George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
I have a note in my diary that the Stena JV decision in or or not date is close upon us. Have I missed something?
Mmmh the IceMax is moored right next to the Norwegian vessel: GeoCaribbean Research Vessel in Gran Canaria. I wonder if they are BOTH heading for The Bahamas?
If what you say is true I would not be broadcasting the information on a public forum. It is called Insider Dealing and carries a potential custodial sentence.
She could have been serviced off Gib so why sail halfway (ish) across the Atlantic just for a service?
Icemax is booked for a drill programme in the GoM early 2021 but conjecture is that she will drill for littl'ol BPC first and then carry on westwards to GOM. Seems logical and a good use of an expensive platform. DYOR as always.
I have no further information as to her Sailing Plan after Las Palmas. It is your interpretation that she is bound for P1 thereafter.
En-route to Las Palmas Gran Canaria ETA 18th 0900.
I think I have finally learned a lesson the very hard way. Solo/Sirocco along with AFREN, LGO, OEX, MSMN are just ways for CEO's to live the life a la Gleneagles and we get nothing. Be very careful because talk/chat is cheap.
n Counsel’s opinion, these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed. Under the Surrey Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures, a member should decline to vote unless he or she has been present throughout the consideration of the item. Under the relevant remote meeting regulations, a member will not be deemed to be present by virtue of a remote connection to a meeting unless he or she can both hear the other council members in attendance and be heard by the other council members in attendance. The effect of this is that there were times during the consideration of the Application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law. There was a further problem (at least as a matter of perception) that one Councillor may have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak (and possibly from asking questions that may have allayed his concerns) due to the problems with his technology. All three of these Councillors voted on the Application (although arguably one Councillor’s vote should not be counted given that, strictly speaking, he was not in attendance at the time), and, given the tight vote, it clearly could not be said that their votes made no difference to the outcome.
Because of all this, there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations set out above.
In addition, Counsel was of the view there are other issues raised by complainants that, whilst not necessarily fatal on their own, would not help the impression that would be received if the matter went to Court: For example, the lack of a summary of the salient points of the debate prior to the resolution. Furthermore, in addition to (and perhaps as a result of) the various technical glitches, there were occasions where other members of the household appeared on screen with Councillors, giving rise to a potential suspicion of inappropriate influence from persons not attending the meeting. Whilst it may well be the case that family members were simply assisting with the technology, there is the risk of a perception of unfairness. Allied to this are the concerns expressed about use of the private ‘chat’ function allowing Councillors and others to pass messages between each other during the meeting. This was notwithstanding that any such concerns could, if necessary, be allayed by examining the ‘chat’ log which clearly shows the anodyne nature of the messages that were sent.
In addition to the above points considered by Counsel, a number of complaints were raised in relation to specific Councillors with the suggestion that they had breached the Council’s Code of Conduct and/or the Council’s Planning Protocols. I have reviewed whether the alleged breached should be considered as breaches of the codes/protocols. I do not consider this to be
Counsel’s view was that the most significant issues at the meeting were in relation to the question of whether councillors were “in attendance” given the committee meeting was held remotely. This was the first planning committee meeting the Council had held under the provisions of the Local Authorities and Police Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, (the “Regulations”) which set out the conditions when a councillor is “in attendance” at a meeting.
The issues included:
- the live stream dropping out from time to time. In most cases this was rectified immediately by the relevant speaker being asked to repeat his or her statement in full. However, a portion of a speech by one Councillor who was speaking in favour of the application, may be missing from the recording and so may have not been heard by the participants;
- at one point when a Councillor was speaking in favour of the application, there was a message on screen stating that a Councillor was ‘waiting in the lobby’. This may have indicated that at that point she could not hear what was being said.
- another councillor was not able to be heard at all at the meeting and had to use hand gestures and the private ‘chat’ function in order to register his votes. He also appeared to be away from his desk and screen at one point during the meeting;
In Counsel’s opinion, these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed. Under the Surrey Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures, a member should decline to vote unless he or she has been present throughout the consideration of the item. Under the relevant remote meeting regulations, a member will not be deemed to be present by virtue of a remote connection to a meeting unless he or she can both hear the other council members in attendance and be heard by the other council members in attendance. The effect of this is that there were times during the consideration of the Application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law. There was a further problem (at least as a matter of perception) that one Councillor may have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak (and possibly from asking questions that may have allayed his concerns) due to the problems with his technology. All three of these Councillors voted on the Application (although arguably one Councillor’s vote should not be counted given that, strictly speaking, he was not in attendance at the time), and, given the tight vote, it clearly could not be said that their votes made no difference to the outcome.
