UKOG calls meeting to approve share issue for Turkish operations

The weald-based drilling company, UK Oil & Gas, is seeking support for a share issue to fund new drilling in Turkey.

UKOG has said its activities in 2021 would focus on the SE Turkish Basur-Resan oilfield, where it has a 50% licence stake. The company has also applied for an interest in neighbouring licences.

In a statement to investors after the close of trading on 21 May, UKOG said the Turkish interests had been assessed to contain “significantly greater discovered oil volumes than any of the company’s UK projects”.

It said:

“In order to deliver the Company’s stated strategy and growth objectives, it will require further funds in the near future for, amongst other things, its funding obligations under the agreed work programme for the Resan Licence and any of the new Application Blocks should they be awarded to the Company and its partner.”

The company has called a general meeting next month to seek shareholder approval for the share issue and the removal of the right of existing shareholders to have first refusal.

The statement said the approvals were needed so that the company could “raise money for its working capital obligations”.

Under the agreement to acquire a stake in the Basur-Resan licence, UKOG agreed to wholly fund the first $5m of the work programme. This is for four wells and 100km of seismic surveying. After this, UKOG will pay 50% of all costs.

Drilling consent for the first appraisal well, Basur-3, was granted in April 2021. Yesterday’s statement said construction of the well site and drilling pad was nearly complete. Drilling was expected to begin in the summer. The 2021 work programme also includes 120 line KM of seismic surveying, UKOG said.

The company said it expected a further appraisal well, Resan-6, would be drilled in 2022, along with processing and interpretation of new seismic data.

The statement added that if UKOG and its partner were awarded the licences to the south and south east of the Resan, the seismic programme would be extended into the new block.

  • The meeting is at 11am on Monday 7 June 2021 at Hays House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 4HJ. Shareholders have been asked not to attend the meeting in person because of Covid-19 restrictions and vote by proxy by 11am on Saturday 5 June 2021.

22 replies »

  1. Para. 1. Martin.Where precisely is the nonsense?
    Quotation,para 2., Martin. Which industry activist produced the quoted opinion? Yes, I know, an ‘inspector’. Do you really imagine the discussion ends there?
    Para. 3. This argument is so historically overwhelming I have no idea what you are talking about, even if I read ‘implicit’ as ‘complicit.’
    Para. 4. I made no such suggestion, merely that if fossil fuel subsidies were transferred/added to renewables subsidies, there would be more in the way of subsidy for renewables . (You may have a sum problem here!) There would probably also be a bonus for renewables in that the private investor might be less confused by the ambivalence of government policy.
    You may be right on farm shops and I’m all for local farmers’ markets but my point remains that your comparison with oil and gas ignores the polluting effects of the latter. Your industry’s higher environmental and other standards are all very well but their product is toxic. I could take issue on higher UK standards, but that’s another story.
    Where are the “facts…for all to see”? The facts which I can see tell us to stop polluting now.
    I’m glad Universities are teaching facts, although they went a little beyond that in my day, but I don’t follow your ‘argument’ here.
    Please turn off your spell checker…’.practising’ is the English verb, and ‘neighbour’ is the UK English spelling.
    Please, Martin, try and see the point.We must stop fossil fuel exploration and development. Your silence on this one crucial point clearly indicates denial. I would really like to know where you stand on the matter of anthropogenic climate change largely attributable to fossil fuels.

  2. Still nonsense.

    How do you add fossil fuel “subsidies” to renewable subsidies if you do away with fossil fuel??

    Your maths. are letting you down again, and now, common sense!

    The maths. work the OTHER way. You do away with fossil fuel and the TAX loss is added to something else, INCLUDING renewables. Start with the £28 billion per year fuel duty. I recognize there is a reluctance to face that issue, but that is the reality. (Road tolls are also likely to be required. Let’s not mention that one.)

    Keep on trying to make a nonsense of maths., (you are not alone), and the more you do it, the more it shows that the antis have to resort to that to make their case. It does not make the case, it weakens it. Your calls to “do something” and then the inability to even get simple concepts to add up just turn people off. I am all for people doing something that does add up, and that includes buying locally where possible, and where local environmental standards are higher than for what they might be doing currently. Just like a farm shop-where some might even argue that what is in the farm shop is contributing to climate change, and they do!) You are the one who argues AGAINST that for oil which actually defines yourself as a climate change denier, (even without your anti HS2 stance) so, don’t try and turn that upon me.

    As far as the Inspector’s comments are concerned, you can ignore them, and the “evidence” that he quoted, and attempt to overcome with anti maths. However, I will keep on pointing out-hopefully to the benefit of locals-that this aspect has already been reviewed and a ruling has been made that should caution them against being persuaded down a path that is likely to cost them dearly just to satisfy a few antis who wish to ignore maths. and evidence. I have not seen any sign of crowd funding by the antis to repay that £400k.

