Member Info for ZYX098

I'm willing to bet that UKOG will miss the 15th Dec submission deadline.

I don't think they have any intention of restarting production at HH - it's just smoke and mirrors so they could get the placing away to keep SS & the BoD drawing their salaries for a bit longer, while freeing up some cash to P&A BB-1 and restore the site.

Since the imposition of the EPL, the UKCS Oil production has dropped by c. 35% and Gas production by c. 25%.

The UK continues to be the only Country that still has a "windfall profits tax" from the effects of Russia invading Ukraine, even though the oil price returned to pre-invasion levels a considerable period of time ago and, as a result, all other Countries who imposed it have stopped.

The UKCS workforce has lost an average of 250 jobs every week since then - often the most experienced people who are either retiring or heading to work Overseas.

Revenue from the EPL has dropped and is now expected to be only £700 Million this year - significantly less than the Treasury models originally predicted.

The Chancellor and the Treasury have both refused to revisit the original model to see the effect of the changes that the Labour Govt introduced.

Industry research indicates that tax revenue from the UKCS will become net negative around 20230, as the disastrous effect of the EPL brings forwards decommissioning programs by as much as a decade.

Similarly, Industry research indicates that over £50 Billion in potential tax revenue will not be realised from production lost if the policy is not changed.

In the meantime, jobs continue to be shed - in this case from Harbour Energy, who are the largest oil produce in the UKCS.

https://worldoil.com/news/2025/12/1/harbour-energy-to-cut-100-uk-offshore-jobs-as-windfall-tax-extension-squeezes-investment/?oly_enc_id=5801J6403578F0Z

Ocelot,

So an outstanding loan is not a liability?

My bank would disagree with that - as would Alba and Doriemus.

But even by your calculations, you are admitting that they don't have enough cash in the bank to meet the £1.3 Million cost of P&A of BB-1 and the restoration of the site.

And I'll repeat (since you keep ignoring it) that UKOG have been served notice by West Sussex County Council to P&A BB-1 and restore the site by the end of Feb 2026.

Don't forget that the £5 Million raised was the gross - the costs of the raise probably took 10% of that.

Also, UKOG have been served notice by West Sussex County Council to P&A BB-1 and restore the site by the end of Feb 2026.

This will cost around £1.3 Million - a liability that the likes of TH2 and Ocelot continually ignore.

In addition, UKOG have no income stream to pay off ongoing expenses - again something that the likes of TH2 and Ocelot continually ignore.

Thanks Ladigue - great find!

Can you imagine the faux outrage if the Chairman of Shell or BP said the same thing about Greta, or the fact that fossil fuel will be required for decades to come?!

Mind you, the auto-translate feature needs a bit of work - for me it said the date of 1st oil would be Q5 2008!

Rolf1001,

Thanks for proving my point :)

Well poop.

On the naughty step for saying hurty words again?

But it's so crowded there already - although at least they are sensible human beings I can talk to....

Hi LTT,

The three months notice would be needed to get all the people and equipment lined up to do the work. The procedures should have been signed off and the relevant approvals obtained already.

But it shouldn't take too long (a few days) to stop production and temporarily suspend the Wells.

It's a matter of closing the subsurface safety valve in the tubing (and the packer in the annulus, if they are installed), using the valves on the Xmas tree to flush the oil out of the lines between the Wells and the FPSO, then closing the valves on the Tree. That can all be done remotely from the FPSO and should take a matter of hours.

Then it's a case of disconnecting the FPSO from the turret.

There should be a system that allows that to be done quickly (in the event of bad weather exceeding the criteria allowed to stay connected, for example), so it shouldn't take too long (maybe a couple of days?) for the FPSO to be hooked up to the tug(s), disconnect from the turret and then disconnect from the permanent anchoring system.

A lot of the work can be done simultaneously (e.g. temporarily suspending the Wells while hooking up the Tugs) which would also reduce the time line.

The last cargo can be unloaded as all this is going on.

Cleaning tanks (especially after so long in production) will be a pain in the backside, but the AM doesn't have to remain on station for that to be done.

I'd imagine they'd put a cleaning crew on board for the tow and complete the job in the shipyard.

