Member Info for Onbeyondzebra

Alan - re. the OGA license, that's what I've been saying the last two days. Happy you can confirm it though.

As for 'over the next few months', I can only shrug. They never explained why the 'all done before the summer' didn't come to pass. Presumably it was because the Brockham SCC decision was pushed to August, but they could certainly have explained their rationale for not doing Balcombe in the meantime (though it would have further hurt the SP). They clearly want Brockham to directly follow Balcombe with the same crew, and the planning permission confirmation should be the starting pistol to kick it all off. Vonk also seemed happy enough to tie ANGS two moves with the HH results. Certainly if the kimmeridge results at HH go to plan (which they probably will), we'd be testing/producing during a period of sky-high sentiment in the Weald. GLA

Honestly didn't know 'smelt' could actually be used as the past participle for smell. Thought it was just extracting metal...

Learn something new every day.

Hi pofp

I may be guilty of putting two and two together to get three.

In the earlier Balcombe interview he made a big deal about how few top notch crews there are out there, and how he wants to use the same group for Balcombe and Brockham.

In the interview a few days ago he seemed to suggest that Balcombe then Brockham would follow the Kimmeridge test at HH. At the time I figured it was because he wanted them to move from HH to Balcombe.

You’re right, though, there’s nothing to suggest that the delays over the past three months was because they want to use the same crew.

Brooko:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvw9ikPZma0

Look at 13:50 - 14:15

Vonk describes Brockham license as "approval from the OGA to do long-term production testing". I think if/when it is commercially viable there will be no issues changing the OGA license from "production testing" to production full stop.

I certainly won't argue with that...

Vonks saying that Balcombe and Brockham will be flowed "before the summer" is still ringing in my ears. I still can't figure out why they didn't shift their attention to the Balcombe as soon as they saw the SCC was delaying on Brockham. Apparently now the need the equipment from HH... which was available all through the winter. : /

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

RealAnalyst - you're like a broken record. You come on every single day and all you can say is it should be 9 p. For many of us who've been here more than 4 months, it should be 29 p.
I can't wait till it goes to 12 p or whatever your target is so you can take your hard fought 100% profit and leave. Some of us here are genuinely interested in the company developing into a bonafide producer and not just trying to make a fast buck. I'm doing what I should have done months ago and filtering you. Once you've read one of your posts, you've read them all.

Harts, hate to say it mate but I think you're wrong (or at least widely speculating) on multiple counts. Part of the problem is that the only 'documentation' you can point to is a webcast of a Green Party councillor spouting tripe.

But let's go through your 'rhetorical questions' systematically:

Hart 1. "...whereas the SCC disagree hence the meeting on the 8th, otherwise Angus would have just flow tested Brockham already, no?"

- In fact, no! ANGS lawyers have made it quite clear to ANGS that they could do exactly that at Brockham. This is why ANGS have applied for retrospective planning permission 'without prejudice'. This legal term means "in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute" but without renouncing what they believe to be their legal right (i.e. to turn on Brockham without consulting the SCC further).

Hart 2. "In every RNS Vonk will claim they have necessary permissions but why then do they have to wait for this planning permission for the flow test at Brockham [?] Short answer is because they need planning permission."

- Again... wrong. Vonk has made it clear in every interview that the reason they are seeking retrospective planning permission is because they see the SCC as a "principle stakeholder" and want to retain good ties with them - presumably with a view to protecting all forthcoming applications under their jurisdiction in the Wield.

Hart 3. "[they] will give us a long period of time (18months to 3 years) to flow test Brockham but we will have to submit at a later date permission to the SCC for continuous production at Brockham."

- Possibly but very unlikely. The regulator that has granted the "extended production test" is not the SCC but the OGA. You are confusing a license with planning permission. Planning permission is needed if you do, well... planning (i.e. altering the physical structure, like adding an extension to your house). The license with the OGA would certainly need to be amended at a later date - but that's no problem at all because the OGA love on-shore oil production. I guess it's conceivable that one would need to get permission from the local council when altering their production license, but I wouldn't naturally assume so. This brings us back to what I said at the outset, please provide documentation (other than the off the cuff declarations of a Green Party councillor) that new planning permission is needed when a company's OGA production license is upgraded. If you could find such a thing, we would all be genuinely interested to read it. If you can't, or unwilling to look, I don't think you should be guessing, as it just amounts to share price manipulation through false declarations.

