Member Info for ZYX098

SarletVixen,

We must have been watching different budgets then, because I didn't hear her mention anything about H2 in the South West....

Looks like SS is using the fig leaf coverage of renewable investment in the budget to forward sell the placing shares he needs to fund the BB-1 P&A and site restoration.

Otherwise the budget has zero benefit for UKOG, as the numerous projects that were called by name were all in the NE and NW - and by a shocking coincidence were all in Labour heartland areas.....

In the meantime, they have killed off the UKCS, not just by increasing the EPL to 38%, but also by removing all investment relief.

Eco-warriors have been claiming that the North Sea would stop production by 2030 - with this Govt, they won't be that far wrong.

So we'll be importing the Oil and Gas we need from Countries that have poorer HSE Regulations, with higher CO2 Emissions, making the UK balance of payments substantially worse, putting 200k people out of work, bringing forward the tax rebates due for the Decommissioning programs, and resulting in tax revenues from the UKCS becoming nett negative by 2030.

Brilliant job......

Why should there be a 'big finish' Madit?

The only RNS that is expected is the one confirming that their only major asset - Horse Hill - has been shut in and therefore is now a drain on their limited cash resources.

Still waiting for the 'good news' RNS that you claimed was 'imminent' due to the so-called "1" signal two weeks ago - or the other one you claimed was "imminent" due to a 1111 signal over a month ago.

At least you've stopped your ridiculous claim that "a little bird told you that HH was producing substantially more than the figures said".

Hmmmm.

It really doesn't make any sense to shut in HH at the moment (an RNS confirming this, and the reasons why, should have been issued already), as any changes in legislation - which is what the SC have effectively done - that apply to an already existing industrial plant always have a grace period.

This is to either allow the plant to be brought up to meet the current specs, or agreement is made to allow it to continue as normal (which should happen here, as HH production doesn't meet the criteria for needing the EIA), usually referred to as being 'grandfathered'.

So my thoughts are that there are three possibilities;

A) The production figures have taken a further nose dive from the sudden decline seen in the last few months NSTA figures, rendering production uneconomic.

B) During the discussions, Surrey have looked at UOG/HHDL's finances and realised that they clearly don't have the funds to P&A the two Wells and restore the site. So they have demanded UKOG show how they are going to fund it and have instructed them to stop production until they do (which actually doesn't make much sense - but this is local Govt we are talking about).

C) SS has shut HH in for the dual purpose of trying to let the fracture network recharge and also laying the ground work for a claim against SCC along the lines of "we spent a bunch of money developing this site because you gave us permission. That permission turns out to have been illegal, so we are going to sue you for all the lost production over the next 20 years.".

There is precedence for that, with Rockhopper winning their case against the Italian Govt for banning drilling in the Adriatic.

I'm also willing to bet that WSCC are looking over UKOG's finances with a fine toothcomb too, as they really should start the P&A of BB and restore the site shortly - which will, of course, require a placing to fund.

Despite what the Finch claims, it's not a case of SCC or UKOG deliberately breaking the law.

Planning permission was granted in good faith, based on the understanding of the regulations in force at the time - which clearly state that HH actually doesn't meet the criteria needed for the assessment that the SC are now asking for.

As such, there is always a leeway for an ongoing industrial process, (any process, irrespective of whether or not it's Oil & Gas related) where the goal posts have effectively been retrospectively changed, to be allowed the time to meet new compliance rules or regulations.

Often this time period can be years, so the demand by the Finch and the other Eco-warriors that HH should be shut down immediately is palpable nonsense.

Laughable attempt at ramping before the weekend.

If there's a re-rate coming, it will be downwards when UKOG announce the placing that they need to fund the P&A and site restoration work at Broadford Bridge.

SCC didn't agree, it was the SC that found against them.

They basically found that the permission to produce shouldn't have been granted - not that the Drilling was illegal.

Despite what the Eco-warriors claim, it's not a case of SCC or UKOG deliberately breaking the law.

Planning permission was granted in good faith, based on the understanding of the regulations in force at the time - which clearly state that HH actually doesn't meet the criteria needed for the assessment that the SC are now asking for.

As such, there is always a leeway for an ongoing industrial process, (any process, irrespective of whether or not it's Oil & Gas related) where the goal posts have effectively been retrospectively changed, to be allowed the time to meet new compliance rules or regulations.

Often this time period can be years, so the demand by the Eco-warriors that HH should be shut down immediately is palpable nonsense.

