Member Info for CynderLad

Don't wind the drivers up, they do a cracking job. N66 and N33 are like Batman and Robin.

Mr Negative is back. Agenda = anything but success. Talk it down.

N66 posts good updates and they are public. I don't have a Twitter account, but just doing a search on the web using #UKOG gives decent updates.

Penguins, don't be so daft. You should not try to put words into my mouth, you can see my positivity on Loxley, so why try to twist it otherwise? I need not put words into your mouth, it's obvious what your agenda is. You'd make a bloody terrible chess player.

Just posted an image on Twitter, his truck has the 3WE 1267 signage on display. Crude Oil.
Given his earlier tweet about "coming to a hill near you", then I will assume that HH1 is flowing oil.
Shame that we are in lock-down, maybe John Rogan will go for some exercise and just happen to pass by site?

There goes Penguins again. He will surely make reference to 2 other wells in the proximity to Loxley, saying how they are duds. He will make ascertaining statements about how Loxley is a sure fire dud and a waste of money. etc, etc, etc.

Starting to sound a bit like Donald Trump there Penguins. Everyone is wrong, and only you are right.

If history tells us one thing, don't count your chickens.... Sure, maybe the Loxley site is a weak play. Sure, maybe SCC vote Loxley down. Sure, maybe HH1 is in trouble. etc, etc, etc. But to make statements like you do, writing off the prospects is akin to Donald Trump writing off sleepy Joe Biden, to Trump saying we'll have Covid Beat by the summer of 2020, and to many other idiots in the history of mankind.

You'd be better off going elsewhere and protesting your hatred against fossil fuels. Tell us why you only post about UKOG? Or maybe I can make an assumption myself, NIMBY.

Whatever Adrian, aka FOTH. LSE should take legal action against you, restraining order....

There you go. Penguins response as expected, full of negativity.

No positivity whatsoever. Your agenda is there for all to see.

As I've said before, the SCC committee on Friday and the Legal case brought by Miss Finch are very important milestones for the company. If UKOG lose out on both counts, then their UK on-shore plans are up in smoke, regardless of what production they may be able to achieve, and regardless of how many wells they may be able to drill in the coming years. The debate regarding placings/finance/CPR, etc, they all go in the bin. If SCC are going to block future sites and exploration, and if the XR mob win their legal challenge, its game over.

That would leave UKOG with nothing more than Turkey, BB and IoW. BB = dead duck, IoW = speculative, Turkey = decent prospect.

I'm seeing lots of positives as you will know. I see SCC backing the Loxley application (then we can debate future finance). I see the JV with Ms Finch rejecting her case, after all, as one poster pointed out yesterday, if there is no need for development of Oil and Gas, then why has the planning officer said that there is a need in his updated report, and why are the OGA dishing out PEDL to companies like UKOG?

Price of Brent is on the up.
Even a modest 200 bopd at $60 would provide UKOG with gross sales of $4,380,000 per annum. I think that they will achieve 200 bopd after work-over for a good few years, and Brent will be pushing through $100 next year.

As for water disposal costs. HH2z will almost certainly be converted to an injection well, with automated injection of water from HH1 into HH2z horizontal. You can then park your comments on "BKP costs to ship and treat water".

And rising.
$60 by Xmas?
$120 by Xmas 2021?

Will the rise in price be enough to keep the US shale producers hard on production output? Or will OPEC and Russia win the latest game of monopoly? With Trump on his way out (hoorah), with Covid vaccines providing much promise, and with demand on the uptake, then how far will the bull run take the price of oil, and for how long can that bull run last?

I'm backing it to be a long run, a steady run, and it's going to keep edging up and onwards.

One of the huge markers for me, DJI hitting an all time high and climbing day on day. Same in Japan. The world markets are saying its "game time". That for me (and this is my opinion, not advice) is the signal to put the proverbial on the chopping board. Each to their own.

Penguins will no doubt be crafting a long response to cast doubt and spread negativity as far and as wide as possible. I wonder how many of the fan boys on DrillorDrop have Penguins statues in their bedroom for daily worship?

More importantly. If the tankers are rolling, then that long term PBU must be over.

What will the initial flow rates be? They must know by now as the oil is flowing, unless they are emptying tanks?

What will the flow rates be for the month of Dec 2020? Will we have to wait until April 2021 to find out the facts on recovery from HH1?

What is actually happening with HH2z? Company needs to make a statement.

So in a nutshell. An RNS is due. Today? Tomorrow? Friday?

There will be one on Friday as that is SCC Loxley committee date. Will they stick out a RNS to cover HH1 updates together with SCC outcome? Will it be a double barrel shotgun for shareholders, or will it be a pair of diamond earrings for the Wife?

I'm just waiting for Penguins to pop on and make the obvious statement. Loxley application and Legal case dot not change the recoverability of oil in the ground at the flagship site.... tick tock... He'll be here by 5pm for sure.

I may set a sell order at 0.22p, or may let it fly, and hope it doesn't nosedive like it did in June when SCC XR delinquents threw their toys out the pram.

Brent will soon be back above $60. Certainly before the end of 2021.
The Covid impact is still very real, the vaccine is presenting a massive change in sentiment in the futures markets.
My opinion: buying oil, transport, banking stocks. I'm selling supermarkets, and not holding gold.

Just watch Penny and her mates wriggle and squirm, trying to find a reasonable motion. I am expecting the legal Counsel to have a large say in whether something has valid grounds or not. It will be very interesting to see.