I don't think you're right re. Brockham. If you watch any of the interviews Vonk clearly states that once they have retrospective planning permission for Brockham (which they don't in fact need) they 'turn it on' and begin what he describes as an extended 'production test'. The OGA has already signed off on all of this - and ANGS believes any changes to the site/well were already covered in earlier planning agreements. We are, in effect, only going through the 'retrospective' process to tick all the boxes and maintain a cordial relationship with the SCC. If you think any further permission from the SCC is required for Brockham after the 8th, please specify where I can read about this in an RNS.

Good to the SP consolidating at this range.I may have to eat my words, but I can't see SCC pulling their normal tricks - as doing so will surely take them out of the equation as the planning regulator in this case, and set them up for a nice lawsuit.

As much as I would love to see these idiotic CCs bankrupted, I suspect they will take the olive branch being handed to them. Brockham is a company maker and a positive outcome on the 8th should signal the rise and rise of ANGS and, hopefully, an eventual escape from AIM.

Never seen any evidence that charting works on AIM... it's too sentiment driven. It's more like watching the wilder-beast migrations in the Serengeti documentaries.

To echo mmhater, the interview seems to suggest that we will wait for the kim. at HH to be tested before moving on Balcombe and then, a couple weeks later, to Brockham to start production. In the interview, it's all part of the discussion on the SCC delays 'don't matter to us' because of these timelines. However, then Vonk goes on to say these three things will happen over the summer - which doesn't correspond to UKOG's timelines. In truth, I don't care too much, as the SCC agreement is the most important thing, as it ensures that over the coming months we will become the major O&G producer in the Wield. That said, some clarity on timelines would be good. Thoughts?

HATS... you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Pure and simple, the 8th of August is around the corner, which is why ANGS’ SP is rising. And if you don’t know to what I’m referring, it proves you are clueless and therefore shouldn’t be shooting your mouth off.

Hi all,

Been tracking IRR for 18 months and reading your many great contributions. It has always been one of my favourite boards on LSE. Feel the SP is now too good to pass up and have taken the plunge. Look forward to news on all three fonts over the coming months. GLA

Hi all,

Been tracking IRR for 18 months and reading your many great contributions. It has always been one of my favourite boards on LSE. Feel the SP is now too good to pass up and have taken the plunge. Look forward to news on all three fonts over the coming months. GLA

Hard to tell. There will be profit taking at every stage of the rise, and then reinvesting on the trough. Last year we saw movement of 50% or more in a day, so a 30% rise wouldn't surprise me so much. I think every major holder will be day-trading a bit with a small segment. You'd be stupid not to. I bought some (not enough) at 4.5 p, so don't mind playing with that little chunk. Like many, I'm still underwater here, so am happy to use every trick to increase my shares by a couple percent as it ebbs and flows.

We were all new to the board at one point or another.
The production license is already in place for Brockham. On the 8th of August the Council will be giving (hopefully) the final retrospective planning permission so we can finally turn it on and and start making some real money. The thinking is the CC has delayed it long enough (using every trick in the book) and that they either (illegally) frustrate things one more time and compromise their position as the authority in this case, or they let it go, making ANGS the major wield producer overnight. Right on the heels of Brockham (or potentially before it) we are to carry out a test on Balcombe which we own a third of and which lies in the most promising location in the Wield Basin. The next two months are huge for ANGS, which is why the SP is rerating to where it belongs.

Does that count you as well Wolf? You can't deny you've had your own Trolly moments (when it suited).

HUR is a small to middling UK oiler with an MCAP exactly nine times that of UKOG.

1IFA - first off, I wouldn’t suggest going into other wield oilers if you want to spread the risk. The reality is that what happens to UKOG has a ripple effect and vice versa. I can’t speak for Alba (perhaps someone else can), but I personally have split my wield investment between UKOG and Angus, and am happy with the position I have taken up in both. UKOG tends to get all the publicity (and perhaps rightly so...especially now), but I consider Angus to be perhaps even more undervalued considering it is already producing and that positive flow tests at Balcombe and Brockham over the next two or so months should see its SP back to last summer’s highs of 38p. As with last year, good news from one drives the other up as they ping-pong off one another. Unfortunately, as we saw in the fall, the reverse is also true if the news is less than expected - which contributed to them both being so undervalued.

FTONewbie reported for a personal attack on a fellow poster, with the aim of manipulating the SP. (A fairly poor attempt btw.)