If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
Alan - No I hadn't missed Baits' posts about ringing the planning department. What I said in my last post still holds. It's not 'done and dusted' until the decision is posted on the website- no matter how foregone the conclusion is and no matter how positive the officer might be in a phone conversation. Telephone consent ain't worth the paper it's not written on. As I've said - I'm really not remotely concerned about this 'issue' but remember we got our fingers burnt before when PV said everything with SCC was done and dusted?
Alan - Strictly speaking Pboo is right. Although this issue is being dealt with under delegated powers, if the case officer had formally acceded to the request and signed it off then that decision would be recorded in the documentation and accessible as an attachment. It's not, so he hasn't - yet. As I recall - from personal experience, the council has six weeks to respond to any request for a change to a condition, no matter how trivial, and they invariably take most of that window before formally deciding. It's unlikely that Steohen would give a non-involved party advance knowledge over the phone ahead of the decision being lodged and recorded. Having said that I don't personally see that the pump specification was a 'condition' in the first place.
I genuinely believe that the wording of the agent's e-mail response to Stephen is the equivalent of a 'slip of the lip'. You will notice that, in his initial query Stephen makes the assumption that as the hydraulic pump is more efficient than a nodding donkey it will also be quieter. That's logical. In his reply the ANGS agent states that 'it is less quiet and less obtrusive than the traditional nodding' and Importantly that he hopes 'this is sufficient for your purposes'. The reply is sent just a couple of hours after he received the enquiry and I can only assume he didn't copy check it! Think about it .... If the equipment is electric powered and less obtrusive than the traditional pump it follows that it is less noisy not less quiet - and that that is what he meant to say. If it were actually noisier than the traditional rather than quieter then the agent would be unlikely to make the assumption that the very brief statement he's made is 'sufficient for your purposes'. Any decent agent would continue by quoting the decibel levels of the 'new' pump for comparison purposes in order to be more reassuring to the planning officer. The fact that he doesn't adds weight to my saying that he clearly meant to say that it was less noisy - and therefore it was unnecessary to say by how much. Once again another red herring. And this is another example of people cherry picking extracts from the documentation. As Baits has rightly said, Stephen IS the decision maker - it clearly states elsewhere that the decision will be made under 'delegated powers'. That means that the case officer will make the decision. It won't go before committee and there does not need to be 'consultation'. That's why no dates are shown in the 'consultation' boxes. Doooh! As I said days ago when this red herring was first raised, the planning officers, as long as they are happy with the proposed change, will sign it off as a 'non material amendment'. Why do you keep resurrecting this? Presumably to catch out the unwary?
Chas PB - I'm not sure whether you were being deliberately disingenuous in your post earlier, but the record needs putting straight. You seemed to be suggesting that the planning doc to which you provided a link was imposing a condition which might restrict tanker movements to eight a day. It doesn't - primarily because it's talking about generic HGC movements, not oil tankers. But there's more .... The doc to which you refer is talking about the exoected vehicle movements associated with setting up the workover rig and other equipment immediately prior to the appraisal work starting and its removal at the end of the appraisal. "2.2.2 Access to the site and administration facilities will be via the existing access track of some 600 metres length leading from Old School Lane via Felton’s Farm. No changes to this track are proposed in association with the continued use of the site administration facilities. The number of heavy goods vehicles moving to and from the site are set out in the document at Appendix A and it is anticipated that the total number will be around 20 incoming movements over a 7-day period. Following completion of the appraisal operations all temporary equipment will be moved off site and a similar number of outgoing movements will occur. Daily HGV movements will be between 1 and 8 vehicles depending upon the need for the relevant equipment." it's quite clear that the vehicle movements referred to are 'anticipated' movements - ie they are indicative, not conditional. In any case the 1-8 daily movements that you highlighted are those that are anticipated at the teardown right at the end of the appraisal period. So, if that's a genuine misunderstanding on your part I hope that clears it up. If it was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters then others please note the provenance. There have been several attempts going back I would say at least two years to cherry pick misleading sentences from the historical docs referring to short term vehicle movement restrictions and extrapolate to the total appraisal period. Until someone gives me chapter and verse otherwise I am not aware of any regulatory condition in the planning consent that restricts numbers of tanker movements - only operating hours.
