Member Info for ZYX098

I'm still thinking FID will be announced w/c 15th Dec, once the FIG are back at work.

To do it during the election could generate accusations of election interference, and there wouldn't be anyone in Govt available to answer the plethora of press calls.

Sam may not have thought that through when he said November in the AGM.

Given the length of time the the partnership will be operating in the FI, that the licenses all expire in Dec 2026 (so will have to enter into negotiations with respect to extending, which bits to relinquish etc etc), the huge effect it will have on the FI economy and that a very short delay from end Nov to mid-December in announcing FID will not - in practical terms - make any difference to the project, I'd have thought they'd want to keep the FIG on side.

Hi Buffit,

FWIW, I sold just over half my holdings (c. 450k shares) in BOR in mid-August to recoup my initial investment and take some profit.

I kept the rest as I thought they'd take a bounce up on the back of the SL FID announcement, but that was when I thought it would be before the FIG election purdah.

Subsequently I felt the risk of loosing it all outweighed the possibility of a farm in (which in any case would result in BOR giving up all but a small % of their holding) and sold the rest a couple of weeks ago.

Why?

Well, BOR would need a 100% carry for a farm in, as they only have sufficient funds from the last share issue to 'keep the lights on' until Dec 2026.

Also bear in mind that RKH are carrying their SFB Licenses at zero value on their books.

In terms of timing, BOR are now effectively already out of the window to get a Rig & equipment to the FI, then drill and test a Well before the end of the license in Dec 2026.

Could BOR get a license extension from the FIG?

I doubt it.

Any work program would be predicated on BOR getting someone to farm in, carrying BOR 100%.

They haven't been able to get a farminee so far (over 2 yrs of serious trying) and the reality is that anyone who wants the license (which likely does contain substantial gas & condensate reserves, even though the discovery Well was not tested) would be better approaching the FIG to pick up the license in the next round.

That way the new Operating partnership would pay 100% of the work program and have 100% of the license, without having a minnow with a small % slowing down further work because they don't have the cash.

That option would, in my opinion, be much more attractive to the FIG, who will want to get some momentum going in the SFB too.

Would that be brutal for BOR, their board and shareholders?

Absolutely, considering the time and effort they've put into it.

But the Oil Industry isn't known for being a charity!

Haven't posted that on the BOR board yet - might do tomorrow - mainly because it will be entertaining to see the self-appointed Sherriff of the BOR board absolutely lose his shyte. :)

Hi LTT,

Good to know about Gideons comments.

No, I hadn't heard that one about Shell. The one I used to hear frequently was "There's a right way, a wrong way and the Shell way!".

Gulf Oil was the classic on the UKCS, they drilled the discovery Wells on both Rough and Morecambe Bay and completely missed them both!

Rough I can kindof understand, but Morecambe?? I even saw some of their drilling reports where they were raising the mud weight to 12ppg (i.e. relatively heavy) because they had so much gas coming into the Wellbore!

Gulf actually gave up the Morecambe license.

The story (which may or may not be true) was that British Gas went back to them and said "are you sure?". Gulf looked at the logs again, said rude words and went to the DEn to get the license back.

However, the Energy Minister at the time was Anthony Wedgewood Benn. He said "No" and gave the license to British Gas, who were still a Nationalised Industry!

Ummm, good question LDC.

The current gas price is around the $4/MSCF mark, so that's nominally $13.6 Billion for 3.4 TCF.

But lots of caveats as it's only one Well that's not been tested etc etc etc.

So no idea on recovery factor, gas composition, amount of condensate, formation permeability, sand Nett to Gross, potential compartmentalisation of the reservoir and so on.

Unless there is H2S and/or CO2 (and there is no reason to suspect there will be), then the drilling, completions and production equipment should be a similar spec to SL.

The FPSO would be a whole different ball game though, as there are very few FNLG FPSO's around and they tend to be in much more benign environments.

So I can see a dedicated FPSO being built, which would be very expensive. I'd guess it would be in the vicinity of $1.5 Billion.

So a ball park figure of, say $3 Billion for a development?

Ahhh, but unlike a Politician, I answered the question!

Or did i?.... :)

Hi Buffit,

As LTT has pointed out, we can ignore anyone who has large holdings in Argentina - the political risk would be too great.

I suspect the same might go for anyone with large holdings in Brazil, as they have consistently supported the Argentinian position.

We can safely rule out any Russian Companies for obvious reasons.

I suspect we can also rule out the Chinese.

I understand that there have been problems ongoing for several years for the FIG / Argentina with Chinese fishing vessels violating their waters.

Besides, I seriously doubt the MOD would be happy with planeloads of Chinese landing at Mount Pleasant, or Chinese "Supply" Vessels docking at Port Stanley!

