Member Info for ZYX098

This will follow the usual UKOG play - a 'good news' RNS followed by a placing RNS.

The increase in production is indeed welcome and shows what a competent Operator can do to re-energise an under-performing field - exactly the sort of exercise UKOG should have undertaken on HH instead of swanning off to Türkiye.

But the lack of any comments in the RNS on HH speaks volumes - as does the dip in share price.

The news that they have removed the fare stack from HH means that no more production is possible until it's reinstalled.

There's no reason to remove it to reduce rental costs, as UKOG bought all the surface equipment several years ago.

Did they remove the flare stack to refurbish it? No - the only refurb / maintenance a production flare stack needs is to occasionally replace the burner tips and/or head, both of which can easily be done on site.

Are they going to replace it with a smaller flare stack? I don't see why - the current one was doing the job it was supposed to do, so why spend cash they don't have to change it out?

So it looks like they are indeed going to P&A the HH Wells and reinstate the site - for which they will need around £3 Million.

They need around £1.3 Million to P&A and restore the BB Wellsite.

Their financials show that they would have been out of cash to 'keep the lights on' by the end of March, even if HH hadn't been shut in.

Are they going to get any Govt funding for their H2 storage projects?

No. That's not how HM Govt is going to finance any H2 projects and in any case, the funds (from the Govt or the "Institutional Investor" that we've been waiting years for) would be ring fenced for UKEn and not available to UKOG.

So big confetti release incoming.

Ohh, copy and paste!

How original - not.

Besides, I answered the question.

Why don't you?

Ah-ha!

The Norwegian Cave Dweller finally shows his head here!

But Insidious, yet again you're avoiding the question.

Instead of which you have resorted to Ramptastic Crew Tactic No. 2 - deflection.

So why haven't you answered the question?

Obviously still afraid to show your complete lack of knowledge of the Oil Industry in general, and UKOG in particular?

I've never claimed to be the "worlds Oil Industry expert" (just shows how deeply I'm living rent free in your head), although I do know way more than any of the Ramptastic crew, as I actually run Drilling Rigs for a living.

But clearly I'm not wasting my time either.

Because it obviously really upsets the likes of yourself & Madit etc that you can't post invented ramptastic rubbish on here, without the giant holes in your fact free ramps being called out.

And since even you have enough brain cells to to realise that, why are you wasting your time here?

Well, Insidious?

I see that you have awakened and ventured out of your Norwegian Cave again, so are you going to answer the question?

Or still try and ignore it, in the forlorn hope that it will go away, so you won't have to show your complete lack of knowledge of UKOG and the Oil Industry?

You see, that's the good thing about not bothering to filter anyone.

You get to see when the usual suspects are around and posting their fact-free fantasies.

As a reminder, the question is "What is your prediction for UKOG's share price will be on the 1st July this year?".

It's a simple question, so go on - tell us what you think it will be and why?

Proper reasoning now, not just some vague assertion that "good news is coming".

I find it odd that some people think that because you own shares in a particular company, then you are obligated to post on their message board.

Why?

Not all boards - especially non-AIM shares - are festooned with people posting fact & logic free theories, trying to get the share price to move for their own personal gain.

Anyway, in most cases there are more than enough people on those boards to call out those trying to suck in unwary PI's.

In some cases, even if we wanted to, some of us can't post on the boards of some Companies because we are still bound by NDA's.

Or - thanks to my current contract - not only because I am bound by an NDA, but I can't post on four Company boards because I have access to inside information, and would potentially be open to prosecution if I did post it.

But since I am still a shareholder in UKOG, I have no qualms in calling out the fantasies of the Ramptastic crew on here and will continue to do so.

Maybe Insidious is trying to show he's smarter than everyone else?

In which case it's an epic fail on his part.

And yet again he spams the board with cheap insults, but ignores this question.

Because he has no idea what he is talking about, so avoids the awkward questions that he can't answer...

Ahhh, Insidious.

Just can't stay away, can you?

