Industry

UKOG statement: Markwells Wood abandoned and nine new wells planned by 2020

1810 Horse Hill UKOG2

Horse Hill oil site near Gatwick Airport, October 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

UKOG has confirmed it has abandoned its Markwells Wood site in the South Downs National Park. It has also given details of plans to drill nine new wells in southern England in the next two years.

The statement to investors yesterday was the first formal information from the company that it had pulled out of Markwells Wood, on the West Sussex-Hampshire border.

DrillOrDrop reported in November 2018 that abandonment work was underway at the site. This followed the loss of access rights and objections from the Environment Agency and Portsmouth Water to production plans, both in 2017.

Markwells Wood 7 Ann Stewart

Markwells Wood before abandonment. Photo: Ann Stewart

UKOG said following a strategic review it had decided to make no further investment in Markwells Wood. It said:

“The project’s technical and regulatory risks are considered to far outweigh the modest success case potential, particularly when compared with the robust metrics of UKOG’s other Kimmeridge and Portland projects. Consequently, the Markwells Wood-1 well has been plugged and abandoned.”

The site is in PEDL126, which is wholly owned by UKOG.

Drilling and production plans

UKOG also said it had finalised plans to drill up to nine production, appraisal and exploration wells in 2019-2020 in Surrey, the Isle of Wight and West Sussex.

Stephen Sanderson, UKOG’s chief executive, said:

“If successful, this comprehensive plan aims to add significant value to the Company and shareholders via transforming UKOG from an exploration and appraisal company into a fully-fledged producing oil company by the end of 2019.”

Horse Hill, PEDL137

The company said it would move the Horse Hill site, in Surrey (PEDL137) to permanent production by the end of 2019.

DrillOrDrop has already reported that UKOG plans to drill another six wells at the site, where flow testing is currently underway on the single well.

The UKOG statement said the company would drill two new horizontal production wells – HH-1z and HH-2 – in spring 2019. Planning permission and environmental permits are in place for this work.

The HH-2 well, expected first, would target the Portland, UKOG said. HH-1z, a horizontal sidetrack of the existing HH-1 well, would target the Kimmeridge limestone. UKOG said these wells each had targets of 720-1,080 barrels of oil per day (bopd).

1810 Horse Hill UKOG1

Horse Hill oil site near Gatwick Airport, October 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

In December 2018, the company submitted a planning application for another four oil wells, a water reinjection well and long-term production to Surrey County Council. A public consultation on the plans continues until 18 February 2019. UKOG said it expected permissions to be in place by autumn 2019 and drilling to start in early 2020.

These wells would boost gross production to over 2,000 bopd, UKOG said, putting the company in the UK’s top three onshore oil producers. It predicted that Horse Hill would become the largest single oil producing field in the Weald Basin.

UKOG is the largest single investor in Horse Hill, operated by Horse Hill Developments Ltd

Arreton, PEDL331

UKOG said it expected to submit application in the first quarter of 2019 to Isle of Wight Council to drill, core and test a pilot hole and horizontal wellbore. This would be in what the company called the Arreton Main Oil discovery. The statement did not identify the site.

Shortly afterwards, UKOG said, it planned to submit a further application to drill, core and test a well in Arreton South. Again, no site was identified in the statement.

Drilling the Arreton Main well was expected in the winter of 2019, UKOG said.

UKOG has a 95% interest in PED331 after buying Solo Oil’s 30% stake, completed on 22 January 2019. The deal was funded through the issue of 17,989,326 shares and cash payment of £90,450.

UKOG said PEDL331 had a net recoverable resource of 14.9m barrels of oil.

Godley Bridge and Broadford Bridge PEDL234

Broadford Bridge 170614 DrillOrDrop12small

Drilling rig at Broadford Bridge, 2017. Photo: DrillOrDrop

UKOG said it would submit an application to Surrey County Council in spring 2019 to drill, core and test the Godley Bridge Portland gas discovery and the underlying Kimmeridge. No site was identified for the well in the statement.

