Member Info for Penguins

I report any post of yours that contains a lie about me - so almost any post where you mention me and make claims that are not rue.

Just becuse you don't understand my interest in UKOG doesn't mean I'm a nimby, green or any of the other fantasies you harbour.

Keep to UKOG, keep to realistic outcomes - you, of almost anyone else here, surely understands that just because UKOG claim something about the future it isn't a fact - it's an opinion - and often it isn't the full range even of their opinions. Even the stuff they quoted to the inquiry about Loxley was base case and high case - they don't mention the low case (you probably didn't realise a base case isn't a low case - more of a mid case). In fact they almost always quote a mid / mean / base case as the lowest rather the full range of outcomes from monte-carlo simulations.

Maybe next time you're deramping you could explain to ells.......

What I meant to say was that Adrian makes sure his posts are deleted the next day. Craig cleanses his excesses for him - he protests too much - asking posters to report his posts.

BTW no one is scared of any idiot that fills up the board with post after post of nonsense, either about other posters, or worse about the company - and has been doing it for years.

Fed up with the lack of manners, and complete lack of self awareness.

Basically you try and prevent discussion by posting relentlessly, ignoring the mistakes you make and change the subject if your lies and errors are pointed out.

eg Saltfleetby produces less than 1,44mmscf/d - and that's a share you claim to hold and know about.

You might have misunderstood the first line of my earlier post.

But I'll leave it at that.

As for the obligation work at HH - not doing it means that UKOG would have to relinquish part of PEDL 137, and probably lose PEDL 246 - a licence they've done nothing in.

Not sure it's a punishment as there's no evidence that anything else in the licence would be commercial given the best prospect is now producing 50bopd from the Portland plus water and nothing from the Kimmeridge.

Maybe UKOG are hoping for a massive rise in the OP which might affect commerciality. It's quite possible that if they knew the production profile that resulted in HH-1 before drilling it might not have been worth drilling.

'#UKOG Basically Craig in admin
@LondonSouthEast
has logged me out of my 100Centurion account, Changed my email address so i cant log back in again but left the account running so Greens can say what they like about my posts with out me replying..

Just so you know ;)'

So either lying then or now. No change there.

2 more corrections

The volume of gas yesterday was 0.1672mm cu metres - not 0.16872

and it was GB-1 not B-1 'I'd also point out that's an initial rate for B-1'

correction.

the POS for the Portland in the 'proof of evidence' was 60 to 70%.

'I am far more intrested in Penguins post that Godley Bridge 1 flowed 1.44 mmscf a day on test. That is from a single vertical well. Thats more than a single well at Angus Saltfleetby gas site.'

I'm afraid it isn't. Saltfleetby according to the data item viewer flowed yesterday 0.16872 million cubic metres of gas.

That's approximately 6mmscf/d - which is fairly typical of it's flow rate - good isn't it.

If a well flowed 1.44mmscf/d it would not be economic to install the infrastructure required to connect it to the grid.

'And YXZ098 reminded us that a horitontal well will flow 2 to 3 x more gas than vertical well. UKOG will be banking a lot of cash from Loxley when it kicks off.'

Where do UKOG guarante that Loxley will flow any gas - let alone 2 to 3 times Godley Bridge which is some distance to the west and may not even be connected. Never knowingly pessimistic UKOG put a 50 to 70% probability of success. I'd also point out that's an initial rate for B-1 - what was UKOG's initial Portland test rate- what is it now - would HH-2z now be producing 150bopd? There's also the issue of H2S - added protection required in drilling and production.

'Where that joker Cyndi who said there was only one calor gas bottle full there lol. That guy is one of the most clueslless idiots ever to post on here imo.'

Well that is a downside view.

'Lets not forget UKOG will be testing the Kimmeridge layers at Loxley as well as gas. If this goes to plan.'

Well 'if it goes to plan', where UKOG are concerned definitely a 'if' - the RNS last week didn't mention the Kimmeridge, and UKOG put a probability of success of 30 to 40% in the inquiry proof of evidence - and that's just moveable hydrocarbons to surface (ie not necassarily commercial.

Is it not suspicious that UKOG have had 2 RNS in February about Loxley and failed to mention the progress of the 'pre-planned' farm out - implemented (?) in July last year.

You obviously missed that this bit was from your post on 8 September 2022 when the SP was 0.12p:-

'1p … very conservative'

in response to the thread title which was;-

'RE: back to 1p this year'

and just like every other prediction you've made about UKOG it was wrong - will 0.07p this week be added to the list of wrong predictions.

Was this post an attempt to be funny:-

'I love that one Pingu. 1p very conservative. Brilliant.
Pingu get the share below 0.06 and I’ll buy you a pint of Ruddles in Wetherspoons.'

- but like most of your posts it just looks like you're not understanding what's going on.

Looks like there's still plenty of sellers feeding the shares to those 'accumulating' - is it those that 'accumulated' in November and December selling up, fed up with waiting for at least one of the catalysts that were 'expected' soon to catalyse the SP.

