Member Info for Penguins

Don't worry I won't report you - as I posted earlier it's more fun repeating your made up nonsense......

These two sum you up:-

G-Martin

Posted in: UKOG

Posts: 245 Price: 0.103 No Opinion

RE: The Company has ample funds to cover its share of the planned drilling and testing campaign. 25 Apr 2023 11:42

opened a position

news soon glah'

SP over 0.1p, posted on the day you registered your G-Martin account - but hadn't shut down your JR90 account - seems it wasn't ZYX that had a multiple account problem

Then this in a post yesterday:-

'And yes sold 0.09 for 0.13

Now back in 0.06'

Forgot your post on 25 April?

No wonder you won't explain, there is none, it's there in your history - luckily you've got 'unlucky' to help out with trying to hide your faux pas.....except:-

'theluckyone

Posts: 1,180

Price: 0.071

No Opinion

RE: Longgggggggggggggggggggg Weekend Before The Explosives Reveal the Oil Pool 5 May 2023 13:27

Precisely JR90

Ibug with selective editing AGAIN'

even unlucky replying to a post of yours on 5 May - and there's your new account being opened and posting on 25 April.

and I don't get good posters banned - and you're not a good poster - the reason you keep changing your account isn't because you've been banned (even if you should be for having 2 accounts at the same time) but because your history is so embarrassingly dire.

That's what having (at least) 2 accounts at the same time looks like.

and yesterday G-Martin:-

'And yes sold 0.09 for 0.13

Now back in 0.06'

While telling everyone as elsvalexpert how smart he was - bought too soon after the July placing (52 week low - followed by several 52 week lows) so could have bought for less as many were posting - sold not before the September placing on that P&D, but must have been on 24 April when JR90 (other account) was still ramping......

Then this as G-Martin on 25 April:-

G-Martin

Posted in: UKOG

Posts: 245 Price: 0.103

No Opinion

RE: The Company has ample funds to cover its share of the planned drilling and testing campaign. 25 Apr 2023 11:42

opened a position

news soon glah'

So why did you sell on 24 April when you were still going on about funds for Pinaroa (and I'm not sure the trades at 0.13 were sells anyway) - and what's this 0.06p about, you bought at about 0.1p - or was 'opened a position' a lie to try and keep the SP up because you hadn't sold?

Ells / JR90 / G-Martin / something else soon from embarassment,

Remember this about Pinova.

'David Lenigas@DavidLenigas Apr 24

Look at that juicy #oil in the tank at @UKOGlistedonAIM

#UKOG Turkey well - swabbing operations over the weekend.'

It was an empty rusty tank - is that oil floating on water this time? But as ZYX pointed out the amount of oil required to fund the farm in, and that assumes the 3D plus well cost etc is less than £4.6mm, is about 80,000bbls of oil.

Yet the expectation of PPP was 100 to 400bopd for the well - so for 20% that's 20 to 80bopd - or 4,000 to 1,000 days (about 10 to 3 years) assuming no decline.

As for your buy at 0.09p sell at 0.13p - you bought too early after the July 2022 placing, didn't sell on the September P&D / placing - but of course your posting as JR90 up to 24 April - gone, though it looks like you were ramping.

and then on 25 April you post:-

'G-Martin

Posted in: UKOG

Posts: 239

Price: 0.103

No Opinion

RE: The Company has ample funds to cover its share of the planned drilling and testing campaign. 25 Apr 2023 11:42

opened a position

news soon glah.'

Certainly was - the failure of the swabbing test and the SP collapsed........at 12:13.

BTW seems you had 2 accounts at the same time as you were still posting as JR90 in May and opened this account on 25 April?

and you were still ramping as JR90 in May, from a post of mine:-

'JR90 2 May 2023 17:17

Why would anyone have 'held shares over the last years' when they don't spend all their lives saying what a great job SS, and thus UKOG have done.

