Member Info for ZYX098

Hi Burnwell,

I'm not sure Sam could issue more shares in this case, as surely it would be circumventing the LSE rules that limited the raise to 8 Million Euros in the first place (i.e. no need to issue a formal prospectus etc)?

I've applied for several times my basic allocation, on the basis that any award will be scaled back in proportion to the oversubscription. I'm with HL and they haven't made any statement with respect to what the scale back could be.

As explained previously by several posters (including Nomalkanymore and myself), Isobel isn't on Navitas's radar, and won't be for several years.

They'll concentrate on proving up the likes of Beverley / Casper / Hector / Ninky / Zebedee which can be tied back to the SL facilities at a relatively low cost and in a reasonably short time-frame.

Isobel will need several Wells (est. 4 - 6) to be drilled and tested prior to any FID decision. It's too far to be tied back to SL and in any case, if it's the size we hope it is, will need it's own FPSO and Gas injection / Oil Production / Water injection subsea manifolds and flowlines.

Real time tracking of NN!

https://www.cruisemapper.com/ships/Celebrity-Equinox-739

Hi LTT,

I suspect that the 5 yr recertification was done during this work scope;

https://aventusenergy.com/case-studies/noble-endeavor-aventus-energys-largest-oil-gas-contract

I suspect the next big news for us will be breaking ground on the new supply base in the FI (as opposed to the dock facility) - which with the Rig scheduled down there by the beginning of 2027 has to be very soon!

Hi Mirasol,

I agree - with the obvious interest from outside parties (hence the legislation passed by the FIG to tidy up the licenses last year), I don't think that FIG will be inclined to roll over the licenses again, especially if held by small Co's with no hope of doing a work program as they don't have funding.

In that respect I think that not only JHI but also BOR and, sadly, RKH's Southern licenses will be taken back by the FIG.

What I haven't been able to find out is if we have to relinquish a % of the blocks around SL too, or have to commit to an additional work program (outside the SL Development work) to keep them.

NN,

If you haven't seen it yet, then Mogger posted a link to the latest edition of FITV, which goes into some detail on Navitas / RKH current plans.

In the meantime, if the Ship you are on makes regular stops at Port Stanley, ask them if they ever have any weather issues (wind / sea state) that prevent them docking, or delay their departure.

Similarly, you can ask the Staff at the souvenir shop if any of the cruise ships have had issues docking / leaving for the same reason.

While you are there, note what the wind is doing in terms of direction and speed. Also look at the trees - see if they are all leaning in one particular direction - a good indication of constant wind from the same direction.

High winds (25 - 35 Knots, depending upon Crane size, wind direction and lift configuration) will shut down vessel loading / offloading in a heart beat.

When the Endeavour if dry towed, they'll need a sheltered area with reasonable depth of water (I'm guessing at least 30m) and wind/wave/swell/tide to be within quite tight margins before they can offload the Rig.

Enjoy your time there!

Well, it is irrelevant to UKOG.

Unless you acknowledge that there are several depleted onshore oil fields (much closer to Fawley) that can be converted to H2 storage far more quickly and cheaply than leaching caverns....

EPP is UKOG's closest peer?

Laughable.

That's like comparing a paper plane with an A 380....

Ocelot,

Burying your head in the sand won't make the herd of Elephants go away.

Although I see that you are trying to have your cake and eat it again.

You were the one that claimed it would be in SCC'c best interests to let HH restart, but now you are not interested?

You were the one that chose to copy and paste UKOG's RNS with respect to the amount of oil produced at HH, but now you are not interested?

You were the one that claimed that UKOG didn't have to pay back Alba or DOR, but now you are not interested?

Earlier in the thread you were trying to imply that UKOG didn't have control of HH, because the Operator was HHDL - but now you have turned 180 Deg and are admitting that UKOG do indeed have the power. How odd.

Did you tell your Teachers at school that "I won't answer that question, because it doesn't interest me" too?

Do you tell your credit card company that you don't have to pay them back, because you control your own finances, not them?

If you did, I'll bet that worked out as well as trying to ignore the reality of the perilous condition of UKOG's financial situation will.

