Member Info for ZYX098

IBug,

While your posts which point out what some posters have said in the past differs from what they claim now are fine, resorting to petty name calling is not.

Lately you have been sounding more like Rocky's Wife in your attitude.

Please stop with the histrionics and return to civilised, factual posts.

From David Lenigas's Wiki entry;

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",[14] described as "a familiar tale with most companies he promotes".[15] His defence has been that "You can’t build a business on bottle tops.".[16] Furthermore, he has argued that it's not accurate to claim that "all his ventures have turned sour".[17] 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.[18]

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."[19] The High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom rejected Lenigas', and the other claimants' libel claim, and found in favour of the publisher.[20]

Ask Recency Mines (now Corcel) what they think of him.

Or those of us left with worthless Doriemus shares.

Northfolk,

I'm afraid my recollection differs.

They didn't come onto this board - it was reported on this board and what was reported was that they admitted on another board about getting paid to ramp shares, not 'bash' them.

NFolk / Lee

It'll usually take more than one person reporting a post to get it deleted, unless what was posted was in clear violation of the LSE rules. Petty name calling usually isn't enough.

However, sometimes Admin will delete an entire thread if it gets out of hand, whether or not something you posted broke the LSE rules.

Normally it's Adrian (FOTH) that's the culprit.

I wouldn't feel too bad about it - I've lost six posts in the last month that way - you've only had three between the two of you.

Since when has pumping rainwater out of the cellar been classified as 'news'?

Billy / Erebus,

Read the article again.

It's nothing more than a play book made up by the Uber rampers to try and discredit those who actually know what they are talking about, to drown them off the board so that the Uber-rampers can drag in the unwary PI's.

Look at what it tells you to do;
"Repetitively posting" - to drown out those who know what they are talking about.
"Don't engage the bashers" - the Uber rampers don't want you doing that, because the 'bashers' can indeed answer most questions you have, therefore pointing out the errors and/or nuances in the Uber rampers posts that they'd rather remain hidden.
How many questions have any of the Uber Rampers answered? That's an easy one....

If the Uber rampers position is so strong, why are they trying to drown out the 'bashers'?
And think about it - why is it a bad thing that 'bashers' can actually answer questions?

Look at this board over the last few days - which group have consistently answered questions or made informative posts?
And which group have refused to answer any questions (due to lack of technical knowledge), and C&P'd the same things over and over again?

Which group have "lied to your face", e.g. claiming three tankers seen at HH on Sunday?

Which group is trying to "play on your lack of knowledge"?
The group that takes the time and effort to try and explain things, or the group that just ignores questions?

Which Uber rampers are posting many times a day?
But then claim that 'bashers' are the ones repetitively posting, even though they have posted more in a week than 'bashers' have in a month?

Which group are making posts which ignore the facts or contain distortions (Uber rampers), and which group are being hounded for pointing out the errors in those posts ('bashers')?

Which group suddenly appeared on this board in the run up to Pinarova-1 spudding? The Uber rampers.
Which group have been on here a long time? The 'bashers'.

Which group has members that post under multiple ID's / handles and aliases, inventing new ones when they get called out and tossed off the board by Admin? The Uber rampers.

Which group use CAPITALS in their posts, because they think it adds veracity? The Uber Rampers.

Which group posts statements with facts that can be verified? The 'Bashers'.

A poster claimed that four people had admitted on this board that they were paid 'bashers'.
Never happened on this board.
What did happen is that someone came from another board, where allegedly some posters had admitted that they were paid to ramp shares.

Which would you prefer?
A statement that Basur-1 produced 2,000 BOPD goes unchallenged?
Or would you prefer that a 'basher' points out (correctly) that it flowed 500 bbls in six hours on test, that the test was stopped because it started producing water, that it was actually drilled in 1964 and the original Operator gave up the licence?

Try reading the same article again, substituting "Uber rampers" for 'ba

Trish, he may be.

But he knows absolutely nothing about the oil industry and is just on this board to hype up the P&D to try and make a quick £ by sucking in unwary PI's.

Sadly, this kind of behaviour from those with few moral scruples is something we've seen over and over again on this board.

MM,
Well, I must admit that 'BASHERS' is a new one.

Of course, using CAPITALS makes all the difference as to the veracity of your statements...

But why do you call those of us who actually work in the Industry and point out the nonsense of most Uber-Rampers posts on here, 'Bashers'?

After all, if you compare the track records of the 'Bashers' with the uber-rampers over the last couple of years on this board, then which of them has been - by far - the most accurate in their summation of UKOG and it's fortunes?

