The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Renegade - If ANGS start work (or bringing the workover rig on site and erecting) before the letters go out and the advance notice signs are up then they're back in the proverbial with SCC again. I'm sure they've learnt their lesson from the last debacle. Based on personal experience the local authority are likely to be pretty much on the ball in executing their own inputs into this as far as mundane things like printing, mailing and affixing are concerned. ANGS cannot just march on in cavalier fashion and act as if regulatory requirements don't matter.
Chas- Their SoW has been accepted, but it includes giving seven days notice of rig movement to SCC and neighbours. No indication yet that any notice has been given. Once it has I'm sure someone will spread the news pronto as it won't then be very secret.
Baits - Ease off a tad? The last thing you can accuse JA 51 of is laziness. Misguided maybe but very diligent. You yourself should reread the very first para of the SCC consent - the one in block capitals. Sadly it is not a production consent. It's a consent to appraise using production equipment. Not quite the same thing?
Blake - Read what I wrote more carefully? I'm not remotely saying that SCC haven't given planning consent X for the testing/production - they have! But, as with most planning consents, there are conditions attached which ANGS must meet. Go to the original doc and familiarise yourself with them. One condition is that ANGS submit a scheme of work covering how they're going to handle the workover rig installation. They've done that and I suspect that the fact that SCC planning officers have validated the SoW means that there satisfied it covers all their requirements. But now ANGS have to implement the scheme - that includes giving seven days notice to affected people re movements etc and I'm simply saying we do not KNOW that they've done that yet.
If we do it will only lead to angst and ammo for the trolls. What the SCC doc says is that they have received the 'scheme of work' required in condition 8 of the planning consent and relating to the workover rig. ANGS are required, within that scheme of work, to detail the number of HGV movements involved, how they will monitor noise etc and to show 'how they will make provision' for notifying SCC and affected neighbours seven days before the workover rig movements take place. The fact that the scheme of work has been submitted and validated does not of itself mean that ANGS have yet given those necessary notifications, just that they've sent in a plan committing to what and how they're going to do it when the time comes. So please everyone, don't start saying in seven days' time: 'Where's the rig?' I'm sure Brockham watch will be told by an affected neighbour within minutes of their receiving notification.
Yanis - What are you on about? The linked Twitter page clearly shows the actual SCC document. Yes it was submitted on 16 November. The doc also says it was validated on 22 November. For anyone not familiar with the local government planning process ... When a doc is submitted (eg as part of a planning condition as in this case) the officers review it in order to ensure that it meets their requirements in terms of submission rules, content etc. If it does they 'validate' it and it becomes part of the documents portfolio for that consent. The validation date is the key date in terms of their response timing guidelines. So - the seven days notice started on 22 November .... And the date today is?
OK I can see where the confusion has arisen .... Para 4 of the SCC planning consent doc refers to seven days notice being required and formal agreement received from the authority before commencement of the appraisal. Para 8 says no workover rig shall be brought into the site without prior approval of the detailed plan for movement etc and that plan shall also be submitted seven days in advance. However, all this will be handled by the officers under delegated powers so we won't necessarily know when or if such advance notice has been given. We will of course become aware as and when ANGS send notices to the immediate neighbours.
Alan - I've been very impressed by your objectivity and evenhandedness over the last couple of days in relation to the pre-operational conditions attached to the 'new' EA licence etc. I can see you're also trying to point out the 'warts and all' in that Parish Council note. But a slight inaccuracy has slipped in. You say that Angus must give seven days' notice of the rig arriving, but what those notes actually say is that seven days' notice must be given 'before the workover takes place'. If the PC are right (I'm going to check it) that means that the rig is OK to arrive on site without notice and be set up etc etc. They only need to give notice once the workover itself starts. That could be some time after the equipment arrives? Actually I'm a tad puzzled anyway - is this actually a 'workover' within the normally accepted definition? Off to check what their official obligations are re notice given - if I can find it - as what the Parish Clerk paraphrases shouldn't be taken as gospel!
Crocqman - Couldn't agree more. He's a 'clogger' not a blogger. I also had picked up on his hostage to fortune post about only posting facts with a wry smile but didn't have the time to seek out chapter and verse to contradict the claim. It really does have a negative impact on the value of the BB when one has to plough through a load of dross posting just in case one misses a genuine factual nugget which might impact on a purchase or disposal decision. Sorry - but I accept that this very post might be seen as contributing to the dross content. :-)
My guess is that this isn't 'people' - that is the drivers -being stupid so much as companies and organisations. The full news story states that many of these vehicles are fleet cars. I wonder .... Before ordaining that X's new company car must be a hybrid, did they check with him/her that they had the wherewithal to charge it - what if they live in an urban flat or other development with no covered parking. And, whereas I'm sure appropriate means we're in place for X to reclaim petrol expenses for legitimate business mileage, how do you control repaying a proportion of their domestic electricity bill to cover the hybrid charging. Maybe the drivers ain't so stupid after all?