kimmeridge - following which any planned work on the Kimmeridge didn't happen (HH-2 deepening, HH-1 sidetrack and or dual completion), repeated plans for a Portland CPR following production never happened, water production barely mentioned and water cut never.

As for the other ventures Broadford Bridge, Turkey, Loxley the barest and often misleading information

Broadford bridge, proved the Kimmeridge apparently - RNS'd about promising flow tests but there was barely any oil to surface (the testing report is public) - now awaiting site reinstatement or possible re-assignment for geothermal

Turkey Basur target claimed parallels with distant Kurdistan fields - the adjacent 'lookalike' field operated by their partner was dire, not transformational (scout reports showing rapid decline and drills missing targets) - exited the licence after drilling a guaranteed failure based on a distant oil seep and an updip oil show and a full stack amplitude anomaly.

Loxley supposedly tens of BCF field - a poor CPR based on mistakes and third party information that even RPS were cautious about using (wrong well correlation and was asked to use surprisingly high production predicted from a single well). Farmout unsurprisingly failed, licence now relinquished.

What's next, Portland Port storage has already been canned, the other sites possibly only optioned - with the government's hydrogen strategy update awaited with a high chance that will repeat the focus seen in 2025 that's clearly not on the south of England - Horse Hill in the hope of repeating the previous hype - claims of Kimmeridge production, water injection, initial flow rates and all the other opportunities to mislead the gullible - though before any further drilling 3D needs to be shot as the most useful outcome of HH-2z was it proved UKOG mapping wrong - though it's doubtful a risked NPV would support the drilling of another well based on HH-1 results.

UKOG has the questionable ability to RNS complete BS (and tweet) like NG is going to 'collaborate' with UKOG in building Project Union to a large base, mostly uninvested but waiting for the cue, that buys in, ramps, spikes the SP and then sells to the naive that hold through the dump hoping for good news 'soon' that will get them out of the water. The ones that post (and tweet} about good news coming soon.

The spike facilitating a brief period when UKOG is able to raise though these days most of the cash is to keep the lights on rather than doing something (mainly drilling previously) that according to UKOG will be transformational because of hope that the evidence of certain failure won't apply 'this time' - and strictly speaking it always has been transformational, usually along the lines the supposed 'derampers' have explained.

Ocelot,

as Peel Hunt declared only when they topped 10%, and when they dropped below - though they did miss some - so as long as they stay below 10%, even down to 0%, they don't need to TR1 again as they are holding (or claiming they are) in their capacity as a market maker.

Obviously if UKOG asks if they have over 3% for a shareholders list they must declare them.

As for cavern storage UKOG need to come clean as to the status of the two sites - have they leased them or are they dodging paying 'rent' for them because they don't expect to be selected in the allocation round?

Only once have they mentioned the East Yorkshire proposed site, last mentioned as in negotiation, is close to the already existing Aldbrough Gas storage site where SSE / Equinor are already progressing planning for Hydrogen storage, and the remote South Dorset was last mentioned as having Heads of Terms - not leased.