Correct, the 'Bashers'.

It's the Uber rampers that 'bring up old news many times', often using copy & paste to post snips from outdated UKOG RNS's or Annual Reports.

BTW, copy & pasting old (often irrelevant) news doesn't make for "well researched data".

It just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Calling UKOG a start up is laughable - they've been going for over a decade.

Claiming 'Bashers' post many times a day is partly true - but we nearly always only post in response to the Uber-Rampers who make absurd claims, or copy & paste from old UKOG RNS's or annual reports without understanding what they mean.

But I do detect more than a hint of Hypocrisy here, since you've posted more here in a week than I have in a month, and are encouraging the Uber rampers to post repetitively?

I think I do.

Can I answer every question?
(BTW, "They can answer every question" - didn't realise what you said there, did you?!)

No, but I can answer many of them, since I do actually work in the industry.

How many of my questions have you answered in the last week?

That's an easy one - none.
That's why you encourage other rampers to try and not engage the 'Bashers' in direct repartee.
Because you can't answer any of their direct questions, as you simply don't have the technical knowledge or background.

In fact, you even go as far as to claim that our answers are 'long winded and boring'.
Not a good indication of your attention span if you can't read something less than 3,000 characters in length...

Well, in the oil industry (like many others), details matter.
Details like UKOG slipping one sentence into their SCC submission for Loxley, in which they stated that the Kimm was uneconomic in HH & BB - something they haven't said anywhere else.
Details like stating initial flow rates on a test, but then omitting what the flow rate was at the end of the test, trying to hide just how quickly the production rates fell on HH.
Details like failing to mention that Kezer-1 and Basur-1 both produced water on test.

So sometimes it can take a little longer than a 'soundbite' to explain just why an Uber-rampers post is incorrect.

But if you aren't prepared to take notice of details, it just means that when reality smacks you in the face, it hurts even more.

MM, your posts have been getting ever more desperate since your attempt to make a quick £ by pumping up the Spud of Pin-1 failed.

I look for

Ocelot,

So you consider 750 Million shares a good volume?

So why do posters start claiming good volume when as little as 350 Million shares are traded?

Remember, the Company has just over 21 Billion shares in circulation.....

PBoo,

My post was about the ongoing P&D around Pinarova-1, not about HH or how much it's produced.

But since you brought the subject up, why do you claim that UKOG are going to drill the Kimm again?

They have not said anything to the effect in the last year.

Actually, UKOG stated that they would recomplete HH-1 as a dual Portland / Kimm producer.
When they actually did the W/O, they only completed the Portland - FACT (see, I can use CAPITALS too...).

In their Loxley submission to SCC, UKOG stated that the Kimm at HH and BB was uneconomic - FACT.

After their RNS which claimed excellent test flow rates from the Kimm at HH, UKOG have remained silent on why they haven't continued production from the Kimm - FACT.

There is a mini-pump ongoing, which is easy to spot by the sudden appearance of posters who aren't normally on this board and clearly know nothing about UKOG or the oil industry.

But they post things like "MM's holding this back!", "Buys at full ask!", "Can't get a quote to buy!", "Greenies will be crying their eyes out at this success", "Fill your boots!", "Wouldn't want to be out of this!", "The shorters must be hurting", "BOOOOOMMM!", "This will be transformational!".

I'm sure I've missed some, but you get the drift.

There will be some posting that "XXX Million" shares have been traded today.
The number of shares traded is irrelevant, it's what the share price is doing that matters.

Look carefully when a poster claims that the share will rise to a particular price - then work out what that means for the Market Cap of a Company that has over 21 BILLION shares in circulation.

Look also for repetitive posting of the same thing (how many more times are the links to the same two Tweets going to be posted??) and accusations that those trying to bring a modicum of sense to the board are "Greenies" or "Swampies" etc.

IMHO there is money to be made here, but be very, very careful - Pinarova-1 is by no means the slam dunk that the uber rampers would have you believe.

Remember, the Kezer-1 Geothermal bore hole has already tested the structure and produced predominantly water.
Also, as anyone in the exploration side of things will tell you - it's normally a bad sign when there are seeps at or very close to surface - it means that the structure has been breached.

Historically with UKOG, the share price will spike at the RNS as unwary PI's get dragged in, and then start declining when the true meaning of the RNS can be digested.

My advice is to pick a % gain that you'd be happy with and sell.
There are many who got greedy and stayed in, even when the share price got over 10p and meant that the Market Cap of UKOG was more than that of BP!

