Member Info for CynderLad

I count 5 councillors that are already showing clear body language to vote this one down.
SCC going to get stung for legal costs at appeal.

"pre-determination" to the fore. They don't like it.
Wonder if we hear the motion to reject and a vote to support refusal before 12.30?

The farmer is excellent. Well spoken and made the best speech by a mile. No emotion in his voice, just well considered, cool and calm. That shows his sincerity.

The others had anguish and emotion running through every word; passionate, I don't hold that against them.

Is that Penguins in the multi-coloured check shirt on top left? He is saying things that form the basis of much of what Penguins uses in his posts here.

Love it when NIMBY turn up and think that their views on matters such as highways have higher authority than the regulatory bodies and official authorities.

Penguins are you using gas? Gas central heating? Gas fire? Gas hob? Gas oven?

Including the most important one of all, "pre-determination"
The Chairman and the legal counsel will be key to this meeting. Will they take any prisoners?

Human nature response = I'll vote the same way as last time.
Procedure = someone needs to propose a motion, it needs to be moved and seconded, then voted on.
Outcome = place your bets. I think their previous motion has no legal standing.

So 55mins of recorded session prior to the actual start of the meeting. Why is that?
Have they already had a debrief?
What is in that pre meeting 55 min recording? Should it be a public record?

I'm seeing a few people coming out the weeds to comment here this morning. Must be lots of worried folks in the XR community.

I'll bet a dollar to a dime that anyone posting here that is resident in the UK has had their central heating working this morning, and most are using gas. Now, if you want to say Loxely is not important, and that home grown production is not necessary, then go and switch your gas boilers off. Switch your other appliances off whilst you are at it, including that gas hob on which you may have cooked your breakfast on this morning.

It is irresponsible to think it's fine to import oil and gas from other nations where regulations are poor and where safety is often overlooked, when it can be produced right here in the UK. Jobs for the British, higher levels of self sufficiency, best regulations in the world. No slavery.

We do not need to produce 100% of what we use, but it is silly to think that we can import it all.

To those who voted for Brexit but oppose Loxley, then shame on you. Our independence from the EU should not put greater dependency on deals with people outside the UK. Our independence must go hand in hand with self sufficiency.

Enough said.

If you are using oil and gas in your everyday life, whether for heating, cooking, cars, trains, going on holiday (when that is possible), etc, etc, etc, and you oppose Loxley, then go look in the mirror and see if you can look yourself in the eye; it is hard to do so when hypocrisy is staring back at you.

Nope, they are oil tinted, very dark. But I can see quite clearly through them.

Ibug, LOL, I did watch that link for a while, it was no more than 30 mins on and off though, and I was doing my JOB at the time and only listening in part. Hardly an excuse for you to question my intelligence.

You still have those green tinted glasses on though. You should take them off.

Where am I putting words into your mouth Ibug? Take off those green tinted specs, read the UPDATED report properly. You clearly haven't.

The officers report and his recommendation are there and 100% clear, black and white, no room for misunderstanding. "PERMIT".

He has addressed the reasons used in the motion in June, in full, and it is clear that they are not valid reasons.

FYI. As the son of a chartered surveyor who was in a senior post within the RICS for 20 years and ran his own business for 45 years, I can tell you that I probably know more about planning applications and reports than you do. But not wanting to start a pointless argument with you in respect of who knows more/less.

As for your comments about previous identities, please elaborate. Your accusations are unfounded and insulting.

Lets see what happens tomorrow shall we. But mark my words, the planning officer has clearly been given a clear mandate to check and re-check everything used in the dumb motion in June, has re-affirmed his position and provided an updated report that clearly lays out his reasons to recommend "PERMIT" of the application.

Ibug, you clearly haven't read and understood the updated report.

The planning officer is making remarks such as:
- "Officers do not accept the applicant’s proposals for new conditions in relation to ‘local procurement and local economic growth’ and ‘air quality monitoring’."
- "Officers do not consider the need for any additional planning conditions in relation to highways, traffic and access."
- "A new proposed air quality condition is not considered to be justified."

Because, these are justifiable positions, and that the offer by UKOG to provide additional support in relation to those matters is not required. i.e. The Planning Officer has re-iterated his position that ALL is good, and that none of those arguments made in June (in a short 20 minute recess outside of public visibility in haste by the SCC committee in full on flap mode) are valid.

Read that UPDATED report properly and understand the context. Mark my words, the legal counsel to the committee will make it very clear that the motion used in June is not a valid one should they try the same thing tomorrow.

Tony,

I think a CPR from an independent body could be used to form the basis of a claim for loss by UKOG.
e.g. If an updated CPR provided recoverable resources of 11m barrels of oil, with a NPV of $13 per barrel, then loss could be argued to be $143,000,000.

Would make for a very interesting legal case. How would SCC pay out if they were to lose?