Topshelf is absolutely correct - getting the FEED done correctly is crucial to the success of the refit.

In Navitas's Q3 results, they said they'd signed an agreement with a Rig Contractor - which is normally a pre-cursor to signing a contract.

Earlier this year, there were four Rigs mentioned as being in the running. The Ocean Endeavour and Great White Semi subs from Transocean, a Drillship (Stena Max??) from Stena and a new build semi from Odfjell.

The Great White and Stena Drillship would both be overkill for what's actually needed, but for such a long contract their day-rates will likely have been considerably lowered and be in the acceptable range.

I would think the main issue with the 5 yr recertification program is the hull condition. For newer Rigs, dispensation from the CA will usually be given for this to be done by ROV. However, if it's the Endeavour, the hull is still the original and I'd imagine that for such a long contract in a harsh environment with no nearby shipyards, they'd insist on a dry dock inspection for the hull.

The get the Rig in and out of dry dock I guess would take 2-3 days.

How long the hull inspection itself would take - no idea!

Of course, they may find damage or corrosion that needs repair as well, which would obviously increase the time in dry dock.

Rolf1001,

"I don’t like continued condescension and pomposity."

Add arrogance to that, and you have described yourself perfectly.

Better still, tell us why none of the BoD have ever participated in any of the placings.

Santos1,

If you want to reply to a post in a thread, please, please, please use the brown 'reply' button that is at the bottom right of the first post of that thread.

That way your replies won't appear as multiple threads and avoid clogging up the feed.

Thanks!

Hi Ralph,

Shenandoah wasn't Becaons first Operated project, it's in an area with literally thousands of other fields already producing and the production taxes will make no difference to the US economy.

SL is Navitas' first project and it's the first producing field in a completely new area - the income of which will be transformational for the FIG and the Residents of FI (and RKH!).

That's why I think they'll want to make a bit of a show about it.

Ocelot,

That's disappointing.

As well as avoiding answering the points I raised (because you can't) you are now resorting to distorting what I post.

"You" in the context I was posting clearly refers to another Company.

No Company would wish to enter into a JV with UKOG for the reasons I have clearly explained - and you have ignored.

No Bank would give them a loan for the same reasons.

There is nothing coming in the pipeline for the share price to make a recovery - it will simply continue a slow spiral down.

The only other thing on the horizon is a 10:1 (or even 100:1) consolidation, followed by more confetti issues to keep the lights on and SS in his salary.

It's really sad to see you having to resort to distorting what someone posts - while ignoring relevant points raised - in your attempts to defend UKOG.

However much they are paying you to try and defend this Company, it's not enough.

Ocelot,

Apart from you ignoring most of my questions;

To keep it in perspective, just one outstanding liability accounts for some 30% of the funds raised.

Again, UKOG have NO income to fund their ongoing expenses and future liabilities.

Any potential partner will look at UKOGs past performance as a guide to the validity and their potential performance of their proposed projects - projects in an industry of which UKOG have no experience.

They will also look at the potential of UKOG to fund those projects - which is non-existent.

They will also look at the merits of each project.

One is in the wrong place and relies on leaching out caverns in a salt layer of dubious quality.

The other has a Competitor next door which is in a far more advanced state of readiness.

Or to put it another way, a Company has spent £100 Million designing and constructing bicycles - and has nothing to show for it.

They have no money and are asking you to fund a £1 Billion project to design and build cars in an area with no demand for cars.

Are you really claiming that you - or anyone - would actually invest in such a Company?

Ocelot,

The recent raises were on the back of a meaningless MOU that the MM's used to foist a P&D on the unwary, hence the precipitous fall in share price since then. UKOG's actual financial health and upcoming liabilities were irrelevant to them, as they would (and have) make their money anyway.

The liabilities are still the same and aren't going to disappear, no matter how much the likes of yourself and TH2 would like them to.

They will also come due a decade before any possible revenue from any H2 project.

The Company has no income to meet those liabilities.

The cash in the bank (which is closer to £4.5 Million, once the expenses are taken) will disappear fast as they pay off the debtors for the £1.8 Million they lost, Company Overheads and the back salary that SS will no doubt claim.

