UKOG gives up Isle of Wight licence

UK Oil & Gas has revealed that it has given up its licence to explore for hydrocarbons on the Isle of Wight.

UKOG’s former licence PEDL331. Source: UK Onshore Geophysical Library

The company was awarded PEDL331 in 2016, giving it the exclusive right to explore and produce oil and gas in the southern part of the island, subject to permissions.

UKOG secured a two-year extension to the exploration term in 2019, until 2023.

But last year (2021), the company was refused planning permission for its first proposal for exploration, at Arreton. It announced in March 2022 that it would not appeal against the unanimous decision of Isle of Wight Council.

Today, in interim accounts, UKOG said publicly for the first time:

“The Company has subsequently relinquished the associated PEDL331 licence.”

The licence is no longer listed on the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) website.

This decision now blocks UKOG plans for a second site on the Isle of Wight, at Godshill. This site was unveiled at a public meeting in December 2019 but no planning application was ever submitted.

Other updates

Horse Hill

The interim accounts said UKOG would “further expedite” plans to convert the Horse Hill-2Z well into a saline water reinjector during 2022.

Technical planning would also progress for drilling a proposed Portland HH-3 and Kimmeridge HH-4 wells, UKOG said.

The company also said modifications at Horse Hill were continuing “in order to comply with the Control of Major Accident Hazards regulations” and other regulations.

By the end of May 2022, 171,000 barrels of Brent quality crude had been produced from the Kimmeridge and Portland formations, UKOG said.


UIOG said seismic mapping in its Turkish licences showed there was a major backthrust fault to south of Basur-3 well. This explained why the well had not encountered the reservoir, the company said.

A sidetrack to B-3 remained “a solid option”, UKOG said, but the plans had been put on hold.

It said new seismic data showed the sidetrack would need to be “a longer and higher angle trajectory” than previously thought. This involved drilling through a major backthrust fault at a high angle within potentially heavily fractured limestone rocks. This potentially increases drilling risks, complexity and cost, the company said.

In a separate statement to investors today, UKOG said a light oil seep had been discovered in an unused seismic drill hole about 4km north of the Basur-3 well. “This has positive implications for future exploration in the licence”, UKOG said.

Updates already reported by DrillOrDrop

Figures for six months to 31 March 2022

Operating loss: £1.29m (six months to 31 March 2021 £1.01m)

Retained loss: £1.36m (six months to 31 March 2021: £1.02m)

Revenue: £0.91m (six months to 31 March 2021: £0.72m) – because of increased Brent crude prices

Net cash flow: £1.39m (six months to 31 March 2021: £0.96m) – because of working capital movements and lower admin costs

Admin expenses: £1.402m (six months to 31 March 2021: 0.915m)

Exploration and evaluation assets: £31.31m (six months to 31 March 2021: £25.6m)

Total assets: £41.5m (six months to 31 March 2021: 43m)

Total liabilities: £5.3m (six months to 31 March 2021: 7.4m)

16 replies »

  1. No Martin, that would be Markwells wood Broadford Bridge, Holmwood, Arreton , Turkey and the whole Kimmeridge fiasco but I guess 60 barrels a day from Horse Hill could be called success of sorts 😂😂😂

  2. Big oaks start from little acorns, Jono!

    Or, “alternatively”, Mr. Musk couldn’t make a profit for many, many years, and look at him now.

    Good job the Churchill spirit continues in a few, actually the majority of the British people, “if you don’t succeed at first, try, try again”. It will need to as they get to grips with those secure energy supplies that are no longer secure, and the bill for £160B to fund new nuclear that will make “cheap” unreliable renewables no longer cheap, but a bit more reliable.

