Member Info for Mumbles2021

im sure you will be happy there Malik

Good morning China, the planning visit is not redundant. Once the committee has asked to see a site, they will do. All part of the inclusive and open government polices that are now considered part and parcel of the local government process. The planning office should also attend with the councillors so that questions can be asked and answered on site and in real time.

If there are no further objections raised, i cant see any reason why the approval would not be given immediately the visit has taken place.

GK, not sure what you are smoking, but keep some for me!!!!!

I guess that depends on whether some of the revenue is placed in the sovereign wealth fund instead of being used to defray some of the considerable Chinese debt that they carry. All after running the country first.

Question is where are they sending in Europe for separation. ?

Dad. Actually it isnt. The new application is definitely a relocation of the originally approved project. Whether the original site is still available or not is not totally confirmed, although George Zacharias communication in January implied that it was.

Prenut. I dont disagree with what you say and in an ideal world this would be the case. However, the fact that it is there is considerable progress compared to pre-web years. You wouldn’t even know if the application had got off the planning officers desk. May even had to provide an incentive to get it onto the next stage.

The minutes for April 28th meeting will be published. Probably next week. We can then see exactly what was said

And to everyone else. The reason why Pensana nor any other applicant has no say in the process, or that their is unbelievable transparency in the process (by making everyone available le online) is to protect the planning officials and committee members from accusations of bribery, corruption and favoritism. Which lets be honest we all know that’s how it used to work. It is what it is, and in this case Pensana management can do little, and should do nothing about it.

Prenut. All the information regarding the planning process is in the public domain. The planning portal shows all the objections, the responses, the plans, regulatory postings, flood risk assessments etc etc. and also the target dates. For some reason a revised flood risk assessment was posted on the 7th April, this extended the compulsory consultation period to May 6th. tThe council post the agenda for the planning meetings on the East Riding website, including applications to be discussed (the last one for the meeting held 28th April was nearly 300 pages long). The meetings are available to watch live via YouTube streaming link. The Pensana application was listed in the agenda under future planning applications to be reported upon. If a councilor hadn’t expressed a wish for a site visit it would have hit the May 6th target date. All this is available in the public domain. Are the council supposed to mail each individual shareholder that the dates have revised. I found all this online. I have no special access rights its all their for you or anyone else to see,

There was a planning meeting committee meeting on the 28th April. The agenda for which included future planning applications of which PRE was one. Its not compulsory for the applications to be discussed and decided upon at the meetings, with authority being delegated to the planning office. However, the committee can ask for a site visit prior to decisions being made. That is what happened in this case.

Theo, A: i am categorically not on Pensana payroll. I have my own issues with some of the managements communications. But rather than complaining i go and find out myself. Consequently, I am more than satisfied with the business plan, the progress on the FEED and contract execution etc and the project as a whole. In respect of the planning objections, if you go back to the previous application, you will see that there are no more, no less than before. I get the impression the only major point that was raised was the applicability or other wise of the Flood Risk Assessment, which due to its late filing (and i wish i knew why), extended the consultation and review period for another 4 weeks. Hence where we are now. My own view is that the application will be passed. This due to the los cation and previous land use allocation and the recent outline planning permission received by Assosciated British Ports It is possible that it may be referred to later date. But the current notices indicate that is unlikely. Believe it or not, councillors don't just meet, have a cup of tea, scratch their backsides then vote. They actually work hard and are given as much information as is asked for in order that they can ask any questions before any meetings. And whether it need to go to the meetings or be left to the planning office. We shall see. From my perspective, everything is under control and going through the required process.

Theo, Am i? I am a shareholder, and have a reasonably substantial holding. In that respect i guess i am, but only in the same way as any other shareholder is. However, i am prepared to do the research. Every thing i post is in the public domain if you care to look for it

Good afternoon Calculating, I believe the consensus is that it doesn't have to go in front of the planning committee. Only has to be reported back. The planning office, agreed a revised internal and agreed expiry date when the revised Flood Impact Assessment was submitted on the 7th April, this date being 6th May. I hope we will have a decision within the next 10 days or so. All this is on the Planning committee agenda which is available in the public domain.

Definitely, I think that it very relevant that, a) somebody decided it was a good idea and not a waste of time for them to to meet, and b) that it was worth the effort to get on a flight to Aberdeen to have the meeting. If it had been a chance meeting at a function in London, this would have had no significance at all. Would love to know what the discussions were.

i understand that the office in London is a WeWorks type setup with shared services. The main office is in Leeds apparently. Close to Hull, where it ought to be. I assume HZM have a similar philosophy.

In this case ******, wasnt replaced, was elevated from Finance manager to Finance Director, i guess as a significant shareholder that would make sense. Not that i can see that his responsibilities have changed. In many cases, i have seen the financiers insisting on a place on the board, usually in an NED role. There was speculation that Steve Sharpes appointment was such an appointment, although i am not so sure now

Theo, how did they walk away, they still have the same Landlord. I'm not the one flailing around. You have as much knowledge of the details of the lease agreement as I have. But I know that this would not have been done without the agreement of both parties. For crying out loud, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the new plot was offered by PX group, rather than PRE asking for it.

Dao2717. Theorist isn't stupid. he knows exactly what he is doing. and im sure he doesn't get his rocks off baiting PRE shareholders. (Second thoughts, maybe he does). DP on the other hand tend to assume that everyone who reads the posts on here have the same intellectual capability as himself. Fortunately for the future of the human race, that is not the case (Darwin awards springs to mind).

DP, referring to "Pensana has entered into a 25-year lease agreement with pxGroup and Associated British Ports (ABP) for the initial nine-hectare Saltend site".

Do you honestly believe what you are saying, or are treating the readers of this forum as complete imbeciles. Anyone who can actually open an account on LSE (who helped you?) and log on, can probably work out for themselves, that the lease agreement will include CPs (Conditions precedent) such as "Contingent on granting of planning permission, installation of services, etc). and will potentially include break clauses, provision for reinstatement costs etc, etc. Apparently you are able to work out the all the liabilities taken on board by PRE from a headline sentence in a press releases. PX group and ABP will also have done their own due diligence on the viability or otherwise of their prospective new customer. it seems that they have been more that satisfied that A: Planning Permission will be granted, and B: that the concept provides a more than viable basis to move ahead not only with an MOU, but also a long term lease with PRE.

Theorist, the engineering, which is virtually complete, is for a state of the art facility, the land is secured, the operating license is approved. every body else who reads this forum or who has invested know this.

When is the RNS out to inform shareholders they blew 10million on a 20 year lease of a completely unsuitable site?

DP please can you back this up with some documents. its a lease, with CP regarding commitment, ie no planning permission, no project, no exposure other than already sunk costs. Im not sure why im responding.

there is a difference between FUD and complete BS!!!!