If - after all the dust from Pin-1 and the next placing has settled - you think it's worth getting back in, by all means do so.

Good luck!

Presuming the next RNS isn't a placing announcement, that is....

Those of us who have been on here a while know that UKOG are notorious for very carefully phrasing their RNS's when it comes to well tests or potential production.

For example, UKOG refer to Basur-1 as "a discovery Well that flowed 2,000 BOPD on test".
What they have never admitted is that it flowed 500 bbls in 6 hrs and was then shut in since it started producing water.
They also don't admit that it was drilled in 1964, and nobody has done anything with the field since.

They call Loxley a "discovery" and the Loxley-1 Well an 'appraisal'.
Yet the CPR they issued had no 2P reserves, only 2C.

There are numerous other examples, especially concerning testing on HH and BB.

So, what to watch for in the next RNS?

They will hype up and prominently mention any oil shows encountered during drilling.

Remember that if they say "shows from 325m to 375m", that doesn't necessarily mean there is 50m of oil - the oil could all be seeping into the well bore from a single fracture at 325m - they just don't know.

Equally they won't know how much water is coming from the formation at the same time - they simply don't have the kit available to check.

When it comes to testing, watch for phrases like;
'produced XXX bbls of oil', without mentioning any water production or how long the Well was flowed for, or;
Quoting flow rates of XXX BFD, not BOPD, or;
Quoting "initial flow rates of XXX BOPD" and not mentioning what the final flow rate or fluid was.

Remember, there is no sign of a test spread (or room for one) on location, so any flow rates will be estimates with a large range of uncertainty (guess which side of the uncertainty UKOG will go for..).

So read the RNS very carefully and take note of what those who have actual oil industry experience are saying the RNS really means.

Then make your call - don't rely on the uber-rampers who are just trying to make a quick £ on the back of unwary PI's.

Awwww, I missed Rocky's Wife posts this weekend.

Admin must be working over time to toss him today, rather than tomorrow morning.

Despite the title of the post, it's not Oil from Pin-1.

The oil is from the Seismic shot hole.

LTH will all remember the 'pouring oil into a bottle' trick....

Billy,

No - the number of tankers always increases after heavy rains, as the rainwater falling on site has to be disposed of.

The oil production is a steady (albeit slowly declining) 50 BOPD - the published production figures show this.

Claims that all five tankers contain oil are, quite frankly, absurd.

Sorry, forgot;

Another poster (Billy) asked if they'd keep a tanker on site to fill later.

For oil production, no. There is plenty of storage on site and in any case, the tanker could not be used for temporary storage of hydrocarbons.

But in periods of heavy rain (especially over a weekend), they may leave an additional tanker on location in case the water storage becomes too full.

This is because one of the planning consent conditions dictates that there should be no truck movements in or out of site after 12pm on a Saturday and none on a Sunday.

I think it was November last year when they got caught out by very heavy rain, and ended up moving a tanker on a Sunday.

Of course, the eco-warriors were up in arms because they'd broken a condition of the planning consent.

But the only other choice for UKOG would have been to allow fluids to escape off-site - simply not an acceptable option and an egregious offence as far as the planning consent(s) go.

The HH site (like all production sites in the UK) is a 'sealed site'.

In other words, no fluids are allowed to drain from the site into the environment.

This includes the rainwater that falls on the site.

The rainwater is gathered into a collection sump, then pumped into temporary storage (along with the produced water separated from the production stream from the Well), so that it can be collected by Tanker for disposal.

So all that the 'eyes' (or one in particular) do is wait until there has been a period of heavy rain at HH (like last week) and Bingo! - there are more tankers to film and put onto Twitter, as there is more water to dispose of.

Then one poster in particular likes to come on here and try and create a mini-ramp by claiming that unspecified work on the pump or Well has greatly increased production.

Does it regular as clockwork.

But when the actual production figures are published three months later, which show that HH is, as usual, managing 50 BOPD and slowly declining, he avoids all questions about his previous claims.

HH is following a typical decline curve and production will continue to slowly drop below 50 BOPD until something changes.

That could be the conversion of HH-2z into a water injector - which will certainly result in fewer tankers as the produced water is going to be re-injected.

It may or may not result in a production increase - if the injected water is going towards HH-1, therefore increasing sweep efficiency. Or perhaps allowing UKOG to increase the pump speed to produce more fluid (the % water cut has been shown to increase significantly if they open up the Well too far).
Only time will tell.

HH-3 (if drilled) will result in a production increase.

