Member Info for CynderLad

I'm all for democracy, but should there not be a set of actions that the Planning Inspectorate can invoke when they find a county council taking a completely biased outlook?

The Planning Inspectorate can overturn a decision and often do.

Should they also be given powers to insist that certain councillors are not permitted to vote on similar matters for a period of time? e.g. Penny Rivers and Corrupt Tovey (the latter doesn't pay interest on director loans) should be barred from committee if they have been found to block applications on grounds that are unreasonable.

Why should councillors be permitted to make decisions that are clearly on pre-determined grounds. To some, it would not have mattered what the application provided, they cannot see past their own XR beliefs that this type of development should not be permitted.

Its like asking Liverpool fans to vote on the best player of the season; they'll not chose anyone from Everton; regardless of performances and the case put forward.

Why should councillors be granted these powers if they cannot uphold an independent outlook on such matters. There is clearly no open thinking on the part of the 6 who blocked Loxley. It was a disgrace, an embarrassment. Great Britain, more like Backwards Britain. Idiots like these are standing in the way of economic progress in this country, when they have no grounds to put forward an objection other than being XR nutters.

Rant over; get these idiots out. If this costs SCC £200k, then that is a lot of money down the toilet that should have gone towards public services, not to fund a legal no-hope defence of an XR looney bin committee.

Heid, Is it better than Love Island? If not, then I'll pass.

Wizard, as I posted previously, you cannot assume £13 OPEX per barrel. UKOG will have a mixture of variable costs (e.g. BKP) and fixed costs (e.g. security). The £13 per barrel would have to be baselined on a specific production volume (e.g. 400 bopd).

So If UKOG were producing at the baseline (or higher) then yes you could use £13. But if below, then you cannot calculate a profit as you have no assurances that they have covered all costs.

e.g. If the baseline is 400 bopd to achieve £13, but UKOG are only delivering 120 bopd, then the production costs per barrel will be higher than £13, how much higher is unknown as UKOG have never released the asset level operating costs for a range of production figures. Just a pie in the sky figure for people to band about.

Evresham, can we assume that you are Adrian, Aka FOTH.... LOL, keep that hidden identity going. I'm not bothered one way or the other, having Adrian on this board makes for good comedy.

If FOTH was driven off Twitter, then surely he would share the vids with Share Talk, as he loves them so much, but no, diddly squat shared. SO I'll just put it down to lies.

Bit pointless speculating on when a decision will be delivered. The process is starting, it'll take a while, it's not really a problem.

UKOG do not have the cash for a Loxley work programme right now. They are focused on Turkey next. That's unless they reveal another HH work-over/intervention, which is unlikely right now.

Do UKOG have enough cash for Turkey, the jury is out, but I suspect that they will need another £1.5m - £2.5m. Not just to cover Turkey, but also to cover operating expenses over the next 6 months. We need to see some formal filings and an RNS, cash position cannot be very good right now.

Yes but HH is producing oil I hear you say; true, but it's only small potatoes and not enough to cover the costs at the asset level in my opinion. If there were 2 tankers a day rolling out the gates then I would think otherwise, but the limited volume of tankers is not creating any sales income, and they do have fixed costs at HH that need to be covered (e.g. security).

I have a feeling that sneaky silent steve sanderson will drop an RNS between now and the 30th Dec. Its a popular time to drop bad news as half the country are smashed on gin/vodka/rum/beer, and half asleep from indulging in a "few" more calories than the norm.

Between now and Jan, you can call me Scrooge. And unlike Scrooge, I'll not change my views until the New Year.

The ghost of UKOG past : BB failure, lies and deceit.
The ghost of UKOG present : Delays in providing market sensitive news on HH1/HH2
The ghost of UKOG future : sneaky silent steve sanderson taking the mickey with his employers (yes that is us the shareholders).

Enjoy the turkey and pudding, some beer and wine, a kiss under the mistletoe, and a dram of sunshine, to you and your family Christmas cheer, but as for for steve, I give not a fig, he's been taking the mickey, the greedy fat pig.

