Member Info for Penguins

Ocelot,

it's all very well just repeating UKOG RNS - but what does it really mean?

The previous test was 'interpreted' to have been invalid because there was no flow or pressure change - but the same might occur if the formation is tight - and the Germik (the formation they are going to test) was not identified as a reservoir.

Odd that the oil smell during drilling the Germik was reported on 3 may when the well reached TD although it happened before 18 April.....and the oil that came to surface was first tweeted on 21 April when UKOG RNS'd that they were going to test the Hoya, which had just been drilled, with no mention it happened when the casing was set (ie before 18 April) until 3 May. DL was fooled by the tweet and thought the oil was from the Hoya interval about to be tested.

The geochemical analysis also included a sample from E Sadak - was that a close match, why no mention? It's sort of irrelevant anyway - what would be the issue if the samples weren't a close match though it would be a surprise.

Why does testing being positive have a bearing on shooting 3D to identify (or not) a deeper structural closure (not oil pool) - the amplitude anomaly business didn't end well.

If the formation is tight fo the test is no good is a deeper structural closure not worth identifying? One further point is that if a deeper structure is spilling oil then it assumes oil is migrating into it - otherwise it's slowly emptying.

Don't worry. The traders have their list - and luckily P&Ds depend on news plus wild unjustified claims of the outcome, not results.

Supreme Court decision - though UKOG has never suggested the challenge was delaying anything, and it certainly shouldn't have. UKOG expects to win - and that would be the logical, and sensible, result.

HH-2z conversion- UKOG claim £250,000 saving a year but don't mention the cost of doing it. In June UKOG were still waiting for EA final approval despite years of posters and tweeters claiming it was about to happen - then currently months of claiming it wouldn't happen now because of the Supreme Court challenge to planning permission.

PPP HH farm in - with the shooting of 3D first, with the ability to not drill, it accentuates that drilling even appraisal wells at HH must be risky or else why farm it out - the valuation by UKOG of all future production at HH of £11.4 (before farming out 49%) certainly suggests something isn't as great as some suggest.

Pinarova - it's unlikely that an interval they didn't mention before the well TD'd without success in the primary target is anything but a long shot. Then mentioning an oil smell and emulsion collected after the casing was inserted - that UKOG passed off as Hoya oil when drilling recommenced - doesn't scream discovery.

Loxley - still not farmed out, without a farm out will require far more cash to drill what is a risky well with one undeveloped discovery some 5 kilometres to the west and two (plus a sidetrack) failed appraisals already. Is the plan to acquire seismic after drilling sensible or are they concerned it might show the eastern closure as non-existant?

Luckily there's enough 'traders' to shout out how great it will be 'this time' - though YA / Riverfort will be first in the queue to get a return when the SP they appear to have dragged down rises. It will be interesting to see if they will be able to circumvent the limit of no more than 20% of the previous months trading provision. Recently someone has had a lot of shares to sell with no sign of a TR1 indicating a conversion.

Ocelot,

The Supreme Court decision will just recognise the reality about how planning permission is decided. It isn't a political decision, it's a legal one. Perhaps you can explain in what way it will send a strong signal in favour of onshore production apart from restoring the status quo where interest, apart from unconventional which isn't supported by any party likely to be in power, was practically zero.

In regard to UKOG the geology at Horse Hill and in the Weald generally will remain the same, the Portland able to produce at a poor rate (compared to offshore) for while, at HH short while, then decline. The Kimmeridge, a source rock with fracturing that can produce at similar rates to the Portland for short periods, hasn't been developed possibly because of the results from long term testing at HH and Broadford Bridge.

Pboo,

1000 oil tankers since mid 2018. Thays an average of 200 a year or not much more than one every other day. Currently of course it's more like 2 a week.

As for BKP tankers full of oil currently there's one of water to two of oil. Historically there weren't that many but since June 2019 the water cut has been around one third, and since then nearly half the oil from Horse Hill has been produced, at the start of water ingress a bit under, now over. So even since the start of the ewt not far off one in six tankers has been water, especially as the waste tankers have less volume. That doesn't take into account water produced by HH-2z described as overwhelming soon after it was supposedly cured.

