G2. Local Greens

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
September 16, 2026

First Mining Claims Filed in Lands Cut from Bears Ears National Monument – 9.16.26 Within a day, industry clamoring to exploit landscape

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org
Keri Gilliland, The Wilderness Society, (KGilliland@tws.org)
Chaitna Sinha, Conservation Codirector and Staff Attorney, Grand Canyon Trust; (970) 399-9565 (csinha@grandcanyontrust.org)
Amy Dominguez, Sierra Club, amy.dominguez@sierraclub.org, (385) 355-4631
Kris Deutschman, Conservation Lands Foundation, kris@conservationlands.org, (505) 498-0212
Andrew Scibetta, NRDC, (202) 289-2421, ascibetta@nrdc.org
Daniel Hernandez, National Parks Conservation Association, dhernandez@npca.org, (202) 573-2201

SAN JUAN COUNTY, UT – 16 new mining claims (see map) have been filed in previously protected land in Bears Ears National Monument. These lands became subject to mining claims on Friday, September 11 – 60 days after President Trump decimated Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by shrinking these national monuments by over 90%. All 16 claims were recorded on September 11 by noon; it took until Tuesday, September 15 for them to appear in the San Juan County Recorder’s Office’s online system.

The new mining claims (see map) are in two general areas: Lockhart Basin & near the Easy Peasy Mine (the mine has been re-buried). Three Claims were filed by George W. Schultz in the Lockhart Basin area. 13 claims were filed by Kimmerle Mining; two of these claims are adjustments to the Easy Peasy claims first filed after Trump’s 2017 reduction of Bears Ears and 11 are new claims nearby. Kyle Kimmerle (a Managing Member of Kimmerle Mining) was also a plaintiff in one of the cases filed challenging President Biden’s 2021 restoration of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. On July 14, 2026, Kimmerle Mining illegally attempted to file seven mining claims prior to the Sept. 11 deadline. Additional information appears below, along with quotes from Tribal leaders and conservation groups. 

“This rush to locate new mining claims in Bears Ears National Monument reinforces the need to be vigilant over the next several years while we work to undo Trump’s illegal actions and restore both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments.“said Hanna Larsen, Staff Attorney at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “As evidenced by the Easy Peasy Mine, claims like these often lead to real and long-lasting damage to the very qualities that make these monuments so special.”

“Immediately after the mining ban was lifted, 16 claims were filed on the lands removed from Bears Ears National Monument,” said Charlie Luke, Utah state director at The Wilderness Society. “This is not a hypothetical threat, it’s the reality of what happens when national monument protections are gutted. We cannot allow special interests to turn a profit on Bears Ears at the expense of future generations.” 

“The speed with which the mining industry moved to stake claims following the dismantling of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments demonstrates the real-world consequences of stripping protections from some of America’s most important landscapes,” said Bobby McEnaney, Senior Lands Analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “This sequence of events underscores exactly why Bears Ears was originally established and why this landscape deserves lasting protection. These mining claims amount to a virtual giveaway of public lands.”

“The administration put some of America’s greatest heritage at risk when it opened up Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante for mining,” said Chaitna Sinha, Staff Attorney and Conservation Codirector for the Grand Canyon Trust. “The 16 new mining claims in Bears Ears follow a poll in which the vast majority of Utahns said protections should be restored to all of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, including 52% of Republicans. 82% of those polled said that Native American tribes should have a strong role in managing lands they hold sacred. It’s a shame our elected officials aren’t listening to the people who elected them. Most Utah voters want these monuments restored to their original boundaries and want tribes to be partners in their management.” 

“Within days of the illegal reduction of these treasured public lands, industry interests are already lining up to exploit them,” said Franque Bains, Chapter Director of the Sierra Club in Utah. “This rush makes clear the consequences of the Trump administration illegally stripping protections from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante: Irreplaceable cultural landscapes and public lands are being put at risk for corporate profit. We will continue working alongside Tribal nations, local communities, and our partners to defend these landscapes and restore the protections they deserve.” 

“Sixteen new mining claims within days of the deadline is proof that this was never about public access — it’s about clearing the way for extraction,” said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “BLM Director Pearce and Governor Cox like to talk about keeping lands open for the public, but when mining companies raced to stake claims on sacred and treasured landscapes, they gave them the green light. This tells you who they’re really working for. A recent Grand Canyon Trust poll found that 52% of Utah Republicans want protections restored to all of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, and 82% say tribes should have a strong role in managing the lands they hold sacred. Utahns have made themselves clear — it’s their leaders who refuse to listen. We’re going to keep fighting, in court and in communities, until these monuments and the integrity of the entire public lands system are restored.”

“The arguments about access in Bears Ears were clearly about energy extraction, and mining companies have wasted no time staking new claims,” said Sara Cawley, Energy Director at the National Parks Conservation Association. “Three of the claims are located in the Lockhart Basin, a spectacular landscape that contains numerous cultural and archaeological sites and sits next to Canyonlands National Park’s eastern boundary. National park units and their surrounding landscapes are no place for energy development, but outdated laws elevate mining above all other uses on these lands. We will continue to fight to prevent these special places, surrounding communities, and sovereign tribes from being undermined and exploited.”

Background Information on other Mining claims: 

Under President Trump’s proclamations decimating Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by over 90%, mining claims could not be staked until 60 days after the date of the proclamation: Friday, Sept. 11, 2026. Despite this, on July 14, 2026, Kimmerle Mining filed 7 mining claims (see map) with the San Juan County (Utah) Recorder’s Office. Kimmerle Mining previously filed mining claims after Trump’s 2017 reduction of Bears Ears and excavated a partially reclaimed mine shaft on one of the claims – the so-called Easy Peasy claim (this mine has been re-buried); Kyle Kimmerle (a Managing Member of Kimmerle Mining) was also a plaintiff in one of the cases filed in the District of Utah challenging President Biden’s 2021 restoration of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.  

Two mining claims were also filed in Grand Staircase-Escalante, less than one month after Trump’s attack. On August 6, 2026, Craig Rosequist filed two mining claims (see map) with the Kane County (Utah) Recorder’s Office in areas cut out of the monument by the Trump proclamations. According to public records, Rosequist previously located several mining claims in neighboring Washington County, Utah. The Bureau of Land Management should reject claims filed in both national monuments prior to Sept. 11. 

