Member Info for ZYX098

Madit,

Presumably you can rebut all the points I raised in this post in an earlier thread then?

Or are you going to ignore it again, because you can't?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why do you keep making up rubbish and posting it as fact?

One mention of Dorset several days ago does not make it the talk of the town anywhere - never mind Parliament.

But the fantasy that you keep posting - despite all the facts showing that your claim is wrong - is that there will be Govt revenue support for this project.

There won't.

As has been stated many times over, H2 storage projects will only be funded by giving a minimum price for sales from the facility.

So the whole facility has to be designed, get all the permits & approvals, land leased, facilities built and then the caverns filled with H2 before there will be any revenue at all.

The outlay for such a facility will be at least £1 Billion - even if it's in the right place and has suitable geology which UKOG's proposed project in Dorset isn't and doesn't..

It will be much cheaper and quicker to either repurpose already existing storage caverns (of which UKOG have none) or convert a depleted Gas field - of which there are several in the Midlands and offshore in the SNS. And that doesn't include Rough, which was included after lobbying by Centrica.

So a salt cavern facility starting from scratch won't be successful in any of the early rounds.

The Ramptastic crew keep mentioning 2030 as a completion date, but any salt cavern facility starting from scratch now will not be ready by then - just drilling and leaching the caverns will take c. 5 years.

It's laughable to think that a Company with a Market Cap of £2.5 Million and unfunded financial commitments of at least £3.8 Million will be able to attract a partner for a £1 Billion project.

The cold, hard reality is that UKOG is staggering from confetti issue to confetti issue and will be forced to delist sooner rather than later.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to say that I'm waiting with baited breath for your reply.

But we all know that you won't.

Maidit,

Why do you keep making up rubbish and posting it as fact?

One mention of Dorset several days ago does not make it the talk of the town anywhere - never mind Parliament.

But the fantasy that you keep posting - despite all the facts showing that your claim is wrong - is that there will be Govt revenue support for this project.

There won't.

As has been stated many times over, H2 storage projects will only be funded by giving a minimum price for sales from the facility.

So the whole facility has to be designed, get all the permits & approvals, land leased, facilities built and then the caverns filled with H2 before there will be any revenue at all.

The outlay for such a facility will be at least £1 Billion - even if it's in the right place and has suitable geology which UKOG's proposed project in Dorset isn't and doesn't..

It will be much cheaper and quicker to either repurpose already existing storage caverns (of which UKOG have none) or convert a depleted Gas field - of which there are several in the Midlands and offshore in the SNS. And that doesn't include Rough, which was included after lobbying by Centrica.

So a salt cavern facility starting from scratch won't be successful in any of the early rounds.

The Ramptastic crew keep mentioning 2030 as a completion date, but any salt cavern facility starting from scratch now will not be ready by then - just drilling and leaching the caverns will take c. 5 years.

It's laughable to think that a Company with a Market Cap of £2.5 Million and unfunded financial commitments of at least £3.8 Million will be able to attract a partner for a £1 Billion project.

The cold, hard reality is that UKOG is staggering from confetti issue to confetti issue and will be forced to delist sooner rather than later.

1. Rapid rise on no news - tick

2. Fundamentals of the Company haven't changed - tick.

3. UKOG are running out of cash needed to keep the lights on - tick

4. Sudden appearance of known Rampers - tick.

6. Appearance of new posters who have done no research on the Company ("funding for their Carbon Capture project!") but are ramping anyway - tick

6. Spread opens up and share price starts to drop - tick

So it's a Pump & Dump.

The question is, what for?

Obviously they need more cash, as the last confetti issue (at a 42% discount to the share price) raised barely enough funding to keep the lights on beyond the end of April.

Their only source of income is their 10% Interest in Horndean, which is giving them around £850 pd Gross revenue (about half of that Nett) - not enough to cover the salary of SS, never mind the other Overheads.

They still need around £3.8 Million in the near future to P&A the Wells and restore the HH & BB sites.

However, they don't have the authority to issue more shares, as the approved volumes from the last AGM have been used up.

So does it mean that they've done this ahead of the next AGM (is that even legal?) and are confident of getting Resolutions passed - mainly thanks to their 10% block vote from the shareholders trust?

