Member Info for Ja51

Dont think they will Ignore it on those grounds

Document authored by:
Trevor Muten
BSc MSc MPhil FGS CGeol CSci CEnv MCIWEM C.Wem EurGeol
01st February 2020

That's an awful lot of letters after your name! Looks like their expert has slightly more expertise than Angus's and with fresh contradicting evidence. Poor well integrity from a previously undisclosed report for example!
I guess the EA will decide as they sent it to them also!

Conclusion
BPC asks that WSCC to refuse this planning application.
BPC believe that the application should be refused on the grounds that the
hydrological risk assessment is inadequate, incomplete and misleading.
More work is required including a detailed field-based assessment to determine
the risks to the ground water including ground water monitoring of the
Wadhurst Clay. The baseline results from 1986 Conoco Well Report should be
correctly represented. A more comprehensive data set of water samples should
be obtained and then assessed.
Further tests on the Balcombe 2 well casing should be performed. If these tests
agree with the results of the CBL carried out in 2013 that the bonding to casing
is poor to moderate, then remediation work should be carried out.
However, should the application be granted, we ask that Stage 1 and Stage 2 be
treated as two separate planning applications and that full calculations should be
made for both of them.
BPC requests that a flare, Emergency Shutdown (ESD) system and a fully
engineered impermeable membrane and perimeter bund be provided for both
stages.
BPC requests that calculations are presented for the membrane/liner/bund as
requested by the EA.

Looks like FFBRA (Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association).pdf ( kb) Have commissioned a counter-report!

https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=1635&planId=47841&imageId=632&isPlan=False&fileName=FFBRA%20%28Frack%20Free%20Balcombe%20Residents%20Association%29.pdf

https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=1635&planId=47840&imageId=631&isPlan=False&fileName=Balcombe%20Parish%20Council%20%282%29.pdf

Yes, of course, that's what that's what they said it was for and it may have looked professional if it was from cash in house. Instead they took out what some call"death spiral finance" a CLN and the share price reflects that "BEST IN CLASS" poor desision .
Ironically, of course, they didn't allocate the £100,000 they indicated was their share for Balcombe De-commissioning from this fund anyway. They also failed to Confirm the other 75% holders in the licence had committed funds towards this in the recent Q&A. Thats hardly going to fill WSCC with confidence.

Yes the OGA did. They didn't, however, remove the Field abandonment notice in place on Saltfleetby that needs removing.
It could well be removed following the Two well-de-commissioning they have stated should be happening eminently.
WSCC has over 500 letters objecting to the works at Balcombe many that mention Angus's "delicate" financial position also which they will take into account in any desission.

Morning Ocelot
That would be about the cost to De-commission the various sites. Then take into account the £250,000 a month cash burn you pointed out, and finally the £900,000 CLN outstanding it would explain it.
I'm sure the OGA and WSCC have done the Maths aswell.

28th Aprill after that!

Id Say March looks doutfull now!

I hadn't spotted this before!

Deadline for comments
07/02/2020

So did the 3 Months start again from the EA refusal date?? The letters to the consultees only went out on the 17th Jan!!

Only six replies from the 2nd consultation response so far.
https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display/WSCC/071/19

Yes
https://westsussex.moderngov.co.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=166

I can't see it myself (But that wouldn't surprise anyone...lol) guess we will see. Annual accounts should be published a month today so I that will have a bearing.

ocelot
Do you think the next £500,000 in March will be available from the lender of last resort will be available then....Given your not concerned with volumes?

Ocelot
What you say is not strictly true! Riverfort have the choice to wait to October and get the £900,000 paid back in cash!
I don't think anyone thinks this is likely but it should be taken into account! The real question is will they convert and when!
They would not be able to get rid off any meaningful volume if anyone wanted it before The second tranch at the end of March however due to he restriction 20% of traded shares put in place. In fact they would be lucky to convert them before the October repayment date with the wafer thin volumes going through. Hard to see with the caveats in place that the second tranch will be offered without some Major GOOD news which is highly unlikely and took another hammer blow yesterday with further the planning delay.
The only thing they have to offer on that front will be the Saltfleetby CPR and that's highly unlikely to sway the market and will no doubt have a second section regarding De-commissioning of the two wells sneaked in to soften the blow!

Q&A Answers relating to this below.........of course it would be easier for them to drag their heels on committing to financing stage 2 at Balcombe now should it get to that stage? .........possibly then buy the 25% back for penny in the pound prices?.......... Never good to be a junior partner! Look what has happened over at AAOG in regard to this with our Saltfleetby partner buying THE RA convertible loan and effectively taking control by installing 3 board members!

So no thanks on your offer...lol

Can you confirm the costs incurred by Angus for stage 1 and 2 of the Balcombe EWT will be 25% of costs on both stages?
Asked on 30 January 2020

No, as above and as publicly announced when we farmed into the field, Angus bears all costs until the well is proved capable of producing oil commercially – i.e. this should be close to the end of Stage 1 or the beginning of Stage 2. However once we are into Stage 2 we can recover costs normally from oil revenues.

Can you confirm that a firm commitment by Cuadrilla and Lucas is in place for future funding and De-commissioning costs Should they be required for their 75 stake at Balcombe?

Asked on 30 January 2020

Under the present Joint Operating Agreement, it is not the Operator’s duty to determine what provisioning arrangements co-venturers have in place let alone disclose those arrangements.

https://drillordrop.com/2020/02/04/australian-mining-group-takes-control-of-fracking-firm-cuadrilla/

I will take the letter from the OGA regarding Brockham rates as proof.
Just like most of the questions, they answered it can be interpreted in different ways. Yes they can flow at higher rates but as this is a test they cant flow mote than 300 barrels a day for the duration of the test . 1 barrel 1day............ 599 the next! nothing for a week 2100 for a day etc
The document below is quite specific.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

gkb
They needed around 150 barrels a day to access the bond to finance it. That was when they only had Lidsey and Brockham and all the documents surrounded them. Much more cost burden since then with the new "ASSETS" It was very much set up around Vonk and Tiddswell also as directors so I doubt very much it's available.
75 max available from Balcombe if as they say the OGA put a cap at 300 Barrels with their 25% and as discussed Saltfleetby many months off .More finance is going to be required but not from the bond in any case even if it was available.

Balcombe planning is also looking in doubt for the 24th Feb planning meeting. Only 5 out of the 15 re-submitted consultation documents are listed from the authorities they requested them from. Possibly not enough time even if they all come in this week for the planning officer to prepare the report in that time.
The Minutes should be out from today's meeting in the next couple of days and they may give a clue.

https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display/WSCC/071/19

...............We did warn you?