I AM grateful to Mr Luker for highlighting the inconsistencies in UKOG’s public statements, that differ from documents in their application.

We highlighted the Wessex/Weald distinction three years ago, after an informative consultation with a leading geologist.

However, it is UKOG’s CEO, in video chat /investor presentations and community meetings, who has likened Arreton strata with that at Horse Hill (despite being a geologist himself), to sell the “effectiveness” of their operations eg “this type of strata permits oil to flow naturally to the surface with no form of additional stimulation, just like in the Weald.”

UKOG, in 2018/19, used Xodus’s “127 million barrels for Arreton Main”, in their company presentation, press releases and again during discussions at the IW community liaison meeting.

Three years ago, it was “219 million with 14.5 million recoverable” .

The reality is anyone’s guess.

UKOG’s prediction of 1,000 barrels per day at Horse Hill is consistent with that of 750-1,000 for Arreton.

We compare predictions with UKOG’s Weald performance, because this young company has no other oil production data as an operator to date.

I do stand corrected in my statement regarding acetic acid and should have clarified its use during drilling “operations” rather than the activity itself.

However, Mr Luker’s earlier claim that hydrochloric acid is not used and now, that “no toxic flows to the surface would occur” cannot stand.

UKOG’s application clearly states they will construct the well pad to include: “the principles for the containment of potential contaminants with a containment drain constructed along the bounds of the sealed well pad area to collect any spillage or surface run off (of pollutants) from the well pad area including “extracted hydrocarbons, produced water, liquid chemicals for use in exploration operations, (which) may include substances such as corrosion inhibitors, surfactant, hydrochloric acid, potassium chloride, ammonium chloride, ethylene glycol, monobutyle ether (EGMBE) and soda ash.

This requires all water contained in bunded areas to be removed from the site by tanker to an Environment Agency approved waste disposal facility.

But “no industrialisation” of course! The public consultation is open. Please object.