Member Info for Penguins

If Avington produced at the highest average rate seen in 2017 (about 50bopd) it will take about 100 years to produce UKOG'S 177,000bbls - but it will depend on that flow rate remaining economic and even 5% being achievable - one further note is in the CPR only one well is being brought back on stream.

Whilst similar fields might have recovered 6 to 13% I suspect there's a very good reason why Avington hasn't.

No significant reserves, 46,000bbls of gross proved plus 28,000 gross probable and possible, UKOG's 'disclosure' is of course OIP and a fantasy recoverable rate.

Even gross 2C resources are only 741,000bbls.

A rise based on this news is either proof how poor HH is or how little anyone researches what this means.

Fully expect UKOG to quote an initial rate from the Avington well then silence - whilst continuing silence about what HH-1 is producing.

Perhaps a word with ocelot.

Positive since 2017 = wrong, very wrong.

Thinking that all that matters are external factors or UKOG's PR - not the actual likelihood of success, or whether success might really be transformational or of national importance - has proved to be a poor choice.

It certainly helps to understand the projects in deciding when to buy and sell, then you might not make the mistake of taking a position at over 0.1p 2 hours before UKOG admitted the swab testing had failed to get oil from a stone.

At least there was oil in the cuttings to persuade them to swab test that zone - one up from smelling oil then belatedly deciding to test the Germik, and then interpreting that test failed because the perforations failed to reach the formation.

But of course anyone that's been fairly accurate with analysis should stop analysing - just leave the board to the rampers to make stuff up - mostly aout other posters, but also about the projects.

'He's most likely waiting for challenge verdicts to coincide with positive news or counteract.'

How will SS make the challenge verdicts coincide with positive news, keep 'news' back, I suppose they've often held bad news back, but good news - never. Not sure what's left to counteract if the Supreme Court goes against UKOG though.

As for 'selling' Loxley - they can't seem to farm it out with nearly a year since the pre-planned farm out began - and if that's because of the challenge to the SoS granting planning why did they even start the process as before the announcement the instigators had stated they would challenge the SoS decision. It will probably be won by UKOG et al - but there is the possibility they will be given leave to go to the Supreme Court, which as we've seen with HH could add another long delay to a final decision - though I don't believe the challenges are why either HH or Loxley are stalled.

But you've finally realised that 'urgent' is a word rarely used in UKOG's vocabulary. The last time it was used it was to try and deceive pi into thinking the oil to surface was from the interval in the upper Hoya they swab tested.

Vernonya,

it isn't the girth that matters (!) not sure that the diameter of the bullets will be any biggerperforating gun in a 7" than 4 1/2" - it's the depth of penetration (!!).

Anyway I don't think that the suggestion is that smaller perforations would need enlargement. It's that the test using the larger perforating gun might have the same result as the previous test confirming the formation was tight- 'interpreted to be invalid until' - tight formation being an alternative interpretation of the lack of pressure change.

It has been pointed out that sourcing the larger perforating gun and charges could take a very long time, but I agree it's almost certainly a 'hail mary' hope. I can't believe that UKOG will abandon the test - but there is silence about the geochem and final log interpretation.

Maybe tomorrow........

You're embarassing yourslf

Post after post where you're just making things up with your monotonous tales about other posters - and more or less appear to reflect your own situation - when you took a position at around 0.1p 2 hours before a UKOG RNS admitting failure You also managed to buy too soon after a raise last July at around 0.09p - missed a P&D and got caught by another raise in September - seems the desperate flailing around is all yours. Haven't seen any of the posters listed in your ridiculous claim that anyone posting how poor the projects have been over the years has lost money holding for failure - quite the opposite warning about taking profit during P&Ds'.

You also haven't been following UKOG long enough to understand 'Why would they bother with sourcing perforation guns if the well was a dud?'

Apart from desperately hoping that a high risk non reservoir section will manage to produce oil there's you (and posters like you) posting about it as if it's guaranteed to find oil (which isn't something UKOG have claimed), and lots of it, are a couple of reasons I can think of.