The company said following completion of this well, it planned to return to Broadford Bridge, near Billingshurst, in West Sussex, to drill a Kimmeridge sidetrack off the existing well.

Broadford Bridge has been suspended since March 2018 after UKOG announced observed oil flows were “sub-commercial”. West Sussex County Council extended planning permission for the site for 18 months in September 2018.

UKOG had previously announced plans for another wellsite in PEDL234. The statement confirmed the company would drill a Kimmeridge exploration well, at an unidentified site between Godley Bridge and Broadford Bridge. This was planned for late 2020, the company said.

UKOG owns 100% of PEDL234.

50 replies »

    • This should keep the observers, protectors and swampys busy. With Cuadrilla busy later in the year with higher TLS thresholds and INEOS drilling they will have a job keeping up.

    • Good work UKOG, that means that there will be less tankers coming here from the Gulf burning 300 tons of oil per day just to get here, not to mention dropping used plastic bottles overboard as they come. So UKOG is doing its bit for the environment. Well done !

  1. I note that UKOG preferred to tell investors that it ” Decided ” to pull out of MW when in fact they were stopped and the decision wasn’t there , bit like me having my driving licence taken away and then saying I decided not to drive , UKOG are another cant be trusted company who have changed their structure so as no part is responsible for anything if and when it goes wrong. I feel the IOW will be more than challenging for them knowing what I already know. The industrialisation that Sanderson talked about is starting and for the sake of what ? A few % of the UK oil consumption , it wont be so easy for them from now on.

    [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

          • Not to Fawley, Mike. Good attempt at deflection but we are talking about OIL, not gas, and we are talking about UKOG oil being moved into Fawley Refinery, replacing (potentially) what already ships into Fawley.

            PS I live near Fawley and also chat regularly with the pilot who brings the tankers into the Solent currently.

            • So the fact that only about 25% of the crude is delivered by tanker means the rest is delivered by pipeline. I wonder where it comes from? I don’t think 3500 bopd is going to give Fawley a headache.

            • Not to Fawley, Mike. No pipeline, all tanker. Sorry, but your comments are incorrect with regard to Fawley. You know, the same Fawley that used to receive a much larger chunk of its supply from on-shore UK (Wytch Farm), and now may start to see that recover.

              However, in respect of your comment regarding Norway as a source. Absolutely great-for them! Now over $1 TRILLION in their Sovereign Wealth Fund from investing the proceeds of gas and oil, enabling them to fund far more alternative energy development than the UK. Last time I was there they were debating a whole new high speed railway system, with money not an issue. Familiar with HS2?

              So, the antis can be pleased that the UK is actually helping the alternative energy market in other countries! Shame the money doing that is not available for the NHS in UK-but Norway has a pretty good health service! Overseas Aid to a pretty wealthy country. Hmmm.

            • Oh no they do not Mike.

              A pipeline runs from Wytch Farm to Hamble. That oil is then taken by small tanker around to Fawley refinery. Oil from UKOG is taken by road tanker to Hamble, and then also goes on to Fawley in the same way. Not sure UKOG will get a pipeline into Fawley, and I suspect if they did, it would still go to Hamble.

              Pipelines at Fawley are pipelines taking refined products to other destinations.

              Easy enough to research, Mike. Shame your visits to Fawley didn’t encourage you to actually find out what was about you.

              But, once again, so easy for some to disagree with something they have not even researched. A strange phenomenon.

            • MC
              There is a pipeline or two running under the Solent between Hamble and Fawley. If you use google maps you can even see some of them on the shoreline. Admiralty charts clearly mark the pipeline area between the two locations. You are getting really desperate now. Quite comical though.

              http://fishing-app.gpsnauticalcharts.com/i-boating-fishing-web-app/fishing-marine-charts-navigation.html?title=Southampton+Water+and+Approaches+boating+app#14.19/50.8498/-1.3324

              Purple lines mark the pipeline area and it has the no anchoring symbol right in the middle. You can’t miss it

  2. Oh, I think it will Jono. Once they are producing commercially, able to “reward” the communities around them (was it 6% of net income?), and protected from the unruly elements by injunctions, positively gushing.

