Member Info for StrollerB

At the last EGM , which I attended , SS stated that they would not be allowed to flare gas when they went into production.

Could it be that they have already installed gas to wire facilities and are both generating electricity and pumping oil.

I find irt rather sad that neither outgoing Chairman and CEO or incoming Chairman have anything to say about long suffering shareholders.

Iron hide : are you saying that the full council have no recourse to strike down or overturn any decision taken by the planning committee no matter whether it is unjust , non compliant with regulations or illegal ?

In response to the email I sent to SCC - copied on here 29th June 23:11 - I have just received the following response:

Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for your email.
The Monitoring Officer is currently investigating the issues arising from the Planning and Regulatory Committee that took place on Monday 29th June. A response will be sent to you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxx

On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Email: Monitoringofficer@surreycc.gov.uk

I will put any further correspondence on here when I receive it.

Email to Chairman Planning Committee and council Monitoring Officer sent this evening

Sir,

I watched and listened to the live Planning Committee deliberations today as I had a vested interest in the outcome.

I am writing to complain ,not about the result, disappointing as it was, but the manner in which the discussions were held and the apparent lack of understanding by councillors on what they can or cannot object to.

Several of those present clearly were uncomfortable with the technology and struggled to use it effectively.
Some appeared to have either not read the application and recommendations from your officers or not understood them.
Many of the arguments against the application fell outside of the councils remit.
Those that were within their remit argued against your own officers views on what was safe and acceptable.
Finally after rehashing spurious arguments multiple times and your planning officers and legal team advising there were no planning or legal grounds for rejection a vote was called for rejection.
Despite your best efforts no apparent reason was stated why it was proposed to reject
The meeting then fell into a farce Brian Rix would have been proud of.
It appeared no one was clear whether they were voting on the proposal to reject or the
application. One councillor appeared to take advice from another person in his room and anothers vote was via a third party and not public. Result 6-5. in favour of accepting the proposal to reject
When asked by legal what was to be the reason(s) for rejection she was told , my words not his, its public please yourself. Fair enough she wasn't having any of that. After discussion you called for an adjournment .

On being reconvened another vote was held to , I believe, accept or reject the reasons for the initial rejection.
Result 11-1 . I am still not clear what reasons will be stated for rejecting the application. Amazingly in the space of 15 minutes or so most of those who voted against rejecting the application had now voted for the reasons to reject.Job done . Item 8 on the agenda.

To summarise:
Inability to use technology effectively
Failure to understand the detail.
Rejection of officers recommendations
Rejection of EA approval
Rejection of Legal advice
Rejection of your advice and recommendation
Total breakdown of due process
Total breakdown of voting process
Total lack of clarity before, during and after the final decision

Conclusion:
Ukog will appeal
You are likely to lose and cost the ratepayer a deal of money
More importantly your committee are an embarrassment to the council
You have made yourselves look like incompetent imbeciles

Recommendation:
When UKOG appeal you do not contest it assuming you are unable to reverse the decision in full council.
The government should relieve your council of powers to decide planning applications for such developments.

Sparkey: what would happen if your councillors ignored what they can or cannot object to and then ignored the legal advice ?

K3: it has been a long time . How you getting along ?

I've always had a healthy disrespect for public bodies populated by election but today reached depths I could never have imagined for sheer incompetence, ineptitude , stupidity and bone headedness. This lot would have been out of their depth in a puddle.

Please , please tell me the bunch of muppets I spent most of today listening to are not responsible for overseeing a budget expenditure of £909m . I wouldn't trust them to manage my sons pocket money. It appears their ability to read , understand and be rational is totally beyond their skill set.

Ironhide; would you class today's meeting as reasonable behaviour. The 8 year old i have been home tutoring has more nouse than that bunch of self important muppets

Application rejected ( i think ) against the advice of their officers , their legal team and the chairman.
They will lose on appeal and they know it. They also know it could cost them between £250k & £500k .
But hey no worries. It's not their money. Make them take financial responsibility for their actions.
The thought of losing their cosy detached gas guzzling houses might just concentrate their minds if the are intelligent
enough to understand what they are doing.

Bet they will be over the moon if the council reject our application on grounds of HGV traffic problems when they themselves want to double the traffic.

These people would not last 24 hours in a commercial organisation.

Scally, its a long time since I worked in the haulage industry and forgotten most of the legal stuff .

However I would not risk contaminating a tanker with red diesel if it was going to be used for other products.

Scally, I assume you are asking about oil for generators etc. This diesel contains a red dye to show there has been no duty paid on it. You do not want this anywhere other than its intended use as it is almost impossible to remove all traces of it. The Customs and Excise people take n extremely dim view of it being found anywhere else.

When the half year report comes out around end of July I will predict now that they will throw the kitchen sink at provisions/set aside to justify their caving in to the PRA request to cancel 2019 final dividend.
I suppose when knighthoods and juicy post retirement after dinner speaking engagements are at stake the shareholders pale into insignificance

cannot but £100 but can sell 500000

Matt,
I am assuming the placement of latest fund raising happened on schedule i.e. admitted to market 6th June (no RNS to confirm placement was successful )
Shares in issue 10.839 billion
Tellurian had 514m = 6%+ prior to placement
Their notification threshold is 5% and I believe 4 working days to notify UKOG
5% of current shares = 542m
It is now 6 working days since the placement and no TR1 has been issued
Either
Tellurian have bought shares to stay above 5%
or bought shares to stay above then started selling again - highly improbable

Or
They are in breech of regulations.
If no TR1 by tomorrow I will be contacting FCA compliance team.

Roganjt: the shares are 0.1p nominal which makes £300,000= 3 billion shares
Today's SP has no bearing on the number of shares
It just determines how much they raise for a given number of shares
If today's SP was £1 and they did a placement for the lot they would raise £3 billion

Resolution 4 is authority to issue up to £300,000 worth of shares .
Resolution 5 removes the statutory rights of existing shareholders to take part in any placement of the £300,000
£300,000 shares = 3 billion shares
Any placement will need to be subject to a separate RNS as and when the company decides to make one

Where does the £600k placing come from ?

Resolution 4 & 5 refer to £300k .

All previous authorities expire when the AGM takes place