As for the tanker trick. This was about UKOG sending out a number of tankers in a day which somehow Adrian (more often than not) was there to see. This would be heavily reported on twitter and here and posters then would equate the inferred volume of oil they contained to a current - often absurd, flow rate. This was aided by the twitter reports not differentiating or between waste and oil tankers, or mentioning some were exhibiting the 1267W code (non hazardous but containing some oil contamination) not 1267WE - for instance this poster:-

'Pboo

Posted in: UKOG

Posts: 6,894

Price: 0.245

No Opinion

RE: Tanker30 Apr 2020 10:05

Penguins

Tell us why it looks like a waste tanker???

It has 1267 hazard plates on the side and orange warning square on the front.'

The RPS Report was first mentioned in the 2020 Annual Report and accounts - issued in March 2021, actually 21 months after June 2019. Even after the report was available to UKOG they persisted in quoting the billions of barrels of OIP in the 2019 Annual Report in April 2020, when they were still talking about dual completion of HH-1.

It's like whack-a-mole.

There are dozens of wells in the Weald that have been drilled through the Kimmeridge so what's required to drill through it is well understood, so drilling it is not a problem. Why UKOG changed the plan at HH and didn't drill as planned through the Kimmeridge isn't known - but it could be they knew they weren't going to be drilling it any time soon so wouldn't need the information - drilling the extra 300m and logging would add time and expense to the HH-2/2z programme and there's always some risk of losing the hole drilling and running logging tools in a well.

It looks like RPS's June 2019 report must have been disappointing as only the contingent resources have ever been revealed from it, and that was some 18 months later in the 2021 Annual Report, in the resources table - perhaps very disappointing - was that why the Kimmeridge was no longer explored or developed, not only by not deepening HH-2 but also not sidetracking or not dual completing HH-1.

Trying to pretend there was an issue with drilling the Kimmeridge is a bit lame. But it seems producing from the Kimmeridge is an entirely different problem.

Over the years so many posters have acted as apologists for UKOG offering all manner of excuses for UKOG failing to keep pi informed and why things haven't happened. One of the more popular was UKOG didn't need to inform the market immediately of good news but did bad news - how disappointed those posters must have been when finally UKOG admitted failure each time - for instance at Broadford Bridge.

Making up a story about the Kimmeridge being no longer accessible following a workover of the Portland is an example of trying to explain away why the Kimmeridge in HH-1 hasn't been developed.

However if it was such a good opportunity surely the planned sidetrack into the Kimmeridge could have been kicked off above any 'bung' (as pboo described it) in the way but below the sweet spot in the Portland.

Pboo,

you posted:- 'I and most on this forum don't care what you think or say'

I suspect in fact they don't like what I say, mainly because it's often right.

But it's just deflection because you don't have any explanation for the inconsistencies in your account which doesn't at any point have any factual evidence - just hearesay.

You saw exactly what was happening - a workover of the Portland which was consistent with what you described in posts here at the time, only now are you and Adrian making up this story about the Kimmeridge being messed up. If anything would have been messed up it was the Portland which they went on to produce in March under the FDP.

The workover end January / early February was nothing to do wth the Kimmeridge - but that spoils your story that UKOG can't access the Kimmeridge in HH-1, which you need as a reason for UKOG not bothering to produce from the Kimmeridge, even though they continued with statements that they were still planning to dual complete the well even in an 28/04 RNS - 'These include interventions to add commingled Kimmeridge oil flow.' - long after you claim they messed up and blocked access to the Kimmeridge.

Strange that at the time you were posting inJanuary / early February no mention of the Kimmeridge, though there was this on 4 Feb 2020:-

'Could be moving / resetting the Portland plugs or putting more monitoring equipment down hole.'

But now you're posting 'it was well reported by people watching the site.'

As for the overheard conversation - perhaps Adrian forgot he posted this:-

'Adrian The Fool on The Hill@davethedrill1

Oct 14, 2020

Replying to @HillWhos and @JohnRogan9

Yea number of times I've walked down the path and then heard them shout out what they are doing next LooooooL. Brand new twitter account . Herd THE PERF MAN shout out firing today . Oh my sides.

B****cks! #ukog'

Pboo.

sooooo

they shut it in for a long term pressure build up in mid January - because pressure is a problem in the Kimmeridge - when they swirched from Kimmeridge to Portland production starting 13 January.

Then for a short period flowed the Portland until nearly the end of January (therefore the KImmeridge was indeed separated by a 'bung' as you put it.

