Member Info for CynderLad

However, and to expand (whilst I make yet another attempt to multi-task) I do not expect the challenge brought forward by Ms Finch to be a successful one. The only media coverage will be that of a lame write up on drillordrop and maybe something in the middle pages of a local rag.

Penguins, my comment of "it'll be nipped in the bud" does not put a timeframe on this case, I fully expect this to drag on whilst the court makes a determination, they are not easily pressed to make a spur of the moment decision, they will almost certainly recess to discuss.

If Cummins referred to Carrie as "Princess nutnuts", then what did he refer to Boris as? Prince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (fill in the blanks). I have several personal favourites, but maybe that is for another day.

Penguins, the key word from that statement is "may". That does not mean that they will wait.

I do not see any reason for the case to be delayed. SCC have done nothing unlawful in providing approvals.

The UK's own policy is for carbon neutrality in a couple of decades time, it is not right here, right now. And even then, it is not a complete moratorium on use of oil based products, it is a neutrality "target".

Seeing that the UK Gov only yesterday brought forward a policy to ban the sale of petrol/diesel only cars from 2030; they therefore evidencing through policy that they are still supportive of oil use beyond 2030 in cars. From 2030, new cars will have to be hybrid or electric or alternative (folks can peddle about for all I care). The government will not be banning continued use of existing petrol/diesel cars at this point; in fact, they are yet to make any policy public in regards of the future use of such cars, but given the classic car market and given that dealers can sell such cars right up until 31st Dec 2029, the public will certainly be granted a considerable amount of time for their use of such vehicles.

Remember, it is about neutrality, not elimination. I fully support the reduction in CO2, and domestically we do huge amounts to contribute to our own reduction in consumption. But I do take issue with XR and Nimby types who have radical views like that of Ms Finch. She has the right to object and to take a legal challenge to court, but her whole case is flawed with invalid working assumption being that SCC acted unlawfully. Show us the specific law broken, and then consider the actions of our own government in the last 24 hours which clearly is supportive of oil use domestically in cars for many many years to come.

Maybe the alternative is for Ms Finch to consider lobbying parliament and raising proceeds through crowdfunding for higher density of electric charging points. The solution to the problem is not another problem, if Ms Finch wins, this opens the door to a complete shutdown of all planning applications for all developments across the country. Roads, housing, etc, etc, as all will have considerable CO2 output. It cannot be a matter for county council planners to address, it is a national policy and central government issue. The solution to the problem, must be a solution, else the snake eats its own head and we end up living in a society which recedes rapidly into financial ruin.

Hence the reason why the government are there supporting SCC, they are not there for a free cuppa and a slice of cake. They are there to ensure that a case like this does not create legal precedence for a flood of similar cases. It'll be nipped in the bud.

Just my opinion of course, and enjoying debate on the matter.

I'd prefer a community service penalty. Give them both 200 hours of community service, picking up litter, give them some kit to protect against Covid and send them out in the rain. That way they may give some consideration to putting others to an inconvenience.

I'm not a bot, but my vain efforts to multi-task have been a complete failure. I should stick to one thing at a time.

LMAO. So what was the outcome of the Ms Finch hearing then?

Why, do you have another link? As the one I am listening to sounds like it is the right one.

These boys need their lunch. Its hard work, maybe a few words over a nice steak and glass of vino.

LOL. he has a right to make his point, however, his point is pretty weak. Right now, I do not see any reason for this to be sanctioned for further legal proceedings.

Its on their live Youtube feed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9HPQh06bUg

Shocking argument made by Ms Finch's representation. Truly terrible argument!

Penguins, you do make me laugh.

To quote you: "whether they will have any real world impact on UKOG is indeed debateable"

Look at it another way, if either the legal challenge or the SCC planning committee turned out badly for UKOG, then the SP would be hit very hard. It would be the end of UKOG in the UK onshore. Left with nothing other than Turkey.

Now, look at it again, this time with blinkers off. If both deliver good outcomes for UKOG, then HH will continue for as long as the asset remains profitable, anything upto 25 years. Whilst HH1 may only last a few years, they could yet drill other wells there. 25 years is a long old time. Yes, they need cash to drill; but dont discount that being delivered either by Turkey, IoW, or other.

It also means that they can go ahead with Loxely, and despite your comments relating to other sites in proximity, there is always a prospect of Loxley being good. Yes, they would need cash, but Turkey or placings could deliver that.

Without HH and Loxley, then UKOG would have limited appeal, placings would be more difficult. It cannot have just one iron in the fire.

So, maybe time for you to reconsider the impacts of the case and Loxley SCC application.

Who is the cat, and who's the mouse?

Keep deflecting from the main topics of real interest Penguins.

There is the legal challenge from Ms Finch; showboating waste of time. But once refused will help sentiment

There is the Loxley planning application due to be heard on 27th Nov. The Vice-Chairman will not be attending, and instead a Tory councillor will be there; I expect the chairman to ask for a vote to support the application given that it has been given the PERMIT recommendation by their own planning officer. Whilst there will be a full debate, I really do expect them to avoid a situation that they brought on themselves last time.