• Map of 2026 claims in Bear Ears, showing the 2021 and 2026 Monument Boundaries and noting the location of the Easy Peasy Mine, created by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA)
• Map of 2026 Claims in Grand Staircase-Escalante, created by SUWA
• Photo and video assets of Kimmerle’s Easy Peasy Mine and surrounding claims, please credit Tim Peterson. 
  • Gallery & Gdrive 
  • Video b-roll

Background information about the national monument reductions:

• Statements from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal coalitions
• SUWA Statement on Trump’s Illegal Reductions of Grand Staircase-Escalante & Bears Ears National Monuments
• Full Statement and Quotes Tracking
• Maps of the reductions
• Reporter Background Memo on National Monuments

###
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org.

The post First Mining Claims Filed in Lands Cut from Bears Ears National Monument – 9.16.26 appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Gas drilling and lower-volume fracking near the North York Moors National Park should not go-ahead because of flaws in the official environmental assessment, a consultation has revealed.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

The Environment Agency (EA) has said it is minded to grant an environmental permit to Europa Oil & Gas for the proposal at Burniston, near Scarborough.

But participants in a final public consultation urged the EA to withdraw its draft decision. They said the EA should refuse or defer the permit until issues had been fully addressed through “robust, site-specific and independently verifiable evidence”.

The EA’s draft decision document, published on 3 August 2026, has been criticised for containing incorrect, inconsistent, incomplete and missing information, a DrillOrDrop analysis has found.

There are also concerns that it relies excessively on information that would be supplied after approval and that permit conditions were being proposed to overcome a lack of information about environmental risk.

“Questions unanswered”

Burniston Parish Council has asked the EA to reconsider a dozen issues and urged it to organise a village public meeting to listen to local concerns, before making a final decision.

The council’s chair, Richard Parsons, said in a consultation response:

“Burniston Parish Council do not consider that the current draft decision provides sufficient reassurance that the proposed activities can be carried out without unacceptable risks to groundwater, the wider water environment, air quality, local communities and the sensitive environment surrounding the site”.

Cllr Parsons added:

“Many of the questions still have not been answered, leaving too many doubts and a lack of any factual evidence that proves the environmental safety of this community.”

He said:

“The draft decision has not yet demonstrated that this high threshold has been met. Crucial information, that should clarify many of the questions that have remained unanswered by the applicant, remains unavailable, despite this project having already been in the public domain for well over two years.”

The EA has a responsibility “to be satisfied that the proposed activities can be carried out without causing an unacceptable risk to people or the environment”, Cllr Parsons said.

He said:

“If the Environment Agency cannot presently determine, from the available evidence, whether groundwater, air quality and other environmental receptors will be adequately protected, then the legal and technical basis for granting the permit should be reconsidered”.

Planning permission for the Burniston proposal was refused by North Yorkshire Council earlier this year. Europa has said it is considering an appeal. The environmental permit is separate from the planning process.

Incorrect and unclear information

Europa intends to use a lower-volume form of fracking to release gas at Burniston from the primary target, the Carboniferous sandstones. The company has said it plans four fracking treatments, each pumping 300m3-500m3 of fluid into the reservoir at pressures high enough to fracture rocks.

The EA described this operation as a proppant squeeze or reservoir stimulation and referred in the draft decision to “squeezing a small volume of oil-based fluid” into the formation (p4, Reservoir Stimulation).

We asked the EA for confirmation that oil-based fluid would be used in the proppant squeeze and what the regulator meant by “small”.

The EA told us

“The reference to the use of an oil-based fluid is a typographical error.

“No oil-based muds or fluids are proposed to be used at Burniston (Cloughton-2), and this will be corrected in the final version of the decision document.

“As no oil-based fluid is proposed, questions relating to the proportion of oil-based fluid injected are not applicable. The correction does not alter the assessment of the proposed operation.”

We asked for clarification about whether the final document would refer to a “small volume” of any fluid used in the proppant squeeze. If that wasn’t the case, we asked again how the EA defined “small”.

The EA replied:

“We can confirm that the final decision document will not refer to a “small volume” of any fluid used in the proppant squeeze. The reference to oil-based fluid was included in error and will be removed from the final decision document.”

At the time of writing, the EA has not corrected the references in the draft decision document, which remains open for consultation until 23 September 2026.

The draft permit also referred incorrectly to plans to “stimulate oil production”. The Burniston proposal is for gas appraisal, not production.

No 3D seismic survey

The EA acknowledged in its draft decision document that Europa had not yet carried out a 3D seismic survey around the proposed wellsite.

It commented that this was “unusual”. But it said 2D surveys covering the site and 3D surveys to the south and west provided “sufficient information to enable a decision to be reached”.

This has concerned some consultation participants.

Burniston Parish Council said:

“the lack of any such data means that no one knows, with any certainty the construction of the land below us and the effect hydraulic fracturing will have. Europa Oil and Gas Ltd have not provided the data and appear to expect the Environment Agency to make crucial decisions on the environmental impact of the process without providing the evidence.

“As there is no current seismological data in this application, the effect cannot be predicted. No-one knows if the land at the site and surrounding it, subject to the environment licence application, is suitable nor what harm may be caused.”

One consultation participant said:

“Because the applicant has failed to provide a robust seismic risk assessment that rules out threats to nearby residential structures, it is unsafe to grant this permit.”

One participant said:

“I ask the EA to explain how it has established that the geological structure is sufficiently understood to permit a high-pressure proppant squeeze.”

The EA has said no proppant squeeze would be authorized in the secondary targets, the Kirkham Abbey and Brotherton Limestone, because insufficient information had been provided by Europa.

But one participant asked:

“If the geological information was insufficient to permit stimulation of the secondary formations, I ask the EA to explain why it considers the geological and geo-mechanical information sufficient to establish safe fracture containment within the primary Carboniferous sandstone targets.”

Europa told DrillOrDrop it was waiting to see whether it got planning permission through an appeal before arranging the 3D seismic survey. The company also confirmed that no investor was in place to pay for the 3D survey. Europa announced nearly a year ago it was seeking investment of about £800,000 to fund the 3D survey.

The company also said the EA had set a pre-operational measure in the permit (8) which requires the verification of local fractures and faults through the drilling process.

Another consultation participant recommended the EA delay the permit decision until a hydraulic fracture plan (HFP) was published for Burniston. This is required before any form of fracking is carried out onshore and aims to predict and mitigate any induced seismic activity.

The participant told the EA:

“I urge you to insist on seeing the Hydraulic Fracture Plan before making a final decision on this application and to carefully examine the fundamental information it contains to determine its environmental acceptability.”

Chris Garforth, chair of the Frack Free Coastal Communities steering group, said:

“We are concerned that the EA is prepared to issue the Environmental Permit without having seen evidence of faults / geological structures around the well bore and fracking sites. It seems crazy to us that the EA can tell them it’s fine to go ahead and drill, then collect the data from the drilling which will show whether or not it is safe to frack.

“Reading the decision document and the draft permit, it is clear that the EA is prepared to issue the permit and for Europa to carry out the first phase of the development (drill the well) before Europa draw up a plan for monitoring seismicity, or provide an updated Gas Waste Management Plan (Schedule S1.3B in the draft permit) – both of which are major concerns for the local community and on which they sought assurances in the EA’s consultation last year on the Environmental Permit application.

