Member Info for ZYX098

Skwizz,

I reported him on Sunday, once he started to go off the rails.

Again.

Is there any Government finance letter of intent? No.

Is an LOS a binding agreement? No.

Is an LOS a contract? No.

Is an LOS a guarantee of financial support? No.

Is an LOS worth the paper it's written on? No.

Have Sumitomo committed to providing financial support to UKOG? No.

Have SGN committed to building a pipeline to either of UKOG's proposed sites. No.

Have RWE committed to using salt caverns in either of UKOG's sites for storage? No.

Was this thread started by a desperate ramper, who likely forgot the markets aren't open today? Yes.

When will posters ever learn that resorting to posting complete blocks of irrelevant text in block capitals is the equivalent of waving a white flag in surrender? It just shows everyone that you have no valid response to points raised.

They've also clearly never seen the interview with DL in the early days of HH, where he repeatedly gets the name of the Kimm wrong (calling it "The Kimbridge"), the very formation he & SS were claiming had billions of bbls of oil.

But whenever someone sings DL's praises, I always like to remind them of this excerpt from his Wiki page;

Corporate Governance Related Criticisms

He has been accused of frequently "promoting a company, pushing up the (price of its) shares, then raising cash by placing new shares — and (thus) diluting the holdings of the early investors",[15] described as "a familiar tale with most companies he promotes".[16] His defence has been that "You can’t build a business on bottle tops.".[17] Furthermore, he has argued that it's not accurate to claim that "all his ventures have turned sour".[18] Although finance commentators have noted that most of the "hundreds" of companies he has been involved in, and "stock promoted" for, have failed to generate any successful shareholder returns.[19]

In 2009 he was one of a group of claimants, claiming that he had been libelled when an investment publication in South Africa had described the group of executives of one of Lenigas' ventures as "cynically and greedily indulged in self-enrichment at the expense of, and contrary to the interests of, shareholders."[20] The High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom rejected Lenigas', and the other claimants' libel claim, and found in favour of the publisher.[21]

Ah, the usual response.

Adrian, you've been told over and over again that your Syntax gives you away.

Every.

Single.

Time.

And why am I replying, even though you have binned me?

Because you often claim to have binned people and then either know what they've posted, or even respond to them later on....

Maidit,

I see you have avoided answering the questions I posted.

So how do you explain away the basic fact that UKOG don't meet the criteria to even submit an application?

Have you looked at any of the Dorset Well data?

O.K., Adrian.

If you want to be pedantic about it, I'm asking you now.

But respond quickly, before Admin toss you off the Board.

Again.

Ah, so it's OK for rampers to post insults, but not the realists.

Got it.

Exhibit A;

"Thats trouble with school holidays being so long. Kids get bored and post onhere."

But that doesn't detract from the simple facts in my post - which I note you didn't respond to - because you can't.

Which is because you employed a typical ramper tactic, "I can't answer, so I'll try and deflect attention elsewhere.".

Maidit,

You might have some credibility if;

A) Any of your forecasts had actually come true.

and

B) You didn't have the writing ability of a 13 year old, which slowly degrades to that of an 8 year old as the night wears on.

It's a well worn trope on Social Media - if a poster resorts to posting in block capitals, it means they have no case and are desperately trying to deflect.

But congratulations on pulling out Ramper Excuse No. 18, which I'd forgotten; "You're not invested here!"

I hate to burst your bubble, but I am and have been for years - which you'd know if you'd read my posting history.

Besides, this is an open forum, so anyone can post, whether or not they are invested.

It's odd that you accuse the realists of ignoring the truth - when the "truths" you claim we are ignoring are actually just assertions by the ramptastic crew.

And yet the ramptastic crew casually ignore the simple fact that UKOG do not and cannot meet the basic criteria (as laid out in the Govt funding documents) to even make an application.

BTW, I looked up my files on a couple of Wells I drilled in Dorset.

As I thought, the salt we went through was not clean, with lots of Claystone stringers and even a Dolomite stringer on one Well - neither or which are conducive for being successfully leached out.

No doubt you'll claim that I'm making that up, but if you want to look at the publicly available data on all the Wells drilled in Dorset yourself, it's freely available on the BGS Website;

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

The other thing I remember very well were the problems we had getting a water source to be able make up the drilling fluids - we ended up tankering it in from several miles away

And our requirements were a thimble compared to the Olympic sized swimming pool that would be needed to leach out just one cavern - never mind the practicalities of how they would dispose of millions of bbls of salt saturated brine.

Taverham,

Would also be much easier to get permission to build a pipeline underwater - not dealing with multiple landowners and their lawyers, a lot less liable to protesters doing 'lock on's' or 'slow walks' during construction etc.

Although trying to do a 'lock on' on an underwater pipeline would be about the level of thought that most protesters are capable of....

Fantastical,

Just because it used to be a Naval Base, why would that mean it should have a gas pipeline?

Diesel or HFO pipeline, yes, but not gas.

