Member Info for ZYX098

Grimuphere,

Navitas have already ordered the Wellheads & Xmas Trees, have a team working in IAH on the refurbishment that will be required for the already selected FPSO, have an extensive technical team working on SL in London and are advertising more positions for SL Staff.

So where is your evidence?

MD,

Since you are lurking on this board today, don't you have any response to my queries?

Or are you indeed just throwing out random statements without any basis in fact?

R1234 / pauldrayton,

Isn't the plan to redeploy the 1st FPSO to the Southern lobe of Sea Lion, so there would be 2 FPSO's operating at the same time?

Having two FPSO's up and running on Sea Lion is certainly possible by 2030, but only if they go for FID for the next phase early next year and the 3rd phase in late 2027 / early 2028.

Whether or not they'll commit to FID for the next phase before 1st Oil is an interesting question as to how confident they are about the fields production performance and also getting funding for the 2nd phase.

I suspect that they'll only do that if they get someone else to farm into the project.

I don't see them committing to the 3rd phase until at least six months after 1st oil, so the earliest I see that particular FID is mid 2028.

As for an FPSO being on Darwin East by 2030?

As a BOR shareholder, I'd love that - but realistically I just don't see it happening.

Nobody would commit to a development without drilling at least one appraisal Well and testing it - especially since the discovery Well was not tested.

BOR don't have the cash, so even drilling an appraisal is beyond them unless they can farm out a large % of the block.

There is no time frame for an appraisal Well on the horizon, and the Navitas Rig (even if it's capable of drilling Darwin) would be fully utilised drilling and completing the SL Phase 1 Wells.

So no Darwin appraisal until at the very least 2027 (in any case the casing and Wellhead needed are a year lead time ex-works from receipt of order), then the time needed for analysis of the results, putting together a development plan, getting the approvals, FID etc etc - I don't see any BOR FPSO happening until 2033 at the absolute earliest.

MD,

I've noticed over the last few days that you claim to be only interested in the different performance of RKH & BOR share prices - and have cherry picked your start and end dates to promote BOR as having done better.

Yet when I made a post musing on the Rig that might be used on Sea Lion, you immediately demand to know where RKH's funding is coming from for SL (despite it being public knowledge) and for "Isobel".

When challenged about what you meant by "Isobel", you refused to answer.

Unsurprising considering Navitas or RKH have made no announcement as Isobel even being on the schedule for an Appraisal Well.

And now - without providing any evidence - you are claiming that SL 1st oil won't be until 2029 or 2030.

Would you care to provide the evidence you are basing your claim on?

Or are you just throwing out random statements?

MD,

What is your agenda?

I make a post musing on the type of Rig that could end up in the FI and you use that to demand I tell you about RKH funding?

I suppose that I could TROLL through the various Annual Reports, RNS's and presentations (which are all a matter of public record) to come up with the SL funding methodology and figures for you.

But if you can't be bothered to DYOR, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

As for Isobel, even if I wanted to answer, I couldn't, as your question needs further clarification.

Do you mean an appraisal Well on Isobel?

Or an exploration Well on Isobel Deep?

Or a combined Well on both?

Do you mean if it's drilled as an add-on to the SL Rigs program?

Or if a separate Rig is mobilised?

Or are you asking about a potential development which is years away and nobody knows what it would look like, presuming the Appraisal Well(s) show economic reserves?

Logic is required, but the logic behind your line of questioning escapes me.

LTT,

I aim to please - but frequently miss!

Don't forget that Navitas will need to drill the remaining producers, the 3 water injectors and a gas disposal Well (which needs to be drilled before production can begin) to ensure optimum development, so that's 500+ rig days of work before it could be released for anything else.

So I wouldn't see any potential for a Borders (or Isobel Deep) Well until the back end of 2029 at the earliest.

MD,

I don't see the relevance to RKH of the section of my post you copied?

Surely you are aware that RKH are essentially being mostly funded by a loan from Navitas and also will have at least some cash from OM?