“The EA even admit that the absence of 3D data is ‘unusual’ but that has not stopped them from saying it’s safe to go ahead and drill.

“The timescales indicated in the Schedule also suggest that there could be several months delay between (a) drilling and (b) fracking and testing, giving the lie to the bland schedule of phases set out in the planning application.”

See more details on the HFP at the end of this article.

Behind closed doors

Professor Garforth said his group was also concerned about lack of transparency on the seismic survey:

“By the time Europa do carry out the seismic survey, the data/data analysis will not be in the public domain nor subject to public scrutiny.

“They will only do the survey if they get planning permission (i.e. after a successful appeal), by which time the EA is already likely to have granted them an Environmental Permit.

“The NSTA, which will consider the Hydraulic Fracture Plan, does its work behind closed doors without the public consultation and scrutiny required of planning authorities and the EA.”

Burniston Parish Council has also raised concerns about openness.

It said:

“The reasoning, evidence and uncertainties must be transparent.”

It said the EA should:

• Make evidence supporting the draft decision publicly available
• Clearly identify significant assumptions
• Explicitly acknowledge uncertainties
• Publish responses to substantive objections
• Make monitoring data accessible to the public
• Consult the public on any future variation of the permit

Several substantial responses to the public consultation are not accessible to the public because they were sent as attachments and not published online.

Uncertainty

One consultant participant said:

“[the] Draft decision seems premature as underlying uncertainties have yet to be resolved”.

Burniston Parish Council said the permit should “not depend excessively on information to be supplied after approval” (see also 3D seismic survey and HFP).

The council asked the EA to identify every matter that remains to be addressed after the permit is granted and explain why that information was not required before the draft decision was made.

It said the EA should not rely on modelling, predictions and monitoring by or interpreted by the operator. The council called for the publication of independent verification and results.

The council said:

“The site is located in a sensitive coastal area, close to residential communities and important environmental and landscape assets. In such circumstances, uncertainty should not be treated as evidence that no risk exists.

“Where there are credible uncertainties concerning groundwater, geological pathways, well integrity, emissions, waste management and the consequences of the proposed stimulation operation, the Environment Agency should apply a genuinely precautionary approach.”

Another consultation participant raised Europa’s estimate that 50%-70% of fracture fluid would remain in the rock formation. The participant asked:

“how has the EA demonstrated that retained fluid cannot migrate through natural fractures, previously unidentified faults or artificially created fractures into other formations or groundwater-bearing strata?”

Inconsistency

One consultation participant complained about inconsistent figures for the height of the permitted fractures.

In the draft decision document, the EA said the fractures would range from 65m-80m vertically.

But elsewhere in the document, the EA said the proppant squeeze was designed to extend 85m above and below perforations in the wellbore.

Specific concerns

Burniston Partish Council identified other concerns including:

Groundwater pollution risk: The EA must explain clearly how it had resolved its earlier objection because of an unacceptable risk of groundwater pollution. It must also demonstrate how it was satisfied that the well would provide adequate protection through the operational life and after abandonment.

Uncertainty over fracking: The EA should demonstrate that it had adequately assessed the likely extent and orientation of induced fractures and issues including the possibility of induced seismicity and fractures interacted with natural faults.

Lack of baseline data: Before any work began, the EA should ensure that robust, independent and publicly-available baseline monitoring was undertaken on surface and groundwater, methane, air quality, naturally-occurring geological contaminates.

Methane emissions: The EA should not assume emissions will be negligible because the operation is described as temporary.

Flaring waste gas: Flaring proposals during testing and production failed “to meet strict modern interpretations of minimising environmental waste”. The parish council said:

“The public should be able to see the evidence on which the Environment Agency has concluded that the proposed controls are sufficient.”

Waste management: The council said no waste management plan should rely on assumptions that have not been adequately tested against actual geological and operation conditions at the site.

Groundwater monitoring arrangements: The council said these had been insufficient defined so “the public is being consulted on a permit without being able to assess whether the monitoring system will be capable of detecting pollution promptly.”

More on HFP and 3D licence commitments

Europa told DrillOrDrop that local faults and fractures would be confirmed through the HFP to “verify that there are no material changes to the conceptual model before any proppant squeeze operations are authorised”.

The company added:

“A 3D seismic survey is required under the Hydraulic Fracture Plan and will be carried out before any proppant squeeze operation is conducted, ahead of that operation and assuming planning and other permissions are granted.”

DrillOrDrop has established that an HFP does not require a 3D seismic survey. The EA told us:

“There is no formal requirement in legislation or guidance for a 3D seismic survey to accompany a Hydraulic Fracture Plan.

“A 3D seismic survey is typically used to characterise geological structures at depth and can form part of the wider evidence base used to support the assessment of the subsurface. “However, while the Hydraulic Fracture Plan requires sufficient information to demonstrate the geological setting, faulting, and fracture behaviour at depth, it does not prescribe how this information must be obtained. As such, the use of a 3D seismic survey may support the Plan, but it is not a specific statutory or regulatory requirement.”

The Burniston 3D survey is a work commitment in Europa’s licence agreement for PEDL343 with the NSTA.

The NSTA told us operators could choose when to carry out licence commitments. It also said:

“It is important to note that commitments can be varied depending on the circumstances of the individual licence/field.”

In 2018, a legal challenge on licence commitments ruled that PEDLs were private contractual licence and that clauses or conditions could be changed if the parties agreed. In the Burniston case, the condition of a 3D survey could be removed if Europa and the NSTA agreed.

The U.S. Forest Service is rewriting its longstanding Travel Management Rule, which determines where off-road vehicles (ORVs) can travel across national forests and grasslands. This is the tool that land managers use to designate areas and trails for motorized use while also setting aside areas for human-powered recreation, wildlife habitat, and preservation of cultural sites.

The Trump administration wants to change—for the worse—how Utahns and other visitors experience national forests throughout the state, from the Wasatch Front to the redrock country outside of Escalante, Kanab, and Moab. The proposal places a heavy thumb on the scale to prioritize ORV use at the expense of all other uses and values, including the protection of wildlife, cultural sites, healthy streams, and the solitude of wild places. This will not improve access to public lands, but it will make the experience worse for all users, including hikers, bikers, hunters, anglers, and ORV riders.

The Forest Service is accepting public comments through Wednesday, September 23. Please tell the agency to protect national forests by keeping the Travel Management Rule intact!

Elk Ridge, Manti-La Sal National Forest. © Scott T. Smith

 Among other things, the Forest Service’s proposal would:

• Allow motorized vehicles everywhere on national forests and grasslands except where they are specifically prohibited, flipping longstanding policy.
  