Indeed, as I pointed out before, UKOG have been served notice by WSCC to P&A BB-1 and restore the site by Feb 2026 - a fact which TH2 and yourself keep ignoring.

This liability alone will cost in the region of £1.3 Million.

If SCC have any sense at all, they will demand that UKOG put £2.5 Million into an escrow account to fund the decommissioning of the HH site before they even consider allowing production to recommence (which it won't anyway).

If the Company was in such good financial shape, why did it take so long to get the (still incorrect) financial accounts published, and three goes by two different sets of Accountants before they could be signed off?

Also ask yourself why Companies House have issued a suspension notice to HHDL for non-submission of statutory Company Accounts?

In the meantime it is beyond absurd to assert that a Company will form a JV with UKOG, when UKOG has a 100% history of failure in it's projects and has spent over £100 Million to be producing nothing.

TH2,

Looking at a Super Yacht brochure?

Is that so you can cut out the pictures and post them in your scrap book, next to the pictures of Super Cars that you can't afford either?

After all, if you really had bought shares every time you claimed you had, then you are down well over 90% in your holding and your investment must be very substantial, as you've even stated that you were close to TR-1 territory!!

It's ironic that you refer to the realists as Trolls, when it is you that actually meets the definition by being 100% wrong in your predictions over the last few years. Yet you still continue to post meaningless nonsense.

You even claimed that UKOG has a gas Well as an asset a couple of days ago - despite the fact that UKOG have given up the Loxley license, never having even drilled a Well!

I know they haven't because, unlike you, I read their reports and can understand them - mainly because I have over 30 yrs experience in the Oil Industry and actually run Rigs for a living.

As always, while pushing your 'jam tomorrow' fantasies, you conveniently "forget" that UKOG has outstanding liabilities forthcoming that will undoubtedly either push the Company to the Wall, or force SS to yet again issue more confetti to keep the lights on.

For example, UKOG have been served notice by West Sussex Country Council to P&A the BB-1 Well and restore the site by Feb 2026.

That's around £1.3 Million of the recent cash raise gone.

Oh, while some claim that the £5 Million is 'cash in the bank', it's not.

The £5 Million figure excludes the costs of the raise (usually c. 10%) and paying off the debtors due from the £1.8 Million losses they made (still not corrected in the Company Accounts) last financial year.

UKOG claiming they'll reactivate HH is just more 'smoke and mirrors'.

If they really though HH was profitable, they'd have been beating down the door at SCC to get production restarted - not waiting a year before even beginning to engage with SCC.

Besides, we know that UKOG don't think HH is profitable, as despite having permission to convert HH-2 to a water injector, they never did the work. The cost of £250k was clearly more than the NPV of the work, which is why they didn't.

Given they've already removed much of the surface equipment at HH, it would cost way more than £250k to get it back, installed, tested, certified and rent the equipment needed to bring the Well back onto production.

So it's not going to happen - but they do need to P&A the Wells and restore the site - another £2.5 Million in cash they'll need to stump up.

Just as UKOG's H2 projects are never going to happen, for reasons which have been explained (with actual evidence - something you never do with your fantasy claims) many times before, but you still continue to ignore.

Hi BB,

To compare where Navitas and BOR are in their respective licenses, Navitas are like a farmer looking at his Apple trees and watching the shoots of the first crop flowering.

BOR are a farmer looking at a field, waiting to see if the apple seeds he planted will germinate.

Hi LF,

I wrote this about BOR in an earlier thread, which you may have missed;

****

FWIW, I sold just over half my holdings (c. 450k shares) in BOR in mid-August to recoup my initial investment and take some profit.

I kept the rest as I thought they'd take a bounce up on the back of the SL FID announcement, but that was when I thought it would be before the FIG election purdah.

Subsequently I felt the risk of loosing it all outweighed the possibility of a farm in (which in any case would result in BOR giving up all but a small % of their holding) and sold the rest a couple of weeks ago.

Why?

Well, BOR would need a 100% carry for a farm in, as they only have sufficient funds from the last share issue to 'keep the lights on' until Dec 2026.

