Member Info for Tony13579

My understanding is they are rearranging the pump and tanks the last few days.. so unlikely to be producing at this moment.

HH 1 is still more or less on the slant/vertical test well.
After HH2 they will drill the HH1z horizontal production side track ( it has some slope to it. )

There will be a council meeting at 10:30 on the 11th with live webcast. This is the only item being discussed
Some items take 2 hours, this is a 20 year production with a 25 yer permission to include upgrading and dismantling

Having said that the last HH application , no councillors asked any question. But the item before Brockham they asked loads...

In reality result might be known by 11:30

Yes, that’s absolutely how it works...
The officers report to the framework documents, the law.
Councillors usually follow the recommendation. Once in a while they Rebel and the appeal costs ,hit the council a p in the £50,000 range.

The only time a council SHOULD reject the officers report if a new valid planning issue raises its head in the 10 days before the planning meeting. Such as the discovery of a pair of breading Surrey dodos, natajack toads,

I did this when the planning officers used the wrong map and I proved that more than 20 Ha of grade 3a farm land was being lost to a housing development. Using the defra map rather than the county planning map. The defra map was more detailed and up to date.

Trying to balance the facts at UJO...
WEST NEWTON is interesting but...
It is confusing... they have no oil yet..
Not necessarily a duster.. but no oil to surface
I’m confused by the on/off nature of the EWT...
If they are waiting for the planning consent footprint the oil tanks, HSE have asked for 13 weeks to reply to the planning officer...

The involvement of CO, TW, and BMD is a big red flag to me.
It remains a highly speculative investment until tankers start rolling.
Invest only on that basis, not on the super ramps of ************** or the three mentioned above.
It is not going to start producing oil in high quantities this year.. they are running an extended well test... when everything is in place. Planning, permits... oil tanks..?

She is also behind a lot of the time wasting freedom of information requests.

Pretty low fake story on horley FB page... sad and desperate..

Never mind because I will tell you something after planning next Wednesday that will give all us investors the last laugh....

Sorry in advance to Penguins , Lorraine Danial Nye, Adriana , Ruth and anyone I missed out..

“Its amazing how the BB and twitter get all the info from the site , could you imagine if the site”

The truth is Swampy showed us how to do it! I was in a hospital bed watching on Bambuser in 2016. A few of us wanted to know more and visited site. It evolved on to here and a Facebook group. But Twitter was better for coordinating visits and putting up pictures and video.

The research skills improved. Those who didn’t get to site became a back office research team. And we now have 900 people supporting a planning application!

Seats at the planning meeting are going to be full! The webcast might crash a few broadband providers.
Viva UKOG !

Mald wins post of the day!
Autocorrect is my saviour and my enemy too!

I’m 90% sure it will be recommended on Monday and passed on the 11th.
Surrey have a habit of trying to rerun the thing with planning conditions but their favourite issue transport has already been nailed down by Ukog.

We do have the slight possibility of rouge councillors ignoring committee advice.
I don’t think there are enough of them willing to oppose NPPF.

If it did go to appeal the council would not support them in a planning inquiry.
That is an almost impossible position to win from

Yes... it’s taken 1 year, 4 months and 27 days!
But here is the news story

'Surrey swarm' quakes 'not caused by oil extraction'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-49480365

I wouldn’t get too excited about BP. Every news story I read about them is about their green credentials. They seam to be in the pocket of the government and green lobby ?

I’m not sure how they will make cash from it.... but I feel the public are going to get fleeced.

The quality of the planning application was very high. I know I read almost every page of it.
The questions answered were questions that would not ones that could have been anticipated.
Also reacting to a change in NPPF.
Questions were even raised about the transport plan even though it had already been signed off!
Some Council officer do not feel they can pass an application without a change, even though it was ok on the last application. That would be like your MOT tester feeling obliged to make you fix something on your car no matter how good it was..

I fully expect a planning officer recommendation next Monday
I would get to your desired positions before that.
That goes for LTHs and Shorties..

I think there is plenty going on in the background.
Focus on Horse Hill for the moment

Then
IOW
DUNSFOLD
BROADFORD BRIDGE

Interesting seeing the rubbish posted at the weekend by objectors......

HOWEVER: in the next few months I expect to see:

•More of HH acquired

•Planning passed for HH3-6 wells & 25 years production

•HH2 drilled & fully tested

•HH1z drilled & fully tested

•CPR of P2 assets

•Private investors joined by Institutional investors

Lse definitely wrongly banned a few posters after mass claims the were big daddy Ian or fool on the hill.

I am amazed I haven’t been banned yet. But I limit my reporting on Angus... but I was right..
I got a couple of warnings. One I deserved. The other it was claimed I had insider info... but it was public info from a planning application...

Planning only gets held back if there is a valid objection that needs solving or clarifying.
I have spent too much time with three major developments going through planning and through planning inquiries.

I would agree that Surrey have gone a little overboard on the site restoration detail required. In the past it would have been a paragraph on the restoration to field or woodland to the local experts standard , now its a book with details of the soil compaction rates and the ancestry of the worms required.. well almost!

Planning in just 18 days, rig when ever it arrives.
Whilst I love to see on site work in action, it’s far better to get planning approved with a peaceful clean tidy site. It shouldn’t make a difference. But the 25 years planning consent is far mor important than a rig arriving. If it does arrive it would be good to get it in place and set up and wait for the 11th to start drilling.

I think “late summer” and autumn will be very rewarding !

At Horse Hill, 7 gas to wire gen units are planned...
At Godley bridge gas is the main target.. 56 BCF..
My brain struggles with the conversions from BCF to mmBTU, then $2.16 per mmBTU
60-80% recovery
1.2 £/$ rate.
I did my calcs but the calc got into 10 to the 13 mode..
I came up with a figure around £100m to UKOG for Godley bridge...

No idea if that’s correct...

Drilling update?For the avoidance of doubt, exploration drilling updates are required under AIM Rule 11
and, as a minimum, should include information on:
Minerals & Ore Updates
* depth of zone tested ?
* drilling intervals ?
* average grades of mineralisation ?Oil & Gas Updates
* depth of zone tested ?
* rock formation encountered ?
* any liquids/gases recovered. ?Review by qualified person ?A qualified person from the AIM company or an appointed adviser, which may include the CP, should review and sign off on each resource or drilling update and include their name, position and qualifications within the notification together with a statement to the effect that they have reviewed the information contained therein. ?Review by nominated adviser ?The Exchange expects that, in addition to the above, an appropriate person from the nominated adviser of an AIM company will review, prior to its release (as part of its regulatory obligations owed solely to the Exchange) all notifications made by its client AIM company. ?

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/advisers/aim-notices/aim-notice-16.pdf