The logical conclusion of the bizarre SC ruling is that all O&G production in the UK should cease immediately and be replaced by Imports.

Doing that means that the UK won't have to account for the CO2 emitted when using the Oil or Gas, as the original producer will account for the CO2 Emissions in their own carbon budget - although in reality they don't.....

Of course, the facts that 200k people will lose their jobs, HM Govt will lose £Billions in revenue, overall CO2 emissions will be increased and the tax rebates that the Oil Companies are due from the Decommissioning Fund will be brought forwards, are all irrelevant.

Taken logically, it also means that, for example, if Lidl want to build a store, then they have to account for the CO2 emissions caused by drivers visiting their store. Plus the CO2 emissions for any petrol / diesel that they sell on site, or even by people using their EV chargers, since electricity isn't generated by 100% renewable sources (and won't ever be..).

This case shows the fundamental flaw in having a Supreme Court which is not answerable to anyone (Thanks, Tony Blair....). It can essentially make case law by interpretation, without the ability to be challenged even when their interpretation is monumentally stupid.

I'm surprised Madit isn't claiming that the eight buys of £3.70 are "a sign".

That really worked well for the "1" code he was claiming was a sign of an imminent RNS a couple of weeks back, and the "1111" code a couple of weeks before that!

Vernonya,

And as has been pointed out before, what you are claiming about Hydrogen is flat out wrong.

It has been safely used in cars on UK roads for decades (I used to refill at a BP Station in the 1980's that had an H2 pump) and is now also in use in the UK today to power buses and trains.

Many Govts are actively pursuing H2 powered vehicles, including the Japanese who have stated the desire to have over 3/4 Million on the road by 2030.

You keep harping on about leaks and build up.

In reality, H2 is so light that any leak into the atmosphere (even in a nominally sealed garage) would be dispersed immediately.

That's why the safety systems incorporated into H2 powered vehicles are designed to immediately vent the entire contents of the tank into the atmosphere in the event of a leak being detected, or the tank being damaged in a crash.

In that respect they are actually safer than petrol or diesel vehicles.

Given the choice between having an car powered by H2, an EV, petrol or diesel stored in my garage (which is under my house) overnight, I'd sleep most soundly if it was H2 powered......

It seems to have escaped some people on here that the 'National Wealth Fund' is the combined and renamed UK Infrastructure Bank & the British Business Bank.

So £7 Billion is 'new' money, the other £20 Billion is funds already in the UKIB & BBB, but just renamed so the Village Idiots think it's new.

And how much of that £63 Billion (much of which had already been committed before the Election, so isn't really new money), or the money in the Wealth fund is actually being allocated to renewable energy, never mind H2 storage?

I suppose we should welcome the announcement by Great British Energy chair Jürgen Maier that he wants GBE to "become a new Orsted".

But since (according to their annual report) Orsted's ROCE is -14% (yes, minus....) on renewables and they lost over £1 Billion last year, I'm not sure it's an aspiration that we should embrace...

CynderLad,

Need a lot more than that - they will shortly have to find the £1.1 Million (UKOG estimate) to fund the P&A and site restoration of BB-1.

Despite what the Eco-warriors claim, it's not a case of SCC or UKOG deliberately breaking the law.

Planning permission was granted in good faith, based on the understanding of the regulations in force at the time - which clearly state that HH actually doesn't meet the criteria needed for the assessment that the SC are now asking for.

As such, there is always a leeway for an ongoing industrial process, (any process, irrespective of whether or not it's Oil & Gas related) where the goal posts have effectively been retrospectively changed, to be allowed the time to meet new compliance rules or regulations.

Often this time period can be years, so the demand by the Eco-warriors that HH should be shut down immediately is palpable nonsense.

The logical conclusion of the bizarre SC ruling is that all O&G production in the UK should cease immediately and be replaced by Imports.

Doing that means that the UK won't have to account for the CO2 emitted when using the Oil or Gas, as the original producer will account for the CO2 Emissions in their own carbon budget - although in reality they don't.....

Of course, the facts that 200k people will lose their jobs, HM Govt will lose £Billions in revenue, overall CO2 emissions will be increased and the tax rebates that the Oil Companies are due from the Decommissioning Fund will be brought forwards, are all irrelevant.