There is the Turkey development, news will be due in the next few weeks. Despite all your negativity, it is an exciting play and the results will be keenly anticipated.

Then there is HH1 workover. Still awaiting that the end of PBU and flow testing.

But you would rather dwell on some mickey mouse storied of FD's and MD's making false representations of company accounts. Duh, I wonder why.

Who is the cat and who's the mouse?

If WN comes good then Wressle doesn't really matter. And if Wressle is decent, but WN is a dud, then Wressle doesn't justify the current MCAP. Just my opinion. I saw some comparisons of UJO and UKOG on Twitter, I'm not a Twitter user.

I've bought into UKOG (only a few K) on basis of impending news there. But UJO look worth a punt too, especially with the drill getting close to finish. May pop a few K in here this week, just monitoring the charts.

Ms Finch is already aware that she will not win the challenge. Any legal counsel will have already told her that. Its showboating, and it is costly. Very inappropriate to waste £££ on a dead cert of a loser. How do these people justify wasting £££, it could have gone to a childrens charity.

Penguins, that is rather cynical of you. Not the usual detailed analysis. Are you feeling a little under the weather or just a bit pressured given the impending legal case and SCC Loxley vote? I do wonder why you post so much on here, but nowhere else. It does amuse me, I like a game of cat and mouse.

Thanks pboo.
Drill or Drop site, GCSE level reporting at best.
But it does look like the Secretary of State will be supporting SCC. I am surprised that Ms Finch is still pushing ahead with the challenge, there appears to be zero chance of it being overturned given what is known.

What she is doing now is just using £££ from her crowdfunding green buddies to pursue an expensive and unwinnable legal challenge. To me that just smacks of nothing more than a PR campaign, and expensive PR campaign. The money would be better donated to Friends of the Earth or to a Childrens health charity. Better there than with the vampires who'll suck you dry regardless of your chances of winning.

Thanks pboo. That is a point well made. Where di you get that from?

You may wish to review the content on the OGA website:
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/the-move-to-net-zero/overview/

Part of the strategy to achieve a carbon neutral society by 2050 actually employs the use of derelict oil wells to store carbon. Importantly, the strategy does not mandate that oil and gas production MUST cease, not does it state that oil and gas use MUST cease. It is predominantly a strategy built to reduce the emissions and to achieve carbon neutral status.

Enough said. Lets see how that legal challenge goes. One thing you can bank on; the legal folks working with Sarah Finch will get paid; 2nd oldest profession in the world, and that is for a reason; they get paid win or loss.

Enjoy your lunch. I'm having a tune salad with a balsamic dressing.

Robert Jenrick will supposedly be at the court in the legal challenge brought forward by Sarah Finch against SCC.

Robert Jenrick has held the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government role since July 2019.

The fact that he is due to attend, does not mean that he is there to give his support to Ms Finch and her associated of Friends of the Earth. In fact, I have found no documentary evidence of what his opinion will be in relation to SCC ruling in favour of granting UKOG 25 years production at the Horse Hill site.

As SCC have already stated; "The Planning & Regulatory Committee approved the Horse Hill application as it was in accordance with the development plan and policies laid down by Government."

The SCC legal team will no doubt continue their stance that the approval was fully legitimate.

For the challenge to use the concept that SCC should have considered the "indirect" burning of fossil fuels is laughable. How can SCC make a determination on the burning of the oil produced at HH? UKOG as a producer have no say on where that oil gets used later in the supply chain. There is an argument that all oil produced should be considered based on the split of oil consumption across all industries, after all, oil is not solely used in combustion engines in planes, trains, ships and automobiles. It is also used in large percentages in the plastics industries.

For SCC to make a determination on its future use, on an indirect basis, is far beyond their jurisdiction or responsibility.

I am sure that Robert Jenrick will have a very well considered view on this matter. But for the SCC decision to be over-turned would require all current and future planning applications for oil and gas production to be subjected to the same considerations. i.e. in legal terms, you cannot make up a rule to favour a singular case situation. The verdict could be used as a case reference for legal challenges on all applications; thus opening the door for all oil and gas production to be ceased across all existing sites, including those in the North Sea.

I would conclude that Robert Jenrick will not side with the challenge being brought forward by Sarah Finch, and I am sure that he will bat it off with a simple statement along the lines of "we are not looking to achieve a zero carbon emissions society right here and right now, we have to be considerate to our on-going requirement for oil and gas, and the government policy is to permit the continued production of the oil and gas assets"

Said my bit; I anticipate that the legal challenge has a < 1% chance of winning through. Government policy and Case law tells you much of what you need to know on the matter.

Keep It Simple S. (KISS)

The SCC folks have agreed that their prior vote in June was effectively null and void, the committee must hear the full application at their next meeting (currently scheduled for 27th Nov) as if it were the first running of the application through committee.

Do you understand that basic concept?