Member Info for ZYX098

BP,

Hydrogen?

You mean Nitrogen, right?

Penguins,

My bad - I misread your original post.

If I recall correctly, any resolution to remove SS would need a 75% vote in favour?

So - back of the envelope calculation - doesn't this now mean it's virtually impossible for PI's to vote Sanderson out?

It's been suggested several times over the years that he and the board should take the majority (if not all) of their pay in shares, if they were that confident.

Of course, none of them ever have.

The only one the actually buy any shares was SS, as he was scared of the get SS out campaign.

It's the only brilliant thing he's done in the last few years, as for an outlay of around £12k, it's allowed him to keep taking his absurd salary for several more years.

Oh, forgot. KM did actually buy some shares years ago when he came on as FM - they have to be worth about £0.3 by now...

Ah, Insidious and his "Would not want to be out of this over the weekend." nonsense.

I suppose it's better than his usual 2p/5p posts.

But just for grins;

Insidious, what "positive news" is in the pipeline that could possibly make this share sky rocket?

Loxley has been on the farm-out market for over 2 years and nobody has touched it yet.

And why would they, with the crushingly bad CPR that UKOG produced?

Nobody would buy in and carry UKOG 100% on what is effectively an Exploration Well that has offset data already available to show it's highly likely to be dry.

So go on, enlighten us as to your logical, factual, well thought out reasoning.

Although I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for your reply.....

Penguins,

UKOG originally had a stipulation that you had to be a shareholder to attend - have they dropped that?

Ocelot,

Although the market cap is less than £1 Million, any take over would have to accept not only the outstanding debts, but also the liabilities of the abandonment and restoration of the BB & HH sites.

Why take over a failing Company when you can just wait for them to fold and the licences been returned to HM Govt.

If you think it's worth it, you can then apply for the licences, but without the debts or restoration costs hanging around your neck.

Adrian,

Still a waste of skin.

Reported and binned.

Bye!

Cyn,

I wrote to my MP after the last Annual Report was published, because as a Surrey resident my potential rise in Council and/or Borough Taxes to cover the P&A of HH and BB was more than my shares in UKOG are now worth.

This is their response;

***********************************************************************************************************

Thank you for your email regarding the financial viability of UK Oil and Gas PLC, which operates the Horse Hill site.

Although I have noted your concerns, this goes beyond my purview as a Member of Parliament as the specific administration of licenses is managed by the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). The role of an MP is instead to scrutinise, propose and vote on legislation as it pertains to the nation as a whole. In this context, I will forward your specific concerns onto the DESNZ and ask them to outline what steps they are taking to ensure the sustainability of the sector as a whole and to avoid taxpayers having to cover de-commissioning costs. I will also underscore the specific case you have raised, and will be in touch when I receive a response from the Department.

*************************************************************************************************************

I also wrote to the NTSA, but they have yet to reply.

SS is already disgrace to my Industry and I absolutely do not want us all to be tarred with the same brush if he folds UKOG, leaving the UK taxpayer with the costs of plugging the Wells and restoring the sites.

PBoo,

You didn't answer my question.

Not surprised.

As for your assertion that no oil was produced, are you saying that Angus lied in their RNS (a criminal offence, BTW) on testing, which not only stated the flow rates from two separate tests, but also gave an API of the oil that was produced?

The simple fact is that oil was produced and the eyes either chose not to report it so they could try and make cash from dealing in shares (Adrian has history on that..), or they simply missed it.

PBoo,

So can you point out exactly where BP is wrong in his posts on Balcombe, why you think so and what the correct interpretation should be?

BP,

Pretty much what I was thinking when I read their RNS's at the time.

The one thing that did surprise me was that they apparently didn't use a tracer in either the drilling fluid or the kill brine.

Maybe because I've spent most of my time doing Exploration Wells, but I've always insisted on using a tracer - preferably an Iodide tracer.

Easy to use, cheap and with an Iodide tracer, (unlike others) there is zero chance of any confusion as to what is formation fluid and what is fluid that you've used during drilling / testing.

Adrian,

Still a complete waste of skin.

Reported and binned.

Again.

Adrian,

Waste of skin.

Reported and binned.

Again.

You know how he's always accusing those that disagree with him as being shorters?

Maybe he's a shorter, since he always claims to make a profit, even though the share price has fallen below his buy price......

Vernonya,

Why do you keep posting nonsense scare stories about Hydrogen?