As for drilling an appraisal on Isobel Deep, I merely pointed out that the Rig that will be mobilised for the SL development will also be capable of drilling Isobel Deep.

As Navitas will be entirely focused on getting enough Wells drilled and completed for immediate production once the FPSO is up and running, they won't be even thinking about drilling a Well on Isobel Deep until after 1st Oil.

Your last sentence is irrelevant to this discussion.

I have shares in RKH and am well aware of their % of SL and that they owe FIG cash.

Since I also have shares in BOR, I am well aware that they currently have 100% of Darwin and that they don't have the financial capacity to do anything with it.

Pauldrayton,

Yes, Navitas announcing Sea Lion FID (which I suspect will be September / October) doesn't directly affect BOR, but it does have a tangential effect.

This is because it will make it a lot easier and somewhat cheaper for BOR (or whoever ends up with the Operatorship) to do a development.

Nothing to do with the offshore side of things, but it does mean that they'll have the Navitas playbook to follow w.r.t. the process of getting approval from the FIG - always easier being No. 2 instead of No. 1.

The FIG will also be more confident, as they will have (rightly) been very cautious in approving SL, as they have had no real previous experience of dealing with a development project and have had the (bad) experience of dealing with PMO.

Infrastructure wise, SL FID will be greatly beneficial to BOR, because Navitas will have built the dock, supply base, accommodation and heliport facilities required, and will be looking to share to offset the operating costs with someone else.

So I think BOR will see a bump on the announcement of SL FID, but beyond that nothing will happen for at least three years, so the bump will be followed by a long, slow decline - unless they can get someone on the hook to take over.

LTT,

Your logic is correct in that Sea Lion can be developed with a 4th Gen Rig spec, but I suspect they'll end up with a 5th or 6th Gen Rig anyway.

There aren't that many 4th Gen Rigs left that can still operate under UKCS Legislation and although they'll have had their topsides upgraded, they'll still be sitting on the original hull.

And that will be a concern, as once it goes down there the Rig could potentially spend a decade in that area (with no nearby shipyards for repairs), which has been likened to the NNS in fatigue life.

I also think that the drilling contractors will be looking at the long term - there are very few projects around with this potential longevity where the option to change out a Rig would be so costly - so they would be willing to drop their rates for a chance of a solid revenue generation for 5+ years.

That means Navitas could end up with a Rig that can drill for B&S, as there are quite a few that have dual anchored / DP capability and virtually all 5th / 6th Gen Rigs have 15k BOP Stacks anyway these days.

But if they did, it would be by coincidence and not design.

I don't see any chance of a rig share between Navitas and B&S for several years, and even then it would be predicated on B&S either being bought out completely or at least giving up the great majority of their % for a carry (and likely Operatorship), as they simply don't have the cash.

I'll be surprised if Navitas don't mobilse a 2nd Rig in the long term, but I think that would be after 1st oil from SL as they'd want comfort that the Wells will perform as advertised.

Incidentally, any Rig that Navitas send down will be capable of drilling Isobel Deep - it's higher pressure than SL, but not high pressure as such.

TH2,

Laughable.

Actually, I'd go as far as saying that you are utterly deluded - but you are clearly only posting such inane rubbish to try and make back some of your massive losses on this share in the unlikely event that UKOG doesn't delist.

Still peddling the fantasy that you don't read what the Realists post.

Still peddling the fantasy of "Government Links" and ignoring that UKOG /UKEn don't have any.

Still ignoring the reality that the Realists (some of us who actually work in the Oil Industry) have been far more accurate in forecasting what would happen than you have with your mindless, fact free ramps.

You don't even know the difference between an Annual Report (which the failure to produce on time is why UKOG are suspended) and an audit report.

Would you care to list all the assets of UKOG, with their value?

Of course you won't, because a (unsigned) lease on a field (the grass kind, not the oil kind) in Dorset is in fact worth nothing, not £ Billions.

TH2,

Your naked desperation is showing through again.

Where is her report "excessively biased"?