  
• Force every forest or district to reconsider each year whether non-motorized trails, roads, and areas should be open to motorized vehicles.
  
  
• Create new pathways to expand ORV use with less public review.
  
  
• Eliminate the “minimization criteria,” which require the agency to locate motorized areas and trails to minimize damage to wildlife habitat, soils, watersheds, and vegetation and to minimize conflicts between different users.

In Utah, national forest lands help connect Bureau of Land Management landscapes proposed for wilderness designation in America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. These include the important watersheds of the Manti-La Sal, Dixie, and Fishlake National Forests.

There are already hundreds of thousands of miles of Forest Service roads nationwide, and they’re facing a $9 billion maintenance backlog. Added to that is a $300 million Forest Service trail maintenance backlog and a $29 million recreation backlog. An expanded route system will only exacerbate these problems.

Both the proposed Travel Management Rule change and the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule (see our alert from earlier this week) are part of the administration’s systematic dismantling of the rules and safeguards that keep national forests healthy and safe for the benefit of all. Undoing these rules will bring increased chaos and uncertainty for everyone who uses national forests.

Click here to submit your comments by September 23

The post Tell the Forest Service to Keep the Travel Management Rule appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

by Roger Coryell
September 7, 2026
The Mendocino Voice

[Excerpt:] Dutch Charlie Creek drops over moss-covered rock west of Laytonville, Calif., on Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021. The state has spent more than $1 million since 2012 pulling legacy roads out of the watershed to keep fine sediment off the gravel where coho spawn. (Philip McGarvey/Friends of Dutch Charlie Creek via Bay City News)

MENDOCINO CO., 9/7/26 — Logging on 926 acres in the hills west of Laytonville is stopped under two court orders at once.

…

The fight is over two timber harvest plans the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection approved on July 2 and 3. The agency’s notices list Redwood Timber Company LLC as landowner and Redwood Forest Operating Company LLC as the plan submitter. The larger plan, called Hot Tuna, covers 594 acres. The smaller one, Lincoln Logs, covers 332. Both call for selection logging rather than clearcutting. Court papers also call Hot Tuna by a second name, Lincoln Ridge. 

Friends of Dutch Charlie Creek, which litigates as Friends of Shaahnaa Lhook, sued Cal Fire on July 7, four days after it says the logging began. Its claim under the California Environmental Quality Act is that the plans never assess the sediment they will send into the creek, one of two reliable coho spawning streams left in the upper South Fork Eel, the group says. Coho on the Eel side of the county are listed as threatened under both the state and federal endangered species acts. 

. . .

Dutch Charlie Creek is the same water the state has spent more than a decade and a million dollars trying to repair.

. . .

The group’s press release says the timber harvesting plans include three miles of new road construction, including on steep slopes and near the creek. Its website says “millions” in state money went into road removal in the watershed. The grant record shows at least $1.03 million from the fisheries program. Other state funding sources were not checked. 

Roads shed fine sediment into streams, and fine sediment buries the gravel coho spawn in. The appellate court’s own briefing order in July asked the parties to address whether it is undisputed that logging would add sediment to what the court called an already impacted stream system. Cal Fire’s response to public comment says the Hot Tuna plan itself recognizes that the waters downstream are listed as impaired for sediment and temperature. 

. . .

To read the complete article, visit The Mendocino Voice:
Judge halts logging above Dutch Charlie Creek with most of it already done

The Burnham government has confirmed it will not ban lower-volume fracking.

Energy minister Martin McCluskey. Photo: Parliament TV

In one of the new administration’s first public statement on the subject, junior energy minister Martin McCluskey said there was a distinction between the promised ban on fracking for shale gas and low volume hydraulic fracturing techniques which would still be allowed.

The minister was closing a backbench parliamentary debate, which called for a total ban on fracking.

He said of lower-volume techniques, such as proppant squeeze:

“This is not the same as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction. This is not associated with the same safety issues.”

Like fracking in shale, operations like proppant squeeze also inject fluid at pressures high enough to fracture rocks to increase the flow of gas.

But they are not prevented by the current moratorium on fracking in England because the volume of fluid they inject is below the legal threshold (more than 1,000m3 for a single fracture stage or 10,000m3 for an entire operation). Opponents have described the threshold as a legal loophole that is being exploited by oil and gas companies.

Operators are currently seeking to carry out lower-volume fracking at three sites in England: Burniston in North Yorkshire, West Newton-A in East Yorkshire and Wressle in North Lincolnshire.

Mr McCluskey told MPs:

“There is no clear evidence that [lower-volume fracking] induces seismicity that is felt on the surface.”

He added:

“Low volume hydraulic fracturing operations are routinely used on conventional oil and gas operations. They target different types of rocks, create fractures close to the wellbore and are typically short single stage operations, as opposed to the continuous fracture characteristic of shale gas fracking.”

The minister said the Energy Independence Bill would meet the government’s commitment not to issue new exploration and production licences, both on and offshore, including those that could be used to frack for shale gas. He said:

“That will deliver on our commitment in law to ban fracking.

He added:

“There is no loophole and no hidden route by which shale gas fracking can resume.

“The effective moratorium remains in place and the government will not issue new onshore licences in England, including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That is a reassurance, that communities across the country are entitled to hear.”

Opposition

The Lib Dem Claire Young, who opened the debate, urged the minister to commit to defining fracking by its purpose and its effects, not by what she described as “an arbitrary measure of fluid used”.

She said:

“Proppant squeeze is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volume.

“The intent is identical, fracking. The technique is identical. A company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside, but because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through.”

She also called for a ban on all forms of fracking.

“This government has been in power for two years and yet I see no indication that a full ban is due.

“It seems that this government is not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity.”

Alison Hume, the Labour MP for Scarborough, whose constituency includes Burniston, said:

“There is strong evidence to suggest that small-scale fracking carries the same risks as large scale operations, particularly around seismicity.”

She said:

“Unless the government acts boldly and closes the loophole communities across the country, such as those in West Newton and Burniston, will have fracking operations on their doorstep.

“These communities love where they live. Don’t they count? It doesn’t matter to them, whether it’s a mini frack or the full-scale version.

“The net result is the same: drill pads, drill heads, gas flare and noise, 24/7 lights during the exploration stage and continuous HGV lorry movements.”

She added:

“Unless we legislate to ban all forms of fracking in our upcoming Energy Independence Bill, then our fracking ban will be symbolic rather than material.

“We have a unique opportunity to show climate leadership. We have an opportunity as a government to stand up to the frackers, to make our legislation watertight to safeguard the natural environment.”

