Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video 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.
I have no time for SS but he will definitely appeal this.
penguins
It was my understanding that carbon capture was also mentioned. As far as the plant is that the equivalent of a refinery which oil is sent to?
Wizard,
they are not proposing carbon capture. The 'green' thing is natural gas production and conversion of natural gas to hydrogen - unfortunately if you follow the link on UKOG's twitter feed you get a lovely picture of Saltend Chemicals Park near the city of Hull with cooling towers and a large industrial area. It would have been better to illlustrate what plant would be needed for reformulation of natural gas to hydrogen and what sort of volumes are needed to make it a commercial venture, or was it just waffle.
'Net Zero by 2050 is clearly the right choice. CCCs report recognises that natural gas plays a key part in attaining net zero, both as a transitional fuel, and, more importantly, as a feedstock for reformulation into clean burning hydrogen'
First time I have looked in been shell shocked by this farce. I would not mind if there had been a genuine reason against our application, but most of it was if`s and but`s. The wedding Man talked as if the Flare was going to cook his spit roast, where as you can see from the photo`s UKOG will be hidden in the tree`s. No one else nearby. UKOG offered help on wedding days if needed.
I despair at this Country at times, may sound funny, but the current situation shows we need, our type of Co. for employment, tax input, oil. and Co. tax.
I dont agree with Lewy, if the full Council think the decision was wrong, they will change it quickly, time will add to their costs.
skwizz
While I agree, I think that this point is being pulled by the hair & not exactly true.
The reason for this is that 'Planning Notices' have been posted, Invitations to public consultations have been issued & held & requests for planning comments were put out with deadlines for comments to be received. If anyone thinks that there is a duty not met please let me know?
Under these circumstances I believe that the duty of care has been covered.
skwizz
This is very true & shows the difficulties involved & shows why I am so shocked that UKOG has not led this application from the front trumpeting the '0' carbon & carbon capture points which are the way forward according to the UK government as a transitional way forward towards 2050.
That would help portray UKOG as a leader in the field & be great PR.
As mentioned earlier there was only one reason given which was not properly cleared up and that was the possible failure to notify the traveller site.
It was raised but nobody seemed able to confirm or deny it.
Taking it as correct, I wouldn't have an issue with a delay to ensure they had fair chance to raise their own objections but, Swampyism aside, I don't believe they could've added anything the others hadn't already raised anyway.
Obviously, if it could be proved false then that would have to be swept aside as well.
:)
Wiz'
Yep.
While presenting he actually said they'd already been submitted in his report before the meeting but that he would go over them again for clarrity.
Then he was asked another question about it (Povey's second attempt) and repeated the information.
I don't recall now but I think the Traffic guy may also have covered the same points, so there was no reason for Povey's insistence that the issue had not been resolved or was unclear.
Patently following his personal private agenda despite clear explanation and clarrity.
I am sure that is why the Planning Officer sounded surprised when he repeated this exactly the same as before as his reason for rejecting.
:B
hully145
Only the UKOG email address: info@ukogplc.com
skwizz
Have you put this as a complaint to the monitoring officer as he probably had his points made before the meeting & as such had predetermined his vote.
Yep, decision obviously to be revisited if not directly approved.
Could be announced Monday.....would want to be out for the weekend :-)
Have a good one all....next week we march on.
Sent
To the Chairman and members of SCC planning Committee
I wish to submit a complaint of mis-representation what has become apparent following your recent planning meeting which rejected UKOG's application to drill at Loxley.
During the meeting a member of the public - Mr Tom Gordon made several statements regarding his wedding venue business at High Billinghurst Farm.
This venue is licenced for up to 50 events a year with a high number of guests.
Mr Gordon stated that the venue is fully booked for 2021 yet on his website, the event calendar is showing no bookings at all for 2021.
He also stated that most of the weddings are booked for Fridays, yet the calendar for 2019, despite showing 25 bookings, only 8 of those were held on a Friday.
Unless this is an oversight and his website calendar has not been updated regularly, then should Mr Gordon want to re-submit his objection, he should provide verified proof of his submission.
I will send a copy of this email to Steve Sanderson, CEO of UKOG.
Some do.
But they don't get any response.
Save your time.
;)
Has anyone got a good email address for SS?
Ian, Good point, made by Povey.
Again, the Traffic Officer was quite clear in his explanation of that.
Also pointing out that the signs were placed there to stop anyone entering the road at that point.
However the section of road they referred to was AFTER the point at which access would be required by UKOG.
Up to that point the road was not only suitable for UKOG access, but UKOG were also improving and widening the road themselves to ensure there was no chance of their vehicles damaging the edges.
This would also be redone every six months, at UKOG cost.
This was in direct response to Povey's question, yet he STILL gave it as a reason to reject.
Deaf, deliberately deaf, or just stupid.
Take yer pick.
:)
Bud, there were so many things wrong with it I still am in a daze.
I think I'm actually in a form of shock about what I saw and heard.
Other than the traffic and planning officers, who I thought were very good and extremely well prepared.
There was one councillor I think we can all agree was excellent too and understood the law and process better than all the others put together (sorry, I don't recall his name..., 'Ernest' I think?), including the chair.
Only one though.
:)
Plus the road is signposted not suitable for HGV usage and he has marquees delivered!!
Ok Skwizz, thank you.
Also I could see 2 councillors with either partner/family/work colleague close and commenting to the councillors
rafafan
Copied & emailed to UKOG. Hopefully it will be helpful.
IT's all cash so he most likely only declared 40% no flies on him is his brother an accountant All the declarations are made after the event (i bet }
Bullshirt.
He left before the second vote, which was only a process technicality, to verify the reasons to reject given during the first vote.
The first vote is the one that should be overturned (and there are a zillion reasons for it).
;)
Hully's point (while good and relevant) was given during the meeting.
Not that any of the objectors seemed to 'hear' it.
:)
Also one potential voter left before vote,
Planning officer pointed out that Wedding Guy was given planning permission for HGV's for his business.
The objections some gave was because of UKOG's intended use of HGV's.
Rejecting UKOG's application for that, when it had already been approved in the earlier traffic office approval, was thus not valid, or legal.
:)