Member Info for Vernony

I don't think that there is any such animals as rampers and derampers amongst PIs , they do not have the clout to ramp or deramp these shares . They can express opinions, that is true, but without powerful backup , they are just forum graffiti

I have been in this share for two to three years now but I am getting concerned that they seem to be thrashing about like a beached whale and giving themselves incentives, when they have nothing to show for their initiatives . In my opinion they are just not dynamic enough, they need more zip, more and more umph !

Hi DivLike, Yes it is a malady which urgently needs to be addressed in the UK. As far as it is possible to see, there is no justification for an incentive bonus. They are locked into, at the moment, is the planning permission system and no amount of incentive will shift it along any faster. In this respect they are a bit like ships without a cargo but the crew being treated to largesse because they may get a cargo

There is not much to pin a higher price on this at the moment... I am convinced it will move once somebody Does a Donald Trump and decides that it only take one permission to drill and exploit (It had better I have too much to lose if it does not ! ). As it stands its jobs for the boys with six figure salary CEOs and make work schemes

Wonder if EDR can file for damages , lost production, cost over-runs etc..

I didn't look at the video just read your excellent explanation. In the USA some people have been confusing rig count with Shale production. It is not, there were an awful lot of start ups in the USA and a lot of those smaller firms gave gone bust. As I understand it, the actual production of Shale gas/oil is steadily increasing in the USA, and they are looking ot export some of it. I don't think it matters too much what the world price for Shale gas will be to the UK, it a strategic fuel and the UK will want to have its own home product. At the moment, because we are still in the EU, as I understand it, the government could not ease the path for Shale companies because that would infringe EU competition laws, but once we are free of the EU, they could assist Shale by maninpulating Corporation Tax, for example. I am sure that the USA would do likewise if necesary to protect their in-house supplies. Thus, in the long run it probably won't matter if oil drops to $30 pbrl, Shale will survive.

I have a feeling that a JR may be faster, To my mind I cannot imagine a Judge upholding mistrust in a government department as a reason to refuse planning permission. They are two different matters and cannot be interlinked. No matter what the EA may have done in the past, the council would have to show why the EA would fail, in this case.

I am of the opinion that the Charity Commission could still act against FoE if they are engaged in political activity, or misleading the public. In the event, the CC could remove their charitable status because it is clear that they are using their charitable title in activities not compatible with the Regulation of charitable bodies . In truth, though, the Charity Commission are very slow to (if at all) act against a Charity. My feeling is that, firstly, the CC has to be approached to ask them to rule against FoE. If they decline to act, then legal research would have to be taken to ascertain if the CC are a public body. Since at the very top they appear have Government direction and ultimate control, then they could be judged to be a Public Body, if so that would leave the CC open to a Judicial Review and they would make them explain why they have not acted . But we are talking big bucks

You more or less prove my point with your answer. They could not fault it on technical grounds, so they have cast around for something entirely ficticious. But for a local government department to not trust a government department, seems to be a non-starter, but it could well throw the decision onto the governement. to tell the Council that they cannot refuse something on the grounds of mistrust of a government department..., think of the implications in the wider picture. Thus, the government will have made the decision !

Figures Rogue. The councils do not have to make decisions on contested applications, they can reject an application and leave it to Government to make the decisions. The council comes out of it smelling of roses, the Government gets all the blame from which ever point of view loses out

Of course, there have been several wells fracked in the United Kingdom but the went unnoticed. GP and FoI are not really against fracking in itself, it is the product of fracking Shale which annoys them and they are using all sorts of scare stories when in fact their mission is to try to prevent global warming...Pretty much a hopeless cause because global warming happens naturally, has done, will do, the globe will always warm up and cool down. Indeed the Sun is reported to have gone through a period of more intense activity in 2015 to 2016, resulting in a more than normal active El Nino .Moreover, a warmer atmosphere means more water vapor and more clouds, clouds tend to reflect the sun's heat back into space, the warmer the planet is the more vegetation too in areas where it was previously too cold for plants to thrive, more plants absorb more CO2, and existing vegetation thrives that much better too, so more CO2 absorbed by them. GP and FoI seem to imagine that they have the powers of God .....They have a long way to go yet !