She's obviously biased against us (i.e. those of us who actually work in the Oil Industry), but in this case she's just quoting from Albas own Annual Report.

If UKOG were taking the "legal amendment route", then they'd have said so. BU their silence on, well, everything, is deafening.

BTW, exactly what "legal amendment" route are they taking?

Would you care to elaborate in detail?

Or will you ignore that question, because - as usual - it's just a baseless claim that you have made up.

There are no Hydrogen assets to include in the annual report - a lease (as yet unsigned) on an empty field in Dorset is worth nothing.

In the meantime, you - as always - ignore the very real liabilities that UKOG have coming at them in the shape of the decommissioning of both BB and HH - which will cost around £3.8 Million.

You are obviously ignoring the notice that has been served on UKOG by WSCC to get going on the BB work.

That's £3.8 Million that they don't have.

Remember, their only source of income is Horndean, and that doesn't even come close to paying SS's wages.

I suppose next you'll be claiming DL will be coming to the rescue by funding HH-3.

Oh, wait......

In their RNS (https://investing.thisismoney.co.uk/rns/news/35054821) on their final results, Alba have this to say about HH:

##############################################################

Horse Hill Oil Project, England

Early in the year Horse Hill Developments Limited, in which Alba holds an 18.1% shareholding interest, made a partial repayment of shareholder loans, with Alba receiving £103,000.

However, in June 2024 the Supreme Court withdrew planning permission for extraction at the Horse Hill site pending additional environmental permissions. In October 2024, production was suspended.

As a result of this, the Company has impaired the value of its investment in the project from £2,497,000 to £150,000.

Although there is no doubt that there is significant oil-in-place and value to be extracted, given the current uncertainties and in the absence of further news management has determined that impairment is the prudent course of action. In the event of approval of a revised planning application and production recommencing, some of this impairment could be reversed in future years.

#############################################################

So Alba have effectively written off HH and, so far, they've had no communication from UKOG about what UKOG's plans are for HH.

If I was an 18.1% partner in a producing oilfield that was shut in, was owed money and after eight months had had no communication from the Operator about their future plans for the field, livid would be an understatement for my mood.

West Sussex CC have served notice on UKOG to P&A BB-1 and I have no doubt that SurreyCC will do the same for HH very shortly, so the writing is on the wall in big block capital letters for UKOG.

If I was WSCC or SCC, I'd be looking for legal ways they can seize UKOG's assets in Horndean and Avington to sell off and at least partially pay for the Decommissioning of BB & HH.

Ocelot,

I'm afraid that you are not correct.

The markets usually do not take Decom liabilities into account, as it's generally accepted that the Companies ongoing production from that field will cover it, so it's cost neutral.

If they did take into account liabilities, then they'd look at what's included in the annual accounts, as that covers not just HH & BB, but also UKOG's share of non-Operated decom liabilities, such as Horndean & Avington.

These liabilities are supposed to be accurately carried in the annual accounts, but UKOG have - criminally in my mind - grossly underestimated these. IIRC, I think in total they only carried £1 Million in the last set.

Yes, HH will cost more to Decom (I estimated c. £2.5 Million) as there are 2 Wells to P&A and all the surface gear to get rid of before they can restore the site.

I can tell you what will happen next at HH.

If UKOG thought it was still a valuable asset, they'd be hammering at the doors of SCC to resubmit or amend the Planning Permission, so they could restart production as soon as possible.

Instead of which - as per the last SCC meeting - they haven't engaged with SCC at all.

We know that the decline in production combined with the increasing water cut had made HH barely viable before they were forced to shut it in.

We also know that they have removed the flare stack and cannot restart production without replacing it.

These facts all scream of an Operator that thinks it's not economical to restart production.

It is beyond reproach to use your logic to claim it means that the market values UKEn at £2.7 Million.

A lease on a field in Dorset (which they haven't confirmed has been signed) and some paper studies on a project that UKOG have zero chance of going ahead with, will be valued at precisely £0.

Mirasol,

The situation w.r.t Offshore Abandonment liabilities is completely different to that Onshore.

