Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the 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.
Exactly. What information has OGA been gven as to the capacity of the new owners to develop Bentley, bearing in mind hundreds of UK XEL shareholders who funded the exploration of Bentley under the supposed 'guidance' of DECC have been left with nothing while the same management remains in place who created this fieasco in the first place. Real stink of collusion and clear back room dealings. With the numbers of people who have been left cheated by the ineptitude of the XEL/XER BoD and management. OGA/DECC, being a HMG party to the licencing of Bentley should be showing impartiality not partiality and followed procedure, the XER lease has expired, rebid it by open tender. By allowing the phantom incumbents a 4 year extension, why was XER not shown similar partiality in 2016 at time of the final six month extension, what a difference that might have made to the partner and funding negotiating position.
I would be obliged if someone could post this on iii as a response to Upanchors 18.07 post as i don't have access. I can only speak for myself, I don't post alot but i do read the boards and i am fully appreciative to the people who are trying to do something about this corporate theft from Xel shareholders. With regards to the statement about shareholder apathy, i think there are alot of people behind the scenes like myself trying to get some justice from the authorities that should be protecting us but like myself have came up against a brick wall. I have emailed the FCA, OGA, my now ex MP Angus Robertson and the Scottish first minister. I received no reply whatsoever from the SNP and a standard reply from the FCA. I received a sympathetic letter from the OGA who said it had been reported as market abuse but that's been about it. I don't think people who have lost tens of thousands of pounds are lying down and doing nothing, i myself feel i am not getting anywhere, call me stupid but I don't know who to turn to next. I am in the process of writing to my new MP but feel it will be a waste of time as we all now know the whole system is as corrupt and bent to work against the honest working man. I cannot believe that RC has been able to start another business after letting another one run into the ground and that this newly formed company can just take over the Bentley field with the licence with Government approval as if we haven't existed.
I can't get my head around the supposed number of people alledgedly making a move on the company over the years - now an ex BoD member (smiffy I guess) backed by African money!!! If you knew all those things about Cole's incompetence I can't understand you (legends) holding let alone suggesting it as a good buy for others What kind of person would do that knowing full well they would be likely to lose every penny? Can you back any of your comments up with anything at all? I could come up with plenty of stories, one of which involves a creature that you must be familiar with .......a unicorn. I would happily apologise for my terse comments if you could
I feel like Mystic Meg...Another Tussle with myself & Legends ....gem from legends XELRE: Pitiful15 Nov '16 Oh why am I here...maybe after you assured me that I would NOT be holding worthless paper xel certificates I held ...No I might be guilty of a few things but being a gullible fool for you has never been one of them...I can spot a troll a mile away. Legends gems RE: Topboy1 19 Dec '15 toxicnerve- What the hell are you on about? Read my post again , 652. It was in response to Topboy buying more, not me. . There will be a non Bentley related RNS soon, shortly followed with a Bentley update RNS. And I don't think you will have to worry about your youngest inheritingWORTHLESS PAPER SHRES.... Have a good evening. What a fool you are Legends ...you have to live with your self..I can look at myself & say what a berk I was for holding , but unlike you I never encouraged people to hold & hold & hold with Jam tomorrow...you have no conscience.
"and the jar was turned upside as proof that Bentley could never spill; ever." thanks for continuing to demonstrate your ignorance.
Cuchulainn's link went just then but in case it doesn't re appear https://www.stamdata.com/documents/NO0010713779_SB_20170626.PDF My question would be how they have demonstrated they fit the requirements to hold that licence. Would they be awarded that licence if they applied for it with the structure they have as Newco in an ordinary licencing round???? Why haven't OGA revoked it?
https://www.stamdata.com/documents/NO0010713779_SB_20170626.PDF
Am I right in thinking Excite's name will no longer exist after Friday ?
After reading this, IMO, Glib response I'd be amazed if anyone would feel comfortable investing in any Oil & gas shares again.