Because of all this, there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations set out above.
Dear Sir/Madam
I write further to the complaint you submitted regarding the decision and circumstances surrounding the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on the 29th June 2020 and consideration of the planning application on Land south of Dunsfold Road and east of High Loxley Road, Dunsfold (ref: WA/2019/0796).
I apologise that it has taken some time to respond, this was due to me seeking Counsel’s opinion on the issues raised in many complaints received by the Council.
In summary, on the basis of advice received from Counsel, there is a significant likelihood that the irregularities arising from the technical difficulties at the meeting on 29 June 2020 render the resolution to refuse invalid and would render any notice of refusal unlawful. The most appropriate and fairest course of action is to take the application back to committee. This is what the Council has decided to do.
In more detail, the complaints related to a number of issues including:
- A councillor made a presentation to the Committee in her role as member for the electoral ward but in addition made further contributions later during the Committee’s deliberations.
- A number of the members of the Committee who participated in the debate in respect of the Application did so with assistance from individuals who were not members of the Committee.
- The live feed of the meeting dropped out on a number of occasions. Web-cast viewers witnessed a Councillor attempting to verbalise his vote on the refusal motion but not being able to do so because of technical issues.
- On the basis of the numerous technical difficulties in the Committee meeting, it cannot be concluded that members and the wider general public were able to hear and understand all relevant arguments being made.
- some members of the Committee were engaging in electronic communications with non-Committee members during the debate on the Application.
- The procedure at Committee did not allow for a proper assessment of the material considerations. As a result, the planning balance performed by members was inaccurate and incomplete.
- The Council’s Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures states that when a resolution is proposed which is contrary to an officer recommendation, “The Chairman will summarise, or cause to be summarised, the salient points of the debate, and ensure the text of the proposition is clearly understood before putting the matter to the vote”.
- The motion approved by the Committee to refuse the Application was not made on any valid planning grounds.
Counsel’s view was that the most significant issues at the meeting were in relation to the question of whether councillors were “in attendance” given the committee meeting was held remotely. This was the first planning committee meeting the Council had held under the provisions of the Local Auth
Not so small: “Aladdin Middle East Ltd. ("AME") is an independent American oil and gas exploration and production company founded in 1961 and focused on the strategic exploration and exploitation of oil and gas assets in Turkey. AME’s head office is in Wichita, Kansas, while the company's operational headquarters is located in Ankara, Turkey. Additional field offices are located at the operating sites for AME's production leases.
Today, the company holds a balanced portfolio of exploration and production assets that have short, medium and long term potential with over 300,000 hectares of onshore exploration and production licenses and leases in the Southeast Turkey Basin (North Arabian Shield).
AME has been a pivotal E & P company in the development of Turkey’s upstream sector. Through AME's efforts many underexplored basins in Turkey have been evaluated, yielding a large amount of technical and geophysical information and significant financial and social benefits for Turkey. AME has helped to bring a large number of American and European energy companies to Turkey as first time investors in the oil and gas sector.
AME is an industry leader in Turkish upstream and is the most senior private player in Turkey, second only to TPAO, the national oil company. AME’s success is a credit to our superior staff of professionals whose dedication, knowledge and skill allow AME to find new and innovative ways to develop value for our partners and investors.” Still a bit odd that they teamed up with little old UKOG. Time will tell Steven. Time will tell.....
I sent a complaint to SCC 2 days ago with regard to their farcical meeting. Here is their response which is quite promising I think:
Dear Mr ********
Thank you for your email to Mrs Katie Stewart.
The Monitoring Officer is responsible for investigating issues such as these and I would like to assure you that we are currently investigating the issues arising from the committee that took place on 29th June. A response will be sent to you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Zeilie White
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Email: Monitoringofficer@surreycc.gov.uk
I don't often comment but I am interested to see the 2 large investment purchases announced today. Something is afoot methinks?
Any company involving DL plummets. Check his appalling history. I always have liked BPC and have been invested here for 7 years. UKOG has DLs fingerprint on it and look at the dilution there thanks to DLs prodigy SS. They have bought everything in the Weald on one throw of the dice and diluted the f*ck out of UKOG. I hope SP doesn’t make the same wannabe mistake. DL has cost me thousands over the years if he is involved just watch out.
I don't post here very often but I am interested that Seadrill already have 2 drillships based in the GOM (with BP). And, that BP clearly use this world class company elsewhere in the world.
Now, the GOM is not a million miles away from BPCs licences. I await developments with curious (and vested interest ). In my Presbyterian conservative opinion this share may be worth a £250 punt if of course You Do Your Own Research!
What is the best (free!) RNS Alert tool please?