Member Info for Ja51

What the fact they lost so much money they incurred an £11million tax loss!!.....LMAO

ermm....basic maths? if they sold all of the oil allowed they would only have CIRCA £3.5million to Angus at today's oil price. Still under break-even costs with having to pay all the day to day expenses etc.........

How are they going to finance the operation to move to the next drill??

And are you sure the TAX loss will carry forward to the Kimmeridge play? This is a new play after all.

I don't think many actually thought they would be limited to 302 per day!
The point was the figure was set by the OGA based on the figures Angus had given to them in the Addendum to the Field Development Plan. Why did they set this figure?
Not the Conservative 1000plus some have been talking about.
Even if they manage to hit the 302 accumulative total by October the revenue will still not be enough to break even with their share of the oil let alone any profit to drill new wells! £3 million each I think SS said?

I suggest you take your own advice and do some more research if you think that.
I will normally back my argument up with links to facts.

I think he may be speaking with forked tongue there. His Company is listed on the document!!!
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

As expected the link from yesterday has been deleted.
Please find the document regarding Gas and Oil limits imposed by the OGA.
Admin this breaks no rules so please do not remove as important information is being suppressed by people reporting posts with no good reason other than to stop the flow of relevant information.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

WOW
You are mistaken.
The gas is restricted to 5.664 thousand cubic metres/day.
The oil is restricted to 0.048 thousand cubic metres/day which equates to just over 302BPD

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Very well said pence.
We live in a country where you can post information relative to the company concerned and in the end, the truth will always come out. What has been published is not Propaganda, its factual documents via Angus and the OGA and can be verified from the link bellow an all because of a freedom of information request.
You and others like you on this board will try know doubt have reported all the posts regarding this in a desperate attempt to hide the facts from other investors! Now that's far more Marxist than posting relative information don't you think?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/4/brockfdpadd%20Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

https://itportal.ogauthority.co.uk/pprslive/production-data?start_date=Aug+2018&production_type=OIL&production_unit=OIL_FIELD_UNITS&operator=ANGUS+ENERGY+LIMITED®ulatory_jurisdiction=LANDWARD

https://drillordrop.com/2017/10/25/angus-energy-to-apply-for-retrospective-planning-consent-for-brockham-oil-well/

Picture from 207

Youngba
You are the voice of sanity on this board!
I would imagine with the considerable local objections we would be aware as soon as that monitoring equipment is installed through people monitoring social media!

Youngba
I would think the sound monitoring equipment would be set up before the paperwork would be distributed.
This would give the first clue I would think with notices and leaflets shortly afterwards?

I would think this will be the first clue given as to when the tests were about to start. Nothing more nothing less!

Duration of noise monitoring
As required by Condition 8, noise monitoring will be completed during the period of Workover Operations and for a one-week period prior to these operations, for the purpose of establishing background noise levels, to inform the noise limits specified in Condition 13.

I apologised regarding the surface water and the company not being able to operate due to the issue.
I am man enough to apologise if there is a lack of information and new up to date sources come to light.

But baits have been on here long enough to know better than to mislead people like that.

When people post false statements like that i will pick them up on them.

And in definitely not posting under another handle as some others quite obviously do.

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s49623/BROCKHAM.pdf

Try reading it!!

Wrong!!

baits
I think you'll find they definitely did not get the go-ahead for PRODUCTION from SCC.
Testing and appraisal were granted planning permission but definitely not production planning permission!

Thanks, Chambers
So it looks they have a plan in place. (A very expensive one).
So in the light of the new information I apologise to all.

Nothing that a more comprehensive tweet couldn't have solved though.

Chambers
Do you have the link to the article you are quoting from, please? I'm sure if true everyone including myself would love to see it so if true I can apologise to all and shut up.
I fear that the company spokesman is actually your good self though?

Do you really think they would issue a permit to help them out so they can produce ??.............LMFAO