Other arguments

Reform’s Richard Tice said it was “dogmatic and stubborn” to ignore what he called the “most valuable economic treasure of shale gas”. He said companies had already invested more than £200m in the potential for UK onshore shale gas. This proved, he said, that they believed the reserves were “very considerable”.

But the Lib Dem’s energy spokesperson, Richard Foord, said:

“There is a real danger that investments in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake as the fuels, the facilities and the resources become stranded assets.”

Labour’s Phil Brickell said:

“Fracking became a symbol of a political establishment refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved.”

Overview

Job Location: Solano County/Greater Bay Area
Projected Position Start Date: December 1, 2026
Job Classification: Salaried, Exempt
Salary Range: $70,000 – $90,000/yr
Reporting To: Senior Director of Planning and Research

APPLY HERE About this Opportunity:

Greenbelt Alliance is looking for a Climate Resilience Campaign Manager who will be the primary field representative for our Solano County work, supporting local efforts to shape a future for the county that includes vibrant, affordable cities, a thriving agricultural community, and protected ecosystems. This role includes managing the Solano Together coalition, identifying and supporting new and ongoing Solano projects focused on climate resilience and adaptation, and fostering partnerships across the county.

This is a special opportunity to be at the helm of a high-profile campaign and coalition that has continued to grow, evolve, and is eager to engage in shaping their community’s future. It is a great fit for someone energized by connecting and coalition building and passionate about political advocacy and community organizing, who enjoys springing to action when needed.

This role requires frequent interfacing with the press and public officials, as well as periodic attendance at evening and weekend in-person meetings or events. Greenbelt Alliance’s offices are in Oakland, CA. Greenbelt Alliance has a hybrid work schedule which is based on the location of primary work responsibilities.

What You’ll Be Working On

Responsibilities include, but are not limited to

• Manage day-to-day operations of the Solano Together Coalition, including workplan implementation, budget oversight, and planning and facilitating regular Coalition meetings, driving strategic action and follow-through.
• Partner with the Greenbelt Alliance marketing and communications team to produce compelling social media, web, email, and print content for Coalition audiences.
• Build and sustain relationships with local elected officials, agency staff, and community stakeholders.
• Serve as a public-facing spokesperson, engaging press and community groups on the Coalition’s positions and priorities as well as representing the organization and the Solano Together Coalition at public meetings and other events.
• Support volunteer trainings, canvassing, tabling, and outreach events.
• Advance the Solano Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Project through public engagement and event support.
• Cultivate new and existing partnerships to expand climate resilience work across the county.
• Supervise and mentor at least one part-time Resilience Fellow.

Desired Skills and Qualifications

Required:

• 5+ years of experience in community organizing, coalition building, campaign management, or government/legislative affairs
• Demonstrated success building and maintaining relationships with elected officials, agency staff, and community stakeholders
• Experience managing multi-partner projects with competing deadlines, including budget oversight
• Strong public speaking and writing skills, with comfort serving as a spokesperson to press and public audiences
• Ability to regularly and reliably attend in-person meetings and events across Solano County
• Availability for evening and weekend meetings and events, as needed
• Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with a diverse team
• Bachelor’s degree or equivalent professional experience

Preferred:

• • Experience with land use, housing, or environmental policy advocacy
  • Familiarity with Solano County’s political landscape, local government structures, and/or the California Forever development
  • Experience supervising staff, fellows, or volunteers
  • Spanish or other bilingual skills
  • Background in sea level rise, climate adaptation, or resilience planning

How to Apply

Applications for this position will be considered on a rolling basis; however, priority consideration will be given to applications submitted by October 12, 2026. Please allow several weeks for a response as we are reviewing applications. Be sure to attach both a cover letter and professional resume as PDF documents to your application. Apply Today.

About Greenbelt Alliance:

Greenbelt Alliance’s mission is to educate, advocate, and collaborate to ensure the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate. We work at the intersection of climate resilience, land-use planning, and equity to protect natural and working lands while advocating for climate-smart housing and community resilience.
We focus on data-driven and innovative policy solutions, foster much-needed regional collaboration to plan and invest in resilient communities, and leverage our expertise to realize a climate-resilient Bay Area.

Work Authorization:

At this time, Greenbelt Alliance is unable to offer assistance to noncitizens or nonresidents in obtaining employer-sponsored work visas. All employees must have authorization from the federal government to work lawfully in the United States of America. Authorization would include US citizenship, US permanent residency (“green card”), or any other type of unexpired work authorization visa issued by the federal government.

Equal Employment Statement:

Greenbelt Alliance is an equal opportunity employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other category. We strongly encourage people of color, LGBTQIA+ persons, people of different levels of physical ability, people with diverse national and class origins, and all qualified persons to apply for this position.

Greenbelt Alliance encourages candidates of all abilities to apply to this position! In the case you may require any kind of special accommodation in order to complete the application or hiring process, please contact Sadie Wilson via email.

Photo: Rain garden installation in Suisun City.

The post Climate Resilience Campaign Manager appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

The Lock the Gate Alliance says new laws introduced to Queensland Parliament today could undermine Queenslanders’ rights to scrutinise and object to mining projects that threaten their water, farmland and climate.

September has arrived at a full sprint. Are you able to choose a few ways to take action this month? Maybe send an email, write a comment, invite a friend, show up in person, or all of the above! Here are some ways to get involved:

Sept 8 – It was powerful to see so many of us join together in Salem for the Data Center Moratorium Lobby Day & Rally! Over 170 of you showed up! Together, we’re making it clear that bold action against data centers is a political necessity – Governor Kotek even (finally) escalated her position on this at the rally yesterday by saying she supports a moratorium. Did you know that 75% of Americans oppose data center development? It’s time for the Oregon legislature to listen up!

Photo Credit: Eli Imadali, OPB 

Sept 12 – 13: Forest over Profits AND 350PDX Art Build

We are hosting a 2-day forest defense conference this weekend, including an Art Build Sunday (9/13) afternoon from 1–4 PM.  

Join forest defense advocates from across the PNW to build community, power, and momentum against the exploitation of forests and public lands for extractive logging, data center development, and mining. This event precedes the World Forestry Center’s annual forest commodity conference. We know that investing in the care of living forest ecosystems is an actual climate solution. So, join us! See website for details. Lunch will be provided. Space is limited, RSVP today!

Sept 13: Sunday Parkways in Downtown  

Join us downtown at Sunday Parkways from 11 AM – 4 PM. It’s the last Sunday Parkways of the summer and a fun event to get to talk to lots of Portlanders. 350PDX’s booth is in Pioneer Courthouse Square on the SW corner of 6th and Morrison – come find us!

Sept 13: Chasing Chimeras Film Screening

The Tomorrow Theater (3530 SE Division St.) is screening local filmmaker Barbara Bernstein’s film Chasing Chimeras: The Lure of Deceptive Climate Solutions. Learn why “renewable” fuels are not the answer. A panel discussion will follow the film. Get your tickets here. 7 PM.

