Member Info for Penguins

Ocelot,

is anyone fooled by the designation of 'assets' of any company, especially UKOG. Most of UKOG's asset value is what they've spent on things that so far haven't been proved to be valueless.

There are 3 real assets - HH-1 production, Horndean production and Avington production assuming it is now producing. The sum total of UKOG's share of thesein August was less than 70bopd - Avington was still not producing. The NPV value of HH-1 is according to UKOG £0.8mm, and the total of oil and gas properties in the 2022 Annual report as at 30 September was £3.8mm, of which more than half, £2mm, was property, plant and equipment plus decommissioning asset(?).

The 'value' of Loxl 'in theory' assumes it's successful to the extent of calculated gas in place being there and it being recovered to the extent estimated, this is what RPS said about risk:-

'Although it will be designed and drilled as potential production well, it will still have an element of appraisal as it must first prove commercial flowrates are achievable which will depend on the height of the gas column and reservoir properties encountered. For this reason, the recoverable volumes predicted in this report are classified as Contingent Resources, Development Pending in accordance with the PRMS'

The report gives first gas as Q2 2026, however there are assumptions that a lot of preparatory work is performed pre-drill, and assumes drilling starts early 2024. Whilst UKOG have stated the site work, even without a farminee, would commence H2 2023 they are still addressing the planning permission conditions, these need to be approved before any 'spades hit the ground'.

Even if successful anyone who has followed Saltfleetby will be aware that Angus have contrived by a series of poor decisions (in hindsight) to make this 'revived' field virtually valueless at the moment - saddling the asset with a cheap hedge coupled with late first production and usury loans - all of which have lead to massive profits elsewhere. Can anybody not see UKOG making exactly the same poor decisions that favours others, not pi?

An awful lot.

Adrian/ clover

lucky for you you're oblivious to how ridiculous your claim that a field 40kms away means that Pinarova 'is in an oil rich area'.

Forties oil field is big - but 90 sq kms means it's about 6miles x 8miles.

Even if the source at Pinarova was the same you need a trap that's not breached, a reservoir - and the source maturity and migration timing needs to work.

UKOG hasn't shown a structure map of Pinarova presumably because the Hoya trap was not structural and was the extent of the amplitude anomaly - a stratigraphic trap (look that up in wikipedia), so it's quite possible there's no strutural closure at the Pinarova location.

As for reservoir the Germik and the Hoya weren't recognised as reservoirs in SE Turkey - see diagram page 8 of 'Turkey Resan Licence Overview July 2020' (though dated 10/12/20) - so no other field is producing from it - and in the AME 2022 annual report:- 'The only exception will be testing the Resan shallow accumulation. Not only will these wells be quick and cheap the costs are carried by our JV partners and if successful would be a first in the region.' - the Resan shallow accumulation........would be the first in the region. Perhaps explains why they're not sure the test wasn't valid.

Very nice wiki extract about the Kimmeridge but it's primarily a source rock.

So you've bought some more UKOG shares - but you were also 'in' at 0.0329p. As for HH 'pumping 1000's of barrels a day' - why are UKOG giving away 49% of that for a carry of £4.6mm? Probably because of the Portland water risk with HH-2z overwhelmed by water ingress from fractures and HH-1 production declining considerably and fast before water ingress then rapidly increased. Of course the new 3D which PPP said would cost £350,000 - but not in the RNS version of the 2023 Annual Report - needs to confirm the strange contouring between seismic control of the Horse Hill structural culmination, the target of HH-3.....as for the Kimmeridge - UKOG didn't deepen HH-2 to log it, didn't sidetrack HH-1z, and didn't dual complete HH-1 - actions speak louder than words - and of course UKOG never mentioned, beyond a footnote to the resources table in the recent annual reports, the June 2019 RPS Report that had 1.5mmbbls 2C resources for Kimmeridge at HH.

Funny that doubting UKOG would be successful has so far been the sensible option.

Yes - just your account name changes......same rubbish, same claiming everyone you disagree with is a greenie or nimby - when it should be 'right'.

Funny thing is you get banned (again and again) not your opinions but because you've had a permanent ban for your posting here, after 3 warnings was it? How silly was that? - as for cancel culture you keep asking admin (from twitter, where you regularly also insult admin) to ban posters because you disagree with them.

Free speech Adrian style - as long as you agree with it.......

