UKOG share offer raises 10pc of target

An UK Oil & Gas share offer has raised just a tenth of the target funds, the company has reported.

UKOG share price over the past month. Source: LSE

Earlier this month, UKOG said it was offering more than 2.6 billion shares which would have raised £4.7m if they had all been taken up.

Yesterday, the company announced the offer had raised £462,554 from the sale of nearly 257 million shares.

The offer increases the number of UKOG shares to more than 16.2 billion shares.

At the time of writing, the share price is 0.17p, a fall of 4.78% over the past five days.

The shares, available only to qualifying shareholders, had been offered at 0.18p, which UKOG said was a discount of about 22%. But by the time the offer opened the company’s share price had fallen to or below this level.

A letter accompanying the offer said UKOG aimed to raise money from the offer for its operations in the Basur Resan oil licence in Turkey.

It also said the company planned to fund what were described as “regulatory works at Horse Hill”, its oil production site in Surrey. There were additional ongoing licence obligations and work related to planning applications to drill on the Isle of Wight and at Loxley, near Dunsfold in Surrey, UKOG said.

The letter said UKOG would require “further funds in the near future” to fund its obligations in Turkey and any new licences that may be awarded to the company. With its American partner, UKOG has applied for a further three Turkish licences.

Earlier this month, UKOG raised £5m in a placing, which prompted a fall in the share price to 0.18p.

19 replies »

  1. Is the amount raised similar to Sanderson’s remuneration?
    What happened to the director share buying scheme? Perhaps they could have bought some?
    Speaks volumes about this company.

  2. What does it say, Jono?

    Perhaps it says the company came under pressure from shareholders to include them in offers, they did so, and the shareholders found the price was not to their liking, so did not pay a higher price than they needed to.

    I realize that excludes the mug punter tag, but that was always fake news, put about by IFA’s and proven to be incorrect, then an adoption attempted by the antis.

    Meanwhile, the numbers of shares that are usual for UKOG daily, appear to be trading daily.

  3. Perhaps they should put a yellow label on the shares and stick them on the reduced shelf ? Lenigas had the right idea, sell the BS , buy at a discount then sell just before the truth comes out, then disappear. I think they even have a name for it, “Lenimaths”

  4. or

    Could it be that ‘the penny has finally dropped’ with these investors, that fossil fuels are contributing to the Climate Emergency ?
    (Not much future ?)

  5. Except, the shares keep on being bought, Frank, so the penny has not finally dropped. I suggest you check the symptoms otherwise the diagnosis will be incorrect, and a second opinion will be required. Happy to oblige.

    By the way, exhaling also contributes to the Climate Emergency. The more who do it, the worse it gets. But, they keep doing it.

    As for Jono, he still hangs on to the belief that share certificates feature. Bless.

    • Let’s face it Martin, I’m sure those who have lost their homes and loved ones recently in Germany and Canada would love to hear how breathing is a major factor in climate change.

    • Martin,
      Before I respond to your kind offer of a second opinion in share purchase, it would be necessary for you to state your own qualifications and experience in these matters.
      However, I wonder for how long shares in fossil fuels will continue to be purchased at the present rate by PIs and IIs through the automated algorithms of the stock-markets?
      Share purchases in fossil-fuels will inevitably decline when these algorithms factor-in the accelerating domestic and international divestment in fossil fuels by the major institutions.
      Moreover, as the anthropogenic climate emergency becomes even more obvious, many PIs will have reservations about purchasing shares in fossil fuels.
      Many authoritative UK institutions have already divested from fossil fuels or are in the process of divestment. For example, my own college, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the BMA, the Royal Society of Arts, the National Trust, the University of Cambridge and several other universities, faith institutions such as the Church of England and Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist denominations, etc, etc.
      24 of the world’s largest investors have collectively excluded coal/oil/gas from $6trn in assets, as the trend towards divestment from carbon-heavy projects and products continues.
      More specifically, UK and international financial institutions such as of Legal and General Investment Management, Lloyds of London, Aviva, Allianz, Axa, SCOR, Swiss Re and Zurich and the Rockefeller Foundation, the pension fund of employees of New York City, etc, etc. have now all begun their divestment process.–encourage-others-to-follow-suit/
      For a comprehensive list of international divestment in fossil fuels:
      I do hope that this information is helpful to you Martin.
      (Good luck with your investing)

      • [Edited by moderator]

        Perhaps extend your links to the approach of a certain Warren Buffett in respect of whether you are a follower of others investing strategies?

        Your speculation about PIs is just that-speculation. And speculation is no better from someone who declares their qualifications. Let me just gently inform you that if you want to invest in a high dividend stock, ie. for income, and you do a little research, you will find one of the top stocks is Shell, in that respect. Has been for a long time, and will be for a long time to come, in my opinion, especially if the oil price predictions are anything like accurate-and they usually are, because it is a cartel, so not really predictions! If you want to gamble on the volatility of share price, without income, then one of the top for that list, is? Tesla! Maybe UKOG investors are just penny versions of Tesla investors?

        [Edited by moderator]

        • Thanks for your advice, Martin,

          But Shell is now rather an old-school fossil fuel .
          And are you sure, looking at the 5 year chart ?

