Member Info for ZYX098

Sam,

If you'd read my reply on the previous thread, you'd know that there is no upfront Govt funding for Hydrogen storage.

The funding model is that the storage companies recoup their investment from Hydrogen sales AFTER the facilities have been converted (or built) and charged with Hydrogen.

So to claim "once the contract for hydrogen storage is signed with the government that’s when the government funding starts" is completely wrong.

Equally, if you'd read my reply you'd know that UKOG have zero chance of being awarded a contract in the first allocation round.

In any case, UKOG will be long gone (either declared bankrupt or delisted) by the time of the first allocation round awards.

Sam,

That letter is just a boiler-plate reply and in reality means nothing.

The model being used by HM Govt is to essentially pay a price for H2 production from storage - they will not provide any funding up front.

There are also specific criteria that any application needs to fill before the Govt will accept it for the first award round - which has been delayed until Q4 2025 at the earliest by the looks of things.

These criteria include having funding in place and a pipeline connection - neither of which UKOG have or are likely to get.

Don't forget that it will take c. £1 Billion (and c. 5 years) to build a salt cavity storage system from scratch - and then you'll have to pay for the H2 to charge them before you can even start generating revenue by selling.

No investor will provide £1 Billion in funding to a Company that has been a serial failure and basically spent £100 Million with almost nothing to show for it.

HM Govt have stated they will only make two awards in the first allocation round and there are several projects ahead of UKOG in the queue - either because they already have salt storage caverns available (currently being used for gas storage) or depleted gas fields which Centrica lobbied the Govt to approve for submission (i.e. Rough).

In that respect, claims that a contract will be signed for any UKOG facility are based on #hopium and nothing else.

In the meantime, UKOG have a cash outflow of c. £250k per month and not enough revenue to even come close to covering that.

Their only main asset is Horse Hill, which is currently shut in (still not RNS'd by UKOG) with no indication as to when (or even if) it will start up again.

Even before HH was shut in, oil production was steadily declining and water production increasing, such that it may not be covering it's operating costs.

Irrespective, they have the P&A and site restoration liability for BB to fund, which WSCC will be putting great pressure on them to get on with, as it's long overdue. My estimate is that that will be c. 1.3 Million and that is cash that UKOG simply do not have.

Despite what UKOG said, their last confetti issue was essentially just to raise enough funds to keep the lights on until around March 2025, so they will need to issue at least another 5 Billion shares just to cover the BB liabilities.

There are also cost penalties to pay for commitment Wells not drilled in Türkiye, plus any outstanding cash calls for the analysis of the Pin-1 results and site restoration. These costs are relatively small - but again it's cash that UKOG simply don't have.

The reality is that UKOG are close to being insolvent and now only exist for the BoD to continue to extract as much money as they can before it folds.

Ohhh, copy and paste share trades!

I can play that game too!

18-Dec-24 10:28:23 0.022 3,000,000 Sell* 0.022 0.0225 660.00

18-Dec-24 10:28:10 0.022 5,000,000 Sell* 0.022 0.0225 1,100

18-Dec-24 10:25:07 0.022 10,000,000 Sell* 0.022 0.0225 2,200

Ah yes, the usual Ramptastic crew playbook.

Insidious, lacking any facts to back up his assertions (no change there then...), resorts to a cheap insult.

I suppose we should be grateful he's stopped his 2p/5p spamming, although I doubt he likes to be reminded that he used to do that.

BTW Insidious, if you knew anything about the Oil Industry (and you clearly don't), then you'd know that Ninetails works on a Production Platform.

He will be spending either Xmas or New Year offshore, away from his family, so he can help ensure that the flow of gas & oil is not interrupted.

Thus allowing people like you to have a good holiday and make uninformed comments on social media.

UKOG will be long gone by the time HM Govt gets around to giving out any funds for H2 storage.

They'll be lucky to last into Q2 2025 with the BB liabilities hanging over their head, never mind HH and the penalty payments (plus overhanging cash calls) in Türkiye.

Assertions that some institutional investor will come to the rescue are complete fantasy, as UKOG has no assets worth taking over.

Of course, the Ramptastic crew like to post about UKOG's salt caverns - except UKOG don't have any salt caverns and nor do they have the ability to raise the £1+ Billion that would be needed to build such a facility from scratch.