Mirasol, you don't need a lawyer to appeal to the planning inspectorate itself. But UKOG will need one to go to court to recover costs. Back to you XR facebook group now, see what else they have to fling.

Mirasol, why would you buy Wytch Farm? That's a daft statement. First of all, it would require the current owners to want to sell it, and why would they? If they did want to sell, then they would want a lot of cash for it, the business case for the buyer would have a pretty rubbish ROI. I do not see that asset being sold.

However, a brand new prospect, in very early exploration offers someone an opportunity for a very large reward at this early stage in the game. Unproven thus far, but with significant promise. They could buy in fairly cheaply, and have an ROI in the near term IF it could be developed.

One thing is for sure, its not SCC, this council are a little more pragmatic; so I dont see the risk of council refusal, especially as they know how many jobs this could create.

Back to your XR facebook groups now....

Mirasol, you must try harder as a closet XR campaigner.

There is a single good reason. I'll sum it up with one symbol. £

Ok, enough said.

Heathrow was always going to go ahead. The law does not prohibit development, whilst government policy encourages development.
Poor XR community are going to have kittens, but please remember, a kitten is not just for Xmas.

0 comes up often enough for you to lose. Maybe change your strategy, or stick to snap.

Careful GreyPanther, she'll take you off her Xmas card list.

She doesn't like people who realise that she is a swing trader, working 5% this way and that.

I think BMD and his mates loved that lovely spike last week. Made their 20% and now enjoying a Pina Colada. Good on them. Missed a trick there.

Heid, I'm sure that Jim Ratcliffe is on here and reading your posts. And on Twitter following you.

Or maybe not. He can get Love Island style commentary and analysis in the Sun.

Well, if it is "tanker tricks", then that is at least the 6th tanker since the shut in for PBU. How much storage on site? Did someone say 2000 barrels of storage, so a max of 9 tankers of oil in storage.

It is starting to feel like this is production and not tanker tricks. But the figures are low. Any signs of waste tankers for water? If not, then is HH1 flowing dry oil post workover? Seems unlikely that they could flow dry oil.

Something tells me that the company have been happy with the lock-down and that a lot has gone unseen.

RNS soon then?

Tell your friend to go along, take a decent camera for shots for the flare stack. ahum ahem, hmmm.

Huh? Confused me there.

I do not want the full breakdown for 6 months.
Just the following for the period as a whole:
Gross Sales $
Gross Costs $
Oil produced assumption barrels

Which gives the $530k profit?

It seems a decent figure if that is gross profit.

Ibug, thanks for that.

I presume you have a spreadsheet with the month by month analysis.

Is that $530k gross profit over that 6 month period?
What were your costs over that period and the overall sales for the period too?

Someone suggesting on Twitter that UKOG may be doing some sneaky production at night and then turning it off in the day.
I think the flare stack would be visible in the dark, flames in the dark, etc. Seen previously when dark.

Ibug, can you show your cals in more detail please?

Is that $530k gross profit or gross sales?

If it is gross profit, then at least some of the costs have been covered given the $15 per barrel costs that you used in the calc.

If the costs were fully covered (I doubt it, as we saw plenty of cranes and some work-over just recently), then the $530k goes a good way to paying Silent Steve his lovely juicy director salary.

Yes, I should have. Quite right.

So lets look at 200 bopd as a baseline for comparison of cost vs sales.

200 bopd costs at $15 = monthly (30 day) costs of $90,000
200 bopd sales at $50 = monthly (30 day) income of $300,000
Gross profit of $210,000 per month *excluding non-asset costs

UKOG haven't given us the baseline business case that sites behind a $15 (or lower figure), and they have mentioned lower figures in the past. There will always be a mixture of fixed and variable costs (e.g. BKP = variable per tanker costs. Security = fixed costs).

Waiting for an RNS and an update on whether HH is now producing oil post work-over or whether it is flooded. Until UKOG issue an RNS, then the FOTH comments concerning "tanker tricks" do have some merit. I'd like to see that "tanker trick" theory shot down in flames, and production increase to 400 bopd over a sustained period; but that's hoping for too much. Maybe 200 bopd is as much as HH will produce over a 12 month, if it actually gets put back into production!!!!!!!!