    Notice Birmingham Airport also planning expansion. 4 now by my count, including Southampton, Gatwick and Heathrow-but I expect there are more. Looks as if Fawley Refinery could be busy. All that extra taxation for Number 11. Maybe it will be directed to the 28% who can’t afford to heat their homes adequately-well, the survivors.

    • Cant afford to heat their homes Martin is nothing to do with this , fuel prices wont be reduced and most oil will be sold to the highest bidder , next you will be saying that we should produce more food for those who cant afford to eat . Lets have more food banks eh ? #Torycuts

  3. When you pay some tax you may understand how that tax might be used by any Government, Jono.

    How much tax income do we waste by importing gas and oil that could be produced in the UK?

    Fuel PRICES are not the issue.

    We already do produce more food for those who can’t afford to eat. Known as school lunches. How are they funded? Oh, taxation. Perhaps we could do the same to address fuel poverty?

    Your other little diversion into economics is another bottom of the class output as well. How do exploration companies usually fund their exploration and expansion into production? Any investor unaware of that?

    It would be appropriate to define as scraping the barrel, but I think they are all being utilised for other things!

  4. The government are going to build mini nuclear power stations across the country – They’ll be putting their waste in these abandoned wells. It’s why Fracking companies couldn’t care less if they make a profit they’ll have the contracts to ‘Protect’ the wells for ever they’ll make a fortune and do very little

    • Liz – you have caught us all out. Well done! Despite the fact that UKOG are not a “fracking company”. But storing nuclear waste in purpose drilled wells does not require fracking – in fact fracking would prevent disposal.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/05/22/a-deep-hole-may-be-just-what-our-nuclear-waste-needs/#4ef458d564be

      You should also be concerned about Project Gasbuggy. Rumour in the industry is that a consortium of onshore oil and gas companies are considering a similar project at a location yet to be disclosed onshore UK:

      https://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/

      Enjoy!

    • Hi Liz, you are quite right to question the issue of course, you can always tell when you are close to the mark when the usual suspects start trying to act “clever”, it doesnt suit them very well does it?

      The killer is of course is the new Infrastructure Act, which allows any industry to put anything in the the ground without notifying the public that they have done so, nor what they put there, nor where it is, nor when they put it there. Perhaps only more cancer “hotspots” around such sites will reveal that.

      Then you tie that up with the 38 sites in UK that operated under the “old permissions, and that theoretically only changed on a rolling permission to the so called “new permissions” since July 2018 and runs for theoretically ten months of gradual increased conditions to bring them up to the new permission status, if they even can, or will comply that is?

      Those “old style permissions” did not, and presumably still doesnt, require any records to be kept of their activities, nor does it require any notifications of activities to the EA and OGA or anyone else in any way whatsoever. The real gold standards, were and are, gold standards in concealment and obfuscation.

      So what went on at those sites, no one knows and no one is telling and there are no records required to be kept to check up on even if the request for what happened there was to be made.

      Then we see the new combination of the EA and the OGA and the appointment of new spokespersons under Claire Perry and the totally non responsible Natasha Engel and three more were taken from the EA to do that. Following the secondment of EA personnel to deal with brexit, then the staff numbers at the EA, must be barely adequate enough to raise the “approved” rubber stamp from its gold standard altar, let alone carry out their monitoring and investigation and examination roles.

      However, just to emulate the “humour” of Paul Trestos little effort, here is Radioactive Man and the Fossil Fuel Four adventure, courtesy of “The Simpsons” all puns intended.

      Keep plugging away Liz, one way or another the truth will emerge…..probably with three glowing heads and drill bit tentacles?

          • Sourpuss! Ha! Ha!

            Still frustrated over the failure of fracking? That TLS will need a lot more brown envelope TLC before that gets more than a snigger about university funding and industry lobbying…..still hell to pay for yet…..but perhaps that was a presupposed given at the crossroads long ago? Robert Johnson eat your heart out?