Hi, As I have reported on here before, I did once write to Greenpeace and suggest that instead of demonstrating that they, instead, worked with Government to siphon off some of the profits from Shale and invest them in green energy. In that way increasingly the country would be moving over to green alternatives and within 40 years, or so, when the Shale runs out, the country would have been converted. In fact, the country would probably be using very little Shale gas after 30 years. Their reply was that they 'always demonstrated', and they had plans of their own and had no intention of working with the Government on this issue. So there you have it, a defunct deliberate obstructive attitude, with no plans to work for a green future. Just make a nuisance, and get yourself on tele !

I was the Chairman of a charity for a time and I know the rules are very strict indeed. In this case it could be argued that FoE were distributing inaccurate and misleading information to the general public which directly, or indirectly, based upon that information that could lead to an increase in recruitment and fee paying members of FoE.. The other no-no is anything to do with politics. A charity may not engage in political activities, and if they do they will lose their charitable status.. I am not too sure if they have infringed that very critical position, but I am sure lawyers could find a case there

Good research, well done. I hope that Caudrilla now complain to the Charity Commission and question the charitable status of FoE, there are very strict rules about the activities of charities and I feel that they have infringed them by printing false and misleading documents to the public

I can't see why the tipsters cannot forecast Shale up this year . It could easily be the best growth industry in the UK this year

Just goes to prove what I have said before, any increase in the oil price by OPEC only results in a greater dash for gas :http://seekingalpha.com/article/4033158-can-u-s-shale-add-1-million-bpd-2017

I cannot, but believe, that the investment's experts cannot tip Shale in their New Year forecasts as potential risers . They don't seem to have much option on that, but individual companies in Shale will be subject to critical analysis of their financial position

You can say that again. Six years since they first drill bit went down to frack and still no enough gas to light a street lamp has been produced.As I have said before government, these days, only make decisions based upon a current crises, mainly because this shuts down the opposition and the media i.e. the media and opposition are then wrong footed. What we want is a really hard winter and consequent extreme demands for gas. The media will then come out blaming the government for not acting earlier to ensure the nation's energy supplies. Like the PIs in here, the government is probably also praying for a hard winter too. Brilng it on !

I do find their site most useful because herein :- http://frack-off.org.uk/sites/land-at-roseacre-wood/, they list all of the fracking applications submitted so far and the date that they were submitted. So all together in one place . I couldn't resist sending them an E-mail thanking them for assisting in my investments :)) I note in your references to Caudrilla , Geochemical study, that you seem to attribute earthquakes to Caudrilla operations.I know of no earthquakes created by Caudrilla, that there were two minor tremors in the vicinity to their earlier fracking attempts have never been absolutely proven to have been caused by Caudrilla. Their statement at the time was that ‘they probably caused the two minor tremors’, that is not proof and was probably well chosen words to avoid conspiracy theorists from claiming a cover up . In truth Great Britain experiences some 300 minor tremors per year and about every 4 years a significant quake which my even dislodge slates from roof tops, but nothing serious. America which has thousands of fracking sites is not rocked by earthquakes. Whatever, even if the price for fracking was the odd earth tremor (no more than a 35 ton lorry passing your house) then it is very over hyped by you Yours sincerely Oh and P.S. I do find your site most useful for background to my investments in the fracking industry

Yes exactly, you have nailed it As I understand it, If the public body were to lose a JR, they only have to look at the possibilities of A) In the opinion of their own legal department, do they consider the findings of the JR correct, if not appeal against it. B) Can their original PP, be amended to correct the findings of the JR. (Preferred option) C) Would it prove to be too expensive/impossible to change it. D) Finally a tactical assumption of whether they think that the plaintive could afford to fight on, if not the plaintive could lose an appeal by default