Maybe insulting LSE admin on X isn't the smartest move?

The oil isn't even seeping out of three shotholes, two of which were drilled adjacent to the fiirst after the initial discovery which had to be bailed out:-

'Oil was initially recovered on successive days from a sandstone layer at approximately 4m from surface using a bailer on a cable. Two new drill holes located 8m to the east and west were completed several days later and also recovered light oil to surface from the same depth'

Seeping into the shot holes might be a better description.

As for flow rates of fields in Turkey, even UKOG tried that one with E Sadak - the actual 'lookalike' field next door - in the same play, with the Basur-Resan feature along strike of the same thrust feature. The only flow rate they gave for E Sadak was this:-

'Wells on East Sadak have flowed at 1,300 bopd from naturally fractured and dolomitized Cretaceous Mardin limestones'

Yet scout reports showed that whilst initial test rates might be high (like for example HH-1) the reality of production flow rates were considerably less and field production figures rapidly dropped off. They also tried to pass off AME's reserve number for E Sadak of 28mmbbls, calculated by AME, who in later annual reports admitted they weren't to SPE standard.

UKOG also tried to draw parallels with fields in Kurdistan - that got many excited - a good illustration of the difference between being in the play fairway (Kurdistan fields) and on the periphery - E Sadak, and then maybe 20 kms further on - Basur.

AME had previously stated they were planning to bring reserve figures up to SPE standards and in the 2022 AME Annual Report the reserves for E Sadak, the lookalike to the transformational Basur-Resan opportunity, dropped to 0.5mmbbls and production from 8 to 10 wells 250bopd.

Looks like UKOG were desperate to keep the dream alive and something, anything else to drill after Basur-3 - hence Pinarova which according to AME was being funded by UKOG (also in the 2022 annual report) - 'The only exception will be testing the Resan shallow accumulation. Not only will these wells be quick and cheap the costs are carried by our JV partners and if successful would be a first in the region.'

Perhaps indicating what AME considered the chance of success - and so far, with the Hoya turning out to be a dud, and the perseverance by UKOG to test a formation not recognised as a reservoir and possibly already tested - that view looks correct.

Is the whole Pinarova episode a long shot distraction for 18 months while UKOG avoided / couldn't afford to do anything in the UK without a significant raise. The possibility the small guns might not have penetrated the casing UKOG's lucky break to extend the dream?

Go on deny you're Adrian / davethedrill1.

or what's this rubbish about:-

'Well instead of boring us all on with your trolling of adrian anonymously. Go talk to him on twitter where he can see who you are'

As for Pinarove here's something else they didn't do:-

'Consequently, in order to evaluate the oil shows more fully, after the primary target has been drilled and 550 metre total depth reached, it is planned to run electric logs to identify oil pay, followed by cemented 7" casing.'

Funny that they were going to wait for final logs - but had decided to not run the 7" casing so that they had decided before the final logs they weren't going to run definitive conventional selective cased hole tests, where any discrete identified oil zones can be perforated and isolated from any water bearing intervals.

They're doing a test in the 9 5/8 casing - nothing to do with the plans in that RNS,

I'm talking to you here (what's the BS with 'Man up and talk to Adrian on twitter you coward').

the point is that you have often claimed how those that are realistic about the outcomes won't be happy when they are successful but in reality UKOG have never had an outcome anywhere near their stated 'expectations', though as I've posted previously they do only do PR - you totally misunderstand the difference between your devotion to UKOG when it suits, and a dispassionate opinion about the projects.

Also you're not an investor as you keep claiming - you're a trader, or a liar about when you're holding, or not.

AS for: 'Pingo the swab results were not a failure. Stop lying. They were inconclusive either way big bird.'

That's what UKOG said - but they didn't recover any oil - then when they reached TD they gave some BS about waiting for 'final' log analysis to identify what they would have already known - no pay. If there was they could have done an open hole test straight away based on the initial analysis - which is what would normally happen. Not sure no oil, do nothing is anything but a failure.

and they've not even mentioned the primary Hoya amplitude anomaly target since TD - I suppose that was 'inconclusive' as well.

Sounding a bit rattled now, even trish is having to put in a shift.