Then at the end of January RNS'd they they were going to perform a workover to optimise the Portland, you then observed and reported here UKOG were repeatedly taking the pump in and out of the well (that had been producing from the Portland)

The well was then flowed and according to your posts there was further work done before eventually in March the flow was classed as production under the FDP.

You have claimed that the work you observed in February, after the Kimmerdge was shut in, was when they 'messed up' the Kimmeridge when they weren't even working on it - and UKOG repeated in several RNS after they switched from Kimmeridge to Portland production that they were planning to dual complete HH-1.

I don't think that at all suggests the Kimmeridge was messed up by any workover - it's just what it is - a source rock with barely pourous / permeable micrite intervals that have fractures.

Alternatively your fantasy suggests UKOG is lying saying they could dual complete HH-1, in several RNS after the Portland workover you suggested was the cause.

THough you also came up with this lie as the workover was specifically to optimise the Portland:-

'They were trying to switch from the Portland to the Kimmeridge and could not get the downhole bung to disconnect. They were fishing for about 7 to 10 days.'

You also quoted from a workover in October 2020 which again was specifically for the Portland as some sort of justification.

You posted about dual,completion:-

'It never happened. But what went wrong?'

What went wrong was that it wasn't worth doing. It would have been costly and dual completion would be a more complex solution which would carry some risk during installation and in production expensive shut downs as, if an ESP failed, it would mean pulling the whole completion to replace it.

There are indications that flow rates of the ewts of the Kimmeridge dropped off rapidly in the later periods of testing for whatever reason despite UKOGs carefully selected figures in RNS, much faster than the already rapid decline in production seen in the Portland OGA / NSTA figures - and of course the RPS Report in June 2019 was obviously unfavourable because UKOG kept it quiet for over 18 months before only using the HH resources figures in it rather than the billions of barrels of OIP.

Even now there doesn't seem to be any rush, after the Supreme Court decides in UKOG's favour in the near future, to test the Kimmeridge again though UKOG do have an obligation well to test the Kimmeridge (although the NSTA keeps putting the drop dead date back). HH-3, that PPP might drill if the farm in happens and the seismic confirms a location, is designated as 'a new crestal infill production well' which places it as a Portland producer. Let's hope that unlike Basur-4 the crestal mapping survives the new obligatiin 3D which also appears to depend on the PPP farm in.

Your whole fantasy appears to depend on the late January / early February workover of the Portland to optimise production from the Portland somehow messing up the Kimmeridge which had been 'shut in' in mid January when production was switched from the Kimmeridge to Portland. On a few occasions soon after in RNS UKOG were stating that plans to dual complete HH-1 were being advanced - were they lying?

You can't even sort out dual completion and co-mingled and where it was planned to be used - so your ridiculous claims of anyone else 'shooting themselves in the foot' look rather hollow.

I suspect your 500 to 600bopd would have lasted days and with both levels declining the sum of production down to an average of a few barrels more than just the Portland figures qute rapidly.

Of course the deception would have lasted a few months as it did with the Porrtland production with UKOG having never reported production rates in RNS or reports since the start of production in March 2020 - investors having to wait until the OGA then NSTA reports the figures 3 months later.

'zyx at least is trying to work what was going on. youare trying to disrupt **** off.'

That's not very nice Adrian. What you and pboo are proposing is complete supposition based on observing what's happening at the surface (which doesn't seem to match what you claim but does match what UKOG said the were going to do) when what's important you can't see

There was nothing going on, the Kimmeridge was shut-in, they were playing with the pump in the Portland, which continued to be accessible by your accounts of it being in and out of the well - maybe optimising involved trying a few different positions relative to the sweet spot or maybe they were having trouble with it in some way or other as they expected it to be a short intervention. RNS 28/01/2020 :- 'A short routine intervention on HH-1 is now underway, which aims to further optimise and increase the Portland production capability of the well.' - which is what Pboo and Adrian were watching.

Seem to remember another 'routine' intervention (in HH-2z) that wasn't.

Alternatively the company was lying that the Kimmeridge could be accessed in HH-1 for dual completion in March and April. Believe UKOG or a desperate underwater investor?

As the pair of you don't seem to want to mention dates here's some help.

In the RNS (28/01/2020) - 16 January 2020 UKOG recommenced production from the Portland having shut in the Kimmeridge for a long term pbu.