So I think that leaves us with mid-cap US Companies or some of the NOC's.

I doubt the Middle East NOC's would be interested, so perhaps some of the South East Asian ones maybe? Perhaps BHP, as they have lots of experience in running FPSO's?

Mid-Cap US Companies could obviously include Murphy, given the make up of Navitas Sr. Management.

My outside bet is Talos, as given their working relationship with Navitas in the GOM, they probably know each other quite well.

Which is a long way of saying, no, I don't know who it will be! :)

Yes, no discoveries as such, as both the Exploration Wells were drilled off structure (I recall Nomalkanymore being rather scathing of the decision making process behind this!).

But the block is well covered by 3D Seismic and there are several SL look-alike structures that should be prospective.

Interestingly, a Westmount presentation from a few months ago indicates that when the current license expires in Dec 2026, JHI have the option to proceed into the 3rd Exploration phase by committing to one Exploration Well in the next 10 years!

I just cannot see the FIG accepting that and I suspect they'll declare the JHI option voided by their failure to meet their 2nd Exploration phase commitments.

These days typical exploration licenses don't run to more than five years and can run as short as three.

Also, the FIG runs the same license award system as the UK - the awards are based on the proposed work program and the technical & financial capability of the Consortium to carry out that program.

Given that FID for SL will open up the basin, and that we know that the FIG has had enquiries from other Companies, I don't see a license being awarded on the basis of "we will look to farm out and then proceed with a minimum work program, as we can't afford to do anything by ourselves".

I haven't seen any forecasts in the share price that include the Johnson Gas Field discovery to the North of SL?

Is there a reason for this?

It caught my attention when I was reading up on the Westmount RNS information this morning, as their maps show the field going into PL001.

The original Well (14/5-1A) was drilled by Shell in 1998 and the Logs subsequently re-evaluated by RKH as showing a very large 165m gas column.

The structure should be robust, as it's covered by the 2007 3D Seismic, which is where RKH get their provisional reserves figure of 3.4 TCF.

That's a very large gas field by any standards, and recent advances in FLNG FPSO technology should mean it's a viable prospect economically - especially with world gas demand forecast to increase by at least 20% over the next Decade.

Of course, it's also extrapolating a huge amount from one Well that was never tested!

There must be something unusual in the log responses for Shell to miss it, but perhaps RKH were able to correlate log responses better once they'd got core data? Or maybe Shell didn't miss it, but didn't have structural closure mapped at that depth? Or thought it was too tight to be produceable?

Nomalkanymore/Cammbo - any thoughts please?

BTW, intriguing little detail - the 'A' after the Well number typically means they had to re-spud for some reason.

One for Happy.....

https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/uk-cant-stop-falklands-islands-extracting-oil-from-sea-lion-field/?cf-view

Could the outstanding Warrants for 80p be acting as a cap for the share price?

No idea myself - I'm not a financial bod - but thought I'd ask so the more knowledgeable posters could jump in.

Https://media1.tenor.com/images/80a70f46d92b6582b4c707a1d377ee50/tenor.gif?itemid=11814407

:)

Hi Alma,

Good find!

But if (as we think) all the required FIG legislative approval has already been given, would there need to be a fully functioning FIG?

Wouldn't they just need some MLA's available to smile for the camera(s) and be ready to answer any press questions?

Well that's FID 100% nailed on then, otherwise Navitas wouldn't be making such a presentation!

And no, Isobel won't be part of it - this will be for Beverley / Casper / Casper South / Hector / Ninky / Zebedee etc.

Isobel is too far South to be tied back - the flow assurance required for the waxy crude that SL produces will be much too complex / expensive.

Besides, if Isobel / Isobel Deep / Elaine / Emily do contain substantial producible reserves, then it would require it's own FPSO.

As Nomalkanymore (Marlon Monkey) and I posted some time ago, there are a lot of question marks over Isobel such that it will need 4 - 6 Appraisal Wells before any thought of development would be considered. Bear in mind SL has eight Exploration / Appraisal Wells on it.

If I recall correctly, MM also said he wouldn't go back down South until new Seismic had been shot, processed and interpreted.

Until we get 1st Oil, RKH will be hamstrung by lack of available cash to be able to fund such a program.

I have my doubts that Navitas will want to wait that long, so I suspect it means that RKH will also participate in the farm out and loose a % of their holding in exchange for cash (or a carry).

We also need to be aware that all FI Licenses expire at the end of 2026, and we don't know what the FIG are going to do in terms of allowing parts of blocks to be retained (as has already happened with the original PL 004 being split into PL 004a, 004b and 004c) or what Operator work programs they will require to enable parts of blocks to be retained.

We already know from the legislation that the FIG passed earlier this year that they must have received enquires from other Operators about getting licenses - going to be interesting to see how that all plays out!