Sept 16: No Secret Deals for Data Centers Resolution  

Final vote on this resolution will happen at Council, with another opportunity for public testimony. Submit written comments here, and come and help fill the room to show your support for this resolution from 6–9 PM.

Sept 17: CEI Hub Work Session

This is a long-awaited moment in our year-long policy process on this issue, where members of our coalition will be presenting to City Council about how to make the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub safer. Submit written comments now (we have talking points here) and come show up in red at City Hall to show your support. 2 – 5 PM

Sept 19: Peak bird migration begins

Learn about healthy nighttime urban ecosystems from our friends at the Bird Alliance of Oregon.

Sept 21: Comment deadline – Stop Repeal of the Roadless Rule.

One of the most successful forest safeguards of all time needs our voices! Comment through OregonWild.  Learn more at MoreThanJustParks. Since 2001, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 2 million acres of Oregon’s forests and 45 million acres nationwide from destructive logging and development.

Sept 22: No Immunity for Big Oil Resolution

The City Life Committee of Portland City Council will hear a resolution saying we don’t want to let big oil companies off the hook for the damage they have caused to our climate and public health! Send a message to city council in support.

Sept 30: Rumble on the River: Protecting Our Region From Its Most Perilous Threats

Come and learn more about the CEI Hub, data centers, nuclear power, and the proposed refinery at Port Westward’s Columbia River Estuary. St. Luke Lutheran Church (4595 SW California St.) Doors & Info Tables 5:30 PM, Panel 6:30 PM.

All of September is STEPtember!

 It’s like Pedalpalooza for walking! Oregon Walks dedicates the month of September to promote walking as a fun, healthy, ubiquitous activity. Grab a friend, pick some events to attend, and let’s get to walking!

Voter Guide and Scorecard:

350PDX’s 2026 Voter Guide and Scorecard is now available online and as a downloadable PDF! 32 candidates from Portland City Council Districts 3 and 4, the Portland City Auditor, and candidates for Multnomah County Chair and District 2 submitted statements.

Candidate Forums:

Save the dates for our big Climate Justice Candidate Forums this October:

• District 4: Monday, October 5, 6 PM at First Unitarian
• District 3: Thursday, October 8, 6 PMat The Porch

Multnomah County has a new Climate Justice Plan!

August 27 the Board of Commissioners adopted the strategy to guide long-term community and local government action. Thanks to everyone who supported this epic project!

Forest Defense Team

Priority Tree Planting Areas Announced
If you have friends in the following low-canopy neighborhoods, let them know it’s time to sign up for PCEF-funded street trees: Argay, Centennial, Creston-Kenilworth, Cully, East Columbia, Foster Powell, Glenfair, Hayden Island, Hazelwood, Lents, Mill Park, Montavilla, Mt. Scott-Arleta, Parkrose, Parkrose Heights, Powellhurst-Gilbert, Russell, South Tabor, Sumner, Sunderland, and Wilkes.

Model public land tree opportunity map released: Thrive East PDX used a PCEF mini-grant to hire a GIS student to create a StoryMap prioritizing 10 publicly-owned parcels ready for immediate street tree planting to shade popular pedestrian routes. Check it out!

The 350PDX Forest Defense Team meets every first and third Monday of the month. Join us.

Energy Justice Team

Next in person meeting, Sept 22nd, 6 – 8 PM at the 350PDX office. Get plugged in with the 350PDX campaign team that works on everything from fighting data centers, Zenith, and the CEI Hub to advocating for PCEF and transportation justice! RSVP to dineen@350pdx.org and cherice@350pdx.org.

Art Team  Last month the Arts Team led an enthusiastic workshop at Oregon Wild’s Rabble Rouser on the powerful political activism of art and puppets. Our next Art Build is Sunday, September 13, 1-4, at N 3639 Mississippi. We plan on beginning a few more puppets and going back to our roots making posters for demonstrations. Can you help us? It’s vital, fun, and sociable. RSVP to info@350PDX.org.  Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30PM. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual.

Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes.

Join us on Wednesday, October 7 at 6:30PM for our next nonfiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Soil: The Story of a Black Mother’s Gardenby Camile D. Dungy, in which the poet and scholar recounts her seven-year odyssey to diversify her garden to reflect her heritage, expanding how we talk about the natural world and the environment.  RSVP at books@350PDX.org.

Save the date for our other upcoming discussions:

Wednesday, November 4 at 6:30PM (Google Meet) — Book to be selected in October

Milwaukie Advocates for Climate Justice

Do you live in Milwaukie and want to take action for climate justice with your neighbors? The Milwaukie Advocates for Climate is hosting their kick-off movie event on October 10th from 3:30-4:30, at the Ledding Library Community Room.

We will be watching the 350’s How to Reduce Fossil Fuels movie and having a facilitated conversation with the SW Neighborhood Team lead, Pat Kaczmarek.

Washington County Team

The 350PDX Washington County Team  always welcome newcomers to our events and to our (mostly) monthly online meetings (6:30 PM on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Southwest Team

The 350PDX Southwest Neighborhood Team includes neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Portland. We work together to raise awareness of the climate emergency. Our monthly meetings happen on the third Monday of the month. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Before closing our newsletter, a few reminders:

• Check out our Take Action page, which we update regularly. It includes actions that may not be in our newsletter.
• Join the 350PDX community Slack channel! This is a great way to stay connected on an ongoing basis. Contact to info@350pdx.org and we can add you.
•  350PDX is still searching for a wonderful, new home. Please reach out to info@350PDX.org if you have ideas for a space where we can have meetings, our arts team can create show-stopping puppets, and more!

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Jessica, Maeve, and Noelle

 

The post 2026 September Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

Following the Trump administration’s move to exempt oil projects from environmental review in the Western Arctic, Alaska Wilderness League Arctic Campaign Manager, Katie Umphlett, released the following statement: 

“The Trump administration has made it clear from day one that their priority is catering to industry and not the American public. With this latest move in the Western Arctic, they are essentially letting the oil industry write its own rules. At a time when oil companies and executives are already making record profits, the last thing we should be doing is bending the rules to make it easier to pad their bottom lines at the expense of our public lands, wildlife, and communities.” 

The fracking company Cuadrilla has secured the very time extension to restore its Lancashire shale gas site that councillors refused nine months ago.

Dismantled acoustic fencing at Preston New Road, August 2026. Photo: Maple Independent Media

Unknown to residents and campaigners, Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to return the Preston New Road site to farmland by six months to 30 June 2027.

In December 2025, this date has been unanimously refused by the council’s planning committee.

It has also emerged that Cuadrilla appealed over other dates enforcing the clean up of the site, near Blackpool.