Perhaps the BB testing was an example of UKOG continuing to flog a dead horse enabling posters and tweeters to continue spouting BS while test after test was failing.

Monster RNS?

A complete failure would be unpleasant - are monsters unpleasant? I suppose they are.

A smell of oil - you'd expect more if there were anything significant there, at least oil in cuttings - and they wouldn't know where the emulsion that returned to surface came from. But both were ignored until they reached TD (with no encouragement in the Hoya including, almost certainly, from logging).

UKOG even tried to pass off the oil returning to surface when the casing was set as coming from the Hoya with a tweet coinciding with the announcement they were about to swab test - unsuccessfully.

But they can't be certain that the original perforations didn't reach the formation, the next test may just prove the first test was valid.

As for the geochemicl abalysis - it's irrelevant where the oil comes from in terms of migrating into a Tertiary accumulation, but a deeeper accumulation may be below a Cretaceous source. If there were a deeper accumulation would there be any significant closure - the amplitude anomaly outline may represent a stratigraphic closure not a structural trap that a deeper trap would rely on - UKOG didn't show any structural mapping for Pinarova.

and of course they expected to 'find oil shows' same as Kezer just 400 metres away did. What those with any sense realised that was the most likely result with the primary target amplitude anomaly demonstrating not oil fill but at best improved porosity / facies change in that layer in the Hoya.

I guess your misrepresenting posters opinions and posting post after post is not surprising given your taking 'a position' at around 0.1p 2 hours before the RNS dropped that the swab test failed to produce any oil.

So where's the evidence for this deeper accumulation - with no new seismic data and months between deciding against drilling Basur-4 and drilling Pinarova and 2 months since the main target was drilled. Why wasn't the well planned with the possibility to reach a deeper target when the evidence for oil in the Tertiary at Pinarova was at best poor?

Surely the mention at TD of a deeper accumulation (and the Germik testing) had nothing to do with the lack of encouragement in the Hoya and the flimsy (non-existent?) evidence for the Germik having any producible oil in it?

Ocelot,

'That should have read: 3 possible sources of oil.'

But it's probable they're trying to find out if there's a second source in addtion to the known Upper Jurassic source and whether it was the source of the shothole oil and/or the oil seen when the 9⅝" casing was set.

But does it matter, apart from being of academic interest whether the oil is sourced from the Upper Jurassic or a shallower Cretaceous interval, either could migrate to a Tertiary reservoir.

Is this just UKOG making it out to be important when it isn't to keep punters happy that UKOG are doing something, anything.

More important might be some details of the 'final' log analysis that's been underway since 3rd May - though I suspect we've not heard anything about that as it was no different to the initial analysis - presumably there were no oil shows in the Hoya amplitude anomaly target and ther was no 'pay' in the Hoya - even the bit that was swab tested - hence the initial decision to not set the 7" casing.

I suppose it's doing its job when ocelot can make another ;positive' sounding post out of it.

SRBS,

'Keep on de- ramping it has no effect on the UKOG sp'

apparently nor does all the ramping as all it's managed to do is get the ask back to Ells / JR90 / G-Martin's support level (that apparently isn't as it dropped below it) - and there's yet to be a YA conversion - estimated vwap for Wednesday 28 June is around 0.0555p.

No doubt the mention of the peforating gun will enable the P&Ders to have a go as they won't want to hang around for what may just be a test confirming that the previous Germik test was valid whilst UKOG only mention the interpretation that suggested a failure to directly contact the formation suggests that test was invalid.

This about the previous perforating and testing of the Germik in the interims:-

'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'

Question is who can sell fastest and lowest on a P&D - pi trying to sell when YA (who can rely on a buy price of about 0.0555p for almost any number of shares until about 18 July) can undercut and effectively block pi sellers.

Last time YA was converting it was ably demonstratedas that as far as they're concerned it doesn't matter how far the SP falls as even dead cat bounces can enable a profit with a locked in vwap.