And in case you weren't aware, neither a diesel or HFO line would be suitable for conversion to H2 transportation - even if they had been maintained after the Naval Base had closed.

Ah yes, the usual Rampers despairing cries when they have no facts to back up their claims:

"wouldn't want to be out of this over the weekend!" - wild hope

"Shorters are burning!" - wild accusation

"News will drop and this will multibag" - wild assertion

"It's never too late to average down" - wildly bad advice

"Put it all together and UKOG are on thecway to a JV and government cash."

A classic example of a typical Ramper post - wild assertion dressed up as a factual statement, that has nothing to back it up. In this case, not even covered by the fig leaf of "IMO".

Just like "when we break 0.12p and don't stop".

Not "if", but "when".

And yet the swarm of posters on here who were making statements - just a few days ago - such as "when we break 0.2p" have mysteriously disappeared.

Which is the typical Ramper MO - crowd the board of a share to try and suck in unwary PI's, then suddenly vanish when their claims don't materialise.

Never to return, unless it's under a new ID that has a few posts to it's credit, but somehow knows all about trading, other posters and that share's history.

Still waiting for the RNS that Maidit claimed had been "signalled" by the 11111 trade yesterday.

Of course, there have been many claims on here over the years that certain trade volumes "signal" that an RNS will drop shortly - none of those "signals" have ever been correct.

Similarly those claims that "JV with big player about to be announced" - been claimed on here for years, with no sign of one ever materialising.

Maidit - why should we "trust you"?

After all, your track record in the short time you have been on here has been very poor.

But even yours is marginally better than the long, long track record of SS, with his very carefully worded RNS's that stretch the truth to almost - but not quite - breaking point.

RNS's that promise much, but when that project turns out to be dud, or doesn't even materialise, those projects are casually ignored in Company statements from then on.

As for RWE and UKOG being at similar stages, that's just asinine.

Last year, RWE made £3.4 Billion in profit.

To put that in context, RWE make almost 3 x more in profit every single day than the MCAP of UKOG.

Or to phrase it another way, last year in dividends RWE paid out c. £600 Million - around 175 times the MCAP of UKOG.

UKOG, of course, have never made a profit or paid a dividend.

RWE's current MCAP is £20 Billion, UKOG's is £3.38 Million.

So RWE are worth over 5,900 times the MCAP of UKOG.

If anyone thinks that UKOG are anything other than a fly on the front grill of the Train that is RWE, they are kidding nobody but themselves.

Maidit,

Wasn't it you yesterday that was promising a massive rise in price this morning, because for some reason the market takes 24 hrs to digest what an RNS is saying?

Still waiting.

You can tell a 'deramper', as they use facts and logic in their posts.

You can tell a 'ramper', as they use assertions combined with cheap insults and accusations of shorting & use of multiple ID's.....

Since Madit obviously missed it earlier;

There is no 60 year lease in place, as a 'Heads of Terms' is a non-binding agreement.

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

The salt caverns do have to be created, so why are you laughing? UKOG themselves say it will take ten years and £1 Billion to do.

Time and funds they don't have,

And you are now claiming they have an LOS from the Govt for funding?

Wow.

Talk about making stuff up....

Maidit,

Aha, the usual ramptastic crew attempt at deflection.

The future liabilities of UKOG are very relevant, especially since the expenditure will come long, long before any potential revenue from H2 storage in caverns.

And you are still ignoring the recent slump in production from HH - their only major asset that actually produces revenue. And yes, I do include Horndean in that, as their annual share of Horndean production barely keeps the lights on for a couple of weeks.

Nobody will buy UKOG's assets, as they are effectively worthless. They'd have to produce a CPR for HH (long promised, but never materialised) which would have to state the true value of HH, not UKOG's version.

Oh, and just for the record since you'd claim it as fact if I didn't state it - I am not IBUG.

If you think those ID's are the same poster and therefore breaking LSE rules, then go ahead and report them.

I dare you.....

Why no big rise?

Because people who understand what "Heads of Terms" actually means, know that it's not a binding agreement and is a long way from being a contract.

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

So worth marginally more than the paper it's written on, but not much.

Of course, purely coincidental that this "good news" was issued on the same day as the GM.

It's not as if UKOG have done something similar before.

Oh, wait......

Just the rights.

No cavern has yet been constructed in this particular salt formation, so the particular foibles of this formation (types of salt, and intrusions of other rocks, Dolomite / Anhydrite / Limestone rafts, mobility of the salt) have yet to be ascertained.

Correct.

Onshore, the responsibility for monitoring the financial viability of a Company in the extractive industries falls under the remit of the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.

For HH this is Surrey County Council and for BB, it's West Sussex.

Given the parlous state of UKOG's finances, I'm sure that both will be looking at UKOGs liabilities closely.

SCC as part of the work to address the absurd Supreme Court ruling on HH.

WSCC in the context of the P&A and site restoration of BB.