Hi Mirasol,

Thanks for the find.

Interesting.

I wonder if George F. is aware of that?

Maybe he is, and that's why Alba haven't asked for their £2.6 Million back yet - he knows that if they went to Court to recover the debt, it would push HHDL & UKOG into receivership and leave Alba holding the baby.

W.R.T the NTSA, it was in correspondence with my MP several years ago. Also - from the same correspondence - the costs for Well Abandonment and Site Restoration would supposedly be down to the Council, not Central Govt.

Hi Norseman,

That really is counting the Chickens before the Eggs have been laid by the previous generation of Chickens who still haven't hatched....

Relying on a single Well (which was never tested!) to allocate prospective reserves in other structures in not a good idea - which is probably why RKH carry those licenses at zero value on their books.

I pointed this out on the BOR board, much to the dismay of the self-appointed Sheriff!

He also claimed that BOR "will" sign a farm-in by the end of 2025, but that was always a low chance possibility.

I think that BOR are now out of time, as all FI licenses are due to end in Dec this year and there simply isn't enough time remaining to get a drilling program sorted out before then.

While the FIG have in the past simply rolled the SFB licenses over, I don't see that happening this time.

Neither BOR or RKH have the funds for a drilling campaign and why would the FIG extend the licenses in the hope that they do?

Anyone looking at those licenses (and their world class potential is not in doubt) would be better to approach the FIG and apply for the license in the next round, rather than be hamstrung by a small partner who simply doesn't have the cash to fund their share of an exploration / appraisal campaign (even if carried for a substantial %) and certainly couldn't fund their share of any Development.

Research has shown that AI is wrong or gives misleading answers 30 - 40% of the time - and this is no exception.

There's no need for MPD in the NFB.

It's been common knowledge in ABZ for several months that Hallib have the Drilling & Completions contracts for the SL project.

Hallib don't have a TRS division, so maybe W/Ford got the contract on a pass through basis, or it was a separate ITT from Navitas?

Disappointing either way, as Franks are currently head and shoulders above the other international TRS providers.

The workers at the coal-face will be relieved it's not SLB, as dealing with them has been a nightmare for years now - all the way from the initial ITT through to the provision of services, which also has been of sub-standard quality for years - at least Internationally.

All the Service Co's are still suffering from the after effects of the price crash in 1998/9.

Nobody could see the light at the end of the tunnel on that one, and the job cuts were sudden, absolutely brutal and went very, very deep.

They all got rid of the experienced people they should have kept.

In their Overseas divisions they repatriated most of the Expats in favour of promoting locals, who didn't yet have the training or experience for the jobs they were now expected to do. The Service Co's then compounded this by unfortunately then leaving the locals to flounder around without giving the guidance and support they needed.

Combined with the introduction of the abomination that is SAP at the same time, the service level of all of them has - in my experience - not returned to the same level.

GOYB - don't forget that these are Horizontals, so they'll want to get all the pertinent information from the MWD/LWD and not run W'Line.

I very much doubt that what is happening in Venezuela will have any effect on the price of oil.

The frequently quoted figure of 303 Billion bbls of reserves includes the ultra heavy crude (analogous to the Athabasca Tar sands) which has to be mined, not conventionally produced.

Their 'conventional' reserves are around 77 Billion bbls - still not to be sniffed at.

However, the entire oil infrastructure from the Well to the Refineries has suffered for the best part of two decades from chronic under-investment, political interference and incompetent management.

It will take several years of concerted effort and $Billions to get it all back on track and even if production matches the previous high level, will only add an additional c 2.5 Million BOPD to the market - much of it sour, heavy crude.

The political situation is very messy and I don't see it being sorted out for many months, if not years.

While Maduro is gone, his cohort of cronies still remain in positions of power in the Govt and Armed Forces, and the Opposition are really not that united in their political views or objectives.

Besides, Trump won't let Machado get into a position of influence, because she took "his" Nobel Peace Prize....