The developments began three months ago, when Cuadrilla failed to meet an approved timetable for the Preston New Road restoration.

The county council took enforcement action. The enforcement notice required the site to be returned to farmland by January 2027.

But Cuadrilla worked behind the scenes with officials to get agreement on the very extension it had previously applied for and been refused.

The extension has taken residents and campaigners by surprise. The first some local people knew about it was a social media post by a councillor last week.

At the time of writing, there has been no media release from the county council.

Reaction

Nick Danby, of the campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“We have just learned that the timetable for the restoration of the Preston New Road fracking site has been extended – yet again. The site was to have been fully restored by next January but now it seems that we might not see this matter resolved until June.

“Cuadrilla have turned dragging their feet into an art form and they have received no sanction whatsoever. Frankly, they have run rings around the regulators and Lancashire County Council and we have absolutely no confidence that they will meet the new timetable nor that they have any intention of doing so. We will be keeping a close eye on developments, if there are any.

“The community has been completely failed. Just as we always predicted. This should have been properly resolved a long time ago and the fact that we are still waiting is completely unacceptable.”

Another opponent of Cuadrilla’s operation, Preston New Road Action Group, said:

“In June we were encouraged by the fact that Lancashire County Council (LCC) had finally taken action to enforce Cuadrilla’s blatant failure to restore the site at Preston New Road. We were looking forward to this blot on the landscape being removed by December 2026.

“It is now very disappointing to find out that, following an appeal by Cuadrilla, LCC have rolled over and given them until June 2027 to restore the site – exactly the extension Cuadrilla applied for in 2025 which was refused by the LCC Development Committee.

“This is another fine example of Cuadrilla playing the LCC planners and getting the upper hand. We can only hope that this really is the final deadline for Cuadrilla.”

DrillOrDrop has been trying to make sense of what happened over the restoration plans, enforcement action, Cuadrilla appeal and the agreement with officials.

Lancashire County Council told us repeatedly that there had been no extension of the final deadline. But this is contradicted by several documents.

Timeline 4 December 2025: Cuadrilla refused more time

Councillors voted by nine to nil, with no abstentions, to refuse Cuadrilla’s request for an extension until 30 June 2027 for the return of Preston New Road to farmland. At the time, officials said:

“The proposed extension of time for the retention of the site in its current form would result in unnecessary and unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area.” Details

Campaigners called for immediate restoration of the site. Details

3 June 2026: original enforcement notice served

Lancashire County Council served an enforcement notice on Cuadrilla over the restoration of Preston New Road. The notice was due to come into force on 8 July 2026 unless there was an appeal against it.

The enforcement notice set three deadlines for the work.

1. “All plant, buildings, security and acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings forming part of the drilling compound for hydrocarbons shall be removed from the land” This was to be by 8 November 2026, within four months from the date the notice became effective.
2. The upper layers of the subsoil material shall be subsoiled to a depth of 600mm using a heavy duty winged subsoiler prior to the replacement of topsoils to relieve compaction and remove materials injurious to plant life and ay rock, stone or other materials capable of preventing or impeding normal agricultural use or land drainage operations. This was to by 8 December 2026 – within five months
3. Following treatment of the subsoil the topsoil from the soil storage mounds on the Land shall be distributed evenly across the Land to a minimum depth of 150mm and shall then be ripped, cultivated and left in a state that will enable the Land to be brought to a standard fit for agricultural use. This was to be by 8 January 2026 – within six months.

1.0 Enforcement Notice LCC 3.06.26_Redacted(1)Download

8 June 2026: media announcement

Lancashire County Council issued a media release on the enforcement notice. Details

Councillor Joshua Roberts, cabinet member for Rural Affairs, Environment and Communities, said:

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

“Local residents have had to live with this site for longer than they should have, and it is right that we have now taken firm action to bring this to a conclusion.

“It is positive that work is beginning to remove infrastructure from the site, but it is essential that the full restoration is completed within the required timeframe.

“We will not hesitate to take further steps if necessary.”

The media statement repeated the three deadlines in the original enforcement notice.

24 June 2026: Cuadrilla asks for an extension

On 24 June 2026, Cuadrilla confirmed the final deadline of 8 January 2027 in the enforcement notice. But it asked Lancashire County Council to “exercise its discretion” under planning legislation to change the final date to 30 June 2027.

The company also confirmed that 30 June 2027 was the date it had asked for in its planning application, refused in December 2025.

Cuadrilla cited the following reasons for its requested delay:

• The restoration work was “extensive in scope and require careful sequencing”
• The work would be best carried out in April-September, not the winter
• The company could procure contractors on “appropriate terms and enable them to mobilise effectively”
• Working in the winter could cause further harm to the soil structure and agricultural quality of the land
• The company had not appealed against the refusal of planning permission

Cuadrilla proposed to remove the acoustic fencing by 30 September 2026. It also said it would remove concrete structures, drainage materials, the stone platform, fencing, bulk earthworks and the access track by May 2027, subject to weather conditions and availability of contractors.

The company added that it would complete the return of subsoil to a depth of 600mm by May or June 2027 and prepare the site for agricultural use by 30 June 2027.

Cuadrilla described this as a “pragmatic and cooperative approach”.

It would, the company said, “avoid poorer environmental/agricultural outcomes from winter works and allow the Land to be restored properly and in a manner consistent with the Council’s own planning policies and the objectives of the original planning permission”.

2.0 Cuadrilla Letter 2405261_RedactedDownload 30 June 2026: council extends one deadline

Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to 30 June 2027 for work on the subsoil, topsoil and preparation for farming. But it said plant, buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings must still be removed by 8 November 2026.

3.0 LCC Response on enforcement notice PNR 30.06.26_RedactedDownload 2 July 2026: Cuadrilla threatens appeal

Cuadrilla agreed to the extensions to 30 June 2027 for subsoil, topsoil and agricultural preparation. But it said the 8 November 2026 deadline for buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings was “not achievable once allowance is made for procurement, mobilisation and the practical sequencing of works”.

The company asked for an extension for all site work to 30 June 2027.

It added:

“Unless the Council is able to confirm that amendment, the Company intends to submit an appeal on 3rd July 2026 seeking variation of the compliance period for requirement (i) accordingly.”

4.0 Cuadrilla Letter 0207261_RedactedDownload 3 July 2026: Council replies

Lancashire County Council replied a day later.

It said it had “carefully considered” Cuadrilla’s request for an extension to 30 June 2027 for all works. But it said it could not agree to any further extension or the requested amendment.

It concluded:

“The Enforcement notice will take effect on 8th July 2026 unless an appeal is made against it beforehand”.

6 July 2026: appeal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate informed the council it had received an enforcement appeal from Cuadrilla.