Ocelot,

If the cash call hasn't yet been made, then no they don't.

As the interim accounts were published so soon after the completion of testing on Pin-1, I doubt very much they would have received the invoice for the P&A and site restoration, plus the ongoing work that will no doubt be generating (probably relatively small) cash calls in future.

Fantastical - I'm not an oil rigger, I run Drilling Rigs for a living.

Huge difference which no doubt will sail right over your head.

I use facts and logic in my posts, you use assertions which often contradict the facts.

Yet I'm the one sounding desperate?

Laughable.

And, as usual, you didn't actually answer any of the points I raised.

Fantastical;

Your 17:11 post;

"Ed Milliband wants Hydrogen. And he wants it now! Labour have 5 years to get their green energy plans flowing electricity to the grid. And they are going to throw billions at it whether you like it or not."

- Yes, Labour will throw Billions at it and if past history is anything to go by, probably not in the right direction

"They need to store the green hydrogen gas . And UKOG has the answer down south in spade fulls."

- No, they don't. Caverns that don't exist to store green generated hydrogen that doesn't exist using a pipeline network that doesn't exist and a surface processing facility that doesn't exist - and none of them will exist for at least twn years, even if by some chance, the Govt do throw some cash their way.

"JV news will see the SP hit the moon."

- Ah, the old "JV News" claim - totally unfounded speculation.

"This is not a ramp :)"

- Your entire post is a ramp, based on wishful thinking and speculation.

"MMs seem to be tree shaking for the next leg up i say."

- Yet another of the ramptastic crews excuse from their playbook, to try and explain why the share price continues to fall.

Fantastical,

Where have I resorted to disinformation?

I stated that they have outstanding liabilities w.r.t. BB P&A and Site Restoration and any outstanding cash calls from AME - both of which are factually correct statements.

To quote UKOG's own RNS on the BB refusal: "Although the envisaged geothermal scheme is entirely peripheral to the Company's core petroleum and hydrogen storage activities and is of no current materiality"

UKOG can lodge an appeal, but there is no new information to present to the Council w.r.t. BB's potential for oil production (which wasn't why they asked for an extension anyway) and the proposed use as a Geothermal Tea project has disappeared off the CeraPhi Company website.

There is no need to wait until the deadline - if they thought they had a good case, they could have lodged an appeal almost immediately, but the deafening silence on BB since then indicates that they won't.

But perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you think the original application was refused "for no good reason" as you claim?

After all, it was the 5th application for an extension and UKOG had done nothing with the previous four extensions, as the site has seen no work on it since 2018.

Continually asking for an extension, doing nothing, then asking to completely change the original purpose of the site was never going to go down well and so it proved.

As the Minerals Planning Authority, West Sussex are responsible for ensuring that the site is restored at the first available opportunity, so even if UKOG appeal and it's turned down, they will have to commence the P&A work as soon as practicable.

BTW, the MPA are responsible for assessing the financial viability of any Company engaged in extractive industries in the County and they are unlikely to be happy with UKOG's financial status and therefore ability to fund the P&A program if it's left too long.

Claiming any appeal will take a year to get sorted out is grasping at straws - you just invented that to get it into the Q4 2025 timeframe, so you could claim that the mythical Govt cash would come along to save the day.

And I note that Ocelot and yourself didn't address any of the other points that I made - because you can't.

I'm sorry if the truth offends you so much.

Ocelot - extremely unlikely that the last cash call from AME had been made in time to be included in the interim accounts. These are normally made around six months after the last operation is completed - in this case the testing of Pin-1 which was completed in Feb 2024. There is no indication when the actual P&A work on Pin-1 and the site restoration was completed. In any case, the RNS indicates that further work is ongoing.

It's rare that I actually ROTFLMAO, but congratulations maidit, you managed it!

UKOG don't have enough money to see them through to Q4 2025, where any Govt cash would be given out.

Simple Maths w.r.t. their monthly cash burn and the cash generated from the placings will show you that.

And that's not including their outstanding liabilities w.r.t the P&A of BB and cash calls from AME.

I liked they way you post as if it's a certainty that UKOG will get Govt cash, when - as has been pointed out frequently - they don't even meet the basic criteria to be able to submit an application.

As has also been clearly explained, the LOS aren't worth the paper they are written on, as none of them form the basis of a binding agreement, or contract, or even provide the promise of any cash.

The LOS they are suspiciously quiet about is the one they need from the Landowner(s) for the site of the surface facilities.

"They have already signed a NDA with a big partner".

Well if you know, wasn't much of an NDA, was it?

Or are you claiming to have inside knowledge?

Because if you have such an avenue, it's not wise to boast about it on a public frum and in any case, it's failed you miserably over the last couple of weeks.

Claims they are going to partner (or be taken over) by the likes of Shell or BP have been dragged out by desperate Rampers for years, and never have come true.

BP or Shell (or any other big player) wouldn't touch a cash strapped serial failure like UKOG with an extended barge pole.