I've never seen ocelot boasting about great trades or wizard - they're far more likely to have been great supporters of a British Company than those that those that see through the BS, and have for years - make money on the P&D's - yes, hold for the results - no.

Anyway I'll leave to your delirious fantasy ramblings, 7 posts in just over an hour. '

Maybe I should ask London South East to check whether there was overlap as Rule 1 is:-

'You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.'

But then we'sd be deprived of quoting your 'wisdom' back at you in the future.....

Ocelot,

That median is for the top 100 AIM companies. Not bucket shop fraction of a penny share oilers like UKOG.

The interesting geological report for Broadford Bridge - the one for the sidetrack that was tested, BB-1z, hasn't been put up on UKOGL - BB-1's report is dated June 2018 so 5 years is the time limit for release of well reports, that report mentions that BB-1z is dealt with in a separate report. Hopefully these reports will appear at some point soon but presumably it will depend on when it was submitted to OGA, now NSTA.

Luckyswimmer - interesting and good point and then they could log in open hole and determine better where - or more likely if - to case and test. Maybe they could even designate it Pinarova-2!

But then it could have been P&A'd already..........

Unlucky,

The surest sign that Pinarova is not a great success is the failure of UKOG to mention, until after they had tested the upper Hoya and drilled through the amplitude anomaly, the oil smell and emulsion during setting the casing - the section they already tried, and perhaps succeeded, in perforating.

Waiting for UKOG to admit failure when they can string out 'testing', it could be a while yet. How long was it before they admitted HH-2z was no good, that BB was no good - that Basur-3 had drilled out of closure?

There's also the not so minor matter of PPP paying for the 3D - the first part of the farm out. No news of the whistling well clean up since 24 April - except it was still in clean up on 2 May. Even if it's successful PPP only have less than 20% net revenue interest in the well with hoped for gross production of between 100 and 400bopd.

Wizard,

'I wander when the courts are going to be asked to run this country for those that don't like the government decisions!'

So there should be no recourse to law to challenge decisions that may be illegal, testing law is a principle that shouldn't be discarded just because you are an investor in a fraction of a penny share company that has poor projects. Changing laws to suit a specific circumstance can have unintended consequences - legislating unreasonable power when you might (probably will) lose the next election might be an own goal.

But the government don't have anything to do with the Loxley or Horse Hill cases though - the granting of a licence clearly states it's up to the licencee to make sure they obtain all necessary approvals to explore and produce in their licence. In fact the government intervention at Horse Hill was to overturn the the planning refusal.

Very nice to see a debate about geo-politics - where UKOG features in the debate I'm not sure as unfortunately UKOG has no gas production, may never have gas production, and produced about 54bopd as an operator and had about 12bopd from Horndean - which by its very importance to some (well one) illustrates how bad UKOG's production is - which in the greater scheme of things is SFA.

Maybe on BP or Shell's board it would be more relevant?

If UKOG really wanted to drill Loxley they should have got on and sorted all the conditions and got on and drilled it as they have planning permission to do so instead of messing around in Turkey, where the rewards are looking predictably poor to non-existant once E Sadak production figures were discovered in scout reports (or even picking up the Portland project). If Loxley was successful then UKOG would have a much stronger case that the gas is there and was needed by the UK - at the moment it's little more than a working hypothesis.........of course if it failed then it would no longer be an issue.

Is it that UKOG are well aware of the problems and alternative interpretations that include removing a lot of the gas column at Loxley and therefore quite possibly don't want to take on the risk of drilling yet another dud.

Funny how the more unaware of the reality of UKOG' transformational' projects the poster is the more they want to post about how many 'green boxes' they have - and then about what the posters they've filtered are posting.........??????

I suspect ocelot may have more than most, ploughing his positivity furrow through the barren fields of UKOG RNS.