Offshore the licence regime was set up right from the start such that there was no possibility of a Company walking away from it's Decommissioning labilities.

During Production, additional taxes (ring fenced for each field) are paid to HM Govt which are earmarked for Decommissioning.

When it comes to actually decommission the field, the Operator then applies for the taxes to be rebated back to them to do the work.

Unfortunately some deliberately (Yes, I'm looking at you, The Guardian...) mislead the Public and call those payments tax subsidies.

They are not - it's basically repayment of a decades long loan to HM Govt.

That is why you sometimes see the claim that Shell didn't pay any taxes during a couple of years, but received $Millions in tax 'subsidies' instead.

That claim is utterly wrong (as are most things The f***ing Guardian writes about the Oil Industry - which is why we utterly despise it.), as it was during the time when the Brent Field was being decommissioned.

Up until the mid 2010's, the Decom fund for a field was reset to zero if it changed Operator. The new Operator had to restart contributions and the Govt retained the cash that had already been paid by the previous Operator,

So, for example, when Apache took over the Forties complex from BP, they had to start the fund again from scratch and all the money that BP had already paid into the fund since the 1970's (when it was paying 98% tax on production....) was kept by HM Govt.

Note that when there is excess cash left over in the fund after Decom work has finished, that is not returned to the Operator - it is also kept by HM Govt....

Now, what has happened (and will cause issues in the future) is that all Govts have treated this Decom cash as a cash cow, so the money went into the general budget and was spent.

Now that many North Sea fields are coming to the end of their lives, the Operators will be calling forwards their tax rebates, which will have to come out of the general budget.

I've read a couple of industry studies that forecast that North Sea revenue will actually become nett negative around 2030, if the current tax regime is not changed.

This is because the 78% tax take (30% RFCT, 10% SC & 38% 'windfall' tax) has brought forward the date where many fields become uneconomic and therefore when they need to be Decommissioned.

Forties is a classic example - the 'windfall' tax regime has forced Apache to pull forward the shut down of the field by around a decade.

BTW, production taxes are 'ring-fenced', so they cannot be offset against losses or expenditure elsewhere in the organisation, which is why Harbour Energy paid an effective tax rate of 108% last year...

Oh, the NSTA has an ongoing responsibility to regularly monitor that financial health of all offshore Operators as well.

Ocelot,

UKOG left a real mess downhole when they left BB, so to sort that out and properly P&A the Well to the standards required by OEUK (formerly O&GUK) Well Decommissioning Guidelines Issue 7 of November 2022, plus restore the site will cost around £1.3 Million.

UKOG cannot restart HH production until they have reached agreement with, and resubmitted their application to, Surrey CC - yet at the last SCC meeting, it was stated that UKOG had yet to engage with the Council.

We know that UKOG have removed the flare stack from the HH location, so production cannot recommence until that has been replaced.

If you claim that the P&A liability of BB should be added to the Market Cap, then by your logic, the c. £2.5 Million liability for HH should also be added in?

That's....not logical....

Besides, the funds raised from the last confetti issue will run out around the end of this month.

There is no potential for a 'massive re-rate', unless you mean down to zero, as I seriously doubt that UKOG shares will come out of suspension.

If I was SCC or WSCC, I'd be putting a lien on UKOG's asset at Horndean as collateral - it's really the only thing they have that is worth anything.

I'd also be requesting a freeze on all outgoings from UKOG's Bank Accounts (including their subsidiaries), so that SS can't continue to bleed the Company dry.

Incidentally, the reason WSCC put a notice on the landowner as well as UKOG is that, under the legislation that governs mineral extraction Onshore the UK, the landowner is responsible should the Operator fail in their duty to decommission the works properly.

However, this was originally designed to cover open cast mines so the NSTA and HM Govt have both effectively stated that that will not happen in the case of Onshore Oil Fields, as the landowner (nearly always a Farmer) is very unlikely to have been informed that it would fall under their responsibility and equally that they would lack the funds and technical expertise required to do so.