  3. That solves all that, then. Any chance of some coherence here in all your reality, facts. arithmetic, physics and common sense?
    I repeat: “Please, Martin, try and see the point.We must stop fossil fuel exploration and development. Your silence on this one crucial point clearly indicates denial. I would really like to know where you stand on the matter of anthropogenic climate change largely attributable to fossil fuels.”
    I think those of us who can be bothered to try and make sense of your postings might like to know whether you agree climate change is an urgent threat, and whether you disagree or not with the consensus which lays the blame for the present crisis at the door of all of us who have knowingly exploited fossil fuels at the expense of life and of the planet. Do tell. As the voice of the industry here you must clarify this point. It’s a puzzle to me and perhaps others how one can rationally and knowingly press for more of the same.
    By the way, you’re slipping into capitals again. You’ve nothing to shout about.

    • I am not pressing for more of the same. It is you who is doing that by trying to argue (without any semblance of mathematical logic) against local fossil fuel production with higher environmental standards, and HS2, also with higher environmental standards than expanded motorways, or internal flights. (France has seen that light, so it is not a Collyer idea, but still a good one.)

      So, a lame attempt at deflection, again.

      Nope, I do not agree we should stop fossil fuel exploration and development whilst we are projected to utilize up to, and beyond 2050. What we should do is do everything possible to make sure that our fossil fuel is more environmentally extracted, and utilized, than the majority of the stuff we currently use but have no control over. The only justifiable refusal to address that is from an exporting country who wishes to export to the UK. But even they would find someone who could do maths., and know what “evidence” and “transfer” means! Greta is against offshoring responsibility. Perhaps you should pick an argument with her? Oh, and by the way, she also likes trains.

      But, you carry on with your more of the same, and that is what you will get, because the majority will see-as per the Third Energy discussion-that nothing will satisfy some and get in the way of their “fun”, so the majority will decide to do nothing. Which is a good outcome for some as they still have something to campaign against. But, should that be the case?

      So, be careful about trying to make out some people are part of the problem, not the solution. I am not the voice of the industry, I have no connection to it, but-like yourself-I use fossil fuel, and have an interest in what I consume, and how that could be improved. For you, it seems, it is telling others not to consume what you do, and others should do “something”.

  4. So, Martin, you reject the recommendations of the International Energy Agency – (The International Energy Agency said in its “Net Zero by 2050” report last week that investors should not fund new oil, gas and coal supply projects beyond this year if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century and meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.) – in favour of your own opinion. Are you perhaps better informed than they?

  5. Yep.

    Just like I reject your attempts to distort maths, 1720.

    It is known as common sense. Shame it is not more common.

    Perhaps the IEA ought to look at transport emissions, as a starter? Perhaps you feel that particular more of the same does the planet any good? I don’t, when it can be reduced. I am also old enough to remember the Torrey Canyon (and, they still happen). I also note the SBS rescue of a tanker in the Solent was carrying a cargo of oil from Nigeria. Nothing against the Nigerians, but please do not tell me they demonstrate a very good environmental record in the oil industry. That’s the more of the same you try and defend. It’s indefensible, even with distorted maths., and then you try and excite people in the UK that they should have their local funding reduced because you know better than those who have already ruled regarding evidence and transfer. Are you perhaps better informed than they?

    So, have the IEA taken such things into account? I suspect not, otherwise they would not have made such a simplistic statement. But there are plenty of reports published that show local sourcing is a quick and simple method to take action against climate change. Those I believe. Perhaps you missed them? Or, you have another motivation to maximize imports of oil to the UK?

  6. At least we know now the value of your opinions. One who is happy to continue with more of the same, knowing what it’s doing to the planet and planetary life as greater credence is placed upon one’s own untutored beliefs than the considered and painstakingly researched opinions of those, with no axe to grind, whose job and concern it is to inform us in order that we may mitigate or adapt to the greatest challenge humanity has faced. I hope you’ll be able come to a more rational position before it’s too late. Signing off, Martin.

  7. No, you know nothing of the sort. I have taken the effort, and time, to provide you with details, that you have been unable to refute in any coherent way. If you wish to ignore those details that is your choice, to try the one sided equation approach, again. Like you have obviously ignored the reports around mitigating against climate change and local sourcing, and just like you have ignored many other reports and the maths. book for beginners. So, now you try and use “painstakingly researched opinions”. (By the way, you will find there are many “painstakingly researched opinions” that find HMG campaigned to stay in the EU, but there even those who ignore them, 1720.) The rest of us look at the evidence and use common sense.

    Thanks for the injection of humor. (Don’t use that as a fall back-must consider my US readers as well!)

  8. ‘Humour’, Martin. Your spell checker, like your fact checker, not to mention your abacus, letting you down again.
    Your attempts to equate the justification for Brexit with the arguments against global heating are risible. Really signing off now, but keep digging; your style is improving now you’ve stopped shouting, but unfortunately not the content, still devoid of a moral position which considers planetary life. Last word to you, ( no doubt.)

  9. Don’t worry guys. I don’t think UKOG will find much in Turkey apart from water! I worked in the area for eight years. The chances of finding commercial oil there is almost zero. Then there is the issue of their partner, another subject altogether.

Leave a Reply to Iaith1720 Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s