Note that I say "if drilled", because the 3D seismic might show that there is no location for it to go to.

We know that the UKOG published structure map has a lot more 'guesstimation' in it than normal. After all, HH-2z was supposed to be drilled updip of HH-1, but that turned out not to be the case...

BTW, the same poster (before he was tossed off the board earlier today) also claimed that UKOG were limiting production because they didn't have permission to flare enough gas.

Actually, the gas production is less than 10% of what they are allowed to flare - they even reduced the flare size several months ago, as the original one was now too large.

Billy,

They drilled the top hole quickly because the Rig has 'pull down' capability.
That means it has a way of getting more weight to the bit (therefore increasing ROP) at shallow depths than a conventional Rig.

This advantage will have vanished by now, as they are deep enough that it's not relevant.

At that depth, the carbonate will probably drill at c. 3 m/hr, but UKOG have said that they will stop and test while drilling the next hole section.

In that respect how quickly they are drilling is not the issue - it's going to be when they think they have a show good enough to test.

Ignore MM's prediction of TD by Monday - he doesn't understand what they meant when they said that they will stop and test during drilling. He also doesn't know how long it takes to get everything done at a casing point.

They have to run and cement the 9 5/8" casing in place and wait for the cement to harden first - that should take about 24 hrs.

They then have to install the surface hook up for drilling the next ( 8 1/2") hole section.

I really, really, hope from an HSE perspective that they are going to install at least a Divertor for this hole section (a BOP Stack would be preferable).

In any case, they first have to cut and prepare the 9 5/8" casing so they can then weld on the next piece.
If they carry on down the Cowboy route, they'll just weld on a bell nipple & flowline and then start drilling immediately - which should take another 16 hrs or so.

If they then install just a divertor spool (c/w divertor lines) and divertor (with the bell nipple and flowline on top of that), that should take an additional 20 hrs to install and test.

If they install a BOP Stack, that will take an additional 16 hrs to install and test, compared to just installing the divertor.

So the earliest they will commence drilling is Friday evening, but it could be as late as Sunday morning.

A day to drill the the earliest potential testing point - so Monday morning could bring an RNS that they have stopped to test, but I suspect it will be a couple of days later (Weds 7am!) when PI's should look for the (very carefully worded....) RNS w.r.t. testing the first zone.

Ninetails,

Thanks!

I aim to please - but frequently miss...

The depths that they will stoop to just shows their desperation and complete lack of morals.

MM,

Opening with a cheap insult? Your desperation is deeper than I thought.

Odd that you call me a hypocrite for repeatedly posting, and yet you have posted on here more in the last week than I have in the last month.

And repeatedly posted the same ramptastic nonsense on multiple threads.

Do you understand the word 'irony'?

No?

Thought not.

You'll also note that virtually all my posts in the last week have been in direct response to a post that you made in the first place.

You may find my posts long winded, but it does take time and effort to try and explain what can be quite complex points to someone with the attention span of a ten year old.

Clearly with you I should have been aiming lower...

Because if you had understood any of my posts, you'd have seen that I identified it as being a water well rig several days ago.

Why do you think it being a water well rig is a positive?

I know you won't answer that - because you can't.

But the type of rig is actually irrelevant - it's the HSE standards (or lack thereof) that are the big issue, as I have pointed out.

You also can't answer the question as to why you think Pin-1 will produce oil, when Kezer-1 has already been drilled through the same anomalies and tested predominantly water.

You claim that I've ignored the positive explanation because it doesn't suit my narrative.
No, I've taken apart your ramptastic posts because they aren't based in reality.

If you think that they are irrelevant, you clearly don't understand what it means to have conditions set before the planning application can be signed off,
They are very relevant and can stop a project dead in it's tracks if they are not met prior to (or even during) operations.

Yet again you claim that I'll be "inconsolable" if Pin "comes up trumps".
But I've already said that it will find oil.
And equally I've also said that the RNS will emphasise any oil shows or flow, while being very, very carefully worded to try and obfuscate that it predominately flowed water.

Your posting is getting more desperate by the day.

You must now be really worried that you won't be able to offload your UKOG shares in a P&D - the shares that you clearly bought and then came to this board to try and uber ramp the RNS spud so you could make a quick profit by sucking in unwary PI's.

It must be so disheartening for you to find that there are several on here who are used to dealing with the ramptastic crew, and have the technical knowledge & experience to take apart their nonsensical posts.

BTW, one question you could answer (and so far haven't) is what do YOU do to earn a living?