ture, which would negatively impact on the OGA’s ability to perform a core function in relation to the development of the UK’s hydrocarbon resources, ultimately to the detriment of the public interest. When applying this test, the OGA has considered the impact on companies within the wider industry and not just Xcite. 13. The OGA, therefore, considers that the public interest argument in favour of withholding this information outweighs the public interest argument in favour of its disclosure
information of this nature, in that companies would be less willing to disclose such information to the OGA in the future. 8. In addition, the OGA’s qualified person under FOIA considers that, so far as the information requested relates to the correspondence between the Licensee and the OGA, the disclosure of such would likely inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation (section 36 (2) (b) (ii) FOIA) and/or prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36 (2) (c) FOIA). 9. In summary, in his view, allowing for a regulatory environment in which the Licensee, and Licensees, provide information to the OGA freely and openly is to be encouraged because it provides the OGA with important regulatory information (including views) on a live issue it would not have the legal power to Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 09666504 and VAT registered number 249433979. Our registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, United Kingdom, WC1B 3HF. For information about how we process data and monitor communications please see our Data Protection Statement and for terms of use please see our Terms and Conditions, both available on our website. 4 | P a g e require – the disclosure of the requested information is likely to have a chilling effect on such information provision. Further, disclosure of the requested information in this context would not provide a “safe space” for the OGA to discuss options with the Licensee, and Licensees, around the development of their licensed areas. Such safe space could not be obtained by the release of information, including confidential information, that among other things opens up debate outside the proper channels. In addition, in his view, non-disclosure allows for the more effective use of the OGA’s limited resources, in that the OGA is able to determine from such information what issues to target in discussions with the Licensee, and Licensees. 10. In applying these exemptions, the OGA has considered whether the public interest in withholding the information is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information, as required by section 2(2) of the FOIA and Regulation 12(1)(b) of the EIRs. 11. The OGA acknowledges that there is a general public interest in the information you have requested, as disclosure leads to greater transparency, which enhances public scrutiny and makes public authorities more accountable. However, there are also public interest considerations in favour of withholding such information in order to for example ensure that the commercial interests of the companies are not prejudiced by disclosure of information that could adversely impact on future business. 12. Generally the release of such information is likely to discourage companies in the oil and gas sector from discussing similar issues with the OGA in the fu
If any of that is true then give us the evidence maybe someone can do something with it As for the other thing this is what OGA had to say about the short extension In regard to your question about Statoil’s 3 year extension to the Bressay licence, in comparison to Xcite’s 9 month extension to the Bentley field and any discussions with Xcite pertaining to this extension, the OGA does not prescribe a particular time period for the length of licence extensions. The duration of a Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 09666504 and VAT registered number 249433979. Our registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, United Kingdom, WC1B 3HF. For information about how we process data and monitor communications please see our Data Protection Statement and for terms of use please see our Terms and Conditions, both available on our website. 3 | P a g e licence extension will depend on such things as the specifics of the licence, the factual situation and will also give due consideration to the length of time requested by the company in question. 4. With regard to your additional requests, while the OGA strives to be as transparent as possible, and our general approach to requests for information is to adopt a default position of looking to release information, there are circumstances where certain types of information cannot be released. Having assessed the information relating to those requests (focusing on discussions between the OGA and Xcite over the extension to the Bentley licence), it consists of sensitive commercial information that could harm the Xcite’s commercial position if it were to be released into the public domain. 5. Therefore, the OGA considers that those requests fall under the exemption in section 43(2) FOIA, on the grounds that disclosure of such information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, and also Regulation 12(5)(e) of EIRs, on the grounds that that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. 6. Furthermore, the OGA considers that the exemption under section 41(1) FOIA (information provided in confidence) applies, as does Regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIRs (interests of the person providing the information). 7. The parties whom provided this information to the OGA did so on the implicit understanding that this particular aspect of the information would remain confidential and not be disclosed to a third party. To breach this confidence would firstly be “actionable” – in that the parties concerned could bring a legal case against the OGA for breach of contractual obligations and expect to win such a case and also that to release this information would have a “chilling effect” on the flow of inform
I'd like to say that this shocked me but unfortunately it hasn't, surprised yes...what a shower this country has become. There was a time when Britain stood for quality ie Sheffield steel etc & above all integrity...good god!
Stinks by the incumbents of a fix to get rid of XEL shareholders imo, hey ho $450m gone, off we go again clear of pesky shareholders and debt. Why is OGA being shown to be a party to being complicit in this, the owners and management for whatever reasons were a failure to bring Bentley to production as per their declared intents and timeline, so they can't unless all together be allowed to continue.
Why at the time of OGA allowing XEL/XER a six month extension to Bemtley in 2016 was XER not at that time given this huge 4 year extension. Surely with what XEL/XER had expensed to that time that would have made a huge difference to XEL/XER's ability to negotiate revised Bond or other loan terms and bring in an approved FDP.
Under FOI OGA should be made to release details as just who is supporting Whalsay and why they have not with the affinity of that management to the previous failed incumbents, awarded any extension of Bentley to what is in actuality the same persons, rather than being re-tendered. A complete cop out and slight by OGA to the shareholders who invested in XEL/XER in good faith and lost so much, to allow any further involvement by this XER management in development of Bentley.
