Member Info for Penguins

Not to forget these 2 as mentioned by SRBS - '£0.5 million receivable by no later than November 17th 2023, and £0.5 million receivable no later than February 16th 2024'

Firstly 0.0504p x 1.3billion is £655,000 not about £600,000

Not sure investors were told the whole truth of the deal at the time, and the deals wording is quite opaque. This for example:-

'As part of the package the Company will issue to the Investors ordinary shares ("Equity Shares"), which represent between approximately 37% and 51% of the value of the First Tranche, or 1.3 billion new ordinary shares'

In fact the 1.3 billion shares ended up being only 32.7% (even though the value is more than they say) - but a lot less than the wide range quoted.

Then there's warrants which will represent 33% of the shares they issue priced at 135% of the converted price (for example 0.0405p for a vwap of 0.03p).

and not forgetting the 4.5% of the value converted added to the loan - which is in effect a discount to the vwap.

So there's 1.3 billion shares at 0.0504p per share and unless they are bonkers they will convert the second tranche at a the variable price ie the 15 day vwap which is probably about 0.028p.

That will pay off another £400,000 and the first tranche paid off about £600,000.

Conveniently that leaves £1,000,000 to convert to shares at whatever 15 day vwap is available to them.

Let's hope it's above 0.03p or another 3.333 billion shares.

Baxtobax,

But the well originally produced 55,000bbls of oil in 2 years - ending up at a rate of 15-20 bopd according to PPP when it was shut in by the operator in July 2022.

So expecting it to produce 182,000bbls of oil in one year (500x7x52) perhaps illustrates how unlikely the well which PPP was given for very little by the operator will sustain a rate anything like that. Initial rates for a well shut in for about 15 months might be OK but drop off extremely rapidly depending on the recharge mechanism.

Whether there will be updates on flow rates over the next weeks / months will be interesting.

Ocelot,

Much will be made of the expected by everyone verdict from the Supreme Court that the planning permission is valid.

As ocelot would say about bad news RNS (not that there are as many as there should be) surely this good news is already in the SP - the Loxley High Court decision didn't 'bag'.

But UKOG hasn't ever suggested delays (or complete non activity) at HH are because of the court case. The issue appears to be snails progress getting permissions and (or perhaps because of) the reservoirs not being up to much except under tests that comprise bursts of production following shut in periods and UKOG releasing a variety of carefully selected flow rates. The overwhelming water ingress in HH-2z and the rapid onset of water in production from HH-1 is another problem.

A positive court decision won't change the geology.

Although DL claimed PPP weren't farming in until the court decision PPP couldn't anyway because the minority shareholders in HHDL wouldn't agree the farm in, and would HHDL/UKOG enter into an agreement with a suspended AIM company?

Of course ocelot won't read this (or is it pretend not reading). Not surprising that the ostriches with their green box boasts are the ones that keep on wondering why the SP has relentlessly fallen with all those great RNS and tweets being issued that they so like copying and pasting, with only the occasional pumps followed by dumps to entertain the herds of traders - less often and less exciting in recent years.

They must wonder what other investors don't see that they see.

Trish,

It was Friday 13 October. not quite 3 weeks ago - and what was said re the 4 weeks was:-

'is expected in around 4 weeks once the guns are on site.'

Now forgive me for being a little cynical but experience of dodgy wording in a UKOG RNS makes me wonder if it is 4 weeks from 13 October, or 4 weeks once the guns are on site - which is what it says.

That does sound a long time, but maybe getting everything ready to do the test like ordering the armoured crane, test equipment and other items needed for setting of those big guns a few hundred metres down the hole (and 'Red' Adair to be on standby for the blowout) will take a while?

Otherwise in terms of the success of the test ('Red' Adair was a joke) - rather than news of it happening expect any pump to have been dumped by the wise before the test results are RNS'd - just like the swab test results on 25 April.

