Member Info for ZYX098

" No resource estimates for the potentially significant eastwards extension of the Godley Bridge-1 Portland gas discovery into PEDL234 are included in the CPR. The Company believes that it is more pragmatic to wait until after the results of the Company's planned 2019 appraisal well and test to make such a determination."

Ibug,

The only UKOG potential candidate for a frac is BB, and even then, it would just be a small 'near well bore' frac to get past formation damage.

However, the difference between that, a conventional frac and a frac program to produce from an unconventional play (i.e. Shale) would be completely lost on the eco-warriors.

No good promoting either the Portland or the Kimm as frac candidates in HH, as they could frac into the water. Remember, HH-2 failed as it started producing water from natural fractures.

Besides, it's problematical to artificially frac a formation that already is naturally fractured - it's a bit like trying to fill a bucket with water when the bucket is already full of holes.

That would just get the hysterical scare-mongering shouty voices on Twitter up in arms again.

In practical terms, they'd still hold up any attempt with numerous Court cases, demonstrations and scaring the local population with wild eyed claims of environmental devastation, houses disappearing into giant cracks in the ground, destroying water sources etc etc.

However the real issue with unconventional gas production is that so far there hasn't been enough of it to show whether or not it would be cost effective.

BTW, current seismic limit on the oilfield = 0.5 on the Richter Scale, after which operations have to cease.

A limit which doesn't apply to the Geothermal work currently going on in Cornwall - which is just as well as they have exceeded that limit on numerous occasions.

Careful Cynderlad.

You know how much the rampers hate it when facts are posted which don't agree with their outlook...

It's really pretty simple Ocelot.

There is only one project in UKOG's portfolio against which they can issue a CPR - HH.

And as I explained, the earliest timing that a CPR could be available on HH (presuming it was favourable..) would not help provide funding for the time frame in which Loxley has to be drilled to meet licence commitments.

Morning Ocelot,

I could be ungenerous and claim that you avoided answering the question.

But lets take the other path - so you agree that the work towards a CPR can only come after HH-3 has been drilled (which UKOG do not have the funds to do) and been on production for several months so they have the data?

And presumably you are aware of the work required and therefore the time-frame it takes to produce a CPR?

In which case - even if it was beneficial - the CPR results would not be available in the time frame required to help provide any funding for Loxley prior to the date it's required to be drilled by licence conditions.

Ocelot,

Ah, ever the optimist twisting my reply - so I'll change the emphasis and ask you; where is the CPR going to come from that they could then use to raise the funds for Loxley?

Ocelot,

What CPR?

They don't have the data to support for one for Loxley.

The only possible CPR would be the long awaited one for HH - except we have now been told that it won't be worked upon until at least after HH-3 has been drilled - a Well that UKOG don't have the money to drill unless they issue yet more confetti shares.

Wizard,

FWIW, I voted against the reappointment of the Directors and submitted over a dozen questions - most of which they declined to answer on the grounds that they (and I'm paraphrasing here, I forget their exact words) "will only deal with questions that are directly to do with the business of the AGM".

Aaaannnnnnd there's the very predictable response from the Norwegian cave dweller.

You contribute absolutely nothing to this board, therefore I banish you to the land of the green line.

BEGONE WITH YOU!

TWB,
The flaw in your argument is that the derampers tend to have those inconvenient things called "facts" to back up their assertions - something that rampers never do..

Somewhat ironic that the Norwegian Cave Dweller who has but one insult in his repertoire calls Qwerty boring...

Why?

Are they going to do a 20:1 consolidation?

Wizard,
You are missing the main approval hurdle that has to be overcome, that of the OGA.

As I have posted several times before, the EA basically deal with the surface facilities, while the OGA deal with subsurface, and it is their approval that really matters.

The issue with HH-2 is that it was originally designed to be a producer.

The OGA have to be convinced that injecting water into HH-2 will increase overall oil recovery at HH before they will give approval.

Given the fractured nature of the formation and that their previous structure map was clearly incorrect, UKOG may have a hard time convincing the OGA that it will.

Amongst other things, UKOG will also have to state where they will get the additional water from, as (also noted by other already) they need to show they intend to make up for not just current oil production, but historical production as well.