Extract from the minutes of the meeting on 29th June 2020:
----------------
"29. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the following reasons for
refusal:
a. It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the
development nor that the adverse impacts in respect of Highways,
noise, lighting and air quality will not be significant contrary to policies
MC12, MC14 and MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011.
30. The Chairman moved the confirmation vote on the motion for refusal of
the application for the reasons outlined in paragraph 29a of these
minutes which received 9 votes for, 1 vote against and no abstentions.
Therefore the motion was carried."
----------------

Extracts from UPDATED Officers Report:
----------------
"Need for Development" extract from UPDATED Officers Report:
"Officers are satisfied that the conclusion in relation to the ‘need for the
development’ set out in paragraph 192 of the Officer report attached at Annex 1 remains
sound. Officers therefore consider that there is a demonstrable need to maintain a stable
and reliable supply of indigenous energy sources, including onshore oil and gas, into the
future and that significant weight should be attributed to this aspect of the proposal."

"Highways" extract from UPDATED Officers Report:
"The County Highway Authority (CHA) has been consulted on the final statement in respect of
issues relating to transport. Reflecting the advice provided by the CHA, Officers do not consider
the need for any additional planning conditions in relation to highways, traffic and access."

"Air Quality" extract from UPDATED Officers Report:
"A new proposed air quality condition is not considered to be justified. This is because the
County Air Quality Consultant’s response advises that the effects on air quality are not
considered to be significant and the advice does not recommend the need to impose any
conditions in relation to air quality"

Further extract from UPDATED Officers Report:
"Finally, the EA state that they have issued the Permit because they believe that the
operator has demonstrated that environmental impacts will be controlled and will not
cause an issue to either the environment or to nearby residents. The application includes
an assessment of air quality, noise, vibration and odour as well as protection for ground
and surface water. The permitted activities will be regulated by the EA in order to ensure
that the Permit conditions are complied with and that emissions and impacts are
minimised"
----------------

Go READ....

Skwizz, correction, it is NOT the same people. The Vice Chairman who voted t refuse back in June is not in attendance. In his place is a Tory councillor with a history of backing unpopular planning applications.

Furthermore, this review will have to be conducted with the UPDATED Planning Officer's report. They MUST not use the old report. The UPDATED report addresses all the points used in the motion to refuse the planning back in June (e.g. "need for development", "highways", etc, etc). So if a councillor proposes the same motion as used in June, then it should be considered as an inappropriate motion. That will not stop it being moved and seconded, and voted on. But mark my words, the Chairman (and his legal counsel) will certainly make a point to the committee that the same motion is not valid and should be voted down given that the UPDATED report shows the factual evidence in support of the application.

Folks should go read the UPDATED report, read the minutes from June, understand the motion voted on in June. Hopefully reach the same conclusions as me. If the committee votes this one down, then they will do so knowing that they will face an appeal. Frankly, our constitution is broken if councillors think it wise to block an application on grounds that have no legal merit; they should be willing to step down if they cannot understand the importance for making legally sounds decisions, even if it flies against their own beliefs.

Thats great news Mr008. Looking at your posting history you get it wrong 99.9% of the time. So tomorrow will be a good day based on that.

It is tomorrow, not today.

Webcast link available at:
https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=122&MId=7523&Ver=4

Penguins, next you will be saying that Brent will go sub $20, that Covid will keep Oil use down, and that the global economies are not picking up. Maybe you also consider Maradona to be over-rated and a Sunday pub player. I can take a balanced argument, but your arguments are so one-sided with doom and gloom predictions, its hard to take you seriously.

For example; water cut in HH1, it may be going up, but you fail to comment on use of HH2z and automated injection of water into that horizontal to keep the opex costs down. Sure, that re-injection needs further technical analysis and work-over. But it does make use of a well that's already been drilled and potentially into a different compartment of the Portland. It offers an excellent opportunity to keep opex costs down.

But no, you will keep stating that UKOG are having to pay BKP to truck away 1 in 3 tanks of water versus 2in 3 of oil. Do you ever consider how that could be mitigated? Nope.

Turkey, its just doom and gloom from you. There is huge upside there. I've even suggested that UKOG may withdraw from that arrangement, I don't see it as nailed on. They may use a get out clause to say thanks but no thanks. OR, they may continue, and they may have success or they may fail. Their business partner there will not be on the hook to lose a dime in direct spend as its 100% UKOG funded; however, their partner will have to operate the campaign and I'm sure that they will therefore have to use some of their own resources (manpower and equipment) to support that campaign, and even though UKOG may pay for those resources, it means that the partner cannot use them elsewhere.

IoW = Yeah, we know, it may be a dud. But never say never. It needs to be drilled and proven. You are not an authority and can only speculate on whether it will success or not. Maybe it is a 80% fail, 20% succeed ratio, maybe worse, but you only ever talk about it as a failure before its even started.

etc, etc, etc.

One sided, negativity, not seen balance from you.