Member Info for Penguins

Walkman,

'.............. all your previous post under you original account name have been deleted . So i guess you can say what you like now.'

the brass neck of it..............pot - kettle, except maybe in your case its original account names - plural.

This board is plagued by a couple of pathetic posters who keep having to re-invent themselves because of their inability to get anything right or because they are permanently banned.

Nevertheless they constantly post (weekends) and endlessly claim how wrong other posters are about UKOG if they fail to overestimate the production at HH or believe every claim made by UKOG, a company that has decimated its SP since 2017 through failure to achieve any suggested successful outcome.

Their bizarre conclusion is that the constantly falling SP is the fault of those predicting failure, not UKOG - and of course being 'negative'(= realistic about the projects) they must be greens etc. However, UKOG is a company that adds risky projects it spends cash on to realise further failure, rather than admit failure of the projects it has, eg.

BB - still dreaming of a redrill after Loxley - site planning runs out March 2024 - where's the Loxley farmout - thought after winning in the courts it would be announced?

HH - still hoping for more wells but when HH-1 water ingress became obvious, but not known to investors - look over there Basur-Resan.

Basur-3 fails - look over there new seismic for Basur -4.

Basur-4 seismic fails to find target (but not admitted to) - oops - look over there oil seep

Oil seep - working hypothesis (=look over there) oil is from Hoya in Pinarova

Pinarova - oops - no oil in Hoya (but not admitted to) - what about the oil smell from Germik

Germik test - oops maybe was tested, nothing, or maybe not tested – let’s wait months for bigger guns - so now oil seep is from Germik - or (wait for failed test) deeper formation, or new seismic to poke around a bit longer.

and for everything - look over there at something that won't happen for years - Portland gas storage

but UKOG rarely mention failure, even HH oil and water daily production has never been mentioned in a UKOG RNS or report since 'over 300bopd' in April 2020 (and never did a full month average bopd reach 300, best was pril 2020 - 243)

...............and the truth is that it's what's left after high OPEX from your £2mm revenue that matters - and it isn't a lot, probably not enough for SS paychecks.

Walkman,

Even Adrian realised that a win for Finch is most definitely not in the SP. I agree as the SP will be slaughtered if Finch wins. Look what happened after the Loxley High Court win, a slight rise (not a bag) and since then the SP has dropped nearly 50%. So the £2mm CLN now represents an additional ca28% shares rather than the ca17% when the funding was announced 3 months ago - and not one CLN has been converted so far.

Whilst there are restraints on selling it was obvious that forward selling was happening during the previous CLN funding - so the volume restraint may be equally unenforceable.

UKOG finally paid off the last CLN in June 2020 because:-

'The repayment eliminates the uncertainty attached to Loan Note conversion timings and pricing, something the Company feels was perceived to exert a negative influence on the Company's share price.'

Perceived? The Sp when the CLN was announced in August 2019 was about 0.8p, when it was paid off in June 2020 the SP was about 0.25p. Yes lots happened between those dates but any 'good' news was sold into by YA/Riverfort, and they didn't care if the SP dropped as they were guaranteed cheap shares when a rise occurred. Same will happen this time and they'll be first in the queue when it comes to selling.

Yawn,

same delusional rubbish, stuck on this board trying making desperate claims about people you don't know and about something you don't understand.

Can you explain how the Kimmeridge is massive? Though UKOG haven't shown it to their owners they had a report done by RPS in 2019 that had gross 2C contingent resources for the Kimmeridge at HH of 1.6mmbbls - not reserves despite the ewt data that would have beenavailable to RPS when they wrote the report.

Massive fail?

Bag? Well I hope you're right - it still doesn't change how good HH is even if it ten bags, though with no drilling planned until 2024 - only if the 3D turns up something worth drilling, assuming PPP actually farm in - then it's going to be a long wait for those buying the shares you sell......

If you think the SP is a reflection of how good the projects are perhaps look at what happened in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 after the rises - ocelot thinks that because I said that the Kimmeridge at BB was nowhere as good as UKOG said it was I was wrong..........until the SP dropped below 0.8p!

Walkman,

'Sarah would not take UKOG all the way to the Supreme court if she didnt know there was millions of barells of oil in the Weald and in particular Horsehill.