Perhaps an indication of how important the oil smell and the oil returning to surface when the casing was set was is that they didn't mention the oil was associated with the Germik (the formation they're planning to test) until after they tested the 'upper' Hoya (they tweeted the returned oil when they announced the swab test, but not where it came from) where they had 'proper shows'(failure) and drilled through and beyond the Hoya amplitude anomaly without comment as to what was seen, though as they are now considering looking for a deeper accumulation to feed the shothole oil instead it does sort of confirm there was nothing there.

But don't worry everyone will be super excited that they might shoot more seismic to look for that deeper accumulation. Perhaps there will be news of the PPP farm in, Loxley farm out or HH-2z converson to distract.

Adrian,

BYW this is the UKOG board.

Why didn't they use the $20 million facility and instead separately raised £1.8mm in 2 hits earlier this year - and to do this they had to 'borrow' about 60 million shares off existing shareholders. They'll need to issue those 60 million shares at some point that won't generate any extra cash but will be 60% more shares in issue.

So what am I hiding, that PPP will need to raise to shoot the 3D, let alone drill an appraisal well that HHDL don't seem keen to drill?

First sentence my post 8:55 this morning:-

'Expect a P&D and then a raise by PPP to pay for the HH 3D'

As for the other wells I also asked what happened to the Whistling Straits well - last sentence same post:-

'But what's happened to the Whistling Straits 5 well?'

Adrian,

Did you read the PPP Annual Report, probably not - too many words

Like your ridiculous posting with revenues, not net income, on the UKOG board you ignore that oil companies, even AIM ones, cost money to run, as do well sites, exploration programmes and myriad other expenditures.

This from the Annual Report:-

'The Group expects to generate modest positive net cash flow when oil production regularly exceeds 50 barrels of oil per day.'

Adrian,

Did you read the Annual Report, probably not - too many words

Like your ridiculous posting with revenues, not net income, on the UKOG board you ignore that oil companies, even AIM ones, cost money to run, as do well sites, exploration programmes and myriad other expenditures.

This from the Annual Report:-

'The Group expects to generate modest positive net cash flow when oil production regularly exceeds 50 barrels of oil per day.'

Expect a P&D and then a raise by PPP to pay for the HH 3D assuming that the farm in is agreed. Estimated cost by PPP in the Annual Report £350,000.

The HH-1 ewt certainly illustrated that initial rates could be misleading as far as permanent production is concerned. For the PPP CTH#1 well production stopped in July 2022 at 15 to 20bopd - it produced 55,000bbls of oil during 2years of production giving an average of about 75bopd meaning if it did start at about 400bopd production dropped off much faster than HH-1. Depending on the recharge mechanism will decline be much faster in this second go at production?

But what's happened to the Whistling Straits 5 well?

Not worth wasting too much time replying to someone who will be gone - so here's a reply from a couple of weeks ago when the SP was 0.345 and you were rejoicing your buy at 0.0329p but trying to encourage others to buy so you could sell, of course your posts are consigned to the ether:-

'It's hilarious you trying to mock someone about a non-existant short that would have been by far the most sensible thing to have done until two weeks ago - and may still be worth holding onto - after all there was a poster who was convinced that 0.06p was the floor when the SP steadied at that for a while, though anyone shorting (a CFD?) has had plenty of time to cash in while the SP has steadied over the past 2 weeks after two months of ever lower 52 week lows.

We'll see if a win in the Supreme Court will see the SP 'bag', the Loxley win was muted.

But are you living in the past - TW, shorts - next up BDI will be back and £1 party - sorry for those that held in 2017 because they believed the BS'

I see now you've added to your delusional claims about other posters. You seem to suck up to all the rich boys, Trump, Farage, Ticehurst that have 'fooled' so many of the poor that the millionaires and billionaires that own newspapers and TV channels that they aren't the enemy.

Truly the self styled fool on the hill, in your case we should add DL who's now coming for your cash not your hate.