But if anyone doubts that H2 fuelled vehicles are the future over pure EV's, then read this - it's why H2 will be the powertrain of choice in Africa, Asia, The Americas, Australasia and - ultimately - Europe once the powers that be realise (wayyyyyy too late, of course) that battery EV's are a niche market.

https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Article/3961844/erdcs-h2rescue-truck-drives-into-guinness-world-records-books/

This is a good site for seeing how well (or badly...) PV and Wind are doing at providing our electrical supply.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

Got to love it when the Rampers seize on any particular share trade and claim it's a 'signal' between MM's that positive news is coming soon.

Like the "1" trade was a signal - on many occasions.

Or the "11111" trade was a signal.

But all these 'signals' ultimately have one thing in common - nothing happens except the continued slow, steady decline in the share price.

Ian12,

You say you are not bothered, yet every time you come on this board, you criticise those who have the temerity to point out the giant holes in whatever fantasies the Rampers are pushing this week?

So why do those of us who actually work in the oil industry bother to point out those giant holes, using our knowledge, training and experience?

It's called integrity.

Or would you prefer that some crooked rampers make money off the unwary PI's because they are going unchallenged over their fantasy predictions?

If you think that the Realists are wrong, ask yourself how often do the likes of Madit / StockCheque / Sharebel / Insidious etc actually respond to the points we raise?

They don't - they either ignore the posts, try and deflect attention elsewhere, or just resort to cheap insults.

A Troll calling another Troll a Troll.

Oh the irony......

Ian12

So your definition of a Troll is someone who makes posts based on facts, logic, experience and knowledge, and who are more accurate than the Rampers?

Unusual definition, but whatever floats your boat.....

Ocelot,

You keep posting that as if it is meaningful to UKOG.

But it's not.

It's all about Centrica trying to get Govt funding to convert Rough to H2 storage.

The rest of the meeting's aims and participants is effectively just window dressing - it's clearly stated as being "Open early engagement" and the end date of the consultation is also clearly stated as 31 August 2025.

Nothing concrete will come out of this initial meeting.

"To enable this in the near term, hydrogen storage at scale will be required ".

By far the quickest way of enabling H2 to be stored in volume is to repurpose depleted gas fields (onshore and offshore) or those salt cavity storage caverns currently used for gas.

All UKOG have is a field with no planning permissions, infrastructure or funding.

Even presuming UKOG can somehow find funding for £1 Billion for such a project, they'd still be around a decade away from any such facility being constructed, commissioned and charged with H2.

UKOG won't even last ten months, never mind 10 years.

In the meantime, I'll remind you of the 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.

I'll also remind you of the fact that the NESO 2030 report mentions Hydrogen Storage just once - on page 29 - and to quote the report; "However, large-scale hydrogen storage appears unlikely before 2030."

StockCheque,

We all know that you Trolls are here just to post misinformation, so why do you still do it?

While much of what you said this time is actually correct (for a change), you are still talking rubbish on certain key points to do with Hydrogen - not surprising considering your desperation to hype UKOG.

The only way to achieve a clean grid is indeed to get the energy storage in place BEFORE the substantial increase in renewable energy.

Everyone and his Dog and his Dogs Fleas can see that, but not HM Govt as their plans are currently the exact opposite.

Even the NESO Report admits this, as it forecasts that Grid Capacity constraint payments to wind farms will increase from c. £1.6 Billion last year to c. £4.2 Billion in 2030 (page 34) or possibly as much as £10.9 Billion (page 36) - all of which is just wasted taxpayer money.

Battery storage is indeed not going to be able to handle the sheer scale of electrical power storage needed.

However, you are wrong in claiming that Hydrogen is the only option.

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.

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

The Govt may well fast track H2 storage eventually.

However, currently there is no sign of them doing so - as evidenced by the contents of the NESO Report and also their delay in the timetable for the first H2 allocation round.

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.

In that respect, UKOG would be a long way down the priority list of any Govt award (which - as you continually ignore - won't involve any funding).

But that's all irrelevant, as UKOG will have disappeared long before then.

Their only major asset - HH - is shut in, with no timetable as to when (if ever) production will be restored.

They'll need a placing in Q1 2025 just to keep the lights on - which you ignore.

They'll need a placing of c. 5 Billion shares in the near future to fund the P&A and Site Restoration of BB - which you also ignore.

BTW, Ireland have blackouts because they have too much wind?? Complete rubbish.

What a pity that UKOG have no H2 assets in the North West.

Not that they have any actual H2 assets anywhere else, for that matter...