    • “If at first…etc.” has nothing to do with Churchill as implied, perhaps unintentionally, here. Perhaps Martin is suggesting that the maxim could apply to Churchill’s policies.
      Where human endeavour is concerned the injunction has much to recommend it. However, in addition to the tasks mentioned by Martin, humanity will need this advice when getting to grips with the facts mentioned recently by António Guterres:
      that the FF companies and banks supporting them have “humanity by the throat”,
      that the war has highlighted humanity’s dependence on FFs despite our moving away from rather than towards meeting that maximum 1.5 degrees- warming target,
      that the world has not invested massively “as it should have” on renewables,
      that climate crisis impacts are accelerating faster than the worst predictions of a few years ago,
      that inequalities are growing within and between countries,
      that global food and water crises are upon us,
      that the financial reparations promised by the rich world to the developing world have not been delivered,
      that “it’s more than the planet, it is the human species that is also at risk”.

      We ostriches are failing at the task of saving the planet and the human species.

      • Nope, 1720, it was a separate paragraph. No implication. You must have real problems watching the news!

        If you want an excuse to talk about humanity, then why not include the comment from the late Professor Sir David McKay, a previous government chief scientific adviser ie. an expert!!

        “Humanity really does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics”.

        What was he referring to?

        The appalling delusion around renewables. (I can supply the full quote if you like, but it was in the Guardian so I suspect you will have seen it.) The £160B “supplementary” bill is just part of the inevitable admission.

        Saving anything has a whole lot to do with arithmetic and physics. Ignoring that reality achieves nothing.

        Meanwhile, the biggest problem to the human race is that life expectancy has risen dramatically across the largest part of the globe, and that can be seen in global population growth.

        For Jack’s benefit, I see that “some EXPERTS say 10% of the resources would make the UK self sufficient in energy for 50 years.” Mail 1/7/22, UK fracking!

        Goodness, these experts say some inconvenient things, don’t they, as well as the convenient things. I await the deniers coming forth to deny the inconvenient things.

        • “Deniers”… note the tactic everyone.If accused of denying anthropogenic climate change as the main source of our woes, as Martin certainly is, then attempt to turn the accusation onto the accusers.A classic manoeuvre! Johnson and Trump would certainly like to see this tactic as the norm.
          Look again; it was not a separate paragraph. Are you aware of what you write?
          Renewables are almost (I exempt of course you and your kith and kin) universally accepted as the way forward. Try denying that! I am of course aware that this fact does not make this almost universally held opinion correct, although as a working hypothesis, it’s not a bad one.
          I don’t need an excuse to talk about humanity, more important for some of us than physics and your own brand of arithmetic.
          Few of us would object to the late McKay’s comment, merely to its interpretation in the hands of the deniers.
          Thank you for your incisive contribution to the debate.

          • Oh, it’s “interpretation”!

            You mean the bit that preceded? “There is this appalling delusion that people have that we can take this thing (renewables) and we can just scale it up and if there is a slight issue of it not adding up, then we can just do energy efficiency”.

            I would suggest the “slight issue” of £160B shows a degree of ironic humour, perhaps lost on those blocking roads calling for what? Oh yes-energy efficiency! The guy seems to have predicted it pretty much spot on. Even included the “we’s”, recognising the deniers!

            So, “appalling delusion” is somehow “interpretation”?????? You mean like “nonsense” is “almost correct”?

            Nope, quite clear. I can see why such incisive contributions should be met by such a contrived excuse for showing appalling delusion. Especially as few of “us” would object to the comment. However, it is still an excuse, it is your attempt to misinterpret that is just factually incorrect. But, then you had difficulty with the definition of fact so I should expect no better.

            I didn’t have to wait long, did I? Thank you for your attempt to deflect and deny.

            • Yes, ´interpretation´ it is. I believe that McKay, with scientific integrity, would now realise that his comments re renewables had been overtaken by the facts, in particular, the efficiency of solar and the disappointments of CCS, not to mention the ever-expanding success of renewables, and that were he to comment today, he would not be commenting on the status quo in, I think, 2016. So, it is indeed interpretation, interpretation in the hands of the deniers, yourself, for example.
              I, probably we, also note that your addiction to deflection, often highlighted by myself, is now being thrown back at me.See my previous post. As for the rest, this is no more than the irrelevant waffle intending to obscure the argument. Think Johnson – don’t look too hard at my record, look what fell into my lap in Ukraine.
              Time to catch up, Martin. Catch up on the literature concerning events since McKay.
              I see you accept (tacitly of course) that you were wrong concerning the Churchill attribution. McKay would have conceded the point.