BTW - You never did explain where and how the sort of pi posting on this board could borrow shares to short UKOG. I expect you still have no idea because it isn't possible.

So sweet to see a man child posting nonsense with all those pretty emojis.

But I wonder if PPP hasn't returned to trading because the Nomad isn't happy with the accounts - who knows, maybe they're struggling with the Whistling well and hoping something will turn up, though they must have been trying for weeks, wasn't anything in last Friday's RNS. Maybe that's why they're hoping the Supreme Court decision might emerge but it could still be weeks - it's a bit desperate when the farm in hasn't been agreed. At least, unlike UKOG, being suspended means the SP can't drop untl trading starts again.

As for 'I don't see you complaining about none stop deramping post from Stevesand and HmmNice whys that then. As if we didn't know ya hypoctit'

With you here so frequently doing it I didn't need to - stop crying that I didn't bother.

You posted:-

'Perf guns are arriving soon. And a court decision will land soon'

what's your definition of soon?

But of course these won't be any sort of result that will affect the value of UKOG. In the case of the Supreme Court decision change nothing as long as it's the expected 'win' for UKOG.

But no doubt there will be an attempt to 'pump' it, that may or may not be successful as the market is becoming wise to the fact the next thing that happens is a 'dump', there's also the likelihood that YA / Riverfort will join in if the price rises.

In the case of the perforating guns a wait while they're set up and then wait until UKOG deign to give the results of a test that they hope will confirm the previous test of the Germik (with no flow) was invalid. Bubblepoint mentions sugar coating in the RNS - will probably be about possible plans to shoot more seismic (long grass gambit) and waffle about a deeper accumulation (hope over experience).

This is by no means certain as at the time they ignored the oil smell UKOG's geologist noticed while drilling the Germik, the formation they are planning to test again. They also ignored the oil that returned to surface when the casing was run after drilling to the first casing point above the Hoya.

Instead UKOG bigged up oil shows in cuttings during drilling ahead in the Hoya (not just a smell) and tweeted a picture of the oil returned to surface after they had stopped drilling in the Hoya to perform a swab test which failed.

The delay in tweeting a picture of the oil in a bottle was devious and gave the impression it was from the Hoya section they were about to swab test - DL was fooled.

As for liar - as the Supreme Court is again 'sitting' and UKOG RNS'd nearly 2 weeks ago the perforating gun needed had been sourced it all depends on how soon rather than if. For the perforating guns the timing was stated as:- 'is expected in around 4 weeks once the guns are on site' - so a while yet.

You posted-

'Management are waiting for challenge verdict, and then they'll start up operations in Turkey.'

?????? - The challenge is in the UK, to do with HH planning permission.

As for Turkey AME are the operator and UKOG don't control when things happen in the Turkish licence - although AME have stated in their 2022 Annual Report that the partners are carrying the well cost despite that UKOG have a 50% WI. Even if UKOG are paying 100% AME would still be opereting the well as operator of the licence.

I'm quoting AME's Annual Report, DL is assuming, as you are, that UKOG are paying their WI for Pinarova.

I'm pointing out that a participant in a licence can pay a different % to their WI for a specific activity.

You posted again, again:-

'If all you lot think UKOG is deliberately drilling and testing a well that they don't really think has got any oil in it lmao!'

No, but they are doing a test that has a very high chance of commercial failure - the swab test of the Hoya which presumably they considered a better option was a failure. But UKOG need to appear to be doing something - how long did they flog the BB dead horse, failed test after failed test.

and this:-

'How does their there JV partner and the actual operator of the drill Aladdin Middle East make any profit out if this so called scam? Bearing in mind they are also paying 50% costs'

Well they will be charging time spent on the project - and also in the 2022 annual report AME wrote this:-

'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.'