Would she! ;)'

Well I don't think there's any doubt there's lots of oil in place stuck in a source rock in the Weald - and it's staying there - but if it's 'in particular' at Horse Hill UKOG are doing a remarkable job of leaving it there.

perhaps you need to remember that when Adrian has been here he's claimed that if Finch wins it's the end of onshore oil production - that's what it's about and why it has gone all the way to the Supreme Court - it's not just HH or the Weald.

So she doesn't 'know' - she's repeating the BS that UKOG put in the planning application submitted in 2018 - and she would pursue it for the reason Adrian has pointed out.

Walkman,

The posters that have trouble being civil are those that keep getting banned, or decide they've got so much wrong they close their account and return in a different guise. both making up their desperate stories about other posters.

and I don't agree at all with Finch's claims, nor xr, JSO or any other anti-oil 'causes', and I don't live anywhere near HH or any onshore oil fields - but it isn't my decision.

As for UKOG

I have repeated every now and then that UKOG should get on with appraising HH in preference to risky exploring elsewhere - get the injector going and understand what's possible/probable rather than the fantasies promoted by UKOG that has seen so much cash wasted. That this sensible option hasn’t been followed suggests that they know it’s as risky as the unicorns they chase – not because of the risk of losing in court, which unlike a dry well can be challenged but the risk of poor results.

They've steadfastly avoided anything that would reveal the true size of HH - reinforcing the suspicion they don't want to have to formally revise the nonsense figures quoted that were produced in 2018 – and still quoted by posters, DoD and DL as if they mean anything.

Even UKOG don't use the legal challenge as an excuse for inactivity - just a few posters who can't understand that if HH was any good and appraisal not high risk the testing equipment wouldn't have been purchased for the development production in 2020 as extra wells would have been planned to be drilled and HH-2z conversion would have been prioritised. The original plan with those 2018 production expectations could have seen approaching 3mmbbls produced by now, not about 105,000bbls since march 2020

It's the weekend - so I'll jst repeat an earlier post.

Nobody expects Finch to win, but the geology at Horse Hill that has resulted in water ingress and high decline will remain the same.

UKOG hasn't failed to obtain a CPR for Horse Hill since the start of the 18 months of Portland and Kimmeridge ewt, followed by 3+ years of production only from the Portland because everything is fine. They have to publish a CPR, the reports and FDP work they have done don't.

Has UKOG allowed the legal challenge to dictate progress at Horse Hill if there was a chance of significant production or profit improvement through water injection or further drilling when they are pretty certain of winning - far higher risks were associated with drilling in Turkey but it didn't stop UKOG drilling there instead.

But PPP are still in suspension so until that's resolved the pre-drill 3D seismic won't be happening and that will need to be shot, processed and interpreted prior to deciding to drill. However, according to Alba, the deal hadn't been agreed by the minority shareholders in HHDL - so DL claims to be waiting for the court case result is just one of the three reasons the deal hasn't happened.

Nobody expects Finch to win, but the geology at Horse Hill that has resulted in water ingress and high decline will remain the same.

UKOG hasn't failed to obtain a CPR for Horse Hill since the start of the 18 months of Portland and Kimmeridge ewt, followed by 3+ years of production only from the Portland because everything is fine. They have to publish a CPR, the reports and FDP work they have done don't.

Has UKOG allowed the legal challenge to dictate progress at Horse Hill if there was a chance of significant production or profit improvement through water injection or further drilling when they are pretty certain of winning - far higher risks were associated with drilling in Turkey but it didn't stop UKOG drilling there instead.

But PPP are still in suspension so until that's resolved the pre-drill 3D seismic won't be happening and that will need to be shot, processed and interpreted prior to deciding to drill. However, according to Alba, the deal hadn't been agreed by the minority shareholders in HHDL - so DL claims to be waiting for the court case result is just one of the three reasons the deal hasn't happened.

Huge? A value for HH of £0.8mm the only figure based on current knowledge. The only operated asset, and by far the greatest net production in the portfolio.

Maybe not that great for a company with 21 billion shares with a shed load to come.

'If the development goes ahead, the oil wells at Horse Hill would collectively extract more than 3 million tonnes of oil over 20 years'

Hilarious, that figure dates from just after the testing started.