              • So, you now believe you know that someone who has died would now admit they were wrong, 1720! The ultimate “interpretation”. Sorry, Jesus, 1720 will need to “interpret” for you next. The classic activist, I, or “we”, will tell you what my/our interpretation is, although not based upon any knowledge of the subject, and you must accept our revised bible. More 1984 than 1720.

                [Edited by moderator]

                “In particularly, the efficacy of solar”. Not in the UK, 1720. That is a dog that requires global warming to be baked in to make it bark! My young couple living locally who invested a hard saved £15k for solar, and seen no reward for that investment, would not even find any small piece of dark humour within your comment. Or their near neighbours who were sold their even more expensive scheme to heat their swimming pool then found they were getting 33p worth of electricity on a bright, sunny day. Not enough to heat a kettle!

                So, the £160B supplementary bill (won’t be the last) to try and make unreliable renewables more reliable is just a mirage and will not be plonked upon the UK tax payer?

                Goodness, with every utterance from the deniers of arithmetic and physics they simply show why McKay was so correct. Just a shame he left it so late to be so honest.

                “Appalling delusion.”

                Just about sums up the common denominator within all the various sub groups. Nope, 1720, as each year has gone by, McKay’s statement just seems to be re-enforced. Thanks for your contribution. The modern day version of the Emperor’s New Clothes story. Not so much admire the stitching, but admire the attempted stitch up.

                And, within all the “scientific” support for the anti case where is there any reference to solar activity, that is a known variable and will have far greater impact upon global climate then any activity conducted by man? The last time I saw any reference to that, there were predictions of a mini ice-age! Which, will now need to be “interpreted” as a sales story produced by fossil fuel vested interests. LOL.

                Laughter I can buy into. Hysteria? No.

                • As I said, try reading the various scientific updates on McKay, who cannot have appreciated back in 2016 precisely what strides renewables would make in the U.K. and elsewhere. Do your own research.There is no excuse for your culpable ignorance.To gloss over the progress of 5 years following the death of McKay is to reinterpret him and betray his integrity. I have lost patience with you. Consider this discussion closed.

                • Ahh, so now there have been “strides” on renewables in the last 5 years!

                  So, not a problem then?

                  Oh dear, I can understand having “interpreted” into such a position, you have arrived at the point of no return, 1720.

                  Always going to happen. Those laws of physics and arithmetic can not be countered either by “irrational exuberance” or ” appalling delusion”.

                  Meanwhile, I note the “strides” made by wind turbines are being matched step for step by Cuadrilla with them also offering 6% of revenues into local communities to encourage consent. Ironic really that such “greenwashing” lessons have been taken on board-from the green example! (Telegraph, Saturday) But, the 6% looks to be potentially a much bigger encouragement.

                • Some more science:

                  “Methane much more sensitive to global heating than previously thought.
                  Greenhouse gas has undergone rapid acceleration and scientists say it may be due to atmospheric changes”

                  “We need to persuade China and India – the two biggest emitters – to join the global methane pledge and deal with their coalmine vents, crop waste fires and landfill emissions. And we need to look at Africa where methane emissions may be growing rapidly from growing population, widespread crop waste fires and landfills, and warming natural wetlands.”


                  So perhaps our art appreciating glue vandals should focus their efforts in China & India?

                  What do you think Iaith1720 & Martin?

                • Well, I think that India and China without fossil fuel and RICE (big output of methane), is just more appalling delusion.

  3. I’m doing fine actually Martin, I’ve always been a trier and never given up but I do know a scam when I see one , UKOG couldn’t find oil in a chip shop or gas in my back passage

  4. That is what was being said about exploration by the Norwegians, Jono! Although I believe they were looking in some other areas.

    Look at them, now.

    Glad to hear you are doing fine. Keep happy, that is the best tonic.

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