I sometimes wonder if it includes filtering the SP as that's also something that's shown a negativity over the years - then I looked at Mullins posts on 24 April (the rampathon day before the 25 April afternoon RNS about no oil from swabbing) - 15 posts mostly about what the SP was - then 25th morning a few - including this on 25 April lacking in self awareness post:-

'Clever , spending you valuable time posting 24/7 ! not sure about that. Life is to short !'

Then silence abput UKOG until 27 April

That's the thing about not filtering rampers posts - it's a gift that keeps giving.

Mannnan,

Any number you like and then multiply it by an appropriate risk is one way of determining the 'value'. The values in the CPR have a large range reflecting a huge amount of uncertainty but are unrisked.

For instance UKOG requested a value calculated by a different method that was in the region of nearly half as much again as RPS's preferred methodology.

UKOG also appear intent on not acquiring the 3D required to define (perhaps destroy) the Loxley structure before drilling. Instead of spending relatively little now to confirm the structure as mapped they prefer to risk a relatively large amount on drilling which clearly wasn't a good choice in Turkey, and it seems that PPP are making a better choice at HH by acquiring the 3D first at HH.

Shooting seismic is not a 'glamorous' activity like drilling and I suppose they see more opportunity to raise prior to drilling than prior to shooting a 3D which could (like in Turkey) result in making the target location disappear, or at the very least the closure much smaller.

Ocelot,

'Angus used such a mud to resolve the problems they encountered with the sidetrack at Saltfleetby.'

No. The problem with SFB was an issue with hole stability above the reservoir. Using a mud that can help with that would thoroughly block up the Kimmeridge.

There have been various reasons cited for the poor performance of Broadford Bridge but Horse Hill was extensively tested and although UKOG were extremely coy about final flow rates the times they released initial and then average rates, and from total volumes produced over a period it just looks like recharge rates were poor - it's a pressure problem.

Once upon a time it was hoped that the Kimmeridge would flow anywhere without structural closure. Broadford Bridge was a test of a location without structural closure.

At Horse Hill there is closure and the target for the next Kimmeridge well was planned to be up dip. You may draw a different conclusion but to me BB failed because of lack of closure = lack of pressure / drive whilst at HH there was closure but the micrites aren't that great as a fractured carbonate reservoir.

What specifically has SS / the board delayed that is going to be revealed this month?

I suppose you'll just close your account and open another if it's your usual ramping nonsense so just like all your previous nonsense it'll disappear.

I see you're repeating your 'catalysts' post (again) lets see what gets crossed off the list having failed / not been as expected?

The Portland gas storage project won't be operational until towards the end of the decade, if ever - maybe some of those onshore gas fields will be used for storage more cheaply instead. The 4 wells at Horse Hill aren't going to be drilled any time soon, PPP aren't likely to drill one of them until next year if ever, Pinarova is testing what wasn't even a target so looks pretty desperate, Loxley is definitely next year - it's risky and if there's no farminee then a raise is required to even get the site prep going, as for HH-2z conversion that might be a catalyst for a raise as well.

So most despite any 'reveals' aren't going to happen any time soon - just HH-2z, a raise and hopefully saving £250,000 (wouldn't be the first time UKOG had exaggerated an expected result) - even that's not going to set the SP alight.

Ocelot,

perhaps 'Still don't understand the under-performance of the share price during the intervening period'

is because every now and then ocelot likes to boast how many posters are on filter - y'know - the 'negative' ones that seem to know a bit more about what's likely to happen vs UKOG's version.

Don't get too carried away - Loxley has as much risk as Basur-3, or possibly worse, apparently.

RNS 23 July 2020:- 'In terms of the likelihood of success, the Company believes the Licence's discovered and "missed pay" opportunities are as good as, if not better than its similar Loxley and Arreton appraisal projects in the UK'

Even the CPR outlined that the main risk was confirming the structure.