After all an expert like yourself didn't manage to predict when with all your charts'n'stuff

'ells_valexpert
Posted in: UKOG
Posts: 2,926 Price: 0.064
No Opinion
RE: Sensible Forecast .20 by Q3 12 Jan 2023 14:18
'My target was a bit off because the company decided to stay silent for a few months before the new year so had to re-evaluate. Now they have released the Turkey growth plan Q3 is my target for 0.20.'

Quelle surprise - UKOG decided to stay silent for a few months - it's what they do. Though what caught you out was the surprise (to you) that the SP would drop below the placing price, and UKOG then make an opportunistic raise again on a P&D.

and only 20 minutes today, and all tomorrow to reach your predicted 0.07p this week - maybe you should try the classic 'wouldn't want to be out of this for the weekend' rather than 'it's been rerating since 23 November' or something about 'accumulating' that just sounds unrealistic.

'As you have pointed out correct Penguins the four wells to be drilled with all permissions now in place are Horizontal wells'

As I also pointed out last week UKOG RNS'd they would initially only produce using one well - maybe you do some reading before posting..

'........ is planned to be completed as a future production well, one of only two wells required to produce Loxley's entire estimated material recoverable gas resources (see the Annual Report and Accounts Table 2 and RNS of 20th September 2020).. The second production well, designed to maintain the desired plateau gas production rate, must be drilled by summer 2029.

You posted less than an hour ago:-

'Penguins.
Even base scenario of producing 25 mmscf a day @ £1.50 a therm is daily revenue of £385,500 a day.
These are YOUR figures'

No they aren't.

This is what I posted:-

'and from table 1 - Base case peak production rate 13mmscf/d and Upside case peak production rate 25mmcf/d'

So you're starting to show 'Adrian' like features, memory issues and making up what other posters have posted ....is he coaching you?

Your gas price and don't forget the dreaded word 'peak' - and when 'if' succesful will UKOG be selling it - they can't even sell test gas.

Did you read the original post?

Base peak was 13mmscf/d in the table in SS's submission to the inquiry.

'and from table 1 - Base case peak production rate 13mmscf/d and Upside case peak production rate 25mmcf/d'

That's also from 4 wells - and now they're talking about 1.

and I'd point out that so far UKOG seem to take an extremely optimistic view of possible production and it seems that these are internally generated figures.

But remember stage 1 - first be successful.

or whoever you are,

First find the gas, test it to ensure it doesn't do a HH-1 (same reservoir) and fizzle out to the extent it never recovers the cost of a well let alone the tens of millions required to monetise it, build a production site that includes H2S removal, build an export pipeline, and pay for a connection to the grid.

Build into the NPV calculation tne risk of when, or if, the grid is converted and carries H2 so you either have to build a reformation plant or stop production.

Like all the fanciful calculations of cashflow from HH BB and Basur that forgot stage 1 - be successful. Even never knowingly pessimistic UKOG put a 60 to 70% probability of success at the inquiry.

Remember those are peak base case values, and even with 4 wells the high case was 25mmscf/d not 30mmscf/d which has never previously been mentioned and has no justification except it's what the network can receive (of course UKOG don't mention how far the pipeline needs to go - also important for economics), certainly considering last week the plan was to only produce initially from a single well.

Guessing the gas price for Loxley is another minefield as given the possible issues it won't be for years and like SFB a loan shark may take all the value.

If you are Adrian you always ignore costs eg water disposal, other OPEX, workovers and head office costs attributed to HH - unfortunately risked NPV and IRR are large factors in determining the viability of drilling a well, I suspect if the results of HH-1 were known before it was drilled it wouldn'thave been drilled.

If you are not Adrian say so......

RNS 01/02/2023

'one of only two wells required to produce Loxley's entire estimated material recoverable gas resources (see the Annual Report and Accounts Table 2 and RNS of 20th September 2020). The second production well, designed to maintain the desired plateau gas production rate, must be drilled by summer 2029.'

From:- PROOF OF EVIDENCE - Stephen Sanderson ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - UKOG (234) Ltd.

'3.5. UKOG’s latest internal recoverable resource estimates are very similar, 43 bcf in the base case and 68 bcf in the upside case. Our estimated base case production rate of approximately 4-5 bcf per year from 4 producing wells at the Loxley site'

and from table 1 - Base case peak production rate 13mmscf/d and Upside case peak production rate 25mmcf/d

RNS 06/02/2023

'SGN's network analysis demonstrates that the LTS can readily accept 34,500 cubic metres per hour (equivalent to 30 million cubic feet of gas per day), corresponding to Loxley's high-side forecast field production rate.'

So at the inquiry UKOG upside case peak production rate from 4 wells was 25mmsc/d

Yet in today's RNS peak field production was said to correspond to 30mmscf/d although less than a week ago the field was stated as being developed with only one well, when the inquiry data had a high case peak production of 25mmscf/d from four wells.

Before any of this matters the first well has to be successful but there seems to be confusion about how many wells UKOG intend to drill, and how much will be produced.

