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.
Still peddling that old tripe Adrian? You're a deeply challenged individual
AD, Greens do NOT need a winning formula with the likes of UKOG, UKOG has its own SLOW & PAINFUL self destruct function, designed by it's leader, though I have to admit that they are SUPER efficient in the running of the Confetti factory. If only their core businesses were given such effort and design!!!
Link to video of Council meeting.
https://westsussex.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcasts
https://westsussex.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/857790
Keep the court cases and appeals rolling until UKOG are insolvent. Sprinkle in death spiral finance and it game over.
Has been slowly rising recently and could hit $90. Unfortunately UKOG possible receipts have been slowly dropping.
Month Receipts POO
Jan 23 $141,668 83.09
Feb 23 $132,347 82.71
Mar 23 $132,451 78.53 $816,321 oct-mar
Apr 23 $115,801 84.11
May 23 $132,738 75.70
Jun 23 $125,815 74.89
Jul 23 $120,150 80.10
Aug 23 $122,864 86.16
Sep 23 $135,360 94.00
Oct 23 $127,029 91.06 $879,757 apr-oct financial year $1,696,078
Nov23 $109,349 83.18
Dec23 $108,294 77.63
Only UKOG could use the terms "primarily" and "entirely peripheral " in the same RNS. It's almost as if ocelot had written it.
Obviously UKOG did not read the Officers report which contained the following;
"Any future geothermal potential is completely speculative, not feasible from this well/location, and could give rise to significant environmental impacts;
The applicant has stated in the application that the borehole on the site may have the potential to be repurposed for the recovery of geothermal heat and are investigating the site’s potential as a private agricultural heat source for commercial fruit, vegetable, or tea production. However, the recovery of geothermal heat does not form part of the current proposals and any future proposals for geothermal energy would require planning permission in their own right. Accordingly, the potential future repurposing of the site for geothermal energy recovery is not a material consideration in the determination of the current applications."
I would have thought that the council are out of step with the government intention to make PP easier for energy companies.I can see no reason why it would be refused on appeal . However , we may have a new government by the time it comes up , in which case it would depend upon the policies of the new government
Matt Cartwright to planning committee:
"UKOG remain committed to its primary objective of unlocking its potential as a domestic source of oil & gas. We also have a backup objective. It's feasable for the well to become a geothermal heat spource that would that would enhance fruit and vegtable growth..."
RNS announcment:
"UK Oil & Gas PLC announces that its application to extend the planning consent at its Broadford Bridge site, primarily to assess the viability of converting the site to harness geothermal heat and power, was today refused..."
At least one of those statements is a clear lie.
Here's what they say in the planning application:
"The Site comprises a worked farm that accommodates a well site in retention mode. Temporary earth bunding delineates a stable, flat and drained well pad formed of crushed stone overlaying an impermeable membrane. A concrete well cellar and a conductor pipe have been sunk into the ground and cemented to surface through which the BB-1/1z wells have been installed.
Upon completion of Phase 3: Testing, BB-1/1z were suspended and permanent barriers to flow installed within the wells. All operational plant and machinery has been removed and the stone surface cleaned and retained along with the perimeter drainage ditches. A standard shipping container has been installed over the wellhead assembly and all valves closed."
Ocelot lol
you are delusional
respect and udog in the same sentence is a joke.
Lying steve no more wages.
Was BB left with the test / production string in place, or was it temporarily suspended?
If the former, they'd be better in getting a Crane in to pull the string, run a Cement Bond Log and then temporarily suspend again while they agree a P&A program with the NTSA and get all the necessary kit lined up.
IIRC they had problems with the cement job on the 7", so they'll need to show zonal isolation there and also behind the 9 5/8" to ensure protection of any near surface aquifer.
If they can do that to the NTSA's satisfaction, they might get away without having to mobilse a Rig for the final P&A - in which case they should be able to do that all and restore the site with change to spare from £1 Million.
If they have to mobilse a Rig and mill out a window to be able to "restore the cap rock" with cement, then they'll be looking at between £1.5 Million and £1.75 Million.
Management is better placed than any of us to assess the company's present situation and prospects.
They look to be fighting hard.
If they can turn this around, they will earn the market's respect.
Broadford Bridge Planning Update
UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) announces that its application to extend the planning consent at its Broadford Bridge (UKOG 100%) site, primarily to assess the viability of converting the site to harness geothermal heat and power, was today refused by West Sussex County Council. Although the envisaged geothermal scheme is entirely peripheral to the Company's core petroleum and hydrogen storage activities and is of no current materiality, the Company will further consider its position and has six months in which to lodge an appeal should it so decide.
First time i see in one of sanderscam’s rns’s he didn’t start with “udog are pleased to announce “”
When is this total car crash company going to dilute us to more misery?
what has udog got that can ever push up the sp?
why would anyone ever believe these total muppets that are overpaid ever again?
sando OUT no more wages.
How are they still in business ?
UKOG (234) Ltd which has two assets, Broadford Bridge and Loxley, has as provision/liability of £1,013,619, I don't know what that would include other than the BB restoration cost.
When UKOG restored Markwells Wood during FY2019 & FY2000 it released £1,013,000 from their decommissioning provisioning figure during that timeframe and only MW was restored.
So it looks like UKOG has used what it cost them to restore MW as the provision allowance to restore BB, which is reasonable as they are similar sites.
So that's another £1m to find in addition to SS's salary and paying back RF/YA the remaining ~£500k before they can even think about investing in Loxley, HH or Portland.
Going concern statement in forthcoming annual report is going to be very interesting, it now has to take into account the BB restoration costs as well.
UKOG needs to make a big restructuring announcement in the next couple of months, business as usual isn't going to be possible.
Alan
Think you will find they were Tory Councillors.
Although 7 Councillors were against I didn't hear 1 speak up for retention.
Far left snowflake parasites
I think it is probably cheaper to restore the site than go for an appeal.
UKOG has lost both applications 4-7
I understand the lonely supporter was asked to speak but refused to attend. I wonder if he was also lobbying the Councillors which has put them off.
This isn't going UKOG's way, the councillors all seem to be siding with the 106 objectors and not the lonely supporter