Member Info for BeachHut

While the attention of some posters is on the wild frontier of shale gas, quietly in the background the company has a net production average of 2,320 boepd from conventional assets. The current SP reflects this position, in my opinion. Now its a case of waiting for them to get their act together on the shale wells where they have planning permission for exploration.

haven't had any problems getting a quote all morning - price for a top up is not yet right, so will no doubt be getting more SP quotes during the morning to see which way this goes today.

"no planning permission" - Sir, I think you may have missed an RNS in the past.

Intrigue is afoot. Not to state the obvious, but there is a reason why EOG has taken a position. A buyout at the right price wouldn't go amiss with me if the price was realistic to reflect assests.

they never really had a case based on a point of law. It was all dressed up because they disagreed with the merits of the decision, which is not challenge-able. Usual bully tactics of swampy's love-children.

Just one very minor point of correction - in point (5) you mentioned planning permission. The planning consent normally goes with the land not the applicant. From memory all the consents have been "normal" in this respect as there is no valid reason for them to be personal to company. As I said, a minor point in the overall scheme of things!

Planning decision notices usually take from a few days to a couple of weeks depending ont he LPA and the conditions to be attached. This can be even longer if a section 106 legal agreement is required - I haven't read the report to the Planning Committee so I couldn't comment on this last aspect. Suffice to say I am not concerned about the delay in issuing PP. Once the PP is issued there is a 6 week period in which a Statutory Challenge can be made, so long as they have deep pockets and a legal point - not the merits of the decision - on which to base a challenge. Sit tight and wait!

agree, painful but better than the other option. So bottom draw and perhaps look at topping up to lower my average if the deal goes through.

they have to say that otherwise they could be misleading investors if the deal doesn't come off. Only those involved in the actual deal will know the chances of success. Its a gamble eitherway now but the win scenario isn't very rosey in my opinion.

*thinks Sorry not enough caffeine.

Oh dear lord you have to laugh, or go mad, but calling the RNS more bait - I try to be objective, hopefully positive, but anyone who things this news is bait needs to read the details!

and just for good measure, the rest of the headlines sending fracking into turmoil are: - security guard knocked over - but not injured by reversing vehicle (a 7 tonne typical builders truck) - Armstrong Aggregates were supplying aggregate - and had fulfilled the contract - to one site; bit of a hollow gesture from AA but keeping their locals happy. Personally I think the way Government planning policy has swung has a little more influence on decision making in the industry

The shock horror headline of Supplier ends contract in "bullying" row isn't really that significant when the contract is a supplier of readimix concrete with just 2 depots - plenty more around! But on the wider front I am waiting for the white rabbit to be produced .............

Lets hope the Authorities spend the extra money wisely! I have just been reading in professional press that Lancs CC are facing a bill of £300k for fighting the Cuadrilla appeal.

Important to remember that a JR only relates to procedural and legal aspects of a case, not the merits of the decision. All the JR will do is quash the original decision and require the decision-maker to go through the decision making process again, this time paying attention to what they got wrong the first time around.

it is normal to have an outline agreement on the details of the bond and also the Heads of Terms for the section 106 agreement, but detail is usually left until post decision.

All the relevant info on alternative sites should be in the EIA, but Councillors won't have read that, they are relying on the officers' report to Committee - if they have even read that and believe me, many don't and I have 30 years in the game!

Alternative sites - the company are required in the EIA to discuss alternative sites and the reasons for choosing the application site. Councillors will no doubt want to explore this avenue before making a decision .........waiting on updates!

I tend to think the deferment was more to do with the Secretary of State's decision on the Cuadrilla appeals that was due at that time, which only strengthens the case for approval of this application - there shouldn't be any outstanding issues with the application otherwise the officers would not have taken the application to Committee. It comes down to whether the Councillors on the Committee have the back-bone to stand-up to the lobbying from the objectors.

As someone involved in the environmental world on the development side of things, the Government's new found belief in fracking may be a bit late in the day for some companies, Igas might just be in that category unless they have a financial plan B. Yet they seemed to have been played like a violin by the secured bondholders. Real shame as they are still seeking option agreements on land. The pipeline between land deal, planning and extraction may just be too long when compared to the current cash stream. Hope I am proved wrong.