Yawn,

Made up fantasy 'strawman' arguments (nimby's, greenies, paid) repeated day after day because they can't counter sensible, reasoned posts about the projects, and keep being confounded by UKOG confirming how right the supposedly negative posters are - in G-Martin's case repeatedly closing accounts to remove all the ridiculous predictions made in those accounts.

Ells / JR90 / G-Martin

'I have prevented nearly all new users from being swayed by your paid disruption. It has worked for the last 6 months and now we have multiple catalysts for H2'

Yet you managed to 'take a position' when the SP was over 0.1p on 25 April.

And when you started posting on this board as ells-valexpert (!) In late July last year you bought at around 0.09p.

Your posting is a combination of listing a series of UKOG hopes of activity, the 2 most important that won't happen until next year (if at all), and made up fantasies about other posters - and now how big has that head got - personally responsible for propping up the SP.

From valexpert to UKOG superhero. I'm sure anyone that's bought on your advice about 52 weeks lows last year is ecstatic the the SP is now 0.057p.......or even followed your lead on 25 April - though I suspect you were silent about selling on 24 April as JR90.

Ocelot,

'the Cretaceous Mardin and Beloka section, the proven reservoir at Basur-1 and the nearby producing E. Sadak field'

Have you ever wondered why UKOG has never mentioned production levels of the nearby producing E Sadak 'Mardin' field that's been described previously by UKOG as a 'lookalike' to Basur?

Not because of lack of information as AME provide field production data to the annual scout meeting in Turkey, and even state a field figure in their Annual Report. Since 2014 AME have drilled 14 wells, plus some sidetracks (when they've missed the accumulation), most still on production and some recently drilled, and in the 2022 AME Annual Report field production was reported as 250bopd.

Good to hear UKOG are 'bullish' about a section not considered a reservoir, above a section that is, but seemingly failed to have any pay - though UKOG can't bring themselves to mention the Hoya 'findings'. An oil smell and like Kezer emulsion to surface when the casing was set - which UKOG didn't mention in their pre-drill RNS presumably because it wasn't thought important from a non-reservoir layer.

Whilst Kezer was mentioned as being at the culmination was the 9sq km Pinarova lead outline representative of a larger stratigraphic trap based on the extent of the amplitude anomaly, no structure map was presented to justify the size of the lead. This would mean that any accumulation reliant on structural trapping could be considerably smaller - though UKOG never provided any volumetrics for the Hoya amplitude anomaly either.

Pinarova was drilled on the flimsiest of evidence with no details of what was even hoped for - perhaps acceptable as a first well in an undrilled area but 400m away from a well drilled and tested. Basur-3 similarly had no detailed 'expectations' despite the extensive production information available from E Sadak - and many wells drilled on the Basur- Resan feature.

Now a further arm waving possibility deeper at Pinarova (where's the new Basur-4 map though?), yet no mention that before Pinarova was drilled AME in their latest Annual Report were proposing more seismic this year in the Siirt area in the North of the licence.

It's pretty obvious that UKOG are extremely selective about what they're prepared to tell their owners about the results so far show and what they expect - bullish is meaningless - maps for the expected volumes, possible flows with justification for those figures are the basics before drilling to understand how accurate UKOG's expectations are that UKOG has avoided for both Basur-3 and Pinarova.

Obviously it isn't the 'arm waving' stuff that ocelot repeats from UKOG RNS or tweets that suggests how poor the Basur-Resan licence is - it's what they avoid mentioning that they surely know.

I suppose the oldest profession isn't offering convertible loan notes but as long as there's a lowest vwap in the terms and conditions they don't need to know what they're lending for.

This is what SS RNS'd the day before you opened your account Bout CLN's:-

'Full repayment of the convertible loan with Riverfort Global Opportunities PCC Limited and YA II PN Ltd ("Loan Note"), making the Company debt free. 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'

To stop it they paid the £1,75mm still owed + 10%.

