Member Info for Ibug

Why is it called Black Friday?

Cinders
Not questioning at all. It is perfectly obvious. I'm guessing you have pink lenses.

N66 BKP ™
@N66BKP
Well I have the privilege of doing a customers 600th load tomorrow so I thought I would make sure she is nice and shiny as someone pointed out It was dirty! Early start tomorrow.... its FDF!! FOOTDOWN FRIDAYYYYY Articulated lorryDash symbolDash symbol

Cinders
You watched a hearing for nearly 3 hours a couple of weeks ago even though a number of us pointed out it was not the correct link and you didn't even realise it had nothing to do with UKOG and you wonder why I don't believe a word you say?

Cinders
The Officer Report is not part of the Planning Application. The motion will be to accept or refuse "The construction, operation and decommissioning of a well site for the exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbon minerals from one exploratory borehole (Loxley-1) and one side - track borehole (Loxley - 1z) for a temporary period of three years involving the siting of plant and equipment, the construction of a new access track, a new highway junction with High Loxley Road, highway improvements at the junction of High Loxley Road and Dunsfold Road and the erection of a boundary fence and entrance gates with restoration to agriculture."

Do not put words into my mouth as you have no idea of what you are talking about. I have my own views on the 52 pages.
This is not your first profile on this bb and no doubt it won't be your last. I have a good memory of past profiles.

We all know what should be but will it be. We will have to wait and see. I see a number of ambushes on the way if a number of individual speakers turn up to make representation during "PUBLIC QUESTION TIME". They may even have to break for lunch if it drags on.

Cinders
Unfortunately the Summary Report actually refers to evidence produced in the original report which is why it is contained within the documentation provided by SCC.
e.g
"Officers do not accept the applicant’s proposals for new conditions in relation to ‘local procurement and local economic growth’ and ‘air quality monitoring’."
"Officers do not consider the need for any additional planning conditions in relation to highways, traffic and access."
"A new proposed air quality condition is not considered to be justified." etc are all covered in the original report.
For someone who said 2 weeks ago "But once an officer has made his written report and provided his recommendation, then he/she is not able to simply change it on a whim. There must be a significant material reason for a change, and to my knowledge, there have been no new documents attached to the application, nor has there been another period of consultation." you appear to be championing only the new Summary. Please KISS Keep It Simple S. and make your mind up.

Welsh
@Welsh11116693
Replying to
@N66BKP

@WealdOilers
and
@AnxietyUK
There, you lied today
@N66BKP

Creating anxiety is something you are good at.
I was right to call you a prick. You deserved it.
#UKOG Watch out for Gregg, he loves to mislead. Must be getting chummy with Fruitcake of the Hill.
6:29 PM · Nov 25, 2020·Twitter for Android

Let's hope our supply of information does not get cut off by idiots winding the drivers up.

In the build up to the last planning meeting the statistics were higher than they are for this one so far. More ramping is required otherwise those bags won't get filled imo.

24th 3520 trades 2.4bn shares Maximum SP Up to 0.5p
25th 1392 trades 1.2bn shares Maximum SP Up to 0.4p
26th 1166 trades 900m shares Maximum SP Up to 0.4p
29th 2612 trades 2bn shares Maximum SP Up to 0.4p

Wizard
If you wave your magic wand I'm sure N33BKP will suddenly jump from his last location in Ellesmere Port to HH in a blink of the eye. The clue was in the tweet. "@FormulaServices
Premier UK Truck Stop. Wash, Fuel & Food. Make Formula Services your next stop! J10 M53 Ellesmere Port, UK. CH65 4LB"

https://twitter.com/N66BKP/status/1331654520816939010
N66 BKP ™
@N66BKP
Lucky u in just leaving a hill!

N66 BKP ™
@N66BKP
Replying to
@Share_Talk
and
@davethedrill1
“Coming to a hill near soon” Just like I said

Welsh
@Welsh11116693
Replying to
@N66BKP
and
@WealdOilers
Why post Coming to a Hill near you, then this with the signs then? Bit silly?
11:57 AM · Nov 25, 2020·Twitter for Android
N66 BKP ™
@N66BKP
·
52m
Replying to
@Welsh11116693
and
@WealdOilers
I said “soon” if you don’t like what i tweet theres an unfollow button Crossed fingers

Looks like someone was wrong.

Site is named after High Loxley Road and is not a place.

N66 BKP ™
@N66BKP
Replying to
@WealdOilers
That “clicking” noise is nothing to do with the pump. You can stand next to the pump and not even hear it, its almost silent. Great piece of kit.

But Hawkings was Tory and voted against refusal in the 1st vote so I can't see any difference. He is no longer a member of the committee anyway.

Cinders
It is not my comment. It is part of the reason why the application was refused. I have also read the 52 page Summary for the next meeting and no matter what the Planning Officer says the Councillors do not have to follow his advice as we have already found out. We all know it will be a flash in the pan for trading. Knowing when to jump ship is the key. Quite easy to spot the ones that have been left high and dry on previous spikes.

Cinders
I watched it all and the following is about as accurate as you can get.
draft minutes for Dunsfold out;

"25. A Member of the Committee felt that the discussion on this application was disturbing and highlighted to Members that if the application was refused on non-planning reasons then the cost of appeal, if successful, would be significant. Further to this in regards to the motion for refusal, the Member stated that there was a lack of highway reasons, that citing impact on businesses was not logical, that oil wells were regulated nationally, that nothing can stop clear felling of woodland if a
licence was granted for that, and that the public had provided an emotional response.
26. A Member of the Committee stated that they believed it was the right choice to refuse the application and that Members should not be discouraged by the risk of the decision being overturned at appeal.
The Member further highlighted that the number of objections to the application and the lack of consultation with the local Gypsy and Traveller community.
27. The Chairman called the motion for refusal which received 6 votes for, 5 votes against and no abstentions. Therefore the motion was carried. 28. The Principal Solicitor stated that there was a need to clearly set out and confirm the reasons for refusal. The Chairman agreed to adjourn the meeting to enable Planning Officers to collate a summary of planning reasons for refusal following discussions at the meeting.
Keith Taylor left the meeting 15:07pm
The Chairman adjourned the meeting from 15:07pm to 15:27pm
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.
30. The Chairman moved the confirmation vote on the motion for refusal of the application for the reasons outlined in paragraph 29a of these minutes which received 9 votes for, 1 vote against and no abstentions.
Therefore the motion was carried.
Page 8 of 13
Actions / further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
That the Committee REFUSE application WA/2019/0796 due to the reason that 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."

The swing of 3 Councillors between the 1st and 2nd votes, one being the Chairman, remains a mystery to me. What we don't know, and never will, is the degree of lobbying/correspondence between the local voters and their respective Councillors who may be up for re-election in the near future.

At the last Planning meeting only one councillor followed the Planning Officers recommendation. Cllr. E Mallett voted in line on both votes. Considering it was 6-5 on the first vote and 9-1 on the 2nd vote he was the only one that followed the recommendation. He also warned the other Councillors about the possible £200,000 costs if an appeal was made if the application was refused. Who knows what will happen on Friday.

They use at least 3 MC-II FLOW ANALYZERS from NuFlo on the PWT separator. Could be one for total flow and one each for oil and water after separation. They have readouts for bbls and bopd. Perhaps they have them on the export line as well.

Penguins
Only dealt with ships as never had a claim from onshore so no idea how they measure the oil at oil fields. For the miniscule amounts that they produce it would not surprise me if they rely on flow counters given the accuracy of the latest models.