TH2 still proving that us Realists live rent free in his head.

It must be so dispiriting for him to have the giant holes his fact & logic free posts so clearly pointed out.

Like salt cavity storage caverns are leached out from salt (the clue is in the name..), not Limestone.

Or that the disastrous CPR for Loxley showed zero in the way of proven reserves, despite the inventive mapping and flat out wrong interpretation of the Alford E-Logs by UKOG.

Or that the original Dorset site had unsuitable Geology for leaching out salt caverns (which UKOG finally admitted when they changed location), and that their replacement location isn't much better.

But then again, since at least three of us Realists actually work in the Oil Industry, it's ridiculously easy for us to do.

Which is why our success rate in predicting what UKOG are doing is over 90%.

While TH 2's success rate is, well, 0%.

And yes, I do have gas central heating.

But I don't have an old Diesel truck.

It's a petrol powered car - all 400+hp.

Bought with the proceeds of my job.

Which is running Drilling Rigs....

Ah-ha!

Another member of the ramptastic crew returns under a different name...

"On April 15, 2025, Ofgem approved the TM04+ reform package, aiming to streamline the electricity grid connection process. Key aspects include: 

• Eliminating “zombie” projects: Projects lacking viability, such as those without land rights or financing, will be removed from the queue. "

So by that definition, UKOG's "project" in Dorset will disappear, as it doesn't have land rights and certainly doesn't have financing.

Actually, the little cash they manged to raise in the last confetti issue should run out by the end of this month....

Adrian;

I recall in mid-March that you said you were going to disappear for the Summer.

So why didn't you?

TH2, you really have no shame, no morals and no integrity, do you?

Total rubbish from you yet again.

So glad I didn't consign you back to the land of the green boxes after all - your naked desperation and outright lies are quite amusing.

TH2 doesn't even understand the considerable difference between salt (which can easily be leached out) and Limestone (which can't).

He then claims that these "Limestone" caverns "is BY FAR the most efficient and large enough option, and the cheapest to implement according to several government reports!!!!!!!! .....NOTE GOVERNMENT REPORTS!!!!! "

Now, you'd think with all the capitals and exclamation marks, he'd be able to post links to these Govt Reports.

Except he can't - because they don't.

Just the same as he makes various claims that funding is coming from the "Crown Wealth Fund" or the "Crown Fund" - neither of which exist....

His "must deliver by 2030!" is even funnier - clearly forgetting that UKOG state they wouldn't start construction until 2030 - see their RNS of the 27th January.

As ever, he ignores that fact that the NESO 2030 Report (the Bible which Mad Ed is worshiping) doesn't even mention H2 storage as an option (Section 2.2, pages 22 & 23), referring only to pumped water storage and liquid air.

www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

He also ignores that the NESO 2030 report mentions Hydrogen Storage just once - on page 29 - and to quote "However, large-scale hydrogen storage appears unlikely before 2030."

If they do decide to fast track H2 storage, then it will be YEARS quicker (and cheaper) to convert depleted gas fields and the salt cavities currently being used to store gas - both of which are already readily available in the NE - than to leach out new cavities.

BTW, you could also try reading this handy study by the BGS;

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X22011100?via%3Dihub

Which, to paraphrase, points out that the salt in Dorset isn’t as well understood as elsewhere and has never been used to store gas.

Another outright fabrication by TH2:

"Priority will be given to the generation and storage projects that are most viable and that will help us reach clean power by 2030".  That's UKOG in South Dorset....to be backed by crown money!"

No, it's in the NE, which is why the projects listed in HAR 2 are concentrated there.

And NOBODY in Govt has EVER said that UKOG will be backed by any Govt money, never mind money from a fund that doesn't exist....

"over 100 small earthquakes"??????

No, there was nowhere near that many.

The Earthquakes caused "injury and damage to property"??????

No they didn't.

www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/publications/annual_reports/2019_30th_annual_report.pdf

About as accurate as the sort of nonsense that TH 2 comes up with.