Given the potential for political instability to last many years, the technical challenges and the large cash input required, I doubt many American Companies will be hammering down the door to get in there in addition to Chevron.

If Trump's objective was to reduce the flow of drugs and illegal money laundering in Venezuela, then removing Maduro may well succeed in that objective.

But just to get potential access to more heavy (often sour) crude that they can already get elsewhere (Saudi, for example) - I don't see that.

Maybe the ultimate objective is for the US to have a permanent Military base there?

It would help offset the already substantial presence of China in Central and South America.

Hi all,

I recall there was a statement over the Xmas period that Phase 2 would be 2-3 years after 1st oil on SL?

Was this referring to the start of planning, drilling, or production?

If some kind soul could either confirm which it was, or post a link to the relevant document, I'd be grateful.

Hi Mirasol,

I expect that the pre-emption rights wording is a hang over from the original license T's and C's and will be removed by the FIG before the next licensing round.

I agree with your thoughts about the potential for a regular dividend - though I can see a scenario where they pay a one-off 'special' dividend to reward share-holders, especially if the cash flow is higher than forecast thanks to an increase in oil price over the base case.

Hi Mirasol,

I know that the Operator is liable if a partner defaults / folds (which I think has legally already happened with DOR?), but I'm not sure it's true if the Operator themselves folds? At least for Onshore?

As for the liability of the P&A and site restoration, it does indeed default to the Landowner under current legislation - which is why West Sussex CC served notice on both UKOG & the Landowner for the P&A of BB-1 and the site restoration.

However, my understanding is that the NTSA have tacitly accepted that expecting the Landowner to do it is not a realistic option.

Given the age of many of the Onshore Fields / Wells, I'm willing to bet that a very substantial number of the original landowners have either passed on or sold the land - in which case the current owners will likely not be aware of the liability, or at least it's potential magnitude.

Though I would laugh if someone who has bought farm land as a tax dodge suddenly gets hit with a bill of potentially several £Million for abandoning an old Well.

As an aside, there's a Golf Course in the Eakring area with several old Wells on it, and nearby there's one in a housing estate!

Ocelot,

You can't have it both ways.

If UKOG control the BoD of HHDL because they own 77.9% (despite having the same number of Directors as Alba), then they absolutely can choose to shut down operations on HH.

Again, you are blithely ignoring the amounts owed to Alba and DOR (as well as UKOG) as if choosing not to pay them off will be consequence free.

It will not.

Surrey County Council will look at that and ask UKOG to justify their business plan for HH, especially if it involves UKOG defaulting on loans.

And I specifically state UKOG, because as far as SCC (and sensible people) will be concerned, the two are so intertwined as to effectively be the same Company and - as you claim - if the UKOG Director on the HHDL BoD (i.e. SS) chooses not to pay outstanding creditors, then that directly affects how SCC will look at UKOG.

Why is it in SCC's interest to allow HH to restart?

SCC get no financial benefit, but will be exposed to considerable costs with respect to the amount of Council employees time it would require to evaluate and potentially approve any application.

In addition, SCC would be exposed to the bad publicity and costs of defending the decision in Court, as Weald Action Group (amongst others) would no doubt contest any approval.

As for the guff about "produced a few %" of the reserves and is "potentially significant" - absolute tripe.

If it was, UKOG would have produced a CPR showing that - but they haven't.

UKOG haven't even acknowledged the steadily increasing water cut and reduction in BOPD at HH, such that it was barely making any money by the time it was shut in.

They have written off the Kim reserves at HH as being uneconomical - something we only found out about in their submission for Loxley.

If UKOG were serious about HH, they wouldn't have wasted so much time and money on Loxley - which as the Realists on this board kept explaining - was a non-existent prospect.

If UKOG were serious about HH, they would have converted HH-1 to a dual Portland / Kimm producer as they stated they would - but they didn't.

UKOG would have converted HH-2 to a Water Injector/disposal Well - but they didn't.

UKOG would have shot the 3D Seismic - but they didn't.

UKOG would have drilled HH-3 themselves - but they didn't.

UKOG wouldn't have wasted valuable time and cash on the huge distraction that was the Türkiye fiasco - again, as predicted by the Realists.