Ocelot,

The Yorkshire area is indeed ahead of Dorset for potential H2 supply.

Any excess looks likely to be stored in either depleted gas fields (e.g. Rough) or repurposed salt cavities which are currently storing gas.

Since UKOG has neither and in any case will be bankrupt long before then, it's irrelevant.

StockCheque,

To quote you;

"Still the Dimwits post misinformation in the hope people fall for it."

Well, you clearly still fall under that category, as in reality nothing of your post has anything to do with UKOG and their "plans" for salt caverns.

Dimwits ignore 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."

Dimwits were promoting UKOG's Dorset projects for several months, even though it was pointed out several times that UKOG's own presentation showed that the salt in Dorset wasn't conducive to being leeched out - something that UKOG have tacitly acknowledged by going to Yorkshire.

Dimwits were promoting Dorset, even though there was demonstrably no Wind Farm power available to produce H2, no H2 pipeline to move the H2 and insufficient demand in the area to justify developing H2 storage.

Dimwits somehow think that UKOG will get Govt cash to develop a greenfield site, even though there are several Companies who already operate salt caverns in that area that can be converted to H2 storage.

Dimwits ignore the funding model for H2 storage, which means that there will be no cash upfront to develop H2 storage facilities - they won't be cash generative until the facilities are complete, filled with H2 and H2 sales can begin.

Dimwits ignore that to develop such a facility from scratch will cost over £1 Billion - funding for which UKOG have zero chance of getting.

Dimwits ignore that there are several plans (by reputable Companies) to convert depleted gas fields to H2 storage - plans which are at a much more advanced stage than trying to start from scratch with no money and no infrastructure.

Dimwits ignore that the last issue of confetti will only serve to keep the lights on until Feb/March next year.

Dimwits ignore that UKOG's only major source of revenue - Horse Hill - has been shut down.

Dimwits ignore that UKOG will need to issue c. 5 Billion shares to fund the P&A of BB and restore the site - a work program that is galloping rapidly towards them as WSCC don't want to get left holding the baby when UKOG fold.

Dimwits ignore that UKOG only have one plan - to rinse PI's for as long as they can to keep paying themselves their exorbitant salaries.

UKOG clearly don't have the cash - the last confetti issue will just about keep the lights on until March next year, especially with HH being shut in.

Even if UKOG did, £1.45 Million is nowhere near enough to cover their liabilities. That sum would just about cover BB, never mind anything else.

The thing is that Onshore finances are treated differently to Offshore.

That's a historical issue due to Onshore oil production having been going on so much longer.

Offshore, we pay additional taxes during production which are kept by HM Treasury as a 'Decommissioning Fund', and the cash is paid back (essentially a loan repayment classified as a Tax Rebate, NOT a Tax Subsidy as some organisations and The Guardian claim...) to help fund the Decom work at the end of the field life.

It was set up this way back in the first offshore licencing rounds so that the Taxpayer would never be liable for Decom costs should an Operator go under.

Offshore, the NSTA is primarily responsible for ensuring the financial viability of an Operator and their plans for the field.

Onshore, such a system was never put in place.

It wasn't an issue when the Operators were the likes of Shell & BP, but now it's come galloping over the horizon with hundreds of Wells needing to be P&A'd and their sites restored by Companies (e.g. UKOG, Angus, IGas and CeraPhi) who may not have the funds readily available from their cash reserves.

Also, the responsibility for financial oversight is slightly different Onshore.

The NTSA still have financial oversight when it comes to approving work programmes, but the responsibility for ongoing monitoring of the financial health of an Operator actually falls under the Minerals Planning Authority.

The MPA is nearly always the local County Council and they are usually completely unaware of this responsibility, never mind having the knowledge / expertise to actually do so.

With respect to how Onshore Decom work is funded, there was some movement a few years ago towards putting up a bond to cover the Decom works ahead of the start of production on a development.

However, that is expensive and the Companies now involved couldn't really afford the cost, so funds were supposed to be set aside during production.

Also, that proposal didn't cover the costs for P&A'ing historical Wells and also relied on the Operators BoD having some moral standards - which the UKOG BoD clearly don't......

The decline curve is still showing a steady drop, so October should average a touch over 25 BOPD.

After steadily climbing to just under 56%, the water cut has taken a bit of a dip to 53%, not sure why that would be - unless they've been producing additional water they lost to the formation during whatever work they did on the Well in May.

