Member Info for Rudey

It is a way of ensuring that the director's are fully accountable, in the same way that they have directors who are responsible for determining levels of remuneration. At the end of the day, if they think they are pushing the boundaries of the rules too far they can check with the nomad. When it comes to who benefits, from my understanding they just have to sort that out between them.

Giblets, I believe it is dealt with by Rule 13 of the AIM Rules ("Related Party Transactions").

It is my understanding that 2 director's have to sign off on the other director's purchase, and can't partake themselves. That would account for William and Phil not being involved, surely.

The application being dealt with on 28th circumvents the previous planning extension decision from my understanding Biggles.

Indeed mt. The fact is the BoD will know a hell of a lot more about the situation as a whole than we do.

Close on 29th is the deadline 50cc

This is exactly why I am confused about the timing of the open offer. It is widely considered Wressle will pass (obviously still not guaranteed), so the placing should have been after 28th November (the date Wressle should be decided). Are the BoD gambling on a negative decision, so the share price will drop, or are there significant scheduling pressures for the open offer to be held now? Surely they would want to issue half the shares they are, but at 6p (I estimate success with Wressle to add 60% to the share price as was)?

I have waited for this moment for months as I have wanted an open offer to pick up cheap shares, but the sums and timing are confusing me. 3p is looking very expensive if Wressle is deferred or refused, unless they have something else significant about to be announced.

No probs Giblets. I think the council are updating their site - nuisance really, hopefully it will be up and running by 23rd, as I am curious to see who will be on the planning committee. Hopefully Extinction Rebellion will keep away. Maybe this time the council will do the sensible thing and hold the meeting in camera.

That's a different council I believe Giblets.

Strange about the date. I'm sure it was scheduled for 28th.

One of the main problems Giblets, was that boreholes below the site were done to see how much of a risk there would be from surface spills to groundwater, but it wasn't considered necessary to log the findings. Although they knew it wouldn't be a problem because of the type of drill cutting they were getting, they didn't get the proof. I don't think they had been asked in the past, and didn't think it was necessary this time. As you say, a lesson learnt hopefully.

I think it's normal to include late letters of comment with this sort of application. I must admit that my letter is in, and I'm not local either.

The problem is of course that 4 of the planning committee are representing the Unite Union, and as such are obliged to vote in accordance with Unite Union policies.

The Environment Agency have described Wressle as being a 'small-scale fracking operation'. The Unite Union's policy on fracking is that any operation which includes fracking should be stopped at the planning stage.

The problem is that they haven't so far had the common sense to realise that there is in reality nothing different about the Wressle operation to any other conventional drilling operation in Lincolnshire over the last 100 or so years (apart from the fact that operating regulations and practices are more stringent than ever).

I believe the application will be dealt with on 28th November.

No doubt the council lawyer has met with the planning committee to explain the consequences of them refusing the application. Even the council's own expert hydrogeologist thinks all of the planning inspector's previous concerns, as pointed out at appeal, have been addressed. They can't manufacture new reasons to turn it down as the inspector has said everything else is okay.

The planning committee will know they have to grant permission, or it gets very costly and unpleasant.

Mix, David Lenigas or Dan Levi?

It's been written off. Kaput. Is no more. There is no debt.

1% is traded most days! And why sell at 0.15p when you believe it will go to 2p plus?

Tac, it is a fact that, for whatever reason, Angus and UKOG 'get on' better with the planning committee than Europa. I don't know why that is.
What I do know is which management I trust most of all out of the three to attempt to do what they say they will.

My understanding is that the geology dictates drilling of Holmwood from outside the licence area is not possible. However, I do expect the licence to be available for either UKOG or ANGS at the right price.
Only my opinion though of course.

Don't say 3p for goodness sake Mix. A poster called AZ used to say similar, and that wanker called Term couldn't resist snarling up the bulletin board up with his constant attacks on him. I think AZ decided the only way to bring sense back to the bulletin board was to stop posting. Shame really. He and you were both right.

They can't win, can they. When they don't update shareholders or do any PR, they get slagged off. When they do, it's pointless.