Industry

UKOG confirms talks with potential new investors for Broadford Bridge

Broadford bridge 170428 Keep Billingshurst Frack Free 4

Broadford Bridge well site, 28 April 2017. Photo: Frack Free Billingshurst

UK Oil and Gas Investments – the company with interests at Horse Hill, Broadford Bridge and Markwells Wood – has confirmed it is meeting with potential new institutional investors.

UKOG issued a statement this afternoon saying it was looking for new investment to fund what it called the firm’s “growth strategy”.

The statement said:

“The potential funding would be utilised to carry out the exploration and appraisal drilling plus long flow testing activities, which is expected to begin by the end of Q2 2017 on Broadford Bridge.”

UKOG said it needed a minimum of £6.5m. The statement added:

“At this point, the pricing has not been finalised with any potential investors, but the Company expects pricing to be determined using typical market practices”.

The Broadford Bridge site, near Billingshurst in West Sussex, has had planning permission since 2013. But only site preparation work has been carried out.

Now local campaign groups are arguing that the permission is not valid for UKOG’s plans because the company wants to target a different formation from the one for which consent was granted. The permission is due to expire in September 2017.

Pulborough meeting 170430 Jon O'Houston 1

Meeting in Pulborough about the Broadford Bridge site, 30 April 2017. Photo: Jon O’Houston

About 150 people attended a meeting about the Broadford Bridge well on a Sunday evening on the May bank holiday weekend. They heard calls for objections to the drilling plans. There was also criticism of mistakes made in the company’s application for an environmental permit for the site. Details

Earlier this month, UKOG withdrew its planning application for drilling and oil production at Markwells Wood, in West Sussex, which was due to be decided by the South Downs National Park Authority on 11 May. Statement

A decision on the company’s plans for extended well testing and extra drilling at Horse Hill were delayed earlier this year when Surrey County Council asked for more information. The company and council agreed a new deadline for the decision of 31 July 2017.

UKOG’s share price ended the day at 1.04p, down 15.1%

 

17 replies »

  1. UKOG do seem to be spreading themselves rather thin. Anyone would think they didn’t want to get oil out of the ground. What has happened to the Gatwick Gusher?

    • They are investors with Angus oil and they are exploring related promising tracts.. dont’ worry they will come on full steam.. they are just gearing u p. Protestors should target companies by spreading news about community resistance to stock analysts and reporters because lack of funding will impact them the most

  2. I actually feel sorry for the investors who constantly see their share values plummet and are continually being fleeced while Mr Sanderson takes his annual consultation fees of £200,000 plus. But then again… maybe not 🙂

  3. I agree that investors in the Weald have been duped so many times by these cowboy companies , I hear that there could be a lot more questions to answer regarding manipulation of shares [edited by moderator]. Meanwhile UKOG wants more money to raise its status to Tin pot . Ah well there were plenty of warnings , we even heard about this before the RNS was issued after 2pm today and before shares took a hit of about 15% . Is that insider information ?

  4. I’d be interested to find how many of David Lenigas’s companies have paid out dividends to small time investors, or is it just down to them to gamble on when to sell so that others suffer the losses? The stock market baffles me so this is a genuine question if anyone has the answers?

    • $5 trillion dollars of fossil fuel divestment in last 15 months.

      http://divestinvest.org/2016-report/

      Whilst the world is busy divesting UKOG are desperate to raise funds for fossil fuel extraction in a world flooded with cheap oil and gas.

      The big profit will be on the claim by the industry that house prices next to sites will increase in value. This is called the ‘Aberdeen Effect’
      Apparently people moving to the countryside choose to live next to toxic, explosive, industrial sites in preference to open fields, woodland, and quiet country lanes.

      I have mentioned this before to those who believe in the industry. I suggest you buy up all the property for sale around the sites. Sit on it until full production starts then sell at a massive profit to those desperate to live next to sites.

      If you are true disciples to the industry, buy now and make money. You would be foolish to miss out on such a bonanza.

  5. Lisa C- you will struggle to find an AIM company that pays a dividend. The whole point of the AIM market is to facilitate funding for companies in an initial phase of development. Where they go from there is variable. Some may go onto the main market (eg Sirius) and develop and finally pay a dividend, others will be gobbled up by bigger fish, and some may not develop or even fail.
    Most investors in these companies make their money trading as the share prices can fluctuate very substantially and quickly. “Long term holders” are present but not always a major feature-you need to ignore refracktion’s posts in this respect, bless him. Additionally, if you hold shares of AIM companies within an ISA you can shelter many of them from IHT liability because most AIM stocks qualify for business property relief.
    I have modestly invested previously in companies where David Lenigas has been involved. I have yet to lose money, and have made a profit in some cases. Deciding when to buy and when to sell, and what is fake news, is the same for all these sort of investments. For long term holders who bought Sirius at 6p and now see it at 25p, probably £2+ when in production and a sizeable dividend shortly after (IMHO), that is a very different sort of investment and most small time investors will recognise that, even if Dr. Dave doesn’t.

      • Mr/Ms GBK

        The three main criteria for defining unconventional are:

        – Permeability of the reservoir less than 0.1 millidarcies
        – Geological setting of the resource spread out, ill-defined (i.e. no actual trap)
        – Resource requires stimulation – acidisation and/or fracking to make it flow.