          But you do make a more reasonable case for Tesla:
          ” Tesla is accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy with electric cars, solar and integrated renewable energy solutions for homes…”
          The 5 year share chart also looks to be rather better than Shell.

          Perhaps there is something in relatively greener investments then, particularly in a climate emergency ?

          • OMG!

            And, what DIVIDEND does Tesla pay out???!!!

            And, no, since Tesla was allowed on S&P 500 Index at the start of this year-ie. when it actually started to record some profit-the share price performance has been pretty poor, once institutional investors started to feature more significantly.

            I somehow think you deliberately missed the point I made previously so I will not bother to repeat, other than to state the obvious-income (dividend) and trading profit opportunities via volatility, are totally different matters. I do hope those managing your pension funds are aware of that.

            I have no axe to grind against Tesla. I know some of my pension is invested there, but a much bigger chunk is invested in Shell.(As it should be to provide income.)
            And, yes, to stop you more work, Tesla has done quite well in the recent short term in respect of sales. So have a number of other businesses where the disposable income some didn’t spend on leisure and holidays has been reallocated. It will be interesting as those other options become available again what will then follow.

            Perhaps I should invest in Cash for Ash, or lease my roof for solar panels and then find I can’t sell my house? Those sort of greener investments? LOL.

            • Peace & Calm to you Martin.

              Please forgive me, but I was only indicating my preference between the two choices which you chose to offer me:
              i.e. Shell & /or Tesla ? (Of course I fully understand dividends)

              However, in the light of the current Climate Emergency:
              Yes, I personally would now prefer to invest in a green or renewable technology, albeit to help in a very microscopic/ homeopathic way, to avoid further damage to the atmosphere of our planet.
              Similarly, I personally would not select a (probably profitable) individual investment, in for example, tobacco because of the harms to public health.
              Shell demonstrates an interesting current example of green-washing which is now rebounding on the company, as Shell sponsored the current Science Museum Exhibition ‘Our Future Planet’ (‘a major focus on climate change’). I wonder how this will be resolved ?

              My own father worked for Shell (Shell were then attempting to develop a prototype fuel-cell at Thornton Research in Cheshire) about 60 years ago.
              But If Shell were to use its undoubted scientific expertise and financial clout to assist with measures against global warming, then we would all approve.

              Martin, notwithstanding your exclamation marks, you do make some thoughtful contributions.
              But if humanity is to have any future, we all need to work together.
              Stay safe.

              • Thank you, for your kind wishes, Frank.

                And your latest comments make a lot of sense. It will be companies like Shell who do use their scientific expertise and financial clout with measures against global warming. Yet, much of the current campaigning ignores that totally (no pun intended.) Much of the discussion has been weaponized by the anti capitalist faction who see Big Oil as an enemy to be defeated, rather than the resource to be encouraged to help. The “correct” colored hydrogen discussion typifies the approach, which basically goes along the lines of no hydrogen until the hydrogen that meets “our” ideals. (It becomes protest rather than progress.) My line is, let’s get hydrogen going and then it can be developed to different types. And, to do that, it really does need the large chemical and fossil fuel companies to drive it forward, working with the car companies who are already pretty much there, just waiting for a cost effective and reliable volume supply.

                But, no matter. It seems that our “education” is being attempted by the media currently, (probably bored with Covid now) and then finally, at a late point, will come the gradual leaking of how much it will all cost and how it will impact people’s lives. Then, it will suddenly become apparent that unless those “nasty” big companies pick up much of the cost and work, then the cost to individuals will be far greater and the impact on their daily lives much greater. That equation will find it’s own balance, and that balance will need to include the greater numbers who are more worried about surviving until the end of the month rather than the end of many centuries beyond their life span. If the equation doesn’t balance for them. they will simply refuse it, as they did in Australia.

                And, I suspect, within that equation it will be apparent that fuel duty can be moved onto hydrogen much easier than it can be moved onto electricity, and hey presto, UK will be importing gas for some time to come. Unless….? No, tempting, but I will not go there.

                So, whilst some may remove the Shells from their pensions, I will keep them there for some little time to come, and will not be rushing to purchase an EV. But, a heat pump? Oh yes, done that. Good pieces of kit and works for me, although I still await convincing that you can plonk any number of them into the sort of dense housing seen in many parts of the UK and that the laws of physics can be overcome ie. how much heat can be extracted from the air in such a location on a cold winters day?

                Keep well yourself. Hoping for a visit from our new grandson later today, so I may be gone for a while. (One, of the many, children from the lockdown! Teslas and babies!)

  6. Really, Jono? And what impact could UKOG have had upon that?

    Producing oil in UK and replacing a little drop that would have been imported with the associated transport emissions! That is a reduction.

    As maritime transport produces greater emissions than Germany (Giggle it), I suspect they would quite like to see any sort of reduction in transport emissions. Then, they could address their own.

    You remember “them all” talking? No, you don’t. Because some of them were definitely looking at a way to increase their funds to help pay for their care in later life, and were not talking. Maybe not the best way, but their choice. For you to ignore that, is your choice, but don’t pretend you know the motives of all of the investors, because you do not.

    Maybe they just prefer buying at 0.17 instead of 0.18, after the Placing of 2,763,888,878 shares at 0.18?

Add a comment

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s