Taken logically, it also means that, for example, if Lidl want to build a store, then they have to account for the CO2 emissions caused by drivers visiting their store. Plus the CO2 emissions for any petrol / diesel that they sell on site, or even by people using their EV chargers, since electricity isn't generated by 100% renewable sources (and won't ever be..).

This case shows the fundamental flaw in having a Supreme Court which is not answerable to anyone (Thanks, Tony Blair....). It can essentially make case law by interpretation, without the ability to be challenged even when their interpretation is monumentally stupid.

The placing needed to fund the P&A and site restoration of BB can't be that far away either.

Hypocrites.

Every single one of them is wearing clothing that used oil in it's manufacture and I'll bet they didn't walk there.

I'm willing to be they just posed for a photo and buggered off, as HH has more than enough storage to keep the produced oil on site for many days.

Ironically, what they don't have is much storage for water - don't forget that even the rainwater that falls on site has to be tankered away for proper disposal.

Ramping excuse No 8 and No. 3 in use again.

Plus now throwing in ramping excuse No 4 - ignore every point made in the rebuttal post, because you can't answer any of them.

Can you actually prove where I've been wrong?

No, you can't - because your claims are just wild assertions made up by you to try and make yourself feel better for being caught out posting nonsense.

On the other hand, I've just shown with evidence (not merely asserted) that you were wrong, by using those pesky things called facts to back up what I said about the UKOG share price movement today...

Like I said - so predictable.

You should go back to your Village - they are obviously missing you.

Gggg21,

So you've now moved onto ramper playbook excuse No. 8;

When caught in a lie, double down.

And you've thrown in another No. 3 (wild assertion) from the playbook for good measure.

But just for the record;

I've held an HL F&SA account for many years and it's doing very nicely, thank you - as is my ISA account with them.

Have I lost money on UKOG? Yes - never hidden that fact.

Do I still hold UKOG shares? Yes - never hidden that fact either.

Why were there no trades for an hour?

Presumably because during that period, people looked at the UKOG fundamentals and decided not to waste their money.

Has it gone Blue now? Yes. But so what?

The change in the ask happened two hours after the pause in trading and before that change, people were clearly buying at 0.038p - we can all see that just by pressing the UKOG share trade button.

Posting a screenshot of someone's HL account on X doesn't prove a thing - you could easily have opened up one this afternoon because it's been shown that people could buy for 0.038p with an HL account when you couldn't.

BTW, I'm not on X anyway, as I'm really not interested in what some vapid influencer thinks.

As for your wild 'lying and being consistently wrong' assertion, I'll put my track record of honesty and accuracy about UKOG up against yours any day.

Newsflash - you lose, 'old Boy'.

Really you rampers are so predictable......

Ah yes, response No. 3 from the ramper playbook;

Can't answer a factual post, so resort to a wild assertion.

If you really had HL, then you'd know that I wasn't lying.

So the obvious implication is that you don't have HL....

Gggg21,

As established last week, change to HL.

They are happy to sell you 20 Million shares at 0.038p at the moment.

Or are you going to fall back on the old "at the time of writing" excuse - even though the ask hasn't changed from 0.038p since 10:33am this morning?

Madit,

Week before last, there were four '1' codes in a single day, which you leapt upon as being evidence that an RNS is imminent.

Yet it didn't happen.

The week before that, you jumped on a "1111" share trade as an indication that "good news is imminent, for those in the know!".

Yet it didn't happen.

Neither of those instances being a surprise to the great majority of posters on LSE.

Because those who frequent the LSE boards know that these so-called "signals"... aren't....

Worth reposting, as it shows how poor the fundamentals of UKOG really are:

HH now going downhill much faster than you'd expect compared to the usual decline curve.

Having held relatively constant over the last couple of years, the water cut has started to increase substantially, therefore increasing the disposal costs.

Jan had 44 BOPD with 43% water cut

Feb had 42 BOPD with 46% water cut

March had 39 BOPD with 47% water cut

April had 35 BOPD with 50% water cut

June had 30 BOPD with 52% water cut

July had 33 BOPD with 55% water cut

I've omitted May as it was shut in for several days - presumably to try and do some remedial work to stop the water cut increase, which clearly hasn't worked.

At the current decline rate, by the end of the year it will be up to almost 65% water cut and down to around 20 BOPD production.

With Brent now at $75.7 and the £ rising against the $ (don't forget, the operating & overhead costs are in £), HH is only a few months from not covering it's daily operating costs.

Of course, the ramptastic crew will ignore all of this.

But as Huxley said; "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."