Though I suspect that the SFB license being carried on RKH's books at zero value means they are resigned to loosing it.

BTW, anyone seen Happy since this announcement ;)

I saw a while back someone pointing out that the oilfield terms we sometimes throw around (guilty as charged!) don't mean anything to non-oilfield people, so here are a couple of resources to peruse;

https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/footer/glossary-of-terms/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abbreviations_in_oil_and_gas_exploration_and_production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_oilfield_jargon

Or just ask us to explain further - part of the function of this board should be that we can learn from each other.

I posted this a while back;

******

We’ve been presuming that Navitas will make a formal announcement, very closely followed (or simultaneously) by an RNS from RKH.

But given the importance to the Falkland Islands, I think from a legal perspective (w.r.t. potentially influencing the election results) the FIG would be put in a very awkward position if the FID announcement is made during the election period.

The FIG would also want to be in a position to respond to the flurry of press & public interest that would undoubtedly follow such an announcement – something the Caretakers in place during the Election Period would find very hard to do.

Indeed, the FIG may have requested that the FID announcement be made in the FI themselves and have a little “Dog & Pony” Show for the Press of signing a formal agreement. (So look for signs of Sr. Navitas people & Sam heading South and flying into MPA on the Saturday flight from Punta Arenas….)

The FIG Elections are on the 11th Dec.

I can’t find the exact date (someone with better skills at searching should be able to – cough cough Mogger…..), but I would imagine that the new MLAs will be sworn in on the 12th Dec.

I think it reasonable to presume that enough MLAs will be re-elected (along with the existing FIG Civil Service personnel) that the FIG would be in a position to respond to press enquires very quickly after the new MLAs are sworn in.

So that would point to a date on or after the 15th Dec.

With respect to Navitas, although Hanukkah starts on the 15th Dec, the TASE Calendar doesn’t show it being closed during the holiday at all.

So I’m thinking that Navitas wouldn’t be constrained by the Hanukkah Holiday in that respect.

Perhaps one of our Israeli posters could comment on the importance of Hanukkah in terms of people taking time off work and Media coverage of News/Financial affairs?

Note that while the Markets respect Public Holidays, the Oilfield doesn’t!

With respect to RKH, Sam has been clear that FID would be before the end of this year.

I imagine that would, in reality, mean by the 19th December, as any announcement in the week of Xmas and between Xmas and NY would likely get lost in the holiday noise and RKH would want as much noise (i.e. to generate potential share buying interest) as possible with the announcement.

So, my 0.0001p thought is FID will be announced w/c 15th December.

*************

Someone (probably Mogger!) has since posted that most of the 'Stanley' MLA's will be re-elected, plus one of the three from 'Camp', so after the election the FIG should be in a position to react quickly to an FID announcement.

We also know that the election date was pushed back slightly, so I think Paul is correct - this was done to allow the FIG to finalise approvals prior to dissolving for the election.

FID would be a great Xmas present for us all!

The FT is behind a paywall, so I can't read it.

However, any "Trump bump" won't manifest itself for a couple of years at least.

Fun fact, US oil & Gas production both reached record levels under Biden, but that goes against the Trump narrative.

In the meantime, this video on recent Gulf of Mexico developments is worth a watch;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8884pPZPO0U

Beacon is covered from 11:40 to about 14:30 - not just Shenandoah, but also the Winterfell Field which has been a problem child for Beacon.

Interestingly, Talos Energy (my outside bet for farming in to SL) follows on from Beacon in the video.

TH2,

Over the past few years, if you'd bought shares every time you claimed to have done so, then two things would be true;

A) You are well into TR-1 territory.

B) You are some 95% down on your investment.

But we all know that you haven't bought anywhere near the number of shares you claim, and those that you do hold are likely to be down by 99+%.

Instead, you continue to repeatedly post Ramptastic nonsense, without giving a shred of actual evidence as to why the share price will multi-bag.

However, the following are true;

UKOG income = zero.

UKOG shares bought by the BoD in the last few years = zero.

UKOG shares bought by the BOD during any placing, ever = zero.

UKOG intention to restart HH production = zero.

UKOG chance of getting BB hived off for Geothermal = zero.

Asset value of 3 x "Letters of Support" = zero.

Asset value of an MOU with NG for access to a pipeline that is 80 miles away = zero.

Asset value of an unexecuted lease on a farmers field in Dorset = zero.

Asset value of some high level studies on an area (Dorset) that is in the wrong place and has dubious salt quality = zero.

Asset value of an unexecuted lease on a farmers field in Yorkshire (close to an already installed salt dome facility) = zero.

Chance of UKOG reaching a farm-in agreement with a "major industry player" - zero.

Chance of UKOG meeting the criteria to take part in HAR 2 = zero.