Or have they managed to secure more funds through another round of death-spiral financing?

Time will tell.

If you've made money on todays spike, then good luck to you.

But don't be fooled into thinking that this spike in the share price will remain for long - it won't.

There will either be a steady fall back over the next few days, or a sudden drop when they issue and RNS explaining their plans to raise more cash.

Yes.

You clearly have nothing better to do other than behave like a Norwegian Cave Dwelling Ogre.

Your only contribution to this board is to gratuitously insult people.

Just like you did under your last screen name.

And the one before that.

When you cross the line, I for one have no qualms about reporting that post to Admin.

You probably think you're being clever.

But you're not....

Ah, Jacknose, realising that there are posters on here who actually work in the Oil Industry and can therefore call out his fact free ramps, makes a run for the hills......

Harrun,

Nothing about your post makes sense.

UKOG isn't debt free.

In fact it's liabilities (over £3.8 Million) are more than the Companies current market value of £1.85 Million.

Where is there any statement that UKOG is 'negotiating' with the UK Energy Minister" for £800k funding?

There isn't - you made that up.

And still you ignore the Elephants in the room.

Which is a pity.

Because when facts and reality meet mindless ramping, mindless ramping always looses.

No Vernonya, you haven't.

What you have been doing in the past is posting nonsense about how H2 is too dangerous to use, despite it being used in H2 powered cars on UK roads for over a decade.

This is more of the same - pure, unadulterated rubbish.

Cutting some words from an article that's over six years old instead of posting an actual link just shows how weak the argument is.

The fact is that H2 doesn't "explode" in an engine - it burns just the same as petrol does.

Of course, that's under the heroic assumption that the design of all vehicles for H2 use is by burning in an engine.

Except it's not.

Nearly all designs are for use in a fuel cell powered vehicle, of which there are many examples that have been safely in use on the UK roads (and elsewhere) for years.

Try reading this:

https://www.world-energy.org/article/3409.html

Or this:

https://www.metrobus.co.uk/hydrogen

Or this:

https://news.st-andrews.ac.uk/archive/scottish-hydrogen-train-project-on-track-to-deliver-climate-targets/

Or this:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/car-reviews/toyota/mirai/mirai/

Or this:

https://www.hvs.co.uk/newsroom/hvs-unveils-uks-first-zero-emission-hydrogen-electric-hgv-with-class-leading-370-mile-range

And for completeness;

https://www.daf.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/alternative-fuels-and-drivelines/hydrogen

Try posting facts next time.

BF88,

Read Madit's reply very carefully - his track record of being fully truthful and accurate is non-existent.

He claims there is a compelling case for Government REVENUE support.

He's not wrong in that claim, as that's exactly how HM Govt have said they will support H2 storage - by paying a support price (similar to the offshore wind CFD model) for H2 produced from storage..

The Operator has to come up with all the funding, obtain the relevant permissions, then construct the caverns and surface facilities, fill them with H2 and then - and only then - will the project start to generate any revenue.

That's presuming that UKOG's proposal is chosen - which is extremely unlikely as it's in the wrong place and it will be much cheaper, easier and quicker to either repurpose depleted O&G fields or convert the already existing gas storage caverns.

In the meantime, UKOG have liabilities of over £3.75 Million in addition to their overheads of £200k pcm.

Those liabilities (P&A and site restoration of BB & HH) are greater than the current value of the Company.

UKOG will delist by the middle of this year.

Today GreenRoc saw two Directors subscribe to almost £10k of shares in their Company - at the full ask price.

They also paid £6k to external advisors in shares - again at the full ask price.

No UKOG Director has ever subscribed to any UKOG share placing - even when it was at 42% discount to the prevailing share price.

It's been asked many times why UKOG Directors don't take at least part of their salaries in shares to help reduce the cash flow.

But we all know why that is....

Elephant No. 1

Now that HH is shut in, UKOG's only source of income is from Horndean. UKOG's 10% share of production currently amounts to c. 13 BOPD - which doesn't come anywhere close to covering UKOG's Overheads of around £200k pcm.

Elephant No. 2

The £400k raised in late February will barely cover two months Overheads, so UKOG will need another placing just to keep the lights on by the end of April.