Also bear in mind that RKH are carrying their SFB Licenses at zero value on their books.

In terms of timing, BOR are now effectively already out of the window to get a Rig & equipment to the FI, then drill and test a Well before the end of the license in Dec 2026.

Could BOR get a license extension from the FIG?

I doubt it.

Any work program would be predicated on BOR getting someone to farm in, carrying BOR 100%.

They haven't been able to get a farminee so far (over 2 yrs of serious trying) and the reality is that anyone who wants the license (which likely does contain substantial gas & condensate reserves, even though the discovery Well was not tested) would be better approaching the FIG to pick up the license in the next round.

That way the new Operating partnership would pay 100% of the work program and have 100% of the license, without having a minnow with a small % slowing down further work because they don't have the cash.

That option would, in my opinion, be much more attractive to the FIG, who will want to get some momentum going in the SFB too.

Would that be brutal for BOR, their board and shareholders?

Absolutely, considering the time and effort they've put into it.

But the Oil Industry isn't known for being a charity!

********

BOR is a binary choice - if they don't get a farm in, they'll lose their licenses and the Company will fold.

If they do get a farm in, then there is a chance to make some money out of them - but bear in mind that the result of any farm in agreement will also mean their holding is drastically reduced, to perhaps 20% at most.

Given the potential reserves in the SFB (and BOR have done very good work in trying to asses how much there might be) combined with recent advances in FLNG technology and the forecast increasing demand for Gas, I disagree with Mirasol.

I think that a Major or large NOC will pick up the license(s) and look to put together a 4 -6 Well Exploration / Appraisal program commencing around 2029, with any potential development being around 2035 - 2037 as a new FLNG FPSO would need to be built (no change from $1.5 Billion, I think!) to cope with the weather conditions in that area.

Just to clarify a couple of points;

The FIG have to sign off on the Field Development Program (FDP), but they don't sign off on the Final Investment Decision (FID).

The FIG have already signed off on the FDP.

There are many pieces to the jigsaw that makes up the FID.

Some of these pieces are indeed documents/permits that the FIG do have to approve/issue (e.g. the EIA) and I suspect it was to make sure that all these were signed off was why the FIG Elections were delayed slightly.

Other parts of the jigsaw (e.g. the financing) may not yet be 100% complete and before the Banks would provide the financing, they would want to ensure (as part of their due diligence) that all other pieces of the jigsaw were in place and signed off.

The FID decision itself is only made by the Operating partnership - in this case Navitas and RKH.

As I've posted before, it would put the FIG in an awkward position if FID was announced during the FIG elections, which is why I think the announcement will be during w/c 15th Dec.

If Navitas/RKH have all the pieces of the jigsaw in place, a delay of a couple of weeks in announcing the FID would not - in reality - make any difference to the project.

As we've already seen, they are already proceeding with key pieces of the project that have long lead times.

But this 'delay' is in any case hypothetical, as it is based on Sams AGM comment that FID would be in November - a statement he made before the delay in the FIG elections was announced.

Given the importance of the project to the FI and that it is Navtias's first Operated project, I think they'll both want to make quite a 'Dog & Pony show' of the FID announcement, which is why I think they'll actually make it in the FIG offices.

If this turns out to be the case, would Sam attend as well? I think so, as it's going to make the Company.

Their presence would also give the FIG the buffer of having Navitas personnel there who could answer some of the more technical questions that may arise.

Hi Norrie,

What they've done is open it up for new fields that could be tied back to existing structures.

I haven't read the full thing, so I'm not sure if that means only already discovered fields that haven't been developed yet, or includes new potential discoveries.

Either way, it won't affect the release of the Aoka Misu, as there's nothing in the immediate vicinity that could be quickly developed and tied back.

Even if there were, they'd have to go through the whole Concept / Select / Design / FDP / FID process and that (plus getting the equipment) would take them comfortably into 2027 at the earliest.

In the meantime, this Govt keeping the EPL on until 2030 is just hammering more nails in the UKCS coffin, while Norway continues to explore for and develop gas fields to supply the gas that they know we will need!

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2025/11/25/equinor-to-drill-26-exploration-and-appraisal-wells-offshore-norway-in-2026/