Posting yet another meaningless ramp, populated with Emojis to show......what, I wonder?

That you have levelled up to "12 yr old child" now?

But still you ignore this question.

Because you know that you don't have the knowledge, training or experience to answer it.

Yet despite your complete lack of credibility, you still persist in spamming this board with your fantasy ramps.

Why is that, I wonder?

A deep psychological need for any sort of attention you can get?

How sad.

Hmmmm.

In that case they could be producing the tubing volume every couple of days to keep the temperature up and stop wax forming, as otherwise there is no need to cycle out the old fluids in the Well and surface facilities.

Again, an RNS would be nice...

Very odd considering they are showing no water production (cue conspiracy theories about a magical work-over from the Ramptastic crew...).

Would be nice if UKOG issued an RNS advising what was actually going on with their only major asset.....

Yes, as the Judge in Edinburgh has applied the Supreme Court decision retrospectively to Jackdaw and Rosebank, it also means that all Oil & Gas production in the UK is, technically, currently illegal.

The only way to get a SC decision rescinded is by HM Govt passing legislation in Parliament.

Since Mad Ed wouldn't even defend the case in Edinburgh, the chances of that happening are zero.

With respect to the original SC case against Surrey CC (remember, it actually wasn't against UKOG), in cases such as these where it is subsequently decided that any industrial facility is operating illegally (and especially through no fault of the Operator of that facility), then the Operator is given time to comply with the new legislation - which can be several years.

The Eco-warriors claims that HH should be decommissioned immediately and that all profits be essentially confiscated are farcical.

But then again, so was their case in the first place.

This case shows beyond doubt that it's now the Lawyers that run the Country, not Govt.

Unlike in the US (which the SC is modelled on - thanks, Tony Blair...), the Politicians have absolutely no say in who gets appointed to the SC.

The procedure is that Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the King, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to whom a name is recommended by a special selection commission.

The Prime Minister is required by the Constitutional Reform Act to recommend this name to the King and is NOT permitted to nominate anyone else.

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

And again you ignore the question Insidious.

And again, we all know why.

Instead, in another thread you resort to your age old cheap insult of claiming that someone (who helps keep your lights on) doesn't work in the Oil Industry.

If you think that, why don't you point out where Ninetails' descriptions of doing maintenance work on a Production Platform are wrong?

How did he know why Apache's decision means the shut down of Forties, when even the BBC's reporting on that catastrophic decision (which wasn't -as it should have been - on the front page or even in the business section, but buried in the Scottish section of their website) didn't mention which fields would be Abandoned as a result?

The reality is that you are a pathetic individual who has lost a significant amount of money on UKOG shares.

So all you can do is resort to name calling those of us who have the temerity to call out your fact & logic free ramps, as you desperately try and recoup some of your losses.

So you are back again, Insidious.

But yet again you ignore this question.

We all know why, but why don't you give it a go?

We'd all be fascinated to see your reasoning......

I would hope so, Ocelot.

But so far they - and Mad Ed in particular - appear to be immune to factual arguments based on logic when it comes to our Energy production, right from the Wellhead to the power into your home.

What seems to have escaped the attention of pretty much everyone is that the original approval was given lawfully, when Scope 3 emissions didn't have to be taken into account.

What has changed is the moronic Supreme Court ruling has moved the goalposts.

What is even worse, is that the Judge is applying the SC decision retrospectively.

By that logic, every single bit of Oil & Gas being produced in the UK is now being produced illegally.

It also means that if the developments are halted altogether, the Operators can sue the Govt not only for the costs incurred so far, but also the loss of revenue from the development of the field itself - they will still have to pay the loans from the Banks, for example.

Unfortunately the only way to get a ruling by the SC overturned is for the Govt to bring forward legislation - something which this Govt will not do in this case as Mad Ed wouldn't even defend the case in the first place.