So the fix is in. These jokers in OGA have not, with the demise and failure of XEL/XER to develop the field as per their proposals submitted to DECC, despite numerous extensions awarded and failure by that entity to perform within the specified timeline, awarded yet a further extension to these clowns of 4 years. Beggars belief, the leas expired, the field should have been put out to open tender through repeated failure of the previous incumbents to perform, not re-awarded to the same bunch of numbnuts.
Macondo was 4/2010 well before XER even drilled the 6 well and 18 months before the hiatus with DECC over Bentley fsp/ssp. Even the clo*n at DECC could surely recognise Bentley HO flow characterisitcs for what they are. Any issues re Macondo should have come from DECC long before XER went in to submit their draft fdp.
& they say Columbia is corrupt! Did we ever find out why & what we were paying the pet MP for?
highlandsbull: It was all to do with the BP Gulf spill. DECC bottled it... EXL attended a meeting with DECC with a jar of Bentley crude. The meeting got very heated and the jar was turned upside as proof that Bentley could never spill; ever. Decc are very much to blame for this fecking disaster, the share price tanked in May 2011 and never recovered. King Cole is the main culprit though. He went against the recommendation from the management team and signed Bentley over to WARWICK instead of pursuing the RBS RBL. WARWICK then shafted Cole two years later. He also refused a very handsome offer by Statoil back in the summer of 2013; pure greed. He also got numerous offers in late 2015 from a previous employee and his African based backers to pay the bond (and part of an African gas field as a sweetener) on the condition the previous employee was reinstated on the BOD. He refused stating he didn't require the money as all was still in hand. Guess what? In late 2016 he went crawling back to said employee but was told to jog on. Cole will get what's coming to him......
https://itportal.decc.gov.uk/eng/fox/decc/PED300X/licence?LICENCE_TYPE=P&LICENCE_NO=1078
I'm commenting on the usual civil servant evasiveness of OGA with respect to their recent response to upanchors re the actions of DECC in 2011 by their refusal at the time to accept the XER fsp/ssp plan submitted on 25/11/2011 that led directy to this unsupported hugely expensive EWT being this useless XER BOD response and solution to DECC refusal at the time to support the XER proposed plan. Clearly this was a blank refusal, not mere 'advice', as OGA try to purport was the reason given. Of course the absolute incompetence before and since of the XER BoD that led to this, in both having contracted a rig in advance of any development plan approval, and subsequently proposing an expensive EWT without funding or partner support to further develop the likely success of same, has led to the huge expense and eventual liquidation of the parent XEL as matters now stand. DECC cannot escape imo their direct responsibility and involvement in this fiasco. Jmo.
For FCUK's sake HB it's over 1 share or 1 millon shares, the value is the same zero !! We have all been ripped off by Exite Energy. Talk to the guys on iii if you have information about DECC ect. Rupert Cole is the man that stole our money. He lives in a mansion in Surrey & sticks two fingers up to shareholders. After a muiti million £ failure he walks free WHY!!! You tell me.
upanchors yr ii post 21/6 at 1700h.. It's very clear from the DECC letter of 12/11 concerning XER's draft fsp/ssp application XER were instructed that this proposal was unacceptable. Quite simply under DECC authority they could not proceed. XER had already contracted RN, stupidly in advance of FDP approval, just as huge EWT cost later in advance of FDP funding being in place. DECC's advice could not have been clearer, the 6 well test as it stood was insufficient to meet DECC's, purported for whatever reason, requirements for XER to proceed from 6 well flow test data to FSP. XER had a plan that was rejected by DECC, how is that not an instruction on the part of DECC, despite OGA's attempt at DECC avoidance of responsibility. With a multi million $$ committed rig on the way against a guaranteed minimum contract for which XER had obtained no DECC approval to operate, XER were effectively up a creek without a paddle. DECC gave them little alternative constructive option other than allowing some jobsworth nonentity being in a position to stick his oar in at huge cost to XER and shareholders.
Hot off the press just for the above...“ Dolphin Trust a good investment for leggit, they renovate Grade II listed buildings and convert them into apartments to sell off. You get 10% returns per annum and you get your original money back after the chosen term (2 or 5 years) ..........................ofcourse Normally his is a wholly inappropriate and totally irresponsible and quite frankly stupid but tailor made for Leggit. I cannot emphasise how much , no sensible person would or should consider it imo, considering it is an unregulated investment with no FSCS protection with 100% loss potential and no guarantees to pay anything....OOH lightbulb moment ...sounds familiar ....Go on leggy , you top flight Head fund managers you used to boast about seem to have let you crash & burn...go for it , or are you already invested in Rupppeee new deal...I came across this "lot" when looking up Ruppeee new venture...