Member Info for WG818

So that leaves 2 options then Gideons

1. You’re a bit of a plonker and posted your own name by accident !

2. As hits suggests you inserted someone else’s name hoping people would name you again to to them banned?

Neither post you in a positive light!

You forgot to remove your own name from the reply you got from the council earlier you plonker!

If you want us to report you for posting your own details I’ll be delighted to join in!!

HITS…. Do you want to re-think your comment about publishing his own name now!
Yes I really do think he could be that daft!

I’d have a £100 bet that’s not the name registered to your LSE account a Gideons!

They haven’t put your name and address up. But you just did you total berk!!

Nice one MR W………..you couldn’t get make it up!

As expected they did actually apply for another permission as I pointed out! That was approved today also.
The noise issue has been overcome with a 37db restriction placed at night.

Your even mentioned in the report Gideons!!

No Yanis. They don’t have an injection well at Lidsey.
EA permission will be required for one.
It has been suggested that the proposed new sidetrack may produce dry oil of course. That’s around as likely as a Polish/Hungarian 20 something ish young lady submitting the America2030 accounts to companies house !!

Problems!

Yanis. Have a listen to the Investor phone in available on the Angus website. I posted the link when Gideons was trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes regarding fracking. Mr Hollis gives a very good foot in mouth explanation on the water injection prosthetic have.

It’s radio active Yanis. From my understanding the EA don’t/won’t give permission to inject water from different formations/ reservoirs any longer.
I guess they could re-apply but the EA will have taken all the information into account already!

I find the lack of knowledge on here by those who have been posting here for years shocking on occasions.
The Water disposal permissions were withdrawn when the permit was required to be upgraded back in 2018/2019 I think it was. Angus failed to answer the EA questions and re-injection permission was withdrawn. Angus re applied to inject water from elsewhere including Lidsey in the latest variation to the permit but have been refused permission to do so. They have been granted permission to re-inject water extracted from the Portland at Brockham back into the Portland. It’s that simple. Apart from the fact it turns out that when they used to inject the way from Lidsey previously the actually didn’t have the required PP from WSCC.

A big fan a Gideon!
Not a surprise as you share so much in common. He also has a strained relationship with telling the truth and is banned from social media platforms. How many ID,s have you had now??

As they say “you can’t argue with stupid”

Try actually reading the article properly. It explains that the Kimmeridge is variable over very short distances and it’s not mature at Brockham!!
They were explaining why they had announced why they thought they couldn’t get oil without fracking but now knew it wasn’t mature enough even for this!

Dear me! If this was fracking for gas I would be agreeing with you! It’s south east England and oil! It’s not going to happen!
Funnily enough the 1st sentence of what you posted confirms what I say.

The Kimmeridge formation at Brockham in Surrey is unlikely to generate significant volumes of oil because it isn’t mature, investors were told this evening.

Yes and you certainly know about LSE rules don’t you!! 1461 posts under your new posting name in 36 days…..
OK so you think the company may change its mind then???……only they announced that the Kimmeridge oil at Brockham isn’t mature enough to flow.

Game over I’m afraid

5 in a row Gideon! A new record!
The trouble is you know what you are posting is total rubbish!

This from the company itself 28th June 2019 RNS

the view of the Company that, on any conventional approach, it is extremely unlikely that commercial hydrocarbon flow can be established from the Kimmeridge layer at Brockham. Supplementary stimulation techniques including hydraulic fracturing have been ruled out by the present Operator. The Company, in its role as Operator, has already made clear that it is not a proponent of the use of such unconventional production techniques in the Weald and this position remains unchanged.

Be careful DoneK ! Libellous accusations like that got RT003 a week s ban when he/.You? said more or less the same thing !!

He/you? lied about that as-well !!

Lol…..no RT003 is like you and just makes things up!
Actually you both share the same malfunctioning keyboard don’t you! The one with that malfunctioning full stop button!

Definitely not a woman (not that that should matter anyway) and definitely didn’t send a bottle of anything to anyone….that’s just another “untruth” posted on here.

Anyway I thought I’d post this again for any of you to dispute……..you can’t though can you as it’s all true!!

Here are some Brockham facts for you then.

1. They require water (and a lot) from elsewhere to increase the reservoir pressure. They now can’t do that.

2. Historically they injected Lidsey water to help with both disposal costs and pressure buildup. They can’t do either now.

3. They have applied PP for a sidetrack. Will they be granted it?…….That’s a tough call at present. They are not well regarded by WSCC.

4. If they do get permission to sidetrack it’s going to cost between £1 - £3 million based on other sidetrack costs given. They don’t have the money for this.

5. The current permissions and production in place are not commercially viable.

6. The refusal to allow water to be injected from Lidsey means that it at present is also uncommercial with the water cut there (around a third) this means if they wish to continue with the site a new sidetrack must be drilled and a well converted into an injection well or new injection well drilled! Cost £3 million plus. They would also need EA approval for the injectiotor well which as we know takes more than a year (2 in Brockhams case) to obtain.

If you disagree with any of these FACTS challenge them don’t fall back on your pathetic “Green hogwash” suggestion.

Here are some Brockham facts for you then.

1. They require water (and a lot) from elsewhere to increase the reservoir pressure. They now can’t do that.

2. Historically they injected Lidsey water to help with both disposal costs and pressure buildup. They can’t do either now.

3. They have applied PP for a sidetrack. Will they be granted it?…….That’s a tough call at present. They are not well regarded by WSCC.

4. If they do get permission to sidetrack it’s going to cost between £1 - £3 million based on other sidetrack costs given. They don’t have the money for this.

5. The current permissions and production in place are not commercially viable.

6. The refusal to allow water to be injected from Lidsey means that it at present is also uncommercial with the water cut there (around a third) this means if they wish to continue with the site a new sidetrack must be drilled and a well converted into an injection well or new injection well drilled! Cost £3 million plus. They would also need EA approval for the injectiotor well which as we know takes more than a year (2 in Brockhams case) to obtain.

If you disagree with any of these FACTS challenge them don’t fall back on your pathetic “Green hogwash” suggestion.

I beg your pardon it now actually next month your correct.

Here is another link for you which gives you all the information on what the company was hoping for!

https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rh3-7au-angus-energy-weald-basin-no-3-limited/

150 barrels a day required for 8 and a half years to get the pressure back up to initial pressure!!

It’s also kind of funny to think that if the Kimmeridge had been successful it would have taken until now to exploit it!