Chance of UKOG getting any Govt. money = zero.

Number of posters you have actually filtered = zero.

What is non-zero are their forthcoming liabilities;

P&A of BB-1 and the restoration of the site (to be done by Feb 2026 as per the notice served by West Sussex County Council) - c. £1.3 Million

P&A of both HH Wells and restoration of the site - c. £2.5 Million.

The Ramptastic crew are also trying to sweep under the carpet the still uncorrected glaring error in UKOG's accounts, and that the already insufficient booked cost set aside for Site Restoration was reduced even further, and that it took three sets of Auditors (original, new, then back to original) before they could get the (as previously mentioned incorrect) annual report signed off.

As for your final claim "PM also confirmed discussions and plan for funding in PMQ earlier in the year....video ukogplc.com", which you repeat over and over again in the forlorn hope that doing so would make it come true (what's the definition of madness?) this has in reality been debunked many, many times.

The PM was answering a planted question by the MP.

Since then?

No funding and - as Penguins post makes clear - Dorset hasn't been mentioned again.

I do think that H2 production and storage has a potentially great future in the UK, but UKOG will not be part of it.

Black_Stuff,

If you have been following this board for over a decade, then you'd know that Happys frequent claims about FID being priced in (and others, such as needing UK Govt approval) have always been called out.

Equally you'd know that posters have done so without feeling the need to resort to abusive language.

There are now several posters on here who apparently believe that they need to use cheap name calling when replying to another poster that they disagree with.

It appears that they think doing so somehow makes their arguments stronger.

It doesn't - just the opposite.

If enough people do it and aren't called out, it just means that the board is populated with posters calling each other names while adding little to the actual discussion - which is supposed to be about RKH and aspects of the SL Development.

Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries classify the word you used as being offensive.

If you don't know why other people find it offensive (even when it's not directed at them) and you use that word in real life, then you must get punched a lot...

Black_Stuff,

I did.

You can respond to another poster and make your case against their position without resorting to the disgusting name calling that you did - and did so on your first two posts since you created under this ID.

In Happys case, it's ridiculously easy to respond to his posts without resorting to abusive language - for example, like Santos1's post.

You are obviously a poster that's been on here before.

Judging by your content so far, it seems like the LSE must have previously banned you for abusive posting?

Hi markednmbr1,

Absolutely - the oil demand/supply and price forecasts for the next 10 - 20 years is what is important for SL and subsequent developments.

I was referring to the current weak price more from the perspective of the damage that the EPL continues to do to the UKCS, while tax revenue is likely to fall even further in the next year or so.

Well, Harbour paying tax at an equivalent of 108% last year is a pretty good incentive to move elsewhere....

https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/harbour-energy-sees-1-2bn-pre-tax-profit-turned-into-93m-loss-by-windfall-tax-hammer-blow

They've also shed 250 jobs in their ABZ offices.

EnQuest are another - they just announced half year results where they lost $43 Million, having paid just over $100 Million in tax. No surprise that they are looking to expand in Vietnam, rather than here.

https://www.enquest.com/media/press-releases/article/2025-half-year-results

Since the EPL was implemented, the UKCS has been shedding jobs at the rate of 250 a week - every week - and this rate will continue.

https://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/news-2025/8232-uk-offshore-energy-industry-faces-grangemouth-scale-redundancies-every-fortnight-without-intervention-warns-new-rgu-report

Since the imposition of the EPL, UKCS Oil production has dropped by c. 33% and Gas production by c. 25%.

But according to the Lib Dems (and The Guardian), the EPL hasn't had any adverse effects on the UKCS!

In the meantime, Rachel and HM Treasury are refusing to revise their analysis the effect of the EPL (and removal of the investment allowance) on the North Sea.

This is despite Industry analysis showing that it will generate nothing like the revenue proposed (estimated only $700 Million this year), will leave some $60 Billion of potential tax revenue in the ground from fields shut in prematurely (or that won't be developed) and that tax revenue will likely become net NEGATIVE around 2030, as so many Decommissioning programs are being brought forwards due to the EPL.

Of all the Countries that introduced a 'Windfall Profits Tax' after the Russian invasion of The Ukraine, the UK is still the only Govt that has it in place (never mind extending it to March 2030!) - despite the oil and gas prices being below pre-invasion prices for a couple of years.

In addition, the likelihood of a forthcoming glut means the current weak price of Oil is likely to extend well into next year;

https://jpt.spe.org/comments-is-another-oil-glut-coming-analysts-warn-of-an-uneasy-2026-ahead

Well poop - LSE lied about the number of characters left...

Final paragraphs should read;

Now, if only there were some depleted oil fields in the Solent area that could be used to store H2, instead of building a pipeline to an area that doesn’t have any demand, production or storage of H2.

Wait - there are!!!!