And most tellingly, if UKOG really did think that HH was a valuable asset, they would have been banging down the doors at SCC to get permission to restart production at HH the day after the Supreme Court judgement - not waiting over a year and even missing their own submission deadline.

BTW Ocelot, try answering all the points rather than hyper-focusing on one small part, and ignoring the herd of Elephants that are also in the room.

Nikb,

"I have a 100% track record"????

C'mon, you're a Geologist and no Geologist ever has a 100% track record ;)

Some of the Geology greatest hits I've experienced;

"No, there's no salt there, you can run a fresh water mud" - there was salt.

"No, the pressure gradient will be normal for the entire Well". - no, it wasn't - only 5 ppgemw out - a real Holy f**k moment that one.......

"No, there's no Conglomerate - you'll be O.K. to run a PDC" - there was Conglomerate.

"No, no fractures in the Carbonates" - where's all the fu**ing mud gone????

"Of course we'll find oil there" - erm, driest Well I've ever drilled - not even a sniff of drilled gas.

Still on the Rig for NY, or did you get home?

Wishing all on the board a belated Merry Christmas and a safe, happy, profitable 2026.

I'm with HL.

I called them and they expected the Corporate Action to be posted tomorrow.

I'm fully topped up on my ISA this year, so apart from the obvious of selling some holdings to make room, I asked if I could use money from my F&SA account to buy my ISA allocation and have the resultant shares credited to my F&SA account.

The person I talked to said that should be possible, but couldn't be done online - I'd have to call them to set it up.

Hi Trish,

Unless UKOG default on the notice served to them by West Sussex County Council, it will be that the P&A of BB-1 and restoration of the site has commenced - likely to be in late January or early February 2026, as the work has to be finished by end Feb 2026.

They will probably wrap it up into an RNS that they have submitted the documentation to SCC for a determination on if production can restart on Horse Hill.

Followed shortly by another RNS with respect to calling an EGM so they can get permission to issue more confetti for "further studies/work" on their "exiting, transformational" H2 projects - which in reality will just be to raise more funds to pay SS and the BoD their salaries for a few more months.

Ocelot,

As always, your response focuses on one small part and ignores the rest of the picture - which in reality is extremely ugly for UKOG.

If no Parent Company Guarantee by UKOG over HHDL exists, then I'm quite frankly astounded.

But you do realise that that actually makes it worse for UKOG?

Because Surrey CC will see that and understand that UKOG could close HHDL down and walk away from HH, absolving themselves of the cost and responsibility of P&A the Wells and restoring the site.

I'm also willing to bet that SCC will be unimpressed by the fact that DOR have written off their £0.6 Million, as they do not expected to ever get paid.

You claim that the board of HHDL is controlled by UKOG, but the Companies House listing (which, as has already been pointed out, shows HHDL are overdue in their legally obligated filings) shows only two Directors for HHDL - SS and George F. of Alba.

So how can UKOG have control of the board?

What if George F. decides that Alba want their £2.6 Million back?

Claiming that the £3.31 Million owed to Alba and DOR is "quasi-equity" and not debt is frankly ludicrous, and again, SCC will not look kindly on such an assertion if UKOG make the same claim.

Might as well claim that the £17.8 Million owed by HHDL to UKOG is "quasi-equity" too!

Again, as always, you have ignored the facts that any income from H2 is a decade away, that UKOG would somehow have to find £1 Billion to finance it, that UKOG have no income and have the liability of the P&A and site restoration of BB coming up in the next 2 months.

UKOG failed to meet their own deadline of the 15th December for submission of the plan to restart HH to SCC and, quite frankly, I would be amazed if SCC give permission without demanding that the P&A and site restoration costs (c. £2.5 Million) for HH be put into an escrow account (or performance bond) first - for exactly the reasons I have outlined above.

Again - even if SCC are minded to give permission, the proposal has to go out for public consultation which will no doubt generate further protests and - quite likely - legal challenges from the eco-warrior brigade.

So, again, UKOG have no income and no hope.