Ocelot,

they were running out of cash. There was £2.26mm left at the end of March (not £2.5mm they claimed in the Final Report). Since the end of March they will have paid for their share of Pinarova, all the costs for Loxley planning conditions submissions, Portland gas storage and all the other costs for licences and generally keeping going - like salaries.

You only need to read the Interim report to understand that the previous Pinarova Germik '4 1/2" perforating gun' test may not have been 'invalid' - so is the 7" test going to be any better? The next proposal (diversion) will probably be the seismic that AME mention in their annual report:-

'Mardin “Leads” in the city of Siirt area is another prospective area which requires additional gravity and 2D seismic data acquisition to mature them to prospect level for drilling. Therefore, additional 2D seismic program has been planned for 2023.' - but no mention of Basur-4.

No doubt ocelot will see this diversion as fantastic news.

It must be really tough being an apologist for UKOG, claim something RNS'd is great only to see it fail or no longer mentioned while there's posters ocelot filters actually predicting what is likely to happen.

So likely another swerve away from the transformational Basur - Resan 'appraisal', (whatever happened to Basur-4?) and expect some encouraging words about the Pinarova test proving something or other, but........

Coupled with the uncertainty over the PPP farm in, no news of the pre-planned Loxley farm out - even the HH-2z conversion is only expected to save £250,000 a year, as long as it works - so not exactly transformational, and UKOG seems to be concentrating on the Portland gas storage project that won't even be ready to submit for planning until H2 2024.

Has SS forgotten this ending to the previous loan note 'borrowings'

June 2020 RNS - UKOG raised at a 17% discount to the SP to, in part, pay off the remaining £1.75mm CLN - and paid an extra 10% to do so - with this comment:-

'Full repayment of the convertible loan with Riverfort Global Opportunities PCC Limited and YA II PN Ltd ("Loan Note"), making the Company debt free. 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' - see Ibug's post for actual negative influence.

Seems the providers could request, immediately, £2.09mm of shares - at today's vwap. Did a rough calculation (only have trade prices rounded to 3 decimal points) of today's vwap = 0.0555p = 3.7+billion shares - but in the remainder of this month they could only sell about 1.2billion shares (ca 20% of May's trades).

Of course they won't do that, the business model is to bring the SP down and hope for spikes they can convert and sell on - they have 1.3billion shares they can trade without requesting a conversion - presumably informing UKOG after the event.

No mention of minimum conversion size.

But you need to read exactly what it says re the funding:-

'The funds will fully fund working capital necessary to progress the Company's key planned activities over the next 12 months....'

'to progress' not complete.

They don't put in extra words for fun - they're the qualifiers you need to take notice of - 'progress.....'

Hence the ability to place whilst this 'deal' is ongoing.

I'll leave you to your delusion of fully funding everything with a hoped for farm-ins and successful flow tests of something that alternative 'intepretations' could be that it has been tested, and failed.

'The tests are thus interpreted to be invalid until such time that larger perforating guns can be deployed'

Just as well UKOG have the Portland gas storage project to fill paragraphs of the Interim Report with PR - a project that won't be completed until the 2030's - if it goes ahead.

To clear this account?

Exemplified by this BS:- 'Penguins you missed the 0.13/0.14 first target.'

Well I bet you didn't get even 0.13p to sell.

But that posting doesn't exist any more which includes so many wrong predictions you needed to get rid of that account and then JR90.

That 'success' was while you were telling everyone how great the testing would be - like now - and you sold just before the first test results on a pump and dump (as many did) and bought back in at over 0.1p anyway.

I stand by every post I have made over 8 years of posting, even those that have been ridiculously positive (yet at the time accused of being negative), don't need to regularly 'refresh' my account because my supposedly 'negative' posts are so wrong.

What's the plan go out in a blaze of glory insulting those that have proved right but you don't agree with?

Leewayne,

You can choose what posts you read. Those that are over optimistic or those that tell it how it really is.

You were here for the last lot of CLNs. You must know how they work regardless of the 'rules'.

