Utilico Insights - Jacqueline Broers assesses why Vietnam could be the darling of Asia for investors. 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 read in a comment on a Drill or Drop article that because the council officers made their own advice clear the councillors may have to go elsewhere in order to defend UKOG's appeal.
Grow up Sinbad, I actually recommend your previous 3 or 4 posts, I live in north Scotland and I can assure you that defending SCC and their lame excuses to block Loxley or any other oil related works couldn’t be further from the truth...
It creates a truly absurd legal situation:
UKOG appeals,
the councillors mandate the Council to defend their decision
and the council officers ask the councillors: how?
Got them on video they can counter measure there own down fall....enjoy.
The only winners today are Tymers and TH2 who will have both been topping up at these latest bargain prices.
Regular top-ups for well over a year now on this "soon to be mid-cap oile"r (both trading whilst telling everyone else its a Buy).
Would like to see an SS interview after today, will he show his face in public on the back of this latest set-back?
gla
It saddens me to see the state of where SS has taken this company. I was a large holder back in 2017 when it hit the dizzy heights of 11p, albeit briefly. I got out at 6p after drilling complications at BB. There were 2.8 billion shares in issue at the time. Where is all the money going from these placements.
"Enjoy the appeal" is a good choice of words, sandal.
How can the Council counter the appeal when the record of the meeting itself shows the councillors were warned of the risks they running if they rejected the application?
Actually I don't like SS but after today even I feel for him lol total farse Scc will pay for this and they know it. Relax enjoy the appeal and let's turn to Turkey....GLA
Look ive spent blooming 8hours today watching that meeting forget trousers no one had a chance, Ss knew this is appeal and back burner cut him so.e slack on this one.
I would consider SS to be very Lucky...Lucky he still has a job and a fantastic salary and a bonus scheme that rewards incompetence and failure, and if he was manager of a top flight football team I think the fans would have turned against him leaving him no option but to resign...
Not fan of trousers, but today no one had chance against the old faxxts councillors they were warned repeatedly they had no grounds to refuse but fell on deaf ears....SCC know now this going to cost HUGLEY AS MENTIONED TODAY AT THE MEETING NOT MICKEY MOUSE COST :-)
KarloyVary, I agree with amount of what you write, however I feel SS is used as an excuse for anything and everything that goes wrong at UKOG, although I do understand some of the complaints. I always point out in matters similar to this that, in footballing or sporting terms, if the best 20 managers managed the best possible 20 teams at the end of the season somebody is still going to come bottom. So you fire the bottom 2 managers the best you can appoint is no's 21 and 22.
If I was ever to agree to disposing of SS's services it would be solely based on Napoleon's thoughts when wishing to appoint a new general. How competent he was was secondary, he wanted to know how lucky he was. To date SS has not been lucky. He cannot be blamed for the incompetence and negligence of Councillors anymore that the drilling mishaps at Broadford Bridge. I, personally, remain confident in our CEO's ability, if I were to question anything, it would only be his luck. SS, UU.
Sorry to disagree but the body language of SS at the meeting (and he looked like he’d just fallen out of bed and bloody scruffy when he spoke) did not instill the confidence I expected from a world class Company. He was not up to the task, he was down beat and frankly poor. Stephen it is your poor judgement buying up every other bugger in the Weald when you should have been working quietly with what we owned. Poor judgement, poor leader, poor speaker. Do yourself a favour and resign because your body language proves that you are a spent force and out of your comfort zone.
Those in SCC who are not qualified to make decisions shouldn’t be in positions to do so. One question asked was “whats the difference between green and grey hydrogen”. This same member was more concerned about an events company and dismissed the very well put case from the farmer who probably contributes more to the economy than that of said previous. Absolute scandal of SCC.
It was won today in my eyes just a delay, there was no grounds to refuse....appeal the old faxxrts were warned they got nothing, simply ignorance and costly exercises now for SCC.
Timelybuy. Good post. There have been a lot of good, sensible posts on here today, pity you were`nt part of the Council.
I am feeling really cheated tonight, I bet SS feels worse.
Trousers must admit when he showed up in the morning session was poor show in his behalf but nothing today was going to deter the outcome judging by those nodding twxxts had no desire from the offset they clearly came with one motion which we all know...guess trousers knew sense it from his tone that these old fxxrts not going to change their way....of we go to the appeal and will cost SCC tax payers money looking at 500k due to Ukog for this shambles....
Karl your rational dissection of the travesty of what is legally right and your words of what happened today should be sent word for word to the chairman of Surrey CC. Here is his email: tim.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk
The fools that voted against this would rather the UK pay a significant fee to enrich the middle-east and to give Russia control of one of the most important resources a country needs. This is a matter of national economic and resource security. Should never have been a decision in the hands of biased and poorly judged individuals that have an agenda that doesn’t think of anything outside their backyard. It’s both disgusting and atrocious that the UK gov allow this to happen. Every other country seems to put themselves first except for the UK. what a joke of a nation we have become.
Brilliantly written post.
A Common Thread
A day of heavy irony.
A common thread links the utterly shambolic actions of planning committee members of Surrey County Council (SCC) with that of the equally shambolic actions of UKOG’s CEO, Stephen Sanderson. It’s called the principal-agent problem.
Put briefly, UKOG shareholders / Surrey council tax payers as principals are represented by people - our CEO / planning committee ‘no’ voters - who simply don’t have “skin in the game” when it comes to the financial consequences of their actions.
So, UKOG’s CEO issues upwards of 10bn new shares to finance the purchase of “assets”, operating activity and ventures that - to date - have yielded virtually no marginal gain, and that he has steered clear of owning. His interests do not align with those of UKOG shareholders.
Similarly, SCC planning committee members voting ‘no’ today won’t bear any financial consequences of a future council loss in the courts at appeal. Instead, council tax payers in Surrey will pick up the tab, with services / jobs cut, and / or higher council tax bills.
The source of failure is the same in both cases: agents with unaligned interests. UKOG’s CEO ignores the weight of objective evidence of his failed tenure in the same way ‘no’ planning committee members today ignored the legal advice they had been given, the opinion of their chairman, and the professional opinion of their planners.
This particular case is a ‘perfect storm’ of two equally useless agents representing principals that will both bear huge costs. UKOG’s shareholders felt the consequence immediately, with the shares plummeting over a third. That means even more shares will need to be issued to raise cash to keep the company running, diluting existing shareholder interests further. Equally, SCC council tax payers will feel their financial pain in 2022 or 2023, when their council is landed with a bill for a successful appeal against its decision today.
The solution to the problem is simple in principle. ‘Principals’ must ensure those who seek to act as their ‘agents’ have interests that are aligned. Otherwise, these agents will be the road to chaos and ruin.
In those ‘no’ voters today, Stephen Sanderson has met his match. Now he knows what his shareholders feel like when he systematically ignores our voices, and the ample evidence of his mismanagement of UKOG.