'1.5 Risk and Opportunity Assessment

The Loxley-1 well is intended to be the first of two development wells within the PEDL 234 licence. Although it will be designed and drilled as potential production well, it will still have an element of appraisal as it must first prove commercial flowrates are achievable which will depend on the height of the gas column and reservoir properties encountered. For this reason, the recoverable volumes predicted in this report are classified as Contingent Resources, Development Pending in accordance with the PRMS'

and the £124mm NPV posters quote was a result of using this, not RPS's favoured calculation:- 'At the request of UKOG, a gas price sensitivity using a flat price of 186.05p/therm (£18.61/MMBtu) was also carried out. The gas price was based on the reported settlement price as of 31st December 2022.'

There were other 'red flags' identified by RPS, but they accepted that the UKOG preferred cases were feasible if not necassarily certain - eg the 30mmscf/d from a single well (previously UKOG used 5mmscf/d).

MM,

I'm not 'anti-UKOG'.

I post my opinion about UKOG' projects - have a look at the SP chart to understand why that opinion, before the results that cause the frequent drops in price might be negative - but only negative relative to posters like yourself..

As you have kindly demonstrated I don't just say everything will be bad news - I also expect the HH decision to go UKOG's way after the hearing later in the month.

Maybe relative to those that prefer 'belief' to understanding and research it appears negative - thebn the results eventually happen and all those 'positive posters don't understand how the failure or poor outcome happened when UKOG said things like - transformational, 'of national importance' etc - and then unless I have been unduly positive (though not as positive as some posters believe the outcome will be) my 'opinion' is quite often fairly accurate.

Your optimisn or positivity doesn't make you pro-UKOG anyway as you will be gone before risking your cash by holding for 'results' - far better to exit while you and others are saying how great the results will be - the most recent exam[ple in April whenthe swab test of the upper Hoya interval failed.

Perhaps as Adrian's gone you can confirm that you are certain the hearing's decision will be publicised on Thursday 8 June as being a hearing the 'result' is usually delayed some time as the Judges deliberate on the evidence presented?

Adrian,

Instead of repeating your misleading calculation - any chance of a definitive 'there will be a decision on Thursday 8 June' - or are your pants getting a bit fiery.

You're a permanently banned poster - it doesn't take much to spot UKOG Post count on days you post. Nobody should be 'fooled' by your playing the victim.

You're banned because you broke the rules of posting, not because you're 'positive'.

So, as I predicted no mention that there's deductions for OPEX etc- Adrian out to deceive yet again.

'11.876 X $76.4 a barrel = $907.32 a day. Or put it another way . Most of Sandersons wages.'

or to put it another way - with cost of sales UKOG have to pay whay's left will pay at least some of SS's wages.

Ibug,

Interesting that UKOG are shooting the Loxley 3D after drilling. Is that because they don't want to write off the structure before drilling - unless they get a dodgy farminee the problems with mapping are so obvious surely they'd acquire the seismic first.

I suppose UKOG's philosophy of drill first so they can raise on the 'pump', eg Basur-3, means if they shot the unglamorous 3D first the opportunity for a raise may not be so great.

This way they can drill a failure, but have the cash, and exit the licence and not have to spend on the 3D they know will remove the large closure, just a pimple where Loxley is planned to test.

Probably a good chance of hydrocarbon show, a bit of gas - job done - technical success, pity about the commerciality. Fancy that.

So UKOG is continuing with its preparations to drill Loxley, which it will either have to farm out or raise to drill, whilst Adrian is posting endlessly that the hearing on 8 June is so important that the SP will rise - though the decision will be some time later if previous hearings are anything to go by.

I notice he's not mentioned that it can take weeks for a decision - much more important to track Horndean's fairly stable, if gradually declining over the years production.

Maybe you'd like to confirm that you expect a decision on Thursday or is this just BS?

eg - 'Imagin what the SP will do with a win on Thursday !' - imagine what the SP will do afterwards when the P&Ders exit because the well is risky and won't be drilled until 2024.

