Member Info for CynderLad

Mirasol,

LOL LOL LOL

Your true colours shining through. Campaigner!

Ibug, I posted this last week, I still stand by my opinion on this one:

"https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/515802

Resources that are published for the meeting at the above link, including the updated summary report from the planning officer.

"The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions."

Now it is over to Tim to chair the meeting properly and to ask for a vote to support the application. No silly parlour games. As chairman, given the officers recommendation, his duty should be to ask for a vote in support of the application, vote on that. No votes for further deferral, no vote to refuse application with mickey mouse reasoning.

The SCC Planning Officer recommends PERMIT.

To vote against that will leave SCC in a massive legal hole.

Read that updated summary report, and it is crystal clear!

p.s. The Vice-Chairman who voted against it last time is not due to attend, but Tim Evans, a Tory councillor is attending in his place. Tim Evans has a history of supporting tough applications.

This is going to be a tight one, but I will go for 6/5 in favour to approve."

Just checking the invite for the SCC meeting this Friday, they have setup the session for 10.30am until 11.30am. Does that mean that they dont expect to have a full hearing on the Loxley application? Will it just be a vote?

I was getting all settled in for a 3 hour debate on the matter, complete with notepad and clock for recording all the key issues. Popcorn was ready, and a bottle of champagne to toast the result and imminent increase in SP that I believe to follow.

Surely the 1 hour duration is just an oversight in their booking system.

I made a mistake buying into this share last week. Massive mistake. Wounds licked. I'm holding for a week, maybe two. See how it plays out.

I am a positive guy, am invested and presently in profit, so cannot complain too much.

But I do not understand why "silent steve" is not providing a proper update on HH1 / HH2z. I know why.

I also have a feeling that Turkey is nothing more than a ruse to raise cash and that they will not do anything in Turkey. Just waiting for a convenient excuse for UKOG to pull out before spending £1 there.

Easily the worst CEO I've ever come across. He is an absolute disgrace.

How long before Turkey is cancelled? Then UKOG keep what's left of the cash from the placing to pay the board for another 6 months.

Oh dear oh dear.

They could of course use figures from the sale of Oil as a checksum for their observations on site. After all, the folks buying the oil are not going to pay for anything not received. Thus, there will be formal sales receipts showing what was delivered.

Using flow meters to determine output? Not sure what feeds those meters may provide into an IT application, but as a guy with former process control experience (worked for Monsanto in Newport), then I would expect their control kit on site to provide some digital feed capability.

I've not seen any mention of how they may track the output of water versus oil. Are the flow meters in-line within the pipework after water separation or before? Do they therefore have flow meters for both water and oil? What about gas? I have no information to judge this on.

But I will state again, the oil sale will provide a receipt, and that is going to be accurate. Only question on that would be, what happens if the BKP tankers are delivering crude to Fawley with a small % of water? What is acceptable water content?

Westcott, what is the name of the private Facebook group? Who runs it?

Am I right in thinking that to date, the yellow waste tankers are for rainwater, not for well waste? Do the yellow waste tankers bear any hazard signage? If it is rainwater, then I would expect "non-hazardous" signage. But if it were well waste then would it not be hazardous (as containing some degree of crude) and needing a different sign on the tanker?

LOL. That is how these things work. Its not Judge Judy.

He'll come back with a verdict when he is ready, Ms Finch will not win. I can tell you that much.

The arguments she brought were reasonable, but she brought them against the wrong organisation. Bringing them against SCC was a massive mistake. She should have brought them against the OGA.

That said, she would have no chance against the OGA either. They are not required by law to set out CO2 criteria for any specific development currently. I'm afraid, that Ms Finch will just have to get used to sitting on her hands.

Carbon neutral target by 2050. Key words "neutral" and "target". The UK Gov will not mandate cessation of oil and gas use, they know that is not possible.

The UK Gov have introduced new laws recently on private household use of coal and wet logs. That is a small step forward. They have also brought in the statement on no new petrol/diesel only cars from 2030; accepting that hybrids will be permitted, and also not making any policy statements on other vehicles (trains, boats, lorries, etc).

Anyone with half a brain can work out what this means for O&G producers.

Maybe Ms Finch should start a petition calling for replacement of all gas boilers in all domestic and business premises. Wait, hang on, that would be really easy wouldn't it.

Oh and another petition asking for £1 trillion+ to be spent by the Uk Gov on electric charging points.

We operate our own domestic policy towards CO2, recycling and appropriate use of fossil fuels. As I am sure many other households do. But for the XR mob to think it can all be changed overnight is farcical. It will take half a century to adapt.

Mirasol. The answer is "silent steve". He will no doubt be waiting for some good news from Turkey, then he'll hide HH news in the bottom of an RNS.

https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/515802

Resources that are published for the meeting at the above link, including the updated summary report from the planning officer.

"The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions."

Now it is over to Tim to chair the meeting properly and to ask for a vote to support the application. No silly parlour games. As chairman, given the officers recommendation, his duty should be to ask for a vote in support of the application, vote on that. No votes for further deferral, no vote to refuse application with mickey mouse reasoning.

The SCC Planning Officer recommends PERMIT.

To vote against that will leave SCC in a massive legal hole.

Read that updated summary report, and it is crystal clear!

p.s. The Vice-Chairman who voted against it last time is not due to attend, but Tim Evans, a Tory councillor is attending in his place. Tim Evans has a history of supporting tough applications.

This is going to be a tight one, but I will go for 6/5 in favour to approve.

My theory on extension at BB is to delay the costs that UKOG would incur in abandonment of the site. Cash that UKOG need right now to pay towards the Turkey drill. Loxley costs = nothing in the coffers. BB abandonment = nothing in the coffers.

Maybe BB has a future, maybe not. However, I don't see UKOG getting enough cash to go back there anytime soon (2+ years minimum) to do anything.

HH = 2020
Turkey = 2021
Loxley = 2022

And that is only if they can continue to generate cash from production / placings. The former being my obvious preference.

It was over before it started. Nimby showboating exercise.

Excellent point Tony. I had not considered that scenario. Ouch, now that would cost SCC an arm and a leg.
£££ talks, they say that "justice is blind", but she still feels the weight of silver in her coat pockets.

You must be joking right. That said, there is not a wealth of candidates in the cabinet for the PM job.
Lucky for BoJo that he does not have strong characters with pedigree smashing the door down.

I'm ready for the ruling to be "thou challenge doth not butter thy parsnips", but each to their own. ;-)

There is no compensation other than to cover costs should there be a formal appeal to the planning inspectorate. The delay created by SCC in turning down the application in June and it being put back in front of committee next Friday does not provide UKOG with any means to bill SCC for costs. Only if SCC refuse the application, and then UKOG wins on appeal, can they claim costs, and it would be for tangible costs incurred in the appeal, not in any delays to date.

Thus far, it is just extra cost to UKOG in having to go through the process again, paying their 3rd parties who assist with the applications.

Bit depressing. Thought that the activity on site would create a bit more interest than that.

Am now invested in expectation of news from the WN drill. My timing is usually hit and miss, bit worried that this time, its a miss. :-(

Milestones, aka FOTH, "LoooooooooooooL", I think everyone here knows who you are.