'costs are carried by our JV partners' - I'd also be concerned about 'be a first in the region'. Too often new entrants to an area think they know more than the old hands - did AME not want to drill but agreed to drill it if UKOG paid 100%?

UKOG are 50% in the licence - doesn't stop them paying 100% for drilling a well if they disagree with the operator or have a side agreement.

After PPP farm in and stump up the cash to pay up to 100% of HH-3 they will have a 49% WI in the licence - and UKOG will still be the operator.

Adrian,

Are you saying that PPP with a WI of 49% won't be paying more than that % in HH-3?

Just posting your opinion and claiming quoting what AME, the operator, have stated in their Annual Report is nonsense is nonsense

Slovakze,

I don't dispute ('know's better') that UKOG have a 50% WI in the licence, but it's not impossible that there's a different payment split for Pinarova, didn't you read what I posted:-

'UKOG are 50% in the licence - doesn't stop them paying 100% for drilling a well if they disagree with the operator or have a side agreement.

After PPP farm in and stump up the cash to pay up to 100% of HH-3 they will have a 49% WI in the licence - but UKOG will still be the operator.'

and the operator of the licence put in their Annual Report, which is compatible with UKOG having a 50% WI, this:-

'costs are carried by our JV partners'

which is what I'm going on.

Slovakze,

You posted again:-

'If all you lot think UKOG is deliberately drilling and testing a well that they don't really think has got any oil in it lmao!'

No, but they are doing a test that has a very high chance of commercial failure - the swab test of the Hoya which presumably they considered a better option was a failure. But UKOG need to appear to be doing something - how long did they flog the BB dead horse, failed test after failed test.

and this:-

'How does their there JV partner and the actual operator of the drill Aladdin Middle East make any profit out if this so called scam? Bearing in mind they are also paying 50% costs'

Well they will be charging time spent on the project - and also in the 2022 annual report AME wrote this:-

'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.'

'costs are carried by our JV partners' - I'd also be concerned about 'be a first in the region'. Too often new entrants to an area think they know more than the old hands - did AME not want to drill but agreed to drill it if UKOG paid 100%?

UKOG are 50% in the licence - doesn't stop them paying 100% for drilling a well if they disagree with the operator or have a side agreement.

After PPP farm in and stump up the cash to pay up to 100% of HH-3 they will have a 49% WI in the licence - but UKOG will still be the operator.

Slovakze,

Not a story - AME in their Annual Report.

As for DL I don't see him listed as working in any capacity in AME or UKOG.

He doesn't know what's going on in Turkey - he assumed the oil in the bottle came from the interval with oil shows in the Hoya:-

'David Lenigas@DavidLenigas

Apr 21

Brilliant. This is amazing oil from @UKOGlistedonAIM #UKOG quick look see from their ~50m of oil shows in their new #Turkey #oil well. This looks like very light sweet #crude to me. Any oil company would be happy seeing this. Main target still to come deeper.'

This was in the RNS the morning of DL's tweet:-

'UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that after drilling ahead within the target Eocene Hoya limestone sequence, Pinarova-1 encountered oil shows in drill cuttings from 358 to 400 metres drilled depth.'

Slovakze,

You posted:-

'If all you lot think UKOG is deliberately drilling and testing a well that they don't really think has got any oil in it lmao!'

No, but they are doing a test that has a very high chance of commercial failure - the swab test of the Hoya which presumably they considered a better option was a failure. But UKOG need to appear to be doing something - how long did they flog the BB dead horse, failed test after failed test.

and this:-

'How does their there JV partner and the actual operator of the drill Aladdin Middle East make any profit out if this so called scam? Bearing in mind they are also paying 50% costs'

Well they will be charging time spent on the project - and also in the 2022 annual report AME wrote this:-

'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.'

'costs are carried by our JV partners' - I'd also be concerned about 'be a first in the region'. Too often new entrants to an area think they know more than the old hands - did AME not want to drill but agreed to drill it if UKOG paid 100%?