        On all three counts Broadford Bridge is unconventional.

        I suggest you read properly into the subject (e.g. my lecture text, linked above) before pontificating on the differences between the US and the UK.

        • Dr Google first search page doesn’t agree with you on 0.1 millidarcies perm. Perhaps the above is your definition?

          Resource requires stimulation? Acid wash? Does this make most water wells “unconventional”?

          Thamama / Sarvak reservoirs – unconventional? I don’t think so, at least I never head that term. But both are stimulated with massive acid fracks (at least in the 80’s they were). They were conventional relatively tight carbonate reservoirs.

          • Mr Tresto:

            On the 0.1 mD permeability criterion – please consult the 10 or so industry and academic sources cited in one of my lecture slides, rather than relying on an amateuristic google search. The one exception I found was the German Coal Authority (or similar organisation) which put the divide at 0.6 mD, but I ignored that figure, as it is evidently more relevant to coal bed methane than hydrocarbon exploitation in the oil/gas company sense.

            There is a difference in volume, pressure and concentration between acid wash and acid ‘fracking’. In any case the permeability and the trap criteria both put Broadford Bridge into the unconventional category, with or without stimulation.

            If you believe that UKOG/KOGL can really extract economic quantities of oil by conventional methods from three very thin dirty semi-limestones, totalling under 80 m in thickness (and which could equally be called calcareous mudstones, as they are only half-way to being pure limestone) then is it not surprising that they were not exploited in the 1980s when Weald exploration was very active? The oil price then before the 1986 crash was $30-$40 (inflation-adjusted = $60-$120 today). Are you telling us that the majors exploring the Weald in that era (BP, Conoco etc.) were idiots?

            Let us be clear: KOGL is trying it on with unconventional exploitation of the Kimmeridge Clay, but hiding behind allusions to limestone, and avoiding at all costs the dread (but necessary) words shale and fracking, which will be required in due course.

            Perhaps you can tell me exactly how KOGL proposes to identify the stratigraphy as it drills blind, 500 m from the nearest seismic line, given its slipshod and mendacious request for variation to the planning approval previously given to Celtique for a completely different (and conventional) target, the Sherwood Sandstone Group.

            Lastly, why are you introducing the subject of giant conventional middle-east carbonates reservoirs here? Is this some sort of attempt at pseudo-scholarship, in an attempt to mislead the non-specialist? The one paper I have on a Thamama reservoir, in the UAE (Cunningham & Chaliha, 2002, SPE 78480), quotes arithmetic means of 363 mD (crest) to 10 mD (down-flank) for the permeability – in other words, one to two orders of magnitude greater than the Kimmeridge limestones of the Weald. The appropriate comparison with the Weald micrites is obviously the Bakken – currently exploited by high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) techniques, as I am sure you are aware, and to which the current gang of cowboy companies themselves make reference in their annual shareholder reports.

            • There is a difference in volume, pressure and concentration between acid wash and acid ‘fracking’.

              I am sure you are fully aware that farcking requires the formation fracture pressure to be exceeded, other stimulations do not.

              Lastly, why are you introducing the subject of giant conventional middle-east carbonates reservoirs here? Introduced by your self:
              –” Resource requires stimulation – acidisation and/or fracking to make it flow.”

              Economic – what are you antis all worried about, I keep reading that this and that comapny should not spend their money drilling exploration wells because the economics don’t add up to you. If you are correct it will all be over, Cuadrilla, I-Gas, Ineos, Centrica, GDF, BP (China), Shell (also overseas), Saudi Aramoco, will all be proved wrong….

              But I prefer to wait and see, particularly as I know what the Preese Hall well flowed….

  6. If there was any involvement in shale fracking then this might just be relevant! (This is oil exploration as conventional as you can get, and no different from numerous wells already producing in the UK-at a profit.) I would suggest Lisa you DYOR, and as I suggested, beware of fake news. If you don’t, as with all investments you are likely to lose money-with or without Mr. Lenigas. (I used to work with a Dr. who found it worked a treat as a chat up line with the ladies. They did not find out until later he was a Dr. of Animal Nutrition. And not to be unkind to doctors, I also travelled with a guy (supplier) who let it be known on aircraft he was a film producer. Resulting service was great. He made promotional videos for corporations. I repeat, DYOR.)

    If you wish to do some research into the economics of US shale fracking, don’t forget to read Jim Ratcliffe in the Sunday Times magazine. Number 18 in the 2017 UK Rich List, having increased his personal wealth by £2.55billion since 2016 list, plus huge profits from his business (Ineos). He has made a decision to invest £500 million plus in UK fracking, not on a whim but being deeply involved in the economics of oil and gas around the world, including US fracking. His article includes some interesting economic facts.

  7. Good idea John! As I don’t want to relocate at the moment, did the next best thing and bought some shares in one of these terrible fossil fuel companies two days ago. More than a 10% return in two days-all taxes paid. Probably better than property, and better than the 0.3% a bank would give you on a savings account, and then invest (gamble?) your money doing exactly the same sort of investment. (Last time I checked the banks paying us 0.3% were returning 11% on that money.) Remember-DYOR.
    And for those who think this is some type of corrupt capitalism, if you have a savings account and maybe a pension fund you are already part of it. The only difference is you have no control over it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s