Adrian,

instead of 'distinctly remembering' perhaps you could manage to link to a post that says 'there is no commercial oil wells in the area', you were very insistent that I linked a tweet you had deleted - and therefore you knew that was impossible. At least, unless you're a multi-banned poster, almost all previous posts are there in a poster's history - should be easy

As there is the rather poor E Sadak field nearby on trend to the Basur-Resan structural feature (that UKOG have avoided giving any details of despite it being operated by their partner AME I doubt anyone said there were no commercial wells in the general area - however UKOG and AME are well on the way to continuing to prove there won't be any commercial well in the area of the Basur-Resan licence - with seven undeveloped wells prior to Basur-3 - and the only well to produce any oil on a test was stopped because of water influx.

But good for Turkey that some licences do have oil in them elsewhere in Turkey - perhaps you'd like to plot all the fields you have mentioned and notice they're not in the Basur - Resan licence.

Even a field 10 miles away is no guarantee that a well will be successful, to think otherwise is foolish.

As for striking oil - what matters is whether there's enough to be commercial. From everything that's happened so far it's unlikely that the Germik will flow - they didn't even have 'shows' during drilling - actual oil in cuttings. The oil in an emulsion was displaced from the well when the casing was set - and even that wasn't mentioned at the time - UKOG tried to pass it off as oil from drilling the Hoya.

What other mis-direction has UKOG been up to?

How certain was the interpretation of the pressure and flow data that the none of the original perforating guns 'bullets' penetrated the casing and contacted the Germik formation, a limestone - which is not expected to be a reservoir so may be tight.

It's noticeable they've said nothing about the Germik, and are dangling the carrot of a 'possible' unproven and possibly non-existant deeper accumulation in the event the Germik test fails.

But UKOG never showed a structure map of the Hoya - just an extent of the anomaly which suggests it was a stratigraphic trap - so what will define a trap in the Germik, or deeper accumulation.

As for the Supreme Court, strange you didn't notice that the Finch case wasn't listed for next week.

I suppose you'll have to make up one of your little stories that I'm a green or nimby because I've been negative about UKOG's failed projects for years - when all I've been is right vs your incessant (except when you've sold) ramping which by definition has been wrong.

So you expect Pinarova to be successful? As for getting others to buy UKOG shares now before results - that's only so you can sell - before results.

According to the 'future judgements' page:-

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html

TUESDAY 28 November 2023

9:45am

Courtroom 1

Judgment hand-down

R (on the application of Imam) (Respondent) v London Borough of Croydon (Appellant)

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Richards, Lord Burnett

----

R (on the application of Afzal) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

R (on the application of Iyieke) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Lord Reed, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens

Wednesday 29 November

9:45am

Courtroom 1

Judgment hand-down

Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (Appellants)

Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin

----

TUI Ltd (Respondent) v Griffiths (Appellant)

Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens'

and the building might be open except for those days otherwise:-

'Michaelmas term

Monday 2 October to Thursday 21 December 2023

Hilary term

Thursday 11 January to Wednesday 27 March 2024'

Tick tock....but when has UKOG ever run like clockwork, more like grandad's old watch waiting for an appointment at the repair shop?

A stopped clock is at least right twice a day, the predictions of supposed good news - ie of progress towards doing something rather than results of doing something - are rarely right - though eventually repeating the same hope day after day will come true eventually, if only for disappointment when UKOG deigns to pass on results, or are forced to - as in monthly production from HH.

Imagine the delight if BB had lived up to the expectations expressed by UKOG during drilling

Imagine the delight if HH-1 had ever averaged the expected 362 bopd for a month, with gradual decline

Imagine the delight if HH-2z had not failed to produce the expected 720 to 1080 bopd

Imagine the delight if Basur-3 had produced similar results to the supposed analogues in Kurdistan rather than been drilled in the wrong place as some wells in the true analogue E Sadak that UKOG has studiously avoided giving any production or drilling details of.

Imagine the delight if Pinarova had produced oil from the amplitude anomaly target rather than an oil smell from a formation not expected to be a reservoir.

Yet here we are.

Hoping for success in a test of Pinarova that's been 6 months in gestation where UKOG hope (interpret) the previous, no flow, test of the oil smell interval is invalid

Hoping another company can be successful enough to farm in and perform obligation work on the HH oil field, which, if it proceeds to drilling a presumably risky appraisal well because of water ingress, it will see 49% of the licence and future non HH-1 production handed over.

Hoping another company will farm in to Loxley to drill what looks like another risky 'appraisal' well of a possibly unconnected discovery, Godley Bridge-1, to the west.