Before they were aware of the water ingress, before HH-2z was drilled and overwhelmed with water, and before the fast decline of HH-1. UKOG still have a fantasy valuation for HH but claim, based on the 2018 CPR, that there are about 1.5mmbbls of 2C resources or about 0.2million tonnes.

But based just on HH-1 and a decline curve determined by the BoD the value is £0.8mm including any anticipated savings - presumably the HH-2z conversion. But what that decline curve is hasn't been revealed - like so many HH 'Secrets'.

You might wonder why there hasn't been a CPR since before the HH long term testing. If you were a cynical person you might think they were hiding something.

Allegations,

Do you know they will drill more horizontals? Definitely not in the Portland, and for some reason they haven't even reconfigured HH-1 to produce all those high producing KLs for some reason.

In June 2019 UKOG had a Kimmeridge report for HH prepared. They kept quiet about until March 2021, slipping it in as a footnote to the resources summary, what had billions of barrels of OIP became net 2C resources of 1.4mmbbls. After that report HH-2 wasn't deepened to log the Kimmeridge, HH -1 wasn't dual completed, and the minimal surface equipment used to test HH-1 purchased.

This is an example of Adrian making stuff up on twitter because he lives close to HH so he supposedly knows what goes on:-

'Adrian The Fool on The Hill@davethedrill1 Jan 15

#UKOG

OK Let's see who is full of ****e.

I'm calling Ibug out on n@LondonSouthEast . Let's see who's nearest. December /January. #Horsehill production is 108 bopd.

Ibug and 🐧 says HH is down to 49 bopd and declining. Bull****!

Game on!

FOTH'

and you won't be able to find a post where I say 49bopd because it doesn't exist, you just make stuff up - but average production December / January was 61.1bopd / 59.9bopd.

and it seems they will go all the way to the Supreme Court. You or someone like you has already pointed out that if UKOG lose it's curtains for all onshore oil production - that's going to be reason enough for them.

The reason UKOG's share price is so low is because their projects, despite UKOG claiming they are all transformational - presumably in a positive way, have been failures

Walkman,

Either a fantastic Adrian parody account or...........

Pintofinchs,

Any reason any of that is particularly positive.

How many times have posters repeated UKOG's PR only to find It's BS.

At one point they were hoping the source was a shallower previously unrecognised formation.

Now It's just the usual.

No explanation why positive testing would provide encouragement to shoot a 3D. Surely it makes no difference if the Germik isn't a reservoir?

It wasn't that long ago the seep was supposed (working hypothesis) to being fed from the now unmentionable amplitude anomaly in the Hoya - that was drlled through before TD. Perhaps you can find mention somewhere what the result of that was as you like copying and pasting.

Toxic may be a good description of UKOG RNS.

'Thought id seen i all but greens calling greens liars and idiots is hilarious'

Well that's because I'm not a 'green', just someone who knows a hell of lot more than you about O&G E&P - which is why I've not only been realistic about UKOG projects for years, but also more accurate about the outcome than you and UKOG - you because you're prepared to post and tweet any old rubbish, and UKOG because they don't do downsides

Funnier still is you defending and saying how right DoD always are - but it's a bit rich coming from you ' it would be a 24/7 job correcting your spellings and lack of punctuation (see quote above of your post for examples, and probably your next post). But in case you're unable to work it out 'Don' should have been DoD - mind you I was offered dodgy as an alternative - not sure who it might have been most appropriate for.

Don't try to ignorethe fact you haven't actually checked the DoD calculation and been exposed as a liar for continuing to pretend (one of your favourite ruses) the figure of 336bopd is valid. It's Don's numbers that don't add up.

You posted:-

'The Avington field last reported oil production volumes in December 2017. The first official monthly production figure was recorded in January 2009.

Between those dates, total oil production was reported to be 36,378m3 or 30,691 tonnes, nearly 229,000 barrels.

DoD somehow calculated that:- 'The average extraction rate when the field was producing was 336 barrels a day.'

But Jan 2009 to Dec 2017 is 9 years. 229,000 divided by 9 is 25,444 barrels produced in a year.

Maybe you have a calculator to check these numbers, though I guess you'd prefer not to.

Most years have 365 days; 25,444 divided by 365 is 69.7 - so it's an average of about 70bopd - not 336.