Baits - I think you'll find the dreaded Tony was quoting from an earlier post from Alan. Alan was referring to the slugging issue in the RNS and opining that the solution was to install wider diameter tubing. I haven't re-read Tony's post by basically he's saying: 'if it's that simple why didn't they do it?' To which the answer is of course that they were on a limited time window for the test. As with Tony's red herring yesterday about nodding donkeys this is another warped and blinkered rewrite of the published facts.
Tony - You are being totally misleading in your statement that ANGS have planning consent for a nodding donkey. I have re-read the decision notice - I suggest you do the same - and there is no mention of a donkey. Yes, there is an overall , generic, statement that no work shall be done or equipment introduced other than as consented without the prior written consent etc etc. The 'consented' work and equipment are those as listed in the attachment documentation at the beginning of the planning consent - ahead of Condition 7 - no mention of a donkey. As Alan has already said, of course there are on-the-hoof adjustments to any project as it progresses, be it a building or engineering such as this. Whilst it's a good plan to let the CC know what you're doing as you go along this can't always be done. Most mods and additions are quickly signed off by the planning officers under delegated powers as 'non-material amendments' - it happens all the time. So I repeat - it's totally misleading of you to state that there is planning consent for a donkey and that ANGS have knowingly done summat completely different.
The original poster seems not to be distinguishing between background information given in a planning application ( in this case 'the applicant INTENDS to use existing .... Etc) and a planning condition, where the granting authority state either proactively of their own accord, or as a follow on from the applicant's own statement of intent, that certain actions MUST OR MUST NOT happen. In other words where the consent is only being granted on condition that the applicant does what the written consent requires. As far as I am aware the quotation about the donkey pump is taken from the planning officers' background documentation placed before the committee as part of their brief prior to granting or refusing the application. Unless something is clearly stated as a planning condition, or you clearly (in the case of a building consent for example) build something materially different from an approved plan that you have submitted, you are not in breach of the consent. Utter storm in a teacup!
Since several people have asked how this might work .... My recollection from a previous experience is this - but it's some time ago, so very open to correction. In many ways it's similar to a takeover. The individual, or group of individuals - who would normally already own a substantial proportion of the shares in the then public company, make an offer to buy all other shareholders shares at a given price, which will be a straight cash offer. Those shareholders then have a choice as to whether or not to accept the offer. If a majority of the shareholders - in terms of their holdings, not their headcount, accept the offer then it is in effect successful. I'm not sure whether a straight majority is needed or whether it has to be, say, holders representing 60% of the issued shares. At that point the 'bidders' pay the cash to the accepting shareholders, the company is 'taken private' and shares are no longer bought and sold on any recognised exchange. This is where my memory fails me as I cannot now recall whether or not the non-accepting shareholders are then obliged to cede their shares for the cash offer or whether they might be allowed to retain their shares - in which case of course they would only be able afterwards to sell them on a private 'matched deal' basis. There would be no published SP as such. Regulation of private companies is nowhere near as stringent as that for publicly quoted ones. I hope this helps?
DHC - Unless we have an 'emergency' then the 'flare stack equivalent' at Brockham should not, by design, have a heat haze. It's in the planning documentation and is the whole point of the gas to wire installation. So you are asking for a photo showing that something isn't going according to plan?
OBZ - Sorry, but there is a serious lack of internal logic in your post. You suggest that Baits' decision to move ANGS profits into Ukog is sentiment driven. You also say that I) you have a small holding in UKOG ii) you wouldn't touch them with a barge pole and iii) they are about #200 on your list of companies to invest in. So surely there can be no other explanation for your own continued holding in UKOG other than sentiment?
First of all, Alan is right to point out that we should not be surprised that there was a delay in firing the starting pistol (pun intended!) for the assessment programme. He and I both pointed out at the time that the 'new and improved' EA licence was issued that there were conditions that had to be met before operations could commence. The most important of these related to: environmental impact monitoring; water reinjection; acid washing; and conversion of gas to electric power. I was puzzled yesterday therefore at the brouhaha surrounding the news article about the appointment of an environmental impact monitoring company. That move was to be exoected given the stringent monitoring requirements in the approved SoW from SCC - which people might do well to read again. What people seem to have missed in the EA report is that two of the issues that were the subject of much concern and deramping in their original commentary at the time of 'issue' of the new licence have now been covered and have effectively 'gone away'. One relates to their being no physical link to a water reinjection well, the other relates to their finding no acid on site. As I say, at the time much was made by derampers that our inability to reinjec water would mean we couldn't proceed with our production plan. Now thankfully water reinjection appears to be a non-issue. So - let's concentrate on the positives in the EA story ... Issues that certainly concerned me a couple of weeks back have now been successfully addressed. Lastly a word of apology. At the time that the SCC SoW was published I took issue with some posters by insisting that seven days notice of installation movements to neighbours was still needed before set up could commence. Seems I was wrong - so apologies.
