Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[sincero1] 02/11/2021 09:54

ja51contractvoidoiler - you have been consistently discredited and proven to be wrong ... your posts are becoming more manic & extreme .... the worry and sleepless nights must be awful .....must be only a matter of time before your find yourself in a very serious situation ... good luck ...

[ja51oiler] 02/11/2021 09:40

A deep thinking answer to all those tricky questions to which you so desperately avoid responding.

What a "moron" you are.

Back of the class boy!..... filter for you again!

[sincero1] 02/11/2021 09:24

nurse more meds for ja51contractvoidoiler... i think he is having an episode...

[ja51oiler] 02/11/2021 09:09

LMFAO!! "They aim for a decision in Q4"? How would that ever be possible? Another consultation would take a month! Then they have up to 16 weeks to respond as we know for a decision.

The Brockam application is simple compared to Saltfeetby.
As I have just pointed out the plans have now massively changed at Saltfleetby site (according to the CPR graphic) and I'm sure the EA and council will be talking to each other on this. Don't hold your breath on the EA giving Saltfleetby the go-ahead any time soon. Just for context, the EA permission for the flare took a year to get!!

Q...Has there been any feedback from the EA regarding injecting produced water at Brockham? Asked on 27 October 2021

A...We have responded to all questions from the Agency. We are advised of the likelihood of further consultation once a preliminary decision has been arrived at but are still aiming for a final determination in Q4.

[ja51oiler] 02/11/2021 08:49

I unblocked the "Moron" as I expected such a response.

I have posted all the links to what they are allowed to actually do.

The conditions they must follow are a few posts up! If they have now decided to triple the size of the scheme and try to carry out joint operations they will need to talk to the council again. If the plans have changed they would need to apply for a fresh PP. (as the council would have to ask for)

They are flapping in the wind. Have a look at the attached picture of the proposed sidetrack operation in the same spot. There simply isn't enough room in the area to do both at the same time in any case!

[sincero1] 02/11/2021 07:44

ja51"contractvoid"oiler "No way in the world that the illustration in the CPR is going to be passed/allowed/signed off if that's the new design."...another claim as fact from this cretin posted on a public website...probably already on the companies radar after his other discredited claims...more brown trousers on order ....is it now just a matter of time until there is a knock at the door...

[chickbait] 01/11/2021 22:50

Wow. Its a much bigger project than I had envisaged. No wonder they needed to raise 12mm

[ja51oiler] 01/11/2021 22:15

If you go to page 33 this appears to be the new design as it is only a month old.

[ja51oiler] 01/11/2021 22:05

In accordance with Condition B.2(2) of Schedule 2, Part 17, Class B of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) this prior
approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions which the Mineral Planning
Authority is satisfied are expedient to impose so as to ensure the proposed development
would not injure the amenity of the neighbourhood or to avoid or reduce that injury. The
conditions are as follows:
1. The development shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with
recommendations set out in the following documents and plans:
Documents (all received 04 May 2020)
Planning Statement; Construction Noise Assessment; Operational Noise
Assessment; Transport Statement; Landscape and Visual Appraisal; Preliminary
Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Report; and Flood Risk Assessment.

Plans (all received 04 May 2020)

Drawing No. AE-SFB-004 – 'Construction Stage Plan';
Drawing No. AE-SFB-005 - 'Production Stage Plan'
Drawing No. AE-SFB-007 – 'Production Stage Elevations';
Drawing No. AE-SFB-008 – 'Generator Screening Landscape Plan'.

Reason: For avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the environment and the
amenity of surrounding land users is protected.

[chickbait] 01/11/2021 21:57

Just clicked on the links. Way to many forms to read but I trust your word.

[ja51oiler] 01/11/2021 21:55

Chick

They have approval for 8 structures. The CPR showed over 30!

This is a query from the local council!

"Given that the proposal seeks to install ‘processing facilities' in lieu of those
lost at Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal, it is queried whether the proposal
comfortably sits within what is allowed at the site and permitted at Part 17,
Class B. i.e. is the proposal ancillary development, as allowed, or processing
facilities which is beyond Class B"

[chickbait] 01/11/2021 21:41

JA51. If what you say is true then all of these new deadlines are pie in the sky?

Also I'm still baffled why there is no need for a well test on the new side-track???

[ja51oiler] 01/11/2021 21:34

I think the "Moron" should be worried about the Planning Permissions issued at Saltfleetby. I have gone back and had a look at the Planning permissions granted for both the Sidetrack and the Processing facilities.

They have both been granted with quite limiting criteria.

No way in the world that the illustration in the CPR is going to be passed/allowed/signed off if that's the new design.
This could be more than a little tricky as the permission was granted on a kind of technicality by the planning officer being it was a variation Aecom found to the existing permission. This was questioned by the local council at the time. The trouble now is It's absolutely nothing like that that they have been given permission for. It's almost 3 times the scale. If they need to Re-Apply it will become clear that what they are proposing is in fact a completely different operation.

How they are talking about the first gas in Feb is just fantasy! Looking at the pictures on the Angus Twitter feed and that of the new design in last Weeks CPR there are now over 30/35 bits of equipment that have around 2/3 KM of NEW pipework to install onto, and then onto the existing equipment.

The CPR gives a Sidetrack start date hoped for of Jan the 5th. The permission has been approved on there being a laydown area for the equipment only that is where all this new kit is now designed to go so that voids that permission!

Even if they could carry the works out simultaneously there simply isn't enough room to do both even if they are allowed to.

Finally, with all that expertise they have, you really would have thought they would know a fundamental question like can they produce and drill at the same time.
As has been said earlier ...that would be a no then!!

[1347] 01/11/2021 19:30

JT - On the loan, well we'll see in good time. On the other point, I agree but troll is not the word I'd use, scum would be more like it.

[sincero1] 01/11/2021 17:53

jtisadlypvtfrazer "1347: and if you’re right.." Pahahahaha...and this imbecile believes it....pahahahaha...another load of negative supposition to end the day...so disingenuous...

[jtidsbadly] 01/11/2021 17:26

1347: and if you’re right and it’s May, they won’t have enough cash flow to service the loan on time. We don’t know how the Lenders will feel about that.

[1347] 01/11/2021 17:09

JT Oh yes for sure the HSE will decide what can (and in some cases must) and what can't be done, that's why Lucan was blathering on about HAZOPS etc. I've always felt myself that any SIMOPS would be limited in scope and I doubt it would include the actual drilling part, especially a re-perforation. Still we await the detailed plans on that score, so lets see shall we. Anything that speeds it up is fine by me as it shortens the time to the spring tide.

They said they would be mobilising the rig in October and I posted a bit back that I thought they'd missed the window of opportunity to drill the sidetrack before first gas in February (which will be May in my view). So essentially they've painted themselves into a corner, either push back first gas or have a pause later for the drill.

I note that in Kansas they think it's all hunky dory as even without the sidetrack they reckon they can get 5 MMSCFD as a worst case. Personally I don't buy that at all, other than for a short period after PBU, it goes against the production profile and decline rates thus far. So again let's see shall we, if the 5 or 10 MMSCFD narrative helps a larger spring tide then it's fine by me.

[jtidsbadly] 01/11/2021 16:51

1347: I suppose the HSE may have a say in that. And how will they feel about Anguish’s decision not to conduct a well test? Does one sense a whiff of further delays?

[1347] 01/11/2021 11:01

So that's a no then...