Yet endless PR about a gas storage project that is still in the planning stage with huge up front costs and if it goes ahead won't be operational until towards the end of the decade

tick tock....tick.........tick.................to........................

You seem to have confused being serially banned for being permanently banned on this site for being banned for your opinions.

Unfortunately your opinions are often about other posters - the more extreme opinions about others were what got you banned in the first place.

You also confuse accurate assessments of the projects and activities for being opinions by 'greens' or 'swampies' rather than knowledgeable posters who explain and justify those opinions - and are often right. Compared to your default justification 'imo' - so often proved wrong.

Continually claiming something will be soon 'imo' and eventually after weeks or months it happens - proves you have no shame - not a sixth sense of upcoming news.

'To attempt to blame delays on UKOG are ridiculous to say the least!'

Because UKOG have always been so good at doing things quickly / to schedule / ever.

Loxley delayed by nimby planners? Are you still confused about the difference between the planning committee - councillors, and the planning department - 'planners'.

If you look at the documentation for HH and Loxley planning applications you'll find that UKOG was submitting documents long after the initial application was submitted. Any delays prior to the committee are due to incomplete documentation - but part of the Autumn statement planning changes (payments by applicants) is to enable councils to employ more planners because the government has slashed local authority budgets. But as I posted earlier the councillors still don't have to give permission even if the planners recommend passing - which is what happened at Loxley.

27/11/2020 RNS:- 'This decision is contrary to the recommendation of the Council officers' report which recommended approval, all issues concerning planning, environmental and highways having been resolved to their professional satisfaction'

You really are looking very desperate - account after account on a site you are permanently banned from.

'Why does Penguins deliberately ignor the fact that new wells at Loxley and Horsehill have been continually delayed by his her Greens legal appeals and or planners unfairly turning applications down.'

All applications for HH have been passed by 'planners' and the committee - and soon after all required documentation submitted. Just one person apparently stopping all progress - really.

Loxley the 'planners' recommended approval - the committee rejected it, twice. Not sure how the new measures would stop that.

But prove it. UKOG has never said the legal challenges have caused delays - and Loxley's challenge ( as you point out) was defeated in July........nothing since except working through the conditions, slowly - even site prep meant to happen H2 this year.

all you need to understand as to why nothing has happened at HH is HH-2z and HH-1 water problems - and more drilling so risky they're happy to hand over 49% for a £4.6mm carry - on an oil field - to shoot 3D and drill a well - which will probably cost more than £4.6mm.

Not even getting on with HH-2z conversion to an injector which ought be an instant 'win' - but may not be if the injection into a fractured and a restricted layer of reasonable reservoir - where the 'lions share' of productiin comes from - tracks back to HH-1.

Erm, Adrian,

you're the one that is saying these projects are of intrest. Thought you might want to demonstrate why?

Did you not notice - the offshore windfarm was rejected by the inspectorate.....

If you're not prepared to make any prediction here's mine.

Loxley - drill H2 2024, result non commercial with gas shows / poor flow rate in poor quality Portland with insufficient height of gas column.

From the CPR 'Risk and Opportunity' section:-

'Although it will be designed and drilled as potential production well, it will still have an element of appraisal as it must first prove commercial flowrates are achievable which will depend on the height of the gas column and reservoir properties encountered. For this reason, the recoverable volumes predicted in this report are classified as Contingent Resources, Development Pending in accordance with the PRMS'

Portland gas storage - late 2020's before operational (storing gas) assuming it proceeds - with huge upfront costs either UKEn sold off or very minor partner in the project.

I suspect this came up in your google search as well:-

'11th September, 2015. "The Secretary of State does not consider that the Applicant has made a sufficiently robust case for granting development consent."

With these words, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) rejected the Navitus Bay proposal to build a giant windfarm, the size of Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch combined, just nine miles off Swanage.

It was a significant victory for campaigners, especially as such a windfarm would have been a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), meaning that the need for renewable energy is so great that there is generally a policy imperative to grant permission to such projects.

However, the Secretary of State concluded that, "In this case, the potential impacts are of such a scale that they outweigh the policy imperatives."

The rejection letter particularly referred to the deleterious effect the windfarm would have on the setting of the UNESCO World Heritage Site and also, on tourism in Dorset'

Not the local planners........