Scallywag made the point in an earlier post this morning that ANGS market cap might exceed that of UKOG in 2018 given recent trends of both companies. I just did a quick calculation and, assuming the UKOG SP does not rise - ie stays at its current position - then an ANGS SP of 18.75 would see ours exceed theirs. So - it could easily happen this side of Christmas.
That's only based, literally, on a bid and a wink tweet. Strange that, if it is on site, we've not had any leaks that the notices of the rig movement have been sent out to neighbours. These would usually be individually addressed letters mailed to specific addressees by the relevant authority.
Scallywag - I presume you are talking about the most recent placement shares - ie those at 9p? In which case I've no idea where you get the the idea that they were taken up by an institutional investor (singular) who was paid to take them and sell them on. The RNS clearly stated that the placees were 'institutional an other investors' (plural). No one was paid to 'take them' and sell them on. In fact the RNS again clearly states that the placement was NOT underwritten ie if the full allotment of shares was not taken up then no company or individual was committed to subscribe to what was left over. "The Company entered into the Placing Agreement on 4 November 2018. Pursuant to the terms of the Placing Agreement, Stockdale, as agent for and on behalf of the Company, has agreed conditionally to use its reasonable endeavours to procure placees for Placing Shares at the Placing Price. The Placing is not underwritten." So Stockdale were paid for their admin and for using their social network to find subscribers - which they successfully did. The fact that the placees were a mixture of institutional and other investors (usually HNWIs known to the company means there would be a mix of investment strategies involved. I think I'm right in saying that, in general, IIs are more likely to be longer term investors than PIs. It's not the same thing at all as the Bergen deal. I guess that's why we didn't see a flood of the placement shares hitting the market when they were admitted for trading.
I've been away from the board since mid morning and now, on flicking through the posts since then I'm picking up that people still seem to be confusing the submission of the Scheme of Work relating to the planning conditions with ANGS having already given the requisite seven days notice of vehicle movements and site activity regarding the workover rig delivery and inspection. (Alan - I wasn't remotely suggesting that they would submit two SoWs). As I recall, the SoW also includes what their plans are with regard to closing things down when it's all over. Is anyone suggesting they've also given notice of that? If they have indeed started the seven days notice clock ticking then can someone please give me the chapter and verse showing when and where this was done as I must have missed it? I say again, the fact that the SoW was validated on 22 November and that it includes a commitment to give seven days notice does NOT, of itself, mean that they've given the seven days notice. It's simply a 'this is what we'll do when the time arises' commitment. No rig is going to be erected before that notice has been given.
JA51 - Maybe, but I'm not sure how obvious it will be that the sound monitoring has been delivered and installed. For all we know it's already been done. Would even a drone be able to spot it? Others - Sorry, but I continue to take the position that if a poster on here posts what appears to be well founded info on here but that same info is misleading, cherry-picked or superseded, then it's better quickly and calmly to refute it rather than just post personal abuse without addressing the issues raised, no matter how annoying and frustrating it is. There may well be potential new investors scanning the board for info and reassurance prior to taking the plunge. If they're made twitchy by something posted with negative intent they're not going to be reassured when the only response is a flood of peeps telling the poster to begone?
Alan - I think we have to beg to differ on this. My very clear interpretation is that it was solely the SoW that was submitted on 16 Nov and validated on 22 Nov. Yes, the SoW includes the commitment to give seven days notice of movements etc but it isn't the same thing as ANGS actually giving the notice and starting the clock ticking. It's more a case of their saying 'This is what we agree to do as and when' and the council agreeing that is an acceptable plan. In other words they have not yet given the agreed notice. As I've been saying, as soon as they do there will be plenty of buzz in the public domain that the seven day clock is ticking. The reason I'm keen to point out the difference is that if we're asserting that the clock was actually started on 22 November then the naysayers will soon be out in force shouting 'Where's the kit then?' 'Another broken promise etc'. As I headed a previous thread: Let's keep our feet on the ground? But I don't want to fall out over this ...