Don't worry you'll either change the subject or not reply - though you insist others 'explain' themselves.

By comparing March 2023 production with April or May 2022 production when Igas were performing workovers to the wells there. Not mentioning 5 months in H2 2021 had higher bopd than March 2023.

By making a guess at what the 10% of production is worth on March 2023 production, not mentioning that Igas charge OPEX and any other Horndean production related cost - in UKOG'S 2022 Annual Report UKOG got after deductions £136,000 - from oil sales of £287,000.

But even if there were no deductions the income from Horndean wouldn't be enough to stop the inevitable fund raise at some time later this year - depending on how much they spend on Pinarova and other Turkey work recharged by AME, planning consultants for Loxley and Portland gas storage, salaries and if they actually get on and convert HH-2z to an injector rather than the last year 'preparing' to do it - originally in 2022.

Remember OP is up - that'll be a few dollars more a day - whoopee.

Adrian,

‘Penguins must also explain why she has avoided Horndean oil production rising. Yet steams in to Horsehill when it drops?’

You asked - here’s a sensible post rather than your BS.

As I posted before I did a search on your twitter account and until today you haven’t mentioned Horndean at all – so what’s your point. I also posted a post of mine from 18/09/2020 acknowledging Horndean production of about 15 bopd (not just 11.9bopd) – but it’s been deleted probably because of your c**p posting – this is it:-

‘Penguins

Posted in: UKOG

Posts: 4,748

Price: 0.19

No Opinion

RE: SP18 Sep 2020 15:11

Argus you missed the bit that it was during the period up to 31st March as it was a statement in the Interim Results.

'The Horse Hill-1 well (HH-1) continued producing at high rates of over 300 bopd almost continuously during the period'

We know that the average production during April and May, and almost certainly June, was a lot less than 300bopd, from OGA figures and UKOG's RNS.

oh and about 15 bopd from high OPEX Horndean.’

But UKOG isn’t the operator of Horndean and I don’t track Horndean’s production as it’s normally fairly stable if generally gradually declining, in 2017 regularly producing 150 to 160 bopd (UKOG 15 - 16 bopd).

As for March 2023 production it is a little down from the H2 2021 production - apologies for not drawing attention to the decline in UKOG's entitlement.

The comparison you’re making is with one of two months when Igas was performing workovers at Horndean with the remainder of 2022 UKOG’s 10% share being significantly higher than April and May’s – between 9.84 bopd and 11.6 bopd rather than 6 to 7 bopd.

Whereas Horse Hill production has dropped considerably since production began, it seems to have stabilised at an average of between about 50 and about 60 bopd since September 2021 when UKOG did a facilities upgrade – prior to that production had dropped from the claimed over 300bopd in March 2020 to an average 81bopd in July 2021 – looks like the facilities upgrade degraded production.

As for 'steaming in' - since production dropped to the 50 to 60bopd range if anything I point out that it’s unlikely production has increased significantly when you (on twitter) or someone else claims production has increased due to tanker sightings – and published figures have subsequently shown production staying within those limits.

Perhaps that's why you get so upset with my posts about HH production - especially when you predicted 108bopd for Dec '21 & Jan '22 because your tanker count - both were under 62bopd.

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. B******t!

Game on!'

BTW - I did not say it was down to 49bopd - a

'UKOG recieved sales income of an average of 11.87 barells a day for MARCH 2023 . Yes or No! If you say no . You are lying.'

IOgas will of course credit UKOG with the sales income - but is that the same as 'receiving it? You and I don't know if they deduct their OPEX and other costs when they credit UKOG - prove the answer is yes.

Meanwhile do you acknowledge that apart from the 10% volume of oil all your other numbers after September 2022 must be made up, and whilst there will be OPEX etc to pay why you don't make that up as well based on previous deductions?

You seem to work on the basis that when your lies eventually catch up with you - for instance when the 2023 annual report comes out everyone will have forgotten your deceptions.