            Glad you liked the video, sort of appropriate for the discussion, and far far better than your usual (still cant say it can you? Awww, sad?) Ian R Crane obsession which no one looks at either!

            Incidentally, don’t take up fly fishing. You will need a bigger boat! Maybe Prof Emeritus David Smythe will analyse the “TLS” proposals for you with a little TLC?

            Ooops!

            [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

      • Anyone claiming onshore boreholes are likely to be used for radioactive waste disposal cannot be taken seriously. I’ve done quite a lot of work on radioactive waste disposal and the idea is total nonsense. I actually do believe that shale is the best place to dispose of rad waste. However, these are in the highly ductile formations such as being investigated in Belgium, France and Switzerland. Key things that we look for are: (I) that the disposal site is not likely to be of economic interest in the future; (ii) that the waste could be retrievable in the future; (iii) that future generations would know its location etc etc. These boreholes fail all of these simple tests. It is also total rubbish to argue that the Infrastructure Act would allow the disposal of rad waste in these boreholes.

        • Total rubbish “Judith?” you clearly do not know what you are talking about, you dont understand the science and you know nothing of the dangers……just returning the usual “Judith?” darling compliments back to their origin……fun isnt it?

          “I’ve done quite a lot of work on radioactive waste disposal” Isnt it interesting that as soon as a subject comes up such as this, then one or other of the anti antis announces they have a personal attachment to the problem as if that is suddenly an “expert” opinion? We see that a lot here, but there is never any actual factual information other than unsubstantiated words? Funny that?

          You forgot Finland BTW, what else did you conveniently forget and for which you provide, as usual no substantiation whatsoever.

          This is the the documentary ” Into Infinity” about the Finnish attempts to permanently (for all bury high level nuclear waste and the problems that raises for future generations and that must last 100,000 years when any humans may not even have any understanding of the dangers presented by entering the facility.

          or if that doesn’t work, try

          “The nuclear energy production has accumulated over time about 250.000 tons of radioactive waste, whose action is as intangible as devastating. For now it was decided to isolate them in water tanks, a temporary storage which is only a short term palliative. Keeping the waste in surface means to expose them to the instability of a world that, as history told us, is subject to disasters, wars and incidents that could pour them into the atmosphere. Moreover this kind of storage requires constant monitoring by humans.

          Therefore the research for a permanent solution and the conception of Onkalo, a pioneering and visionary project involving a lot of experts and researchers, whose opinions were recorded by Michael Madsen, in order to underline benefits and controversies of the work. Onkalo will be completed in 2100, after that the tunnel will be sealed and hidden for eternity, without the need for surveillance. According to the director “The Onkalo project of creating the world’s first final nuclear waste facility capable of lasting at least 100.000 years, transgresses both in construction and on a philosophical level all previous human endeavors. It represents something new. And as such I suspect it to be emblematic of our time, and in a strange way out of time, a unique vantage point for any documentary”.

          Onkalo is designed to defend humanity from the product of its abuse, but also from the humanity of the future. The desecration of Onkalo would cause destructive effects, it’s therefore essential to consider any hypothesis to prevent mankind to violate its access in the next millennia. But it’s impossible to predict the kind of civilization that will live on the Earth from here to thousands of years, as well as the media and the tools in their possession.

          What then is the best option? To mark Onkalo with immediate alarm messages to discourage access or to deliver to oblivion the secret it keeps? The idea is to create a constantly updated information store about Onkalo. A way to pass down from generation to generation the reasons that led to its creation, but also the warning of “remember to forget” its existence.

          In this sense the incursions by the director are effective to create an almost mythological legend around Onkalo, also because of a judicious use of suggestive images and thoughtful silences that lead to reflection. Madsen speaks to a viewer of an indefinite future, to give him a kind of moral testament that, although in the form of an offer of help, sounds almost like the confession of a guilty and selfish civilization, disrespectful towards the common and vulnerable gift that is our planet.”