'So why would she inflate the production figures for Alington over the years'

Because they want to scare locals into supporting them with big(ger) numbers than is true. When they miscalculated the average did they bother to check their calculation. The figures in DoDs production chart look the same (except July 2015) as those in the NSTA records.

I expect DoD still quote the ridiculous numbers for HH productio that UKOG RNS'd in 2018 / 2019 before the truth was impossible to hide - have UKOG ever reported in a RNS or on twitter that HH is producing an average of about 60bopd with a water cut in excess of 35%?

But making things up - you mean like this in your twitter account, not only made up a figure for HH production (it was about 60bopd), but then made up a figure I never posted:-

'Adrian The Fool on The Hill@davethedrill1 Jan 15, 2022

#UKOG

OK Let's see who is full of s***e.

I'm calling Ibug out on@LondonSouthEast . Let's see who's nearest. December /January. #Horsehill production is 108 bopd.

Ibug and 🐧 says HH is down to 49 bopd and declining. Bull****!z

Game on!

FOTH'

Full of s***e - exactly - maybe simple maths is beyond you, or won't do the Avington sums yourself because you'd only confirm the average wasn't 336bopd, and in the last years only in the tens of barrels - it certainly seems to be beyond DoD - still you seemed to often have problems counting the number of tankers in a week - not exactly a big number since 2020.

Adrian,

Not sure if you're being stupid or deliberately misleading with your claim of 800bopd when it was 800 cubic metres of oil in a month.

A cubic metre of oil is about 6.3 barrels of oil. 800cu m in a month is therefore about 5040 barrels. Assuming 30 days in the month in question (though it was probably March) that's less than 170bopd just 3 months into production - the best month's production in the 9 years.

You have this fantasy that anyone that can see through UKOG (and your) BS is some kind of activist when all they research the projects.

Research, facts - and check what others have said rather than just repeat them.

Maybe the 336bbls included water? DoD also have an error with their figure for July 2015 which looks like a date entry problem - the OGA (now NSTA) figures is 300cu metres, not over 3,000.

With a water cut of 90% (or is that an oil cut of 10%) let's hope they are more efficient at sorting out water disposal than UKOG, how manynyears from deciding and still no action. Luckily UKOG only have to pay 5% of any costs in bringing the well back into production.

Strange world isn't when for some reason 'activists' make out onshore fields they don't want to be there at all will produce loads of oil, yet the official and published figures tell a different story.

Why might activists who want to get support from worried locals do that?

In fact the maths is wrong as Ibug has pointed out (and I checked) the average is about 70bopd.

So a well that was producing in the tens of barrels when shut in will produce 400 bopd when restarted - if it did, for how long - half an hour - or long enough to mug punters and do a cash raise maybe, though 5% of 400bopd is only 20bopd - not exactly the foundations of anything other than a sub £10mm mcap company.

Funny how similar Walkman is to kaese, or should I say Adrian - hmm.

'And dont forget UKOG are not a one trick pony. Horndean and Horsehill are producing oil to x.'

This is exactly what Adrian said in one of his previous visits......spamming a counts like confetti.

Oh and I also mentioned Horndean in a previous post, yesterday, is your memory still causing problems:-

10% of Horndean, 86% of HH - which according to UKOG the injection will save £250,000 a year, although currently appears to be only marginally profitable. 5% of Avington which may not be back in production yet as there hasn't been any mention of it despite it (and the HH-2z conversion) being planned for Q2 in the latest Annual Report - it's now nearly Q4 - I wonder what 'as soon as possible' means for Pinarova without any estimate of when - if they've only just found a supplier could it still be months.

But back to the productiin in the Weald - I guess the total production from these low production high OPEX onshore fields net to UKOG is likely to be less than 75bopd, mainly from HH.

Are you getting confused with PPP.

If Avington was capable of 400bopd they wouldn't have shut it in.

Field production in the years up to being shut in was in the tens of bbls a day.

When would they have to fill it in? They could do exactly what the 'greenies / nimbys have done, appeal and appeal. If the production was any good they should easily recover the cost if it ever got shut down - but that's the problem - in pure economic terms I doubt HH-1 would have been drilled if a NPV / RRR had been calculated on what is now known.

