Member Info for WG818

Yanis
Planning permission and EA permission are totally separate things.

They have PP and could be building the infrastructure now. They aren’t though. Is this as you point out as they are waiting on the EA to issue either guidance on upgrading the site to the new requirements if needed (see the Balcombe application And the site improvements the EA requested there) or for the application to be passed.

It could very well be fast tracked for all we know (Paddy and his political contacts may explain his chairmanship) This is Angus and everything proceeds at less than a snails pace though!

Construction work …..quite obviously C boy!

DoneK

You don’t have to be a “technical expert “ to make your own mind up.
Yanis last week pointed out that he thought nothing would be done on site until the EA application was sorted.
They have planning permission in place to start the works but have chosen not to according to that once monthly Twitter feed we were promised that would keep us upto date on progress.
The site-works where supposed to start in July.

Simple question why haven’t they started them?

Yanis

Yes 8.5 miles away down that pipeline that it’s not clear who now has the de-comm costs for?
Hardly next door is it!

That’s a strange argument echo or should I call you cudd?
A bit like saying I didn’t mind the petrol station so why should I care if it turns into a refinery!

Yanis
Your original thought was the correct one!

It’s all in the Aecom document presented to the EA.
Available through the link I provided.

Mirasol
Yes that’s true but a very large proportion of letters don’t address what the application is actually for and are ignored. Look at the Brockham application, 95% of the objections hadn’t read the criteria for complaint.

Yanis.

The variation is to transform the site from a purely extraction point into a processing and distribution centre.
The EA might be pleased they don’t have to read hundreds of swampy irrelevant letters but this isn’t a simple ruber stamp exercise.

Do you really think we are that thick EcoDelta aka Cuddinthesnow! At least give it a couple of days to re-spawn!!

Yanis

I have posted this before in response to James2.
He has again posted the same thing this morning!
Strange he hasn’t mentioned the missing elephant in the room instead!?!?

All the links are attached.

James2

You keep posting the same thing over and over again with regard to the EA decision. It’s highly unlikely to be decided this year let alone this month according to the GOV website.

Final permit decisions

The Environment Agency aims to make all permit decisions as quickly as possible and within 16 weeks for applications that require consultation.

If the application is of high public interest we may take longer to make a decision.

We record all decisions on the public register. For installations, we also publish the decision and the permit.

We might withhold some information if it’s industrially or commercially confidential or subject to national security restrictions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permits-when-and-how-we-consult/environmental-permits-when-and-how-we-consult

We also have the Brockham consultation to base timescales on (Still not decided after 5 months

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

And finally the SF7 EA flaring decision which took around a year from the start of the consultation date. Consultation commenced on : 22nd September 2015 Consultation ended on : 20th October 2015 Permit determined : 03/10/2016

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/557642/Decision_Document.pdf

James2

You keep posting the same thing over and over again with regard to the EA decision. It’s highly unlikely to be decided this year let alone this month according to the GOV website.

Final permit decisions

The Environment Agency aims to make all permit decisions as quickly as possible and within 16 weeks for applications that require consultation.

If the application is of high public interest we may take longer to make a decision.

We record all decisions on the public register. For installations, we also publish the decision and the permit.

We might withhold some information if it’s industrially or commercially confidential or subject to national security restrictions.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permits-when-and-how-we-consult/environmental-permits-when-and-how-we-consult

We also have the Brockham consultation to base timescales on (Still not decided after 5 months

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

And finally the SF7 EA flaring decision which took around a year from the start of the consultation date. Consultation commenced on : 22nd September 2015 Consultation ended on : 20th October 2015 Permit determined : 03/10/2016

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/557642/Decision_Document.pdf

I see your another one whose “CAPS LOCK” is also broken.......?