          This sets out the long term, very long term problems involved with high level nuclear waste disposal and storage, watch it, you might learn something, you can always go back to school if you dont understand the terms…..still returning the compliments……more fun!

          I am not going into the usual endless insulting prevarications with you or anyone else on this. I am however defending those who wish to ask the question the right to do so without being intimidated and shouted down by the usual insulting suspects, that is unacceptable that is unprofessional and that is frankly childish, and i will defend their right to say so.

          As far as i am concerned there are questions to be asked and the old style permissions and the new Infrastructure Act speak for themselves in spite of your unsubstantiated denial.

          What the actual position is regarding the disposal of high level nuclear waste, we will most certainly never be allowed to know, but that does not and will not stop anyone like Liz or anyone else, and she is not the only one who has raised the question, from asking the right questions and it does not excuse your typical unprofessional insulting response and never will, so that is totally rejected as unproven.

          That is all you get.

          End of discussion.

          [Comment updated with second link to video]

          • Phil C

            Liz did not raise a question, she made a statement that nuclear waste from forthcoming small nuclear power stations was to be disposed off in ‘ these abandoned wells’. Then that the fracking companies could not care less if they made a profit as they will have contracts to protect the wells.

            She made no reference to the use of galleries ( a mined solution ) as per the Finnish Project.

            https://www.wired.co.uk/article/olkiluoto-island-finland-nuclear-waste-onkalo

            Your links do not support anything said in her statement.

            To recap past links

            Here is the usual one re disposal in deep boreholes

            https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/nuclear-borehole-sheffield-university-1.456716

            And one highlighting the engineering challenges.

            http://www.mkg.se/uploads/DB/Deep_borehole_disposal_of_nuclear_waste-engineering_challenges_Beswick_Gibbs_Travis_Proceedings_of_the_Institution_of_Civil_Engineers_April_2014.pdf

            So ….Will waste from as yet to be built small power stations be disposed of in old onshore Weald oil wells ( these wells ) , in secret, other than a few thousand people involved in the process, and then a fracking company drafted in to look after those old wells forever on a security contract?

            My opinion is no.

          • Well Judith antis tend to throw philosophy and possibility as if it were fact, so if an Earth tremor was caused by fracking in the Ukraine, then all fracking everywhere in the world will cause earth tremors. So putting radioactive waste down a bore hole is small beer but I heard, by the way, the Government have said that too much building land in the UK is taken up by graveyards. They intend to use redundant oil fields to bury people vertically in the disused pipes. However, the antis have claimed that rotting corpses give off noxious gases as well as poisoning the water table. When asked however what a water table was, most claimed it is the table in a hotel where they put out the jugs of water in the dining area

            • Vernon – I’m well on my way to completing an academic paper on the views of the anti-fracking community. We’ve already done several surveys and have found that machine learning has a 90% success rate on predicting people’s attitudes to fracking can be predicted from very simple criteria such as their level of scientific education, their attitudes to GM foods, vaccination etc. The overall picture seems to be nutters who lack a scientific education don’t like fracking – not a big surprise but good to have evidence to back it up

            • Well “Judith?” and Vernon, while the anti anti PR hotdesker pro frackers throw nothing at all but empty rhetoric and even emptier claims, it seems all they can come up with to attempt to validate their empty words, is their pseudo colloquialisms “machine learning” and “nutter”.

              That is nothing but the now familiar and frankly abysmal sink plunger death ray diplomacy we have seen here before and which seeks to rewrite the facts in their own distorted image, or should that be “frackts”, since there is no scientific basis for these empty unsubstantiated terms we see here.

              What their attitude suggests is that there are very simple criteria that they are tied to and irrevocably crippled by. And that is ownership and subservience to the fossil fuel industry PR propaganda, as that is plainly all they are, and nothing more. In other words all you see here is bought and paid for strategy to attempt to sound superior and pseudo scientific, but in fact even that effort only proves to be more empty than before.