Price rises - large trades - some even disguised as buys - RNS follows in the next day or so about a conversion, price drops. Then price recovers a bit - rinse and repeat where the price drop from the previous conversion factors into the vwap.

Any 'good' news is massively suppressed and the SP generally drops.

But I guess you'd rather believe ells expert who started posting on this board with his latest account with this gem when the SP was over 0.1p and 2 hours later UKOG RNS'd about the failed swab test:-

'opened a position

news soon glah'

No wonder he's posting relentlessly......trying to entice anyone with all those catalysts that never seem to happen.

Having banged endlessly on about no funds raised while Pinarova was still in progress you now claim no fund raises as UKOG 'financed for the next 12 months ' yet UKOG cargorically state:-

'Company can raise cash via equity as it may see fit during the Loan's term'

So why believe someone who continually posted - 'fully funded for Pinarova' because UKOG said so when this borrowing even includes the need for this cash for - 'Turkey: further testing of Pinarova-1'.

There's always an excuse - or in this case not even an excuse - for more fund raising when the coffers are starting to look a bit empty

I suppose you should contact your legal team (your post 1/6/23) - 'If the company do not legally follow what they have told the market they are fully liable in court Gary'.

and from G-Martin (and other ids) sermon repeated many times:-

'How are you still negative going into summer 2023. There is so much potential @ cash value. We don't want to hear your rants on how much you lost or what management did in the past. Look to the future or kindly move on and leave the board.'

What management did in the past is exactly what they are still doing. Delaying bad news, making claims (opinions) about their projects that are the best possible outcomes (interpretations) that ignored the very obvious risks.

Even the interims had this new giveaway about the Pinarova 4 1/2" guns test:-

'The tests are thus interpreted to be invalid until such time that larger perforating guns can be deployed' - so if the new 7" gun tests have the same result then the previous test wasn't invalid.

Here's a quote from one of my posts (20/6) - 'There will be different interpretations of the data and given the choice UKOG will only mention the most positive, and those that don't understand that, or choose not to, just repeat the company PR.'

Memo must have gone out - post about the Portland gas storage project the latest transformational project that has a timeline that enables years of arm waving (and salaries) without presenting any meaningful economic analysis.

Why change the formula given it has been true for every previous transformational project where only the golden future was suggested with a complete absence of the obvious but unmentioned risks that turn out to be not so much a risk as a certainty.

Ells / JR90 / G-Martin,

you posted:-

'Company has ample funds to cover its share of the planned drilling and testing campaign'

But they didn't include any such statement in the interim report - and in the AGM notice they were quite clear:-

'Consequently, in order to deliver the Company’s stated strategy and growth objectives, it will require further funds for the above intended comprehensive work programmes' - which included mention of Pinarova , and many other funding needs. You keep suggesting, bizarrely, that they can't raise for anything else because UKOG said they had ample funds for Pinarova.

3 months on from the interims date and I doubt AME / UKOG planned for Pinarova to take as long as it has, nor had provision for expensive. larger, perforating kit - though they have saved not running 7" casing which would have been included presumably in the completed for production cost.. No mention of the primary Hoya target, yet a paragraph about oil sample testing, which also seems to have been put in the non-urgent pile.

As for the test of the Germik this is telling:- '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.'

Sounds like they have chosen the interpretation that's least damaging until the l;arger perforating guns can be deployed, though didn't see this in the interims - 'And perforation guns due to be delivered sharpish.' well they've taken 7 weeks already according to ocelot, maybe not sharpish.

One mention of Kimmeridge (as in the volume produced in testing included in the total oil produced from HH to the end April) and uncertainty as to PPP funding the seismic, let alone a well, with no RNS about the Whistling well test clean-up for 2 months.

Then there's this - 'A buyer may swoop in before any judgement to get good deal. Thus boosts UKOG cash position'.

Then again they might not, and no mention of the farm out (not sale) in the interims - and even if they do farm out Loxley it may not be for a full carry.

The emphasis on the Portland project which won't deliver cashflow this decade, even if it proceeds, suggests how poor the Turkish and Weald projects are.