To clarify:-

HH-1 scenario....i.e.re-entering a well that has been tested at rates an order of

magnitude higher then traditional offset wells and 2 other zones never flowed
before in the basin at comparable rates, admittedly over a short test interval in
2016.. It appears HH-1 drilled in a part of the structure where associated gas is
trapped with resultant natural flow (no artificial lift), from its natural fractures
which is favorable.

Concern with UKOG ahead of testing, given BB-1z debacle, was suspended HH-1
causing reservoir damage during 2yr suspension. UKOG’s advice suggests not....

Presuming Portland indicative of Lower Kimmeridge zones' condition, UKOG will

conduct a series of drawdown flow/pressure build-up periods to on each zone to
establish each zones' 'drainage radius' indicating (a) longer-term flow profile (b)
extent of connectivity to the main reservoir (c) preferred depth for horizontal
well(s) and hence the number of wells to develop/drain the field and what, if
any, scenario(s) is/are economic.

Other Operators note Kimmeridge acreage with fractured limestone in oil

'window' but UKOG's BB-1z 'failure' (unless caused by its drilling/completion
practices), means it's more complex to predict success. So, unless/until UKOG
reveals BB-1z problem(s), the distinguishing features at HH-1 are its elevated
gas presence and proven flow rates i.e. gas enhanced flow through (well)
connected fractures...

Cannot say until flow data is reported if commercial or not but certainly de-
risked by 2016 tests