Also remember, the Vice Chairman is not attending this time. He was there in June and voted against the application. In his place, is a Tory councillor, he has a history of favouring development, rightly so. :-)

Of course, any councillor can propose a motion, it can then be moved and it can be seconded. And then yes it would be voted on, and yes the councillors could indeed vote it down.

However, the updated Officers Report is conclusive, and the motion tabled previously is certainly not valid. The points that they raised are all addressed in the updated report. To vote for refusal on those grounds would be illegitimate.

If Penny or one of her mates on the council table a motion to refuse, then they better have a very very very good argument and one that does not contradict the officers report.

Mirasol, That comment shows that you have not read the updated report!!!!???!!!!

Extract below
----------------------
"Need for the Development
21. In confirming their continuing objection to the application, Dunsfold Parish Council have
cited recent changes in Government policy as grounds for objecting to the application.
These comprise support for renewable energy generation from onshore wind farms and
measures to enable electricity supplied to all UK homes by 2030 to be generated by offshore wind farms.
22. The first point is in relation to a Government press release published on 2 March 2020
entitled, ‘Millions more homes to be powered by renewables’. This sets out measures to
promote new renewable electricity generation projects including wind and solar, with
proposals to include floating offshore wind.
23. The press release does not represent a new policy change since the completion of the
Officer report and Update Sheet attached at Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively. It was
therefore within the knowledge of Officers when preparing the report attached at Annex 1.
Officers acknowledge that the provision of new incentives to invest in the generation of
renewable energy will help to support the balanced, low carbon and secure energy mix
advocated by Government energy policy.
Page 17 7
24. The second point regarding off-shore wind farms relates to a Government press release
issued on 6 October 2020 concerning ‘New plans to make UK world leader in green
energy’. This commits to providing new investment to enable the manufacture of the next generation of offshore wind turbines to deliver clean energy to the UK. This is intended to
enable off-shore wind to produce more than enough electricity to power every home in the
country by 2030, based on current electricity usage, boosting the government’s previous
30 gigawatts (GW) target to 40GW. This is aimed at supporting the green industrial
revolution and facilitating progress towards the achievement of the net-zero greenhouse
gas emissions target by 2050.
25. Acknowledging these announcements, Officers note that there has been no change in
Government policy in relation to: the great weight that should be given to the benefits of
mineral extraction including to the economy; that minerals resources make an essential
contribution to the country’s prosperity and quality of life; the need for energy supplies to
come from a variety of sources including oil and gas; the promotion of the use of domestic
gas resources to the maximum extent to support the transition to a low carbon economy;
and providing a balanced approach towards securing a reduction in energy consumption,
through husbanding domestic supplies to both reduce reliance on imports and contribute
to energy security.
26. For these reasons, 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. "

Adding further content from the updated report in relation to Highways:
---- ------ -----
"With regard to the transport related clarifying statements submitted by the applicant, the CHA
has explained the ‘Unsuitable for HGVs’ signage’ at the junction of the A281 and Dunsfold Road
does not mean that all of the route between the A281 and the A3100 is unsuitable for HGVs due
to the road being too narrow. Material to the consideration of this application is the CHA’s advice
that the section between the A281 and the application site has a suitable width to allow the safe
passing of HGVs.

The CHA has also clarified that the reason for the installation of chevrons signage and high
friction surfacing at two bends on Dunsfold Road is due to car drivers approaching these bends
at inappropriate speeds, braking too late and then losing control of their vehicle. The CHA states
that HGV movements generated by the proposed development would have no material impact
on highway safety at these locations. In relation to a statement by the applicant concerning
Section 278 Highway Agreements, the CHA has pointed out a factual error contained within this
statement and advised that although it is normal practice for these agreements to be drafted
after planning permission has been granted, it is not correct to say that these can only be made
once a planning consent has been issued"
---- ------ -----

So please do tell me why a motion to refuse the application on grounds of "highways" would be a legitimate one?

My point is that the planning officer has provided an updated report, and the reasons for the refusal no longer stand up to scrutiny. Hence, the Chairman would be silly to allow a motion (using those reasons) to be put forward for vote.

For example, in relation to "Highways":

"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.
However the applicant’s suggested change to proposed Condition 12 (renumbered as Condition
13 in this addendum report) to restrict the hours of operation for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs)
is accepted. This prohibits all HGV movements outside the hours of 0900-1700 Monday to
Thursday and 0900-1300 on Friday and Saturday. To provide greater clarity, Officers have also
recommended two minor changes to proposed Conditions 8 and 9 in response to the applicant’s
proposal to include two new planning conditions regarding HGV Track and Trace and the
restoration of the highway and highway verge. "

This shows that "The County Highway Authority (CHA) has been consulted", and that there is no valid reason to object on grounds of highways.

Same is true for the other reasons used in the dodgy (second) motion brought forward for voting last time.

Seriously, read the updated documents attached to the planning meeting. Then consider why a Chairman (or his legal counsel) would allow a motion to be tabled using any of those reasons.

There should be a single motion put forward to vote on. The motion being to support the approval of the application. If the councillors then decide to vote that motion down, then they are effectively voting to refuse the application. That approach to chairing the meeting is absolutely sound and the Chairman would beyond criticism. That would still leave the matter open and an appeal would certainly be lodged by UKOG, and the SCC decision would be overturned.

Looking forward to seeing Penny Rivers and her lock-down haircut. Keeping a close eye out for any XR propaganda in the background of those who do attend.

Suggest you check the updated documents on SCC in relation to your comment:

"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."

Its been addressed. Not a valid objection point now.