The UK is virtually the only Country in the World that applies Scope 3 emissions - even the Norwegian Courts threw out an attempt to get Scope 3 emissions taken into account.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/norway-court-rejects-environmental-injunction-against-oil-gas-fields-2024-10-14/

But it does allow HM Govt to claim that Drax emits no CO2 by burning wood pellets, as the Country where the wood pellets were sourced from should take into account the CO2 emissions from burning - except they don't...

The article is so poorly written it even says that 'Blue' hydrogen releases large quantities of CO2 in the area.

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

Most hydrogen in the UK is described as “Blue Hydrogen”.

This mean that is controversially extracted from fossil fuels, release large levels of carbon dioxide in the area.

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

Apart from the appalling level of English shown, it's wrong.

To be classified as 'Blue' hydrogen, the CO2 produced during the process must be captured and/or used by CCUS.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/

If anyone wants to check up on the Well data in the area, it's freely available on the BGS website here;

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

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

By clicking on the dot and then 'view details', you can see what data they have for that particular Well and even download it if you wish.

For many Wells, they have multiple data sets received over time, so you might see, for example, "Record 1 of 4" at the top of the Well name screen - just click through each record and then 'view details' again.

It was using this data set that enabled someone (can't think who.....) several months ago to point out that the salt development at Portland wasn't good enough for use as salt cavity storage, as it wasn't clean enough.

The salt development actually isn't that good West of Weymouth either - which is obviously why they've gone for 24 small caverns rather than fewer large (i.e. cheaper to develop) caverns in their design.

The salt layer isn't that big and in all the Wells I looked at, it's not that clean either, with layers of Dolomite / Limestone / Claystone interspersed within the salt - all of which are not conducive to leaching out a stable cavern.

But all rather irrelevant, since UKOG will have folded long before then.

Sadly, Ninetails is correct.

And the job losses will extend to the onshore support staff and industries as well.

What is worse is that the shut down of the Forties pipeline will have a knock-on effect of forcing other fields to close early.

It will also result in stranded assets, as fields that haven't yet been developed but are too small to justify their own pipeline / FPSO, will remain undeveloped - so that tax revenue for HM Govt is lost.

I've seen Industry reports that estimate the lost tax revenue because of this at £20 Billion - £60 Billion.

Furthermore, this ruinous tax regime also means that the decommissioning programs for many fields will be brought forwards - some by up to ten years.

As a result, the Decommissioning Funds that the Govt needs to repay (a tax rebate in the way of repayment of additional tax revenues obtained throughout the life of the field - in effect a giant, decades long interest free loan to the Govt by the Oil Companies) will be brought forwards to the extent that there is a distinct possibility that the UKCS will be Net Negative in tax revenue by 2030.

One would hope that Mad Ed Miliband and Rachel from Customer Services would see sense - but I highly doubt it with his zealotry and her lack of competence.

Ocelot,

You'd think HM Govt would be doing just that, given the magnitude of capacity constraint payments forecast in the NESO 2030 report.

But so far this Govt appear to have a distinct lack of financial acumen at their core, despite several of the Ministers having Degrees in Economics, so should know what they are doing.

I can only think it's like someone with a PHD in Aeronautical Engineering - they can go into great details about an aircrafts systems and the physics behind why it flies - but you wouldn't want one as a Pilot.

Unfortunately HM Govts decision to delay the round by six months would seem to indicate it's not a high priority.

In fact 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.

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

Yes, that's why I said the HSE will probably co-opt people from the NSTA to help out in those situations.

Otherwise it'll be a combination of the HSE and the local Council.

Remember, H2 stored in caverns can't go bang - no ignition source and no O2.

If there is an H2 leak in the surface plant, it is so light it immediately disperses upwards - no chance of it gathering in a cloud at ground level to be ignited later.

At least some Politicians in the last Govt recognised that.

If any MP didn't know already, then they simply haven't been paying attention to what is going on in their own Constituencies, or how the Court system is being clogged up by Activists taking futile protests all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Unless it's a planning application that their Constituents don't like, in which case they are at the front line of protests - even if their job title says otherwise (Yes, J. Hunt - I'm looking at you...).