              For any scientific and academic education to be valid and not based upon pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo, as is demonstrated by “Judth?” darling here and cheered along by Vernon, the modus operandi itself must be in valid scientific language and free from empty rhetorical terms such as “machine learning” and “nutters”, those terms clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claims and would be thrown out with derisory laughter to the writer as they are not in the least scientific, technical, or even psychologically valid terminology, but merely pseudo slang that only a fraudster would employ and think that it gave them some fake appearance of any academic validity.

              It does no impress in the slightest.

              I have enough qualifications and experience to know what real scientific terminology and expertise requires, and it is not these semi literate and dismally over emotional popular colloquialism attempts at grandstanding and gaslighting, i use the word gaslighting advisedly and in its literal sense as much as its popular fake colloquialism sense.

              I am afraid that anyone who debases themselves into using such weak and deeply flawed terms simply knocks these empty claims into a cocked up hat, and only proves that those who attempt to hide behind the privilege of a good education still does not exclude them from being “machine learning” “nutters” to use their own flawed terminology, as is clearly demonstrated here.

              Why people really object to fracking and its associated avoidances of the word, is based upon the experience of others around the world and their health and living conditions and their climate and their ecology that are there for everyone to see. Personal experiences on film and in scientific (real scientific) papers and court cases to fight for the right to clean water and air and to not have their lives and their health destroyed by an uncaring industry.

              There is something interesting to say about the anti anti meme that people who object to fracking and its associated avoidances of the word, are somehow against fossil fuels as an energy source at all, that is not true, but the evidence of recent years does mean that we must change to renewable resources as soon as possible, and that is what the industry inertia is attempting to halt and reverse to maintain their profit monopolies.

              It is not the products that we object to, if they could be stretched out without further extraction and renewable resources gradually replace them, then that would be the best we can do.

              What we object to is the short termism expediency of the extraction methods that have proved time and time again, to be dangerous, poisonous and will leave a long term legacy of pollution and destuction that our children will have to inherit.

              There is another aspect to that as well, and that is the attempts by the extractor operators to overturn democracy and 800 years of history in order to force us to suffer their poisonous extraction methods, both in overturning planning refusals, the misuse of the police to protect private profit motivated industry against the wishes of the public, who pay their salaries, and our own governments efforts to roller coaster over everyones rights to stand up and object without being bullied and arrested for doing so.

              We have fought against warlike neighbours, slavery and exploitation womens rights to vote and the freedom of action and speech in this country, and now all of those hard fought for rights are being overturned and undermined by the fossil fuel activists.

              That is not acceptable, we would rather be able to deal with those invasions into our countryside and rights in the proper courts and on the streets as protest, but that is being denied to us, and so we must fight at every turn, ever imposition, every undemocratic action by these rich profit motivated invaders.

              So that is what we do, if you dont like it, then repeating the words of Vernon, then “Tough!”.

        • PhilC – but I didn’t forget Finland – I omitted them on purpose because they are concentrating their efforts a disposal in crystalline rocks with bentonite liners – a bit like the UK.

          Try and keep up

          • And that ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is why no one wants to discuss or debate anything with the Fossil Fuel Four Fools, everything descends into empty meaningless insult and meaningless rhetoric, as illustrated right here from the usual suspects, its like a desperate knee jerk reaction isn’t it?

            Not a single solitary sense of humour cell amongst any of them, though we do try boys and girls don’t we? We do try to raise the issues above the abysmal dull thud that rwsounds from the standard issue much much duller thud merchants that proliferate now so loudly on Drill or Drop.

            Everything is reduced to pathetic personal obsessions, bitterness and bile, personal attacks, and ego worship and self aggrandisement.

            Is humanity really reduced to this?

            Shame isn’t it?

            In the words of the recently departed Windsor Davies:

            Dear Dear

            How sad

            Never mind

            Its a pity that green grass doesn’t whisper anymore……nor will it do in the future if these people get the slightest say in our energy resources and management future, and that of our children and any future generations that manage to survive this immediate ecological and climate crisis that desperately requires, our full attention in these dangerous times.

