Member Info for Tony13579

“ In each country there is a liability for the local authority to pay compensation for abortive expenditure and for any other loss or damage directly attributable to the revocation.”

6 years planning and exploration
Billions of barrels of oil reserves= £ Ooodles

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjtj_zE9YvtAhXBiFwKHU43CDgQFjAJegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.parliament.uk%2FResearchBriefing%2FSummary%2FSN00905&usg=AOvVaw2PSL8Uknn4gTZi5izxyuaQ

Compensation for expenditure and future loss , all paid for by Surrey.. Early pay day ?

Any one owning a private flat is going to have to prepare for a financial hit when you have to fit fast charge 3 phase car charger in the car park. The average council ones end up costing 40k per charging bay.

Even if you don’t own a car there will be a block charge shared between all flats.

Business owners will need to do the same for their work vehicles...
I notice Boris hasn’t mentioned commercial vehicles ....

I do feel we elect party A or party B, or even maybe vote for C,D,E
But the underground parties don’t even stand XR... and the BBC party we fund or go to jail!

Where was this radical Boris Cyclist Nuclear Windmill party in the manifesto?

I realise the government has a huge financial hole going electric.

For example my domestic fuel The electric cost about 15p a kw where as gas is 2.5p a kw
I pay about £100 per month on petrol at 65% tax, the electric would be about the same £50 per month at 5% tax and they would lose £170 per year road tax
Then they have to provide sufficient onstreet charging points for 40% of the cars! At £40k each... all in 10 years..

It’s largely irrelevant to me... I won’t need a new car till 2038, lol
I might even brew my own methanol if I’m still driving then

Compatible, not comparable

Carbon Zero vs Net Carbon Zero 2050

The campaigners seam to think there should be zero oil production to achieve Net Carbon Zero ( tomorrow )

The word “net” is very important.

The agreement to achieve net zero accepts and mitigates there will need to some carbon usage in agriculture and industry and that would be counterbalanced by things that were carbon negative , such as growing trees, or carbon capture.

One of the ways is to make new and existing wells comparable with carbon capture... ( Loxley. )

The planning process does not need to fix something that is being fixed by other government policy ( Planet earth VS Secretary of State ) (Ground 8: the Secretary of State adequately addressed the Net Zero target in the decision letter and was, as a matter of judgment, entitled to rely upon other mechanisms outside the planning system, such as electricity market reform and emissions trading, to control emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation when potential pathways are drawn up to help achieve the Net Zero target, consistently with the policies in EN-1.)

Who was the judge.....Hon. Mr Justice Holgate. ;-)

It may, or may not be on this webpage..
The courts don’t make it easy!
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/the-court-of-appeal-civil-division-live-streaming-of-court-hearings/

She also lives in rented accommodation if you see her historic declaration of interests as local councillor .

She may be on a limited costs order, but I googled it and can find no trace..
The governments QC has one hell of a CV in planning and Enviromental :-)

The government has joined the case on Surrey County Councils side

I don’t think the case can undo the planning consent but theoretically could affect planning cases forward.

The argument that surrey did not consider the emissions from the produced fuel/ oil is irrelevant as 1.the produced oil replaces imported oil.
2. carbon neutral by 2050 is the target and the permission runs to 2040
3. The oil is used for plastics production and lubrication too.
4. It is for users to reduce consumption ( previous court ruling) not for producers to ration production

Baits, I don’t think the Kim has produced any water to date. It has all come from the Portland zone.

Also his brother @n33BKP

XR are Green Party members who want to dictate to the world and wear extreme outfits

HH remains on pressure test.... the rig is still parked up.

It is for USERS to reduce their carbon , not producers.
We were on an emissions reduction slope for decades before XR came along but it takes time to transition. It has taken 2 decades to reduce from coal to gas powered electric. At the time wind wave and solar was not even a viable option.

I’m waiting for the end of the pressure test. I have far too much to do than sit in a van all day.
The two John’s are keeping an eye on site.

The counter argument is that hydrogen is hard to store and move safely , motors are expensive, electricity is easy to create on site and transport via wires.

I would imaging gas to hydrogen
So you have a hydrocarbon
You split it in two and create hydrogen and carbon that can be stored
And cannot form co2 in the atmosphere

The hydrogen burns to oxygen to create... h2o... water

That’s the theory... isn’t it ?

My understanding is after initial flow, they put it on a pressure buildup test
We are expecting a few waste tankers to deal with the rainwater.