In the RNS (28/01/2020) no indication the Kimmeridge was blocked off:- Plans to install a dual completion to enable HH-1 to produce from both the Portland and Kimmeridge oil pools are being formulated.'

In the same RNS they indicated HH-1 Portland production stopped on 27 January and an intervention in the Portland began to optimise production.

Then in early February you were posting about the pump going in and out of the well from reports by Adrian, wireline being used.

10/02/2020 - You report 401st tanker

25/02/2020 You post that the pump is back on HH-1.

09/03/2020 RNS - 'These operations, designed primarily to enable simultaneous production from HH-1 and HH-2z, will require both HH-1 and HH-2z to be shut-in for a period of up to ten days'

31/03/2020 - Final Report. HH-1 Production had started. Still planning to dual complete HH-1.

28/04/2020 - RNS - still talking about 'interventions to add commingled Kimmeridge oil flow'

So were UKOG bluffing that the Kimmeridge was accessible in HH-1 after the workover in late January / early February by continuing to say the dual completion was still planned or were the operations you observed when the Kimmeridge had already been shut in just part of optimising the Portland ready for Production start-up?

Pboo

'What we don't know is what they did to the HH1 Kimmeridge production string, that stopped them flowing it again.'

You do understand that unless there was a dual completion with ESPs for each then the Kimmeridge production string will have been removed in early January when they switched back to the Portland for an interference test - and they RNS'd the Kimmeridge was being shut in for a long term build up.

Adrian

'If peeps read the RNS bopd figures from both the Kimmeridge and Portland you can see that things were goingvtmwelll up until the fek up'

How wrong you are - UKOG were incredibly selective about what flow rates they released and mixed up half hour, instataneous, average rates to avoid analysis - but even then I was pointing out it looked like there was decline over relatively short periods.

'I always thought something serios had happen when they didnt drill the HH2 pilot hole down to the kim as they said they would' ?????

So are you saying this fishy fishing operation took place before HH-2 was drilled? All I can see is a couple of posters dodging the question of when this happened as the only evidence appears to be that UKOG shut in the Kimmeridge and did nothing further with the Kimmeridge.

Perhaps UKOG realised the Kimmeridge was a dog - the RPS report wouldn't just have produced resources but analysed all the data made predictions of future production and given an opinion about commerciality. You'll note UKOG didn't RNS after that report the Kimmeridge was commercial.

ZYX the commingling was KL3 & KL4. they were always going to dual complete Kimmeridge and Portland using 2 ESPs.

Adrian,

what date - I've not seen a date mentioned for when this fishing operation you've concluded has blocked off the Kimmeridge despite no mention by UKOG it happened.

What's odd is you and pboo say fishing but then Pboo is talking about them pulling the downhole pump out twice - looks more like problems with the down hole pump.

But thhey were producing from the Kimmeridge from 18 December 2019 to some time before 16 January 2020.

You're now posting from an early 2019 RNS which again shows signs of a rapid decline starting at 525bopd and then averaged over the next week 303bopd - so what rate did it end up?

After a lot of testing they had a RPS report done in June 2019 which gave 2C resources of 1.4mmbbls net to UKOG - but no details given other than the resources.

Pboo,

They switched back to Kimmeridge production (23/12/2019 RNS), 'flow lines were reconnected to HH-1 and dry Kimmeridge oil flow was resumed on 18 December at an initial half-hourly rate of 354 barrels of oil per day ("bopd") with an average daily rate of 301 bopd.' - however those figures illustrate a dramatic drop in 4/5 days if production started at 354bopd and then averaged 301 - ie ended at about 250bopd - and in other tests UKOG were very evasive as to what was happening in terms of decline.

'They were trying to switch from the Portland to the Kimmeridge and could not get the downhole bung to disconnect. They were fishing for about 7 to 10 days.'

I can find no reference to UKOG wanting to switch from Portland to Kimmeridge after they switched from Kimmeridge to Portland on 16 January 2020. In March production began.

In June an intervention only of the Portland was planned.

So exactly when was this 'fishing operation' that you were able to determine from watching from outside the site was to access the Kimmeridge?

'HH1 well problems were caused by faulty down hole equipment.' - 'Bung'?

When was this - you're making claims that UKOG have never mentioned. Seems you and Adrian just make up stuff.