BTW SS doesn't fill in holes (P&A) he just leaves them hanging - just like the investors that believe they'll be resurrected - HH-2z, BB, Basur-3. Suppose it saves on abandonment / site restitution costs.

Kaese,

Maybe oil is about to be $100, but how much oil is being produced and what's the OPEX.

10% of Horndean, 86% of HH - which according to UKOG the injection will save £250,000 a year, although currently appears to be only marginally profitable. 5% of Avington which may not be back in production yet as there hasn't been any mention of it despite it (and the HH-2z conversion) being planned for Q2 in the latest Annual Report - it's now nearly Q4 - I wonder what 'as soon as possible' means for Pinarova without any estimate of when - if they've only just found a supplier could it still be months.

But back to the productiin in the Weald - I guess the total production from these low production high OPEX onshore fields net to UKOG is likely to be less than 75bopd, mainly from HH.

UKOG has avoided publishing any detailed analysis of their only operated field, HH, since 2018 despite 18 months of testing, a concealed report on the Kimmeridge in 2019, a lot of analysis required for FDP approval of the Portland and over 3 years of declining production data - which UKOG used to arrive at a value for HH-1 of £0.8mm using a production forecast they won't give to their owners - 'The net present value utilised an internally generated depletion curve that was independently reviewed. Costs were based on current costs less any anticipated savings'

Yet the excuse posters cite for inactivity at HH is a legal challenge of no merit according to UKOG. Has SS really allowed the company to be reduced to a less than £8mm mcap because of that when HH-3 or a Kimmeridge producer is likely to be a fantastic success?

As soon as it was obvious to UKOG in 2020 that HH-1 was declining fast with a high water cut - but before the data was published by the OGA and known to pi - UKOG embarked on the supposed transformational venture in Turkey - which they likened to the fields in Kurdistan whilst (at best wenow know) it was a lookalike to a poorly performing field next door - the target, the Basur-Resan feature, no longer mentioned.

Following the Basur-3 failure and conjuring up a bizarre 'working hypothesis' UKOG now seem to be concentrating not on any of their O&G a'assets' but the Portland gas storage project - a long term infrastructure venture - not the risky but high reward O&G exploration I expect most have 'invested' in UKOG for.

Kaese,

Bought in eh, worried?

Pushing the old might be next week narrative. But then it might be anytime from now to Xmas, but this us what the update should be:-

'A further update will follow when the date of testing operation resumption becomes clear.'

Not ASAP - 'the date'

I see the history rewrite in the second to last paragraph in the RNS is being continued, making out the Germik was always a target. The Germik was added on 23 May. This was how that paragraph ended on 3 May:-

'.....connected to an underlying light oil accumulation of some 9 km² areal extent within the Hoya limestones, which lie between c. 300-645 metres below surface.'

Just the Hoya. As it's no longer mentioned why don't they go the whole hog and delete mention of the Hoya - the only mention of the Hoya since April being in that paragraph. No mention since RNSing drilling ahead through the Hoya if the amplitude anomaly had oil in it - I guess not.

They already have a sample of the oil from the oil smell zone and it matches to the oils in the area. At one point they suggested it came from an novel, unknown, shallower source.

Now they're hoping a 3D survey will reveal a deeper closure probably in the Mardin leaking to the shallower levels although they've already shot two phases of 2D which helped (though never shown) identify the Hoya amplitude anomaly target. UKOG also never showed a structure map following the second phase of seismic - presumably because as they have stated Kezer-1 was at the culmination and flowed on test water with an oil cut. Not necessarily a positive.

It just looks like flailing around in the hope that something turns up in the Mardin near Pinarova - the original target reservoir missed in Basur-3 and hoped for target for Basur -4. The two phases of 2D was primarily shot for Basur-4 , and no longer a target in the Resan area because of fear of water ingress - something not mentioned about Basur-1 in the RNS where testing was stopped following water ingress.

Perhaps the penalty for not drilling isn't as modest as UKOG suggested in the 23 July 2020 RNS, it wouldn't be the first thing they've got wrong about this deal:-

'The Licence's 5 well commitment to the Turkish government has a gross monetary equivalent of $7.66 million (UKOG $3.83 million), however UKOG understands that should any of the commitment wells not be drilled, a modest penalty of c. $30-50,000 is payable to the government.'