DoneK
I don’t think anyone has suggested there is a “technical expert” posting apart from you?
You don’t need to be an expert in keyboards for instance to see that multiple posters on here have serious issues with the Caps lock and the full stop buttons!
Being able to read Angus, Planning and EA documents is always a plus.
For example. Do you remember why Angus withdrew the first recent Balcombe application?
Yes it was as the EA pointed out that the site wasn’t up to current standards…mmmm let’s have a look at the Aecom documents for salt shall we? O dear wasn’t the last upgrade to the area that the equipment is to be placed carried out back in 2001!!
I guess it could be ok …..but why haven’t they installed the concrete pads over it as they said they would back in July?
Then take a look at Brockham! Just imagine they had been successful. We would still be sitting waiting for the EA to Approve the water injection wouldn’t wee!!
I Think Yannis could be correct on this one and this EA permission could be crucial for any forward movement.
All in my own opinion…DYOR

You’ll have to be more precise in your accusation. It’s a very long list ……. And of course all in your head like everything else you post!

Do you want the links or not… of course they will be a bit embarrassing for you!?!?

Why do I post?
I post when people state cobblers as fact and try and mislead mug punters. You are a prime example.
You constantly post information that is just plain wrong. your multiple accounts over several platforms all have the same model.
When your pulled up on posting BS (which happens constantly) you have no answer as obviously your wrong and accuse the better informed poster of being a one of a long list including

Shorters
Paid for MM shills
Paid for CLN holder shills(the latest one)
Ex Angus management (sorry that’s the latest one isn’t it)

Perhaps it’s just I know considerably more than you about the subject and your rope a dope rampathon just gets on my nerves?

You can re-post your rant as many times as you like but your wrong as normal.
Your engineering experience obviously didn’t train you to read the paperwork that comes beforehand?

Would you like me to post the links to all 3 Angus EA applications that relate to the current projects….AGAIN!!

Dear o dear
You simply don’t know what your talking about cudd.

The Brockham EA application is to re-inject water. From Brockham and yes Other Weald sites. They don’t have Planning permission to inject from elsewhere however as confirmed by the company to drill or drop.
The EA originaly withdrew permission after Angus failed to provide it . They have since re-applied to the EA again.

The Saltfleetby EA permission is also a variation and so similar in basic structure. It’s been 5 months since the public consultation closed and still no answer from the EA.
Angus are applying to turn the Saltfleetby site into a processing and distribution point for the condensate. It’s a complete change of use for the site and not a rubber stamp exercise. Far more complex than checking a cement log and some water inspection points like Brockham.

Now who was clueless again?

Ocelot
The only obvious thing here is multiple accounts posting under different names….it s not really hinting.

If they manage to get to 5mmscf by April they will be ok. If they drill the sidetrack at the end of March and take a couple of months off as GL said in the proactive presentation they are in trouble.
If the EA take as long as they have for Brockham (a far simpler application) they will be in trouble.
If they drill the sidetrack and it fails on the 10th time of asking they will be in trouble.

If they drill a sidetrack before March and it gets them Another 5mmscf then yes multibags!!

The lack of serious director buy ins doesn’t suggest this is going to happen does it?

Come on guy…….s.
I’ve given you the hint that it’s obvious that someone is sharing a keyboard with a broken caps lock. Then cudd and investor not very smart go and point out the full stop button is broken as well.

Invest in a new keyboard please. It’s embarrassing obvious.

Patrick
Again I suggested you have a look at companies house and inspect the charges placed before assuming anything.
I see your caps lock is still broken on the shared keyboard!!

Yanis
From the Q&A page.

All of this information is already publicly available, and we stress these are presently notional numbers arrived at approxmately and that these prices are not hedged in any way and therefore might not be available come production in March etc. However whilst the final outcome may vary considerably, we and our partners do anticipate strong demand for gas in the coming years regardless of short term price effects.

The rest of the answer gives you a bit of a clue also!

Careful everyone …. syndrome seems to be spreading liKe Covid !
New poster jenjonespllnvest has got it as well as 2.9% James2!!