Hydrogen fuelled vehicles have been used on UK (and other Countries) roads for many years with none of the problems you keep claiming, so to state it's "far to volatile to trust it to unsupervised distribution and use" is complete rubbish.

As far back as the mid 1980's, there were some BP stations that had Hydrogen fuel pumps in them - they fell out of favour because the Govt decided not to fund Hydrogen as an alternative technology.

Just in the UK, there are Hydrogen fuelled cars, buses, lorries and trains being used.

Hydrogen will become a major source of power long before the time frame you think - the current rush towards pure EV's is not sustainable at any part of the supply chain.

Iceland is already a long way down that road, moving towards a Hydrogen fuelled vehicle society using their abundance of geothermal power.

In addition to that, it's currently the only proven technology that will allow excess renewable energy from wind and PV to be converted into a storage medium that can be used when renewables cannot meet the demand.

Your assertion that leaking Hydrogen will cause lots of explosions ignores basic physics.

Hydrogen is much lighter than air, and any leak will dissipate upwards extraordinarily quickly.

That's why the fuel tanks of H2 fuelled cars are designed to instantly release the entire contents of the tank in the event of an accident - the possibility of fire is minute as it dissipates upwards so quickly.

Any fire crews turning up at an accident scene won't have to worry about an explosion or fire occurring with an H2 fuelled vehicle. Not the case if a petrol or diesel tank has ruptured and fuel is pooled on the ground.

With petrol or diesel the fumes are heavier than air and do not dissipate nearly as quickly, so are far more likely to cause an explosion in the circumstances you describe.

That's why there have been cases where someone drops a match and a neighbours garage half a mile up the hill explodes.

Do some basic research on Hydrogen and Hydrogen vehicles before posting your rubbish claims again.

Cyn/Delta,

What really bothers me about that is that they have only allowed £1.451 Million for decommissioning HH, BB and their share in Avington & Horndean.

HH itself will take all of that and more. Two Wells to P&A, decom & cleaning of all surface kit before disposal and then site restoration - I don't think they'd see much change from £2.5 Million for that.

But I see it didn't stop SS from taking an 8% pay rise. I suppose we should be grateful it wasn't more....

Incidentally, I've not been able to find the disposal cost/bbl for HH - is it in there and I've just missed it?

Ohhh, trying to be clever there, PBoo?

Waiting for someone to point out that the £1 Million quoted isn't actually cash in the bank (like the waste of skin likes to claim) and then you'll act all innocent and claim that that's not what you said?

$80.23 / 1.26 = £63.67/bbl

The last available production cost/bbl quoted by UKOG was £32/bbl

The production cost will have increased due to inflation, but until UKOG publish the (overdue) accounts, we won't know what it is now.

So £63.67 - £32 = £31.67/bbl.

£31.67 x 44 x 365 = £508,620.20

Of course, that's also calculated using the heroic assumption that production will remain at 44 BOPD, which ignores the decline curve that HH is on.

So just the Directors annual remuneration of £496k quoted in the last Financials (no doubt also increased due to inflation - we'll find out when the next results are announced...) will leave nobody in doubt that UKOG are, in reality, running at a substantial loss.

Could be a number of reasons.

Seismic coverage (lines) will always go some distance past the edge of any structure that is thought to be present, to get rid of 'edge effects' on the data over the area of interest - which may take the end of some lines outside the licence area.

Another potential reason is that if there is a Well already reasonably close to the licence boundary, a line may be extended to that Well so it can be used as a calibration point for subsequent interpretation.

As Penguins pointed out, it's not uncommon for a potential structure to straddle licences. Depending upon how far the structure extends into the next licence, the holder of that licence may make a contribution to the costs in return for access to the data.

The rules governing any desire to shoot seismic outside the licence will vary from Country to Country and also if it's Onshore or Offshore.

Haven't been involved for many years (in any case, I was only doing site surveys to be able to move a Rig into location). It used to be that the general protocol in the UK (for the first two cases) was for the adjacent licence holder to be informed as a matter of courtesy, but their permission was not actually needed.

For the last case, it would be a matter of negotiations between the two Licence Groups involved.

Why do you keep posting the same scaremongering nonsense about Hydrogen powered vehicles?

They have been safely used on our roads for years. Volvo & Mercedes have trucks using them, they are being trailled on buses and trains in Scotland.

The safety issues were sorted out long ago and in many respects they are safer than an ICE or EV, as the H2 is vented away within a second if the tank is ruptured.