Elephant No. 3

In the very near future, UKOG will require c. £1.3 Million to P&A BB and restore the site.

Or just over 11 Billion shares at todays closing price.

Elephant No. 4

UKOG have conspicuously avoided saying anything about the future of HH in any RNS (even today).

UKOG do not appear to be engaging with SCC on the possibility of restarting production on HH.

Indeed, removal of the flare stack means that production cannot be restarted until it has been reinstalled.

At the rate of production decline and water cut increase, it is highly likely that HH was only just breaking even when it was shut in, so they probably don't want to restart.

UKOG will need c. £2.5 Million to P&A both Wells and restore the site.

Or almost 26 Billion shares at todays closing price.

Elephant No. 5

The last placing could only be got away at a 42% discount against the share price.

To put it in perspective, if each of UKOGs 17,288,707,666 shares were printed on A4 paper and laid out in a square, it would cover an area of 1,089,188,583 sqm.

That's a square 33 km long on each side.

Or laid end to end, the line would be 5,186,612.4 km long.

Using 80gm/sqm paper, it would weigh 87,135.1 Tonnes.

Or to put it another way, UKOG have 9% more shares in issue than BP do.

Yes, I'm bored (in the airport lounge heading home...).

You are right, it is not a matter of if, but when UKOG will come into the spotlight.

Which will be when they delist, and the Taxpayers of Surrey and West Sussex find out that they have been stuck with the bill for the P&A and site restoration for BB & HH.

Still got to fund the P&A and site restoration of BB-1, which needs about 10 Billion more shares at the current share price

And that's just to fund the P&A and site restoration of BB.

And still no answer to the question from Insidious...

BOR placing - 3% discount to retail price, 3 Directors subscribe for shares, offer is open to PI's.

UKOG placing - 42% discount to retail price, no Directors take up any shares, not open to PI's.

In fact, no UKOG Director has ever bought shares in a placing.

Called it.....

Something way wrong here.

They produced substantially more in each of the two months the field was shut in than in any other month this year?

I suspect finger trouble with entering the data - maybe combining Oil & Water together, but even so, it still doesn't look right.

As predictable as ever.

UKOG issue an RNS and the ramptastic crew try and jump on it to promote this share.

What you also need to know is that the salt development isn't that good at this potential new location either. There salt layer is relatively thin compared to Yorkshire and it has Dolomite, Limestone and Claystone layers interspersed within it - none of which are conducive to leaching out a large stable cavern.

This has been pointed out before (can't think who by....) and the information is freely available on the BGS website, if you cared to look.

https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?layer=BGSHydrocarbonWellData

Each red dot represents a Well that they have data on.

UKOG also helpfully pointed it out in their own literature – it’s on page 11 of the presentation on the UKEn website.

UKOG included the Gamma Ray Log and Lithology column which shows that, although on the Lith column they have omitted the Dolomite / Anhydrite layers that are present, but are visible on the GR.

To save you the trouble of trying to find it, here's the link;

https://ukenergystorage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/UKEn-Overview-Web-V4-050724.pdf

It was also pointed out a considerable period of time ago (can’t think who by…) that not only would sourcing the fresh water needed for leaching would be a major problem in that neck of the woods, but that the disposal of the millions of bbls of brine produced would be a major issue that needed resolving.

As ever StockCheque, you ignore that fact that the NESO 2030 Report doesn't even mention H2 storage as an option (Section 2.2, pages 22 & 23), referring only to pumped water storage and liquid air.

You are also ignoring 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.

As for the BBC article, they included a link to this handy study by the BGS; https://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.

UkOG's claim that they'd start construction in 2030 is wishful thinking. Even more wishful thinking is that it would be operational by 2032, as a cavern takes 3 - 5 years to leach out - never mind to build and commission the surface facilities and connect it to a pipeline - that doesn't exist.

With respect to the claims about leaks being dangerous – that’s nonsense. H2 is so light it very quickly disperses upwards, though it’s news to me that it’s a “powerful, indirect greenhouse gas”…

Laughable attempt at ramping.

The picture at the top of the article tells you all you need to know about the expertise (or complete lack thereof) of the Author...