            But some just resort to inconsequential point scoring and prevarication don’t they.

            Thank you David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg for saying the truth. Some of us are listening in spite of the noise of the empty fossil fuel vessels we see displayed here, and those of us who are willing to do something about it, not just preserve the jealously guarded inertia of the monopolistic fossil fuel status quo.

            OK break over, reports to finish, and have a good day to everyone who still values such things.

            • Phil C

              What did David Attenborough say about the disposal of nuclear waste in Weald oil wells and how fracking companies will be drafted in to look after those wells?

            • More attempts at spin and prevarication from the hewes muse i see? No change there then.

              Still “a-muse” views excuse hewes62?

              This is the last time for you too, time wasters all.

              It’s about stealing the future from our children and future generations as you very well know hewes62.

              But at the risk of triggering yet another endless empty tirade of endless musings, lets explain it to you in easy to understand steps and terminology shall we?

              The practice of dumping highly toxic waste of all types because we are too lazy and too irresponsible, too incompetent and too stupid and it is all too expensive to actually deal with our industrial pollution now today is the legacy of this crippled civilisation.

              There does that pin the tail on the nodding fossil fuel four fool donkey for you?

              It is the children of tomorrow and future generations who will have to deal with the insanity of this cowardly practice of offloading all our insane polluting practices onto future generations to have to deal with.

              That is what the Onkalo documentary was about, the fact that the legacy of our toxic insanity will last for a minimum of 100,000 years and those who do survive if any at all, will need to understand what we have done to them.

              And that is precisely what the fracking and its associated avoidance of the word practices are doing to future generations now and that is why the reference was made.

              Is that getting through those total black out industry standard issue blinkers yet?

              The future generations, should there be any, will look back on this time as an example of rampant irresponsible greed and exploitation of the planet, it shows grossly incompetent profiteering and ignorance because we haven’t got the guts to deal with the legacy of our own exploitative ransacking of the planet for short term gain and little else.

              That is why David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg are perfectly correct and this logic chopping avoidance of the question is just another example of why we have this poisonous legacy to pass on to our children.

              Clear now?

              It had better be, because that is all you get.

              On my way home now, so you lot will just have to wave fake point scoring flags to your imaginary friends all by yourselves as I am sure you will.

              Have A Nice Day

              • Phil C

                The issue raised was the placing of nuclear waste from small nuclear plants into oil wells in the Weald, and then getting fracking companies to act as security in perpetuity.

                You have provided a link to the issues of depositing nuclear waste in a mined repository.

                I think the former is a flight of fancy, but the latter is likely given that the waste exists now and repository design has been going on for decades.

                I do not think that working out what to,do with nuclear waste in a suitable fashion is stealing the future from my children. Ignoring it or some ineffectual hand wringing will not fix it.

            • Phil C

              Still avoiding the subject?

              Nuclear waste in Weald oil wells from small nuclear power stations, and fracking companies drafted in to look after the oil wells.

              And still not a relevant question in sight.

  5. Oh dear Liz!

    There are already plenty of holes under the UK. Just be careful when you add some salt to your chips, it could lead to more Cheshire salt taverns to be filled with nuclear waste. But, of course, there are miles and miles of old coal workings to fill up first.

  6. Well, this one has obviously been lost by the antis. “Expert” witness speculation shown to be incorrect, and what was not possible/probable etc. is now found to be reality.

    So, the standard “defence”.

    Phileas Fogg is excited to deflect from the reality of the situation. Bit like the club mascot of a footy team being pushed onto the ground after a darn good thrashing to jig around a bit and try and entertain the crowd, and by so doing, forget their team have just been given a darn good thrashing!

    Those with a few grey cells streaming for the exits! They know what has happened.

    • There’s no show without Paunch is there?

      Dear me, another waste of imaginary space, but that was to be expected wasn’t it boys and girls?