The figure in today's RNS appears to be an exaggeration of the peak upside case production quoted to the inquiry from 4 wells - but last week's RNS seems to be revealing a new strategy of going into production with one well, the second well required only after production drops off.

Whilst cheaper and quicker a single well is likely to only produce, base case, less than 4mmscf/d, high case 6.25mmscf/d, assuming the modelling for the inquiry production figures was correct, nowhere near the suggested 30mmscf/d in today's RNS. This is also likely to impact the total gas recovered.

UKOG needs to clarify what they are doing and what they expect to produce from Loxley if successful.

Adrian posting as 100Centurion,

'Penguins is pretending the Godley Bridge vertical well would produce the same amount of gas as a new horizontal well . Laughable if it wasnt so disingenuous!'

maybe you don't understand the subtleties of language:-

'albeit in a vertical well less than 1.5mmscf/d'

But then you claim:-

'As i have told you before Horizontal wells can produce 5 or 10 times more the a vertickle well you quote your figures from'

Well if you read the whole of SS's statement to the inquiry you would know the 4 Loxley wells anticipated to produce 4 to 5BCF per year were horizontals - even 5 BCF in a year is 14mmcf/d or 3.5mmcf/d per well or only a little more than twice the Godley Bridge-1 vertical.

100Centurion, You are Adrian / davethedrill1.

Stop pretending you aren't - it's pathetic.

Modified so as to not suggest there was something fishy......

Ells,

Re number of wells at Loxley:-

From SS statement to the inquiry:

'3.2.
The project’s objective is to assess the commercial viability of the Deposit, and in the success
case to pursue a full gas field production scenario from the Loxley site, which is suitably placed
to permit 4-5 development wells to drain the Deposit’s Crestal Area.'

Then from 3.5:-

'Our estimated base case production rate of approximately 4-5 bcf per year from 4 producing wells at the Loxley site'

4.5bcf is about 13mmscf/d - or an average of less than 4mmscf/d per well.

Now they are claiming one well might produce 30mmscf/d in a reservoir that previously tested, albeit in a vertical well less than 1.5mmscf/d - as last weeks RNS said production would start with one well (from last weeks RNS):-

'Loxley-1, designed to confirm the commercial viability of the discovery, is planned to be completed as a future production well, one of only two wells required to produce Loxley's entire estimated material recoverable gas resources (see the Annual Report and Accounts Table 2 and RNS of 20th September 2020). The second production well, designed to maintain the desired plateau gas production rate, must be drilled by summer 2029'

and from today's RNS:-

'LTS can readily accept 34,500 cubic metres per hour (equivalent to 30 million cubic feet of gas per day), corresponding to Loxley's high-side forecast field production rate'

Had he forgotten what the previous RNS said about a single well, with only a second well later, and the original proposal of 4 wells?

You do realise that it's important to examine what the company states and compare it to reality, or even other company statements so you don't get misled.

If that's 'twisting' then you have gone too far the rabbit hole of belief rather than trying to understand what's going on - did it not occur to you (or UKOG it seems) that only wells in decent reservoirs produce 30mmscf/d or more on production.

The Portland is not a decent reservoir as HH-1 has demonstrated, and there may yet be issues with water conduits at Loxley which UKOG will no doubt not mention.

Obviously it suits you to take everything at face value, even when it looks suspect.

Adrian,

You really don't know how a farm in works. They may share the cost of the first well disproportionately but after that they pay their way at the equity split. No likely farminee is going to fund the cost of the infrastructure including a new pipeline - the money will have to be found somewhere if Loxley is successful enough with one well to justify development and to be honest it won't be from HH or Turkey - just some vulture like at Saltfleetby who are the ones making money.

I'm afraid UKOG have a history of spending money assuming success, and then failing - at least if they get a partner they might be restrained from doing anything stupid.

100Centurion - or other new Adrian / davethedrill1 account, banned poster like a bad penny keeps turning up for a weekend of posting accusations about other posters when he loses the argument.

Mullins58 - joins in ramping, not much to say.

Ells_valexpert - bought in at about 0.09p over 6 months not a single correct prediction since - thinks predicting there might be a P&D on news makes him or her an expert.

Ocelot - scours the internet for anything to copy and paste - usually irrelevant, filtered nearly every sensible poster, wonders why the SP doesn't rise on non-news when all he can see is rampers comments.

These posters like to think any realistic post about the company is by a naysayer, greenie, nimby, lost money gambling on UKOG, or random activist(?), and spend most of their time accusing anyone that disagrees with their happy clappy view of a company - that has serially failed despite every well being transformational or of national importance - of being one of these, but not necessarily consistently.

Adrian,

The figure for Godley Bridge is from a CPR - you know what normal companies get done.

But a single well production site - not sure anyone would lend money that had to paid back from production to build the infrastructure required to export to SGN as there's risk of failure and no back up.

I note they are talking about shooting 3D. It's a pity they haven't committed to do that before drilling the well - perhaps Basur-3 is a good demonstration why they should - but maybe the risk of disappearing a lot of the prospect, as new seismic would have done at Basur, is too great.

We'll see.