The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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 might add that SCC and UKOG worked together to erecting a fence and highways marker posts to keep swampy under control. (At the front of the site) We havnt seen planning for that fence yet. But it was done with SCC visiting each day.
It shows they are working together to solve problems
If SCC did not approve the production planning application it would have to reject it on valid grounds or it would be passed by the planning inspectorate at appeal or even overturned by the Secretary of State .
Also SCC would lose the ability to add planning conditions.
I think you need to remember the last planning meeting with SCC. There were no questions by councilors. Totally unheard of.
It would be crass for SCC to give an exploration licence and an EWT licence but then not allow a production licence. I think there would be a legal issue with HHDL able to claim the many millions they have invested so far. SCC would not have the funds to pay this. Also SCC have set a precedent with giving Angus a production licence it being only 10 miles down the road. Thus the fact that Angus have been given a licence does help HHDL though they are separate licences.
Simply put no, as explained in my post.
HHDL has a production licence, a PEDL. What's missing is PP for production and FDP approval.
G'night
Penguins,
Maybe confused here, but in reality, would Angs, production licence, aid HH in any shape or form as things stand?
Logisticlly Brockham and HH are perhaps 10miles apart.
Also, Angs PEDL is not the same as HH PEDL.
That should be:
At the planning meeting it was clear the planners would expect the Kimmeridge permission to be followed to the letter.
A PEDL allows production during any period - from the OGA site:
'While the initial term is associated with a work programme of exploration work that must be completed if the licence is to continue into a second term, the licensee has the right to start production during the initial term, if the licensee can move quickly enough, subject to normal regulatory controls.'
But for Angus to assist UKOG or anyone would require further PP and OGA FDP approval, which is essentially what's required at HH so might as well put their own planning application in and get FDP approval. Disregarding the fact they would have to drill a long reach which would be expensive.
The planning permission for the Kimmeridge testing of BR X4Z at Brockham is very specific and only for appraisal and limited to a period of 3 years. They have full planning for the Portland production at Brockham. At the planning meeting it was clear the planners would expect the Kimmeridge permission not to be followed to the letter.
However the Holmwood license area surrounds Brockham on 3 sides and any more drilling there may be near the licence boundary. This may trigger the OGA requesting that Angus and the Holmwood licensees come to an agreement if there's a chance they may produce oil from outside the license area.
There are other considerations as the extent of a field needs to be determined for corporation tax and there may be unitisation issues. It's not clear how a field in a continuous resource is determined.
It cant.
Thorpedo,
Thank you, Exactly, so how on Earth, would Angus be able to assist UKOG re HH in a production licence?
That is the bit of the discussion that is escaping me so far.
JiffyBag
Licences are for a defined area production is just part of that licence, a licence cannot be used for a different area.
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/onshore/licensing-regime/
DHC,
Forget the 3 Cavaliars for now shite, find the answer to where the treasure is located:)
ie, shared Production licences :)
You can only use the Brockham production License if you drilled from Brockham into HH.Angus may drill into Homewood from Brockham because they hold part of the License in Homewood.I think that is how it works.
The Production Licence doesnt exist per se, the PEDL has three stages the third stage is Production. You cant go in to the the third stage until all of the relevant consents are in place ie planning, Environmental Agency, Health & Safety Executive etc. Once they are in place then the PEDL moves in to stage three the Production stage.
Cheers thought I was going mad ... Cannot find that feed though
If it were acceptable then Angus would probably charge royalties on use.
Iv tried to find my original source and it has been removed or adjusted I do remember quite well it could have been part of an interview that was then played and removed as redeemed to be price sensitive I did read or listen to it last week.
as already confirmed by jiffy its do able but I am sure the feed I listened to had vonk stating it https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/licensing-consents/licensing-system/licence-assignments/
There might be something in it, (can't see it really) but it would cost us.
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/licensing-consents/licensing-system/licence-assignments/
Dont know why Angus and Ukog cannot join forces and give this country possibly the answer to reduce oil imports here, The Weald is starting to prove itself in EWT,s etc, UK needs this discovery of oil to progress.GLA
And Company Specific.
Yes but,..........surely a 'Production Licence', is site specific, I would have thought
Being partners that is
Jiffy in one of the Angus interviews it was asked if ukog could use Angus production permit the answer was technicly yes
ie, Production Licence.
Errrr, Come Again,
'May be sooner than most think it was suggested the licence in place already with Angus is available for ukog to use yes'
You can't transfer a licence, care to explain JP?
May be sooner than most think it was suggested the licence in place already with Angus is available for ukog to use yes It should not be a surprise to those following statements and interviews that this been already talked about and was not dismissed by Angus. Stand by business is business . It could come very quickly data and the relationship between the two CEOs have been strengthening of late with well information being shared? .