      BTW, let’s have a look at Martians latest little coughing wheeze before we go shall we?

      So, Jules Verne wrote Around The World In Eighty Days, set in 1870 or so, and he wrote of a chap he called Phileas Fogg, so we begin to see the draw of small minds to the, by now much overused “fog” reference don’t we boys and girls? I suppose that is what passes for wit amongst those who know no better, but you see the dismal attempt now don’t you?

      And then we get the even weaker attempt attempt at connecting Passe-partout to the reference, which is interesting actually, because Passe-partout actually means literally “go anywhere” which was why Jules Verne chose it, it also means “master key” or “skeleton key” and is therefore a compliment.

      But we know that the name calling isn’t at all well intended don’t we?

      Oh yes we do!

      So, let’s look at the fictitious character of Phileas Fogg shall we? In the story the character made a bet with his club that he could travel around the world in eighty days, quite an optimistic feat in those days, and made a £20,000 wager to do so, that is well over £2.0 million in todays devalued currency, which says a lot about how we have been scammed by the banister’s so often now, we don’t even notice how devalued we have become?

      In the fiction Philae’s, the real name, Phileas is a westernised scrambling of Philae’s, a Greek name, which I am quite happy with btw.

      Philae’s wins the bet because he forgets the time difference and marries his girlfriend, which is a good ending. So if any of this was supposed to be derog a tory, then it fails at every border, oh well, we can’t expect anything clever or witty can we?

      Phileas is persuade by a policeman who is fixated upon him and chases him around the word, that character was called “Fix” now that I think is who Martian is emulating here, an obsessive fixated pester persuer who loses everything in his attempts to bring down the hero of the story. So that will be interesting to remind Martian of won’t it boys and girls? Literary justice I think.

      So what has Martian intended with all this barely understood literary references? Something witty and clever to gain our applause?

      Errr, no, it is just a pathetic attempt to extend his “fog” fixation?

      And what does the “contributor” say about that foggy fixation? That it means “refuge”? Refuge? Martian fog isn’t a refuge, its water vapour condensing out of the air because of a change of temperature.

      What type of mindset considers fog to be a refuge? Concealment perhaps? Is that what this mindset considers is the purpose of fog?

      We find that a bit worrying don’t we boys and girls?

      Oh well, I enjoyed this little chat, the minibuses are back so I can go home.

      Have A Nice Day, to children everywhere……

      • Banisters?

        Ha! That should be Banksters of course! Don’t you just love spell checkers?

        Could that be changed please?

        Thanks!

        • Incidentally, Philae, means “the end” so literally speaking, Philae’s Fogg, means “The End of Fog” by which i take to mean the end of foggy and his “Fix”ated fog refuse concealment obsession.

          Fun, to find the reality behind the concealing refuge of the fog fixated isnt it?

  7. “If successful, this comprehensive plan aims to add significant value to the Company and shareholders via transforming UKOG from an exploration and appraisal company into a fully-fledged producing oil company by the end of 2019.”

    If I had a pound every time I heard such crap spouted from the industry heads. Shareholders get rinsed time and time again, caught up in the total bull crap only serving to keep the directors in the wealth to which they have become accustomed.

    • Sensible shareholders know the risks associated with investing in small oil and gas exploration companies. For this reason they tend to spread their risks between several companies. So, despite the fact that some do indeed go under, the sensible investor makes money because other companies are very successful.

      • No different to any AIM listed companies in any field. Renewables companies are just the same. Look at Swansea Lagoon and a multitude of solar / PV failures. All companies are trying to make money for shareholders; many fail. Risks in O & G exploration are known to be relatively high.

        • Paul – of course most investors don’t stick to one particular sector. So the narrative often put out by the antifrackers that investments in fracking reduce investments in renewables is no different to saying that investments in coffee reduce the investments in renewables.

          • Correct – I have investments in renewables and oil and gas, not sure about coffee but I will check. Diversification is the key to a successful investment portfolio.

Leave a Reply to Vernon Walker Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.