Vernonya,

Where am I zeroing in on minor points and ignoring "contrary indications"?

You made claims which simply don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, both in terms of cost and practicality.

To further that, no, the payback time for a wind turbine was infinite - a house mounted system would never pay for itself and to claim it would payback in 2 years is just fantasy, no matter how much the cost of the Turbine itself dropped.

If there were a mass market for them, it would already be here - but it's not, so to claim that mass demand would reduce prices drastically is incorrect.

Besides, if you'd been keeping an eye on what is going on w.r.t. wind power, the system costs are actually increasing, hence why CFD 5 got no bids and CFD 6 had to substantially increase the strike price offered.

This increase in wind power costs is being replicated around the World, as wind farm operators somehow thought they were immune from the basic economics of supply and demand, never mind also seeing the same inflation pressure that we have all felt since Putin invaded the Ukraine.

As for your claim about garages being blown up, this fallacy has been explained to you several times.

But to explain again, the basics of the safety systems of H2 fuelled vehicles do not allow for the type of slow leaks that you imply. Equally, the chemistry of H2 mean it will instantly disperse upwards and out of any garage.

With respect to the H2 tank, as soon as any pressure drop is detected, or the tank is compromised in any way, the system automatically vents all the fuel to atmosphere immediately.

As H2 is so light, it will disperse in a few seconds - even in a nominally 'closed' environment of a garage.

In that respect, it's safer than a Petrol or Diesel powered vehicle, as those tanks don't have those types detection or safety systems installed.

Therefore any leak from them will be onto the garage floor and will be continuous, with the resultant vapours staying there, as they are heavier than air and the much larger size of the molecules means that they cannot escape a 'closed' environment as easily.

If you are worried about having any vehicle in your garage catch fire / explode, then it should be an EV or Hybrid. In the extremely unlikely event that it catches fire, the energy in the battery means that it is almost impossible for the fire brigade to put out.

There are several videos on the Web with the effects of even a small battery powered scooter catching fire in a house.

And, as has been pointed out before, H2 fuelled vehicles have been safely used on the UK roads for many, many years - now being expanded to include lorries, Buses and even experimental trains.

Besides, using mains power in your house to electrolyse water for H2 makes as much economic sense as installing your own miniature refinery and making your own petrol / diesel - that's why you go to a petrol station to fill up, just as you'd do with H2.

Vernonya,

If having a small wind turbine mounted on your home produced enough electricity to be economic, there would be millions of them already installed alongside the PV arrays.

In reality the power they produce would be insignificant (most roof mounted systems are 1kWh) and the turbine itself would cost c. £2K, plus the not insignificant costs of getting the roof surveyed to check it can take the loading, plus the cost of installation & cabling - it looked like in total I'd be paying c. £15k and it would never pay for itself (wasn't even close).

There's also several limitations currently in force on what you can and cannot do with respect to a roof mounted wind turbine;

You must live in a detached home, surrounded by other detached homes

You can only install a single turbine

If you have an air source heat pump installed, you will need planning permission for a turbine

The turbine doesn’t rise more than three metres above the height of your chimney

Which is why I went for a PV system capable of producing 8 kWh c/w large battery for essentially the same cost of a wind turbine.

In any case, why reduce the efficiency of the system even further by using it to produce Hydrogen, instead of charging a battery for use in meeting the house demand?

Considering that you have posted several times in the past against Hydrogen fuelled vehicles, does this mean you have changed your opinion?

StockCheque,

While you are correct that we urgently need to expand LDES quickly, the NESO Report doesn't even mention H2 as an option (Section 2.2, pages 22 & 23), referring only to pumped water storage and liquid air.

You obviously actually haven't read it (like Ed Miliband...), so here's the link;

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

Don't forget to read the Annexes too....

That the Govt have delayed the first round of H2 applications by around six months also indicates they don't see it as a priority.

It is simply not possible to construct a new Salt Cavity storage system in the time available (it takes 3 - 5 years just to leach out a cavity), so they will not give any time to a Company that has no pre-existing assets, no experience and no financing and an abysmal track record.

They'll focus on Companies that have the capability of financing large £ Billion projects, have track records of running such projects from design through to building and operation, and have assets that can be converted to H2 storage already in place.

BTW, your figures on Offshore Wind and PV are not correct - those are the cumulative targets including what we already have (28.5 GW offshore wind, 15 GW PV), not what we need to install.