Our live Investing Matters Podcast Special which took place at the Master Investor Show discussing 'How undervalued is the UK stock market?', has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Why would SS buy in when he knows the placing is coming.
Better off taking his disgusting bonus off the back of failure
Think Lewy10 must go - filtered.
Ok was a sham at SCC but still doesn't hide the absolute scam SS is running behind the scenes .
You lot should focus more energy on getting that conman outinstead of moaning at SCC.
You may get your money back if he goes.
Brace yourself placing coming
This alone will be challenged as anyone watching realises that this isnt what was voted on, nor discussed.
At the time it was refused mainly for the highways & HGV and any decent legal team will smash this refusal. I think we all know it will be overturned.
However SS should now resign and he has to take full responsibility for UKOG failings and allow them a chance to become a decent producer, all the time he stays in place the company will be restricted.
Time to go SS, do the decent thing.
Below are some answers to SCC planning committee reason they gave me for refusal .
“It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the development.
In 2016, the UK imported 534 TWh of natural gas, 59% of total supply. Provisional figures for 2017 suggest a similar position. The vast bulk of imports comes direct from Norway. Technically, Russian gas can only arrive via the Belgian and Dutch pipelines, which amount to 10% of total imports.16 Mar 2018.
While it may not be desirable for certain people. I don't think that it can be denied that there is a need to produce gas locally in the UK.
The irony of many of these objections is more pollution for the environment.
Unfortunately your objection don't stand up with these needs especially when importing gas will create more pollution & help to prevent '0' carbon by 2050.
Go local, Go UKOG.
With regard to highways, noise, lighting and air quality refusal.
1. Planning officers report no transport issues.
2. A Environmental licence has already been granted.
I think that these committee members voting against this application should be held personally accountable for there decisions & any costs incurred as the planning inquiry finds in favour of the application.
Surrey planning committee decision to refuse permission on what it says that a need for the development has not been proved.
With about 60% of all UK gas being imported I think that there is a clear need for energy security, UK jobs, the UK economy, the balance of payment deficit as well as increasing pollution by having to import from 1/2 way around the world in some cases.
There is no longer enough natural gas being produced from the North sea for consumption & UK PLC also has less tax revenue than in it's heyday.
With some of the uncertainties of Britexit the UK is going to need all the resources it can produce.
SCC is not the reason UKOG are in the gutter, it's Sanderson chasing rainbows for the last few years buying up licenses again and again squandering UKOGs resources.
He should have been concentrating on Horsehill end of story. probably would only be 3Bn shares Not 11Bn
Then he grabs a 375K bonus the company can ill afford.
He's a liability. needs replacing.
If the link below does not work copy & paste
Policies MC12, MC14 and MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy.
onto your browser & go into the PDF document & dcoll down to the relevant documents.
That was my thinking too Penguins. When they went off line I am sure the legal side was discussed including the implications of Wressle. I would say Sanderson needs a lot of luck now for his Isle of Wright application.
Let's hope Sanderson gets Horse Hill flowing . Sanderson should be getting the other seven wells drilled that he has permission for before worrying about other prospects.
Funding wise, in my opinion , there will be another placing required here.
I am sure Sanderson and his team are very disappointed with all this recent news.
Now is time to focus and communicate with his shareholders instead of going in to hiding.
Andrew Scott would be my choice.
I do question also what this tweet was about from his PR company ?
https://twitter.com/UKOGlistedonAIM/status/1276113798777253889?s=20
David Lenigas was also tweeting away.
https://twitter.com/DavidLenigas/status/1275527620562694150?s=20
Whose Warrants were taken on RNS dated 25th June ?
If SCC ratify the decision of the committee then UKOG will have to appeal through the inspectorate, almost a certain victory but it will take time.
As for the voting I understand they went off line for a while after the vote and returned to vote on the reasons. We don't know what happened during the off line period but perhaps they confirmed the vote. As this was the first virtual meeting any review of the process will probably be with that in mind. Assuming the councillors have confirmed their votes since then despite the chaotic 'live' event what process is available to overturn it?
The committee is under no obligation to accept the planners recommendation otherwise every application the planners recommend for acceptance wouldn't need to go to committee and their only purpose would be to overturn the professional planners recommendations to reject.
It's an opinion, you or I might not agree with it and it is almost certainly because they are elected councillors thinking of votes (I suspect most voters are not shareholders in UKOG), but they do have the power, regardless of the weight of evidence against the objections to continue to object.
So unless SCC come up with some excuse to refer it back to the committee, say if the voting was not confirmed as recorded, then the decision will stand and an appeal to the planning inspectorate the only recourse available to UKOG.
Also, he could have phoned them up.
No one should be offended. I didn’t mean To offend. Thanks for the answer.
Any number of reasons ranging from the fact that he was lucky that someone responded to him when they had time right through to the fact that he is making it up (no offence meant).
You cannot rely on "private" information that is posted on these boards. It may be true and it may be not but you cannot make investment decisions based upon it.
Dryboy - absolutely no offence meant, I have no doubt your information is true I am just making a general point.
How come other people emailing SCC didn’t get the same info as the poster dryboy? Genuine question. Apologies if I missed an answer to that.
Who apart from the Director of the Environment Katie Stewart is in a position to determine that?
The environmental permit has already been issued so this must have been a consideration.
dryboy1
If this is a justifiable reason why have the county recommended the application for approval & recommended approval from the planners without believing there is?
This is a totally cobbled up and inappropriate decision in which all these items had been covered and
approved by the relevant authorities and planning officers. This is an absolute farce and a travesty of democracy by councillers who have their own agenda and are opposed to any development of this type.
I’ve got in touch with scc and this is the reason they gave me for refusal “It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the development nor that the adverse impacts in respect of highways, noise, lighting and air quality will not be significant, contrary to Policies MC12, MC14 and MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy.”