As for everything else - when are they introducing these new 'rules' which seem more to combat the lack of LA planners (who mostly seem to approve the plans - it's the councillors, even Tory ones, that have rejected UKOG's) - nevrtheless seems most Tory plans are scheduled to be introduced after they lose the next election?

Funnily enough I suspect a Labour SoS would agree it......but you seem to be against wind farms because they don't work when the wind doesn't blow.

Shainie (Adrian),

2 Questions,

1) When will Loxley be operational, exporting gas to the grid if the so called appraisal well is successful, and when will that be drilled? Site preparation was meant to be started 2023 H2 (June 2023 - It is anticipated that site construction will commence in the second half of 2023). I do suggest you have a look at the CPR and understand that the understanding of cross plot that is cited as justification for there being gas in Alfold preserving porosity and permeability and thus the prediction of GWC is flawed but that is probably the reason for the forced contouring providing closure to the east. Whilst UKOG cite it as a feedstock for 'blue' hydrogen investors will be most interested in what (and if / when) it sells for rather than where it goes - which of course isn't controllable once in the network.

2) When will Portland Port be operational? What is the likelihood of the Navitus offshore wind farm (or any other windfarm nearby) being developed since it was refused planning permission by the planning inspectorate in 2015? It was part of the plan to produce 'green' hydrogen at the site.

And spent 3 weeks apparently not testing Pinarova using the wrong guns - that might just have already pierced the casing and tested it.

Experts.

Who drilled Basur-3, in the wrong place. Then shot the seismic.

Presumably wanted to drill the amplitude anomaly at Pinarova - hoping an attribute of greater porosity might have oil in it.

Maybe you didn't notice that the experts at UKOG have so far more or less got everything wrong - or perhaps that should be only ever given positive and unlikely opinions of the likely outcomes.

Whereas there have been plenty of contrary opinions to those of UKOG on this board that have been far closer to the outcomes - and posters who were prepared to justify those opinions.

ZYX,

How will they decide where to test - maybe when the wellsite geologist 'recorded' (remembered?) the oil smell he registered the intensity!

I see a certain person on X is making claims anyone with a negative opinion about the test is worried - personally I can't wait to see what BS UKOG come up with to avoid announcing abject failure. Obviously discussing Pinarova and the testing rather than claiming it will be successful because the guns are big isn't allowed.

Trish,

If only they had been as excited about the oil smell and said the oil returning to surface was when the casing was being set immediately after it had happened in the 18 April RNS rather than after the well had reached TD a couple of weeks later in the 3 May RNS.

and then showed a chink in the certainty that none of the small guns perforations had reached the formation by suggesting that the first test being invalid needed to be confirmed by the upcoming test from the interims in June:-

'The tests are thus interpreted to be invalid until such time that larger perforating guns can be deployed in the well to establish proper contact with the formation and the potential hydrocarbon prospectivity correctly assessed.'

My expectation is failure with a hefty dollop of maybe there'sa deeper accumulation - forgetting that the Hoya amplitude anomaly target appeared to be a strtigraphically controlled accumulation, not structural.

Bubblepoint, interesting what you say about water cut, in the 30 October RNS PPP had stated 'The company will report a more accurate assessment on water cut once full production to the facilities has been stabilized over the course of the next few weeks.' 3 weeks on and water cut has not been mentioned at all in the 3 Production update RNS since then. Too often with UKOG what isn't mentioned is the most important thing to know - let's hope PPP aren't avoiding mentioning it and are just waiting for things to stabilise.

Rich - Yep wrong board - but shenanigans at PPP do impact UKOG with expectation of a farm in that needs to be funded.

Ocelot,

Early days- but certainly very encouraging, but still in the testing phase. A couple of weeks is probably not a good indication of long term flow rates. Previously production from this well over 2 years averaged about 75bopd and it was shut in July 2022 at 15 to 20bopd.

But will it be enough to fund their US plans and drilling HH-3 next year, and probably not enough to fund the 3D if it's to be shot Q1 2024 (original plan was H2 2023) and HHDL / UKOG as operator need to see the cash to initiate the preparations required. Though according to some everything is on hold until the Supreme Court verdict is known. Not sure if PPP can issue more shares, they already had to borrow existing shares to cover a lot of the last 2 raises. In the short term that could mean no placing is possible until an EGM or AGM to get authority to issue more shares, and they already 'owe' about 60 million shares to those they borrowed off with only just over 100 million shares currently in issue.