GreySeals
I know no more than anyone else but my rational on these changes with the Finch case out of the way, the EA permit and Loxley granted is more positive moving forward.
My thought is more time for directors leading on exploration and development especially if HH1 is now producing more oil and water injection raises it further so finance doesn't require a directors role as it has previously.
I seem to remember HH net asset value was calculated at £15-18 per barrel with a oil price of $70 which we are currently 15% above.
Hopefully a positive year with many changes I think that we are due a good year after the last few but we will see.
I'm sure the regular crew will be along shortly to rip this opinion to pieces
but only what we are used to, Hey ho the merry old souls!
Gl to all those who stayed strong.
Sageman
That looks unlikely, maybe you missed the RNS.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/UKOG/board-and-management-changes-i718ftkmz79jg5m.html
Mirasol
My comment was It would be even better to see a unexpected major 'share purchase' as described also.
Can you say that you would not like to see an additional unexpected share purchase from a director which could follow.
I would certainly be happy for all of the directors to buy there share options at 1.15p next May unless they are all going to let them lapse.
I would describe that as a major and unexpected share purchase on the information and current share price that we have at this time and the RNS statement of directors not being prevented to make additional share purchases as they participate in the directors share purchase scheme.
No lie intended but don't let that get in the way of your grievance!
Ibug
I am free to post my opinion and if you don't like or agree you are free to filter me as you wish.
You do not have to agree or even understand where I am coming from with my posts but that does not make them any the less relevant.
Time will tell and unless you have a cristal ball for the issues that you seem to try to talk with authority over you know no more than anyone else just your speculation and trying to joint dots that may or not be relevant.
Ocelot
Thank you.
There are as I'm sure you are aware a number of posters on this site who like to jump on anyone posting and any opinion that they do not share and try to rip them apart.
All very sad in my opinion but they obviously have nothing better to do which is even sadder!
Great to see you two happy and optimistic as ever but the possibility addition share purchases was mentioned.
We shall see, the uptake of options next May seems along way off at this stage but a lot can change in a short time with the right news.
Ocelot
Before the commencement of the Horse Hill EWT when UKOG only held 32% not nearly 86% of the licence as the do now, with no permanent permissions as they now have and a production licence for 20 years the price touched 2.94p and once things start to move forward I'm sure they will again.
Keep the faith!
nomlungu
I think you are misquoting!
We are talking Horse Hill where the licence is 55 square miles with a projected 158 million barrel per square miles not the whole Weald basin.
The Portland recoverability with early stage water sinks injection is up to 45% & the aKimmeridge where no figures have yet been put into the CPR had a estimated recovery of between 5 & 15% which the EWT was there to confirm.
I'm looking forward to some long awaited news!
bendog
I think it is more likely to be the other way around.
If you look at shells reasons for pulling out it was because of the time and cost it thinks it would take to get it going with all the legal hurdles!
Shell would be more likely want to buy Horse Hill from UKOG once it has passed its legal challenges and all permissions are in place ready to drill the next 4 wells as it is oven ready and will pay a premium for having all the work done.
Just remember oil sites are valued on Net present value of oil in the ground.
The EWT is complete for the Portland and Kimmeridge is it time to cash in to fund new sites and licence development?
Tranquillo
Your right he talks a load of bull.
You say he he is invested in UJO but thinks UKOG has lots of shares in issue.
UJO had over 20 shares in issue before consolidation to 33p.
Look at them now at 11p.
Consolidation is not the answer.
I am looking forward to a better year ahead for UKOG with lots of newsflow to come.
Delisting may be his dream but much to much to play play for here.
ocelot
I thought that the message from the RNS was quite clear.
From January UKOG does not need a financial director as this has now been restructured between the new executive director and finance manager which will be covered and overseen by the audit committee.
This should leave more time for the executive directors to consentrate on moving the business forward.
It points to more delegation and hopefully the new finance position will ensure more time for all the company filings to be done in a timely manner.
Tony13579
I don't see it happening but how would they propose to adjust the emissions figures to replace imported oil and gas emissions when the indigenous oil is cleaner.
Tony13579
As far as I know emissions are monitored in sectors e.g. from driving where emissions are calculated at a vehicles MOT as mileage and emissions records are recorded to the DVLC annually.
Other emissions can only be calculated on individual products once they have been produced and may include plastics, chemicals etc. which will be created from different parts of the refining process depending on how each delivery is utilized.
These actions seem like desperation and delaying tactics.
Ibug
What SS actually said was re. CPR was after HH2 and possibly HH 3.
There was no clarification for the reason but in my opinion if the production licence is overturned a CPR prior to this would be pointless as the oil resource would not be able to be produced.
A EA permit for water injection and the oil production which I doubt will be issued until the court ruling is confirmed as it would likely also affect the permit.
All very interesting but the Finch challenge is to the additional four wells and the production licence for 20 years for HH and I can understand you scepticism about a CPR produced prior to the EWT of 2018 and I agree that every investor will have there own views and invest accordingly.
Mine include the bonus for SS for the successful completion of the EWT the buyout of other partners following the EWT with the inside knowledge they have as the operator and the additional planning & production which was put in place to make the recovery of the resources confirmed possible so will look forward to the new updated CPR when it is eventually published.
There are still legal challenges pending to challenge the granting of the planning and production at Horse Hill for 20 years by Surrey county council which could prevent these resources being recoverable.
These challenges can not go on for ever and I doubt that any new legislation will change laws retrospectively.
The last appeal at the High court advised that this was a political issue not a legal issue and that has not changed as was also confirmed by the government case with BP.
Good luck to all long term investors.
Ibug
You seem to constantly write off all value of of oil in the ground and recoverability from the further four wells that can be drilled at Horse Hill whether done by UKOG or someone else.
This is an investment and the ever increasing oil price and reduced future availability from lack of investment will push up future net asset values.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Warns-Of-Shrinking-Spare-Oil-Production-Capacity.html
Then UKOG can show its hand on how it is going to recover the 300million tones of fuels that Sarah Finch and friends of the earth has been trying to stop.
Bring it on.