If UKOG can't persuade the OGA, then the OGA may reject the application on the grounds that UKOG in reality want to use it for water disposal and not for pressure maintenance / enhanced sweep recovery purposes.

Besides, financing won't becoming available on the basis of an OGA and/or EA approval.

A CPR is needed for that, something that is conspicuous by it's absence on HH now that we have a significant amount of production data.

It's also the "great crew-change" really come home to bite.

There is (was..) a huge bulge in the age distribution of the oilfield in the US (and the UK for that matter) such that the average age of an oilfield worker was in the late 50's. This has been known about for years and was tagged 'the great crew change'.

But the industry effectively buried it's head and didn't train up enough people underneath them.

So when Covid hit as the oilfield was just beginning to recover from the previous price crash, the additional 18 months of downturn has meant a lot of very experienced people have retired and are not coming back to the workplace.

Those that are left looking for work are often the subject of ageism (but can't call it that, it's "you have too much experience for the position"....) or there are 30-something Managers in positions they really don't have the experience for and they don't want a 'grey hair' working under them who knows more than they do.

In addition, there are many Countries - especially in the Middle East and FSU - who now put age limits on the work permits & visas that they will issue to Overseas workers (in some cases as low as 50).

All that has combined to create a general shortage of experience which is having a negative effect across the board.

Mirasol,

The real pain in frozen ground is the shot holes.

But I suspect they'll be using vibroseis anyway.

HITS,

As pretty much everyone expects the PI to find in UKOG's favour w.r.t Loxley, I suspect that this has already been built into the share price and so a positive adjudication won't move the share price at all (unless the evangelicals successfully mass ramp the share).

But if, for some reason, the PI finds against UKOG, the share price will take a kicking.

Similarly on Arreton, I expect the NIMBYS will cause the initial application to be rejected, so it will then have to go to a second hearing sometime next year (I suspect in Q2, as more public consultation will be needed on the proposed responses to objections raised).

I suspect this scenario has also been built into the share price, so it will not move unless the IoW actually pass the application first time.

Roganjt,
You are missing the main approval hurdle that has to be overcome, that of the OGA.

The EA basically deal with the surface facilities, while the OGA deal with subsurface, and it is their approval that really matters.

The issue with HH-2 is that it was originally designed to be a producer.

The OGA have to be convinced that injecting water into HH-2 will increase overall oil recovery at HH before they will give approval.

Given the fractured nature of the formation and that their previous structure map was clearly incorrect, UKOG may have a hard time convincing the OGA that it will.

Amongst other things, UKOG will also have to state where they will get the additional water from, as (also noted by other already) they need to show they intend to make up for not just current oil production, but historical production as well.

If UKOG can't persuade the OGA, then the OGA may reject the application on the grounds that UKOG in reality want to use it for water disposal and not for pressure maintenance / enhanced sweep recovery purposes.

Reading both the links, there doesn't appear to be any real difference between the method proposed and a conventional fire flood?

A conventional fire flood essentially uses the downhole fire to heat up and mobilise otherwise immovable oil towards an adjacent well.

So I'm not clear on how this method doesn't produce CO2 from the insitu combustion of the oil and also manages to split the water produced by the combustion into H2 & O2 so the H2 can be recovered by the palladium catalyst?

The palladium membrane has to be at surface, otherwise it's an expensive process to recover the palladium downhole to be able to release the H2.

But I agree that the potential for H2 is huge, especially in hydrogen fuel cells to power long distance trucks that much of the world relies on to transport goods & materials around.

'Grey' Hydrogen - uses Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) to convert methane gas into H2 with CO2 as a by product. Current cost c. £1/kg
'Blue' Hydrogen - also uses SMR, but the CO2 is captured and either used or buried. Current cost c. £2 - £3/kg
'Green' Hydrogen - uses renewable electricity to generate hydrogen from water by electrolysis. Current cost c. £6 - £8/kg.
Current market cost of Hydrogen - c. £1.50/kg.

If I recall correctly, Angus stated 'grey' hydrogen for their plan and UKOG did not state which colour for Loxley.