Pboo,

'and if they had not had well problems then it would be flowing 300 to 500bopd'

But they did get well problems and there were posters, that were accused of being greens etc for daring to suggest that UKOG predictions could possibly be wrong, saying that the problems that have happened would happen.

Worse, the sort of problems they've had are very likely to happen in any future drills at HH and very difficult to mitigate against.

Adrian,

You keep quoting old RNS, or old commentary from your beloved greens who are as desperate as you to make it seem that everything is going well at HH, in their case to stir up opposition to it from nearby residents.

There's been no statement from UKOG that the legal challenges have delayed anything, more likely the poor performance of the Portland in production and a KImmeridge RPS Report in 2019 has meant an unwillingness to advance work on either target at HH, perhaps illustrated by attempting to farm out future, non HH-1 production, to PPP, though after shooting the 3D PPP have the option to not drill a well.

InJune they were still waiting for sign off from the EA for the injector work, UKOG claim it will save £250k a year. but once the new completion is installed it will require testing. The fund raise in July was for £2mm immediately with further instalments on demand, but the first of £500k to be taken no later than 17 November.

As I posted (with an added 'were'):-

'Horsehill-1's proven track record was it was OK when they were testing with stops and starts to flowing - giving the well's pressure a chance to recover.'

So you quote an irrelevant random flow rate from during the ewt in 2019 - not during production which started in March 2020. It's pretty obvious the problem is with continually producing from the Portland - and it's possibly worse from the Kimmeridge given they didn't deepen HH-2 nor sidetrack or dual complete into the Kimmeridge in HH-1.

Perhaps they forgot to be 'prudent' when they started production (from the same Feb 2019 RNS):- 'For prudent reservoir management purposes'...........'the average test production rate from the 114 ft vertical perforated Portland section has been maintained below the previously reported 362 bopd calculated optimised sustainable rate'.

So your opinion is that UKOG have allowed a legal challenge they believe (you believe, I believe and probably everyone else posting here and Xing on X believes) has no merit, and will be unsuccessful, to stop them developing a reservoir that is so wonderful that success is guaranteed - and just allowed the share price to decline to 0.03p from over 1p in September 2019 when planning permission was passed - not only that but instead spent what a well would have cost at HH chasing a project in Turkey that given the performance of the lookalike nearby field operated by AME, that they should have been well aware of, was certainly never going to be transformational and probably doomed to failure.

but, but, Sarah says..............

I'd say the only poster here who anyone should be suspicious of is a fire extinguisher salesman who is permanently banned from this site, who reappears to spam the board when his investments start crumbling and who has constantly repeated UKOG claims in RNS that have proved consistently wrong.

and if you think UKOG are going to risk drilling another horizontal well in the Portland after HH-2z you really are delusional - and given the limited thickness of the zone the Portland produces from (see above) a slant well won't make a signifcant difference.

Adrian,

I can't wait to see your reasoning that an oil smell, that UKOG thought was so important they didn't bother to report in the RNS immediately after it happened, will lead to an oil flow - I suppose another example of hope over experience where UKOG is concerned.. UKOG only mentioned it and bigged up the oil smell after the primary target was no longer mentioned.

As for decline I'm not sure anyone would drill a well expecting a decline from 300 bopd to 100 bopd in 6 months (April to September 2020). It's quite likely with risking that assuming a well with production the same as HH-1 would return a NPV(10) below £5mm (the 'remaining' NPV calculated by the BoD in September 2022 including possible future savings was £0.8mm) so with a possible well cost of £5mm not a good use of capital. It's a very different thing producing a well already drilled (eg HH-1) where the cost is already sunk - and whilst HH-1 was not drilled as a producer perhaps you could enlighten us as to what is wrong with the completion they used to produce the Portland.

Adrian,

Horsehill-1's proven track record was it was OK when they testing with stops and starts to flowing - giving the well's pressure a chance to recover.

Very soon after starting the flow rate dropped considerably and then there was water ingress. Production started in March 2020 with UKOG claiming over 300bopd. In Aprl the average production was less than 250bopd and by September 2021 the average dropped to around 100bopd where it stabilised until September 2022 when they performed a workover and after that production dropped in October 2022 to around 60bopd. Production now varies between around 50 and 60bopd with water cuts of around 40%.

Not sure that these sort of figures for a production well would justify drilling a new well that has risk, but I don't suppose DL cares whether a new well will be economic - just interested in the hype possibilities - as you are.