Cuadrilla issued a statement of its appeal case against the council’s 8 November 2026 deadline to remove all plant, buildings, fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings.

It said the company

“considers that compliance should be structured around a single milestone for completion of restoration (30 June 2027), allowing works to be sequenced appropriately within that period. Interim requirements for removal of hard-standing risk forcing work to be undertaken in sub-optimal conditions, contrary to best practice.”

Cuadrilla said the “sequencing of individual work elements should be retained within the control of the restoration programme rather than prescribed through interim compliance milestones.”

Confirmation of the appeal meant the enforcement process was put on hold.

27 August 2026: Withdrawal of appeal

There is no published correspondence between Cuadrilla and Lancashire County Council until a letter dated 27 August 2026. On that date, Cuadrilla said it was withdrawing the appeal with immediate effect.

28 August 2026: Withdrawal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed the appeal had been withdrawn.

Why did the council agree to changes?

We asked the council about the reason for the changes to the enforcement notice.

A spokesperson said:

“To be clear, the deadline for the full restoration has not changed, it is still June 2027, as it always was. The only changes are that the acoustic fencing must now be removed by the end of September, and some earthworks can take place outside the winter period as long as everything is completed by June 2027.”

We have shown, confirmed by Cuadrilla and the first enforcement notice, that the final date for site restoration, was originally 8 January 2027.

The council spokesperson said:

“The reason these changes have been agreed is to avoid a situation where Cuadrilla’s appeal continued and all enforcement action is suspended while that appeal is considered.

“If that happened, the Council would be unable to force any restoration work during the appeal, which could potentially delay the restoration beyond June 2027. By agreeing these changes, the Council can continue to enforce the original June 2027 deadline and take further action if the restoration is not completed in full.”

The spokesperson confirmed that there had been no consultation or correspondence with residents.

We asked where we could see the enforcement notice. The spokesperson said:

“The letters have been sent to Cuadrilla and landowners”.

The correspondence is online and has been tracked down, using advanced searches, by a resident. The link is here: https://planningregister.lancashire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/LCC/2026/0025#

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla to comment on the extension. This article will be updated with any response.

Puget Sound Energy is fighting to increase your energy rates and invest in more fossil fuels. Megan Larkin Mon, 09/14/2026 - 12:44 pm

The Trump administration continues its attacks on public lands in its latest push to rescind the Roadless Rule, one of the country’s most important legal safeguards for undeveloped national forests. In August, the U.S. Forest Service moved to the next phase of its rulemaking process, releasing a dangerous proposal to put nearly 45 million acres of roadless public lands nationwide at greater risk of logging, roadbuilding, mining, and other industrial development.

In Utah, the Roadless Rule protects roughly 4 million acres of forest—from the Wasatch Front to the West Desert to southern Utah’s redrock forests—including wildlife habitat, quiet recreation, the headwaters for entire watersheds, and the large, unfragmented landscapes that make the West wild.

Please tell the Forest Service to protect our nation’s wild forests by keeping the Roadless Rule intact © Tim Peterson

Utah does not need more roads. National forests already contain hundreds of thousands of miles of roads nationwide, and there’s a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog for these existing roads. The Roadless Rule does not close these roads, prevent people from reaching trailheads, or end outdoor recreation. Roadless areas remain open for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and other recreation while striking a balance that protects the wildlife and cultural resources many visitors are there to experience and enjoy.

This proposal is really about opening public lands to more industrial development, extraction, and privatization. New roads make commercial logging, mining, drilling, and other damaging development easier while fragmenting habitat, eroding soils, degrading streams, spreading invasive species, and increasing human disturbance in places that have remained largely whole. Opening these areas to new roads doesn’t address wildfire safety and may even increase ignition risk. The Roadless Rule already permits fire suppression, fuels work, and emergency roads when necessary in wildland firefighting.

In Utah, roadless national forest lands help connect Bureau of Land Management landscapes proposed for protection in America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. Together, these public lands support wildlife migration and climate resilience across Utah’s mountains, plateaus, and redrock country. Fragmenting one part of that system severely weakens the whole.

The deadline for public comments on the Roadless Rule rescission is Tuesday, October 6. Click here to tell the Forest Service why roadless areas matter to you and to the redrock.

Thank you for standing up for Utah’s forests!

The post Speak Up for Wild Forests: Tell the Forest Service to Preserve the Roadless Rule appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Production at the UK’s newest onshore oil site has dropped 15%, accounts from one of the partners have revealed.

Wressle oil site. Photo: Egdon Resources

Interim six monthly figures from Europa Oil & Gas show gross production at Wressle in North Lincolnshire averaged 255 bopd [barrels of oil per day] in the six months to the end of June 2026. This compared with 300 bopd in the same period a year before.

The accounts said:

“Production at Wressle continued its natural decline during the period, consistent with the Ashover Grit reservoir’s maturity.”

Wressle began formal oil production in July 2022. It is currently the fifth biggest UK onshore oil producer.

But its total production so far in 2026 represented 2.2% of UK onshore oil. The largest producer remains Wytch Farm, in Dorset, which accounted for just under 80% of UK total onshore oil this year.

The Wressle site has three partners: the operator Egdon Resources (30%), Europa (30%) and Union Jack Oil (40%).

According to today’s accounts, Europa’s share of Wressle production was 77 bopd in the first half of 2026. This represented 85% of Europa’s total UK onshore oil production. The company said its onshore fields produced a total of 90 bopd in the first half of the year, compared with 113 bopd in the same period in 2025.

Europa’s non-executive chairman, Bo Kroll, said of the company’s UK onshore portfolio it “continues to generate cash while offering meaningful development optionality.”

Europa said the Wressle partners “continued to progress the development plan targeting the deeper, untested Penistone Flags reservoir, together with an associated gas monetisation solution and pipeline tie-in to the local gas network that would eliminate routine flaring.”

The company said an environmental statement, in support of a planning application to develop the Wressle Penistone Flags, “was in preparation during the period for submission to North Lincolnshire Council”.

Burniston/Cloughton

Europa is the operator and has a 40% stake in the onshore licence PEDL343, which includes the Cloughton gas field, near Scarborough in North Yorkshire.

Europa’s application to drill and frack a well in the village of Burniston was opposed by North Yorkshire Council’s planning committee on 24 Aptil 2026.

The company’s chief executive, William Holland, said today:

“We are now considering the best approach to progress the project, which may involve an appeal”.

The company has until 15 November 2026 in which to lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.

Mr Holland said Europa was still looking for a farm-in partner to fund the Burniston project. It said “the prospective introduction of the Oil & Gas Price Mechanism from 2030 expected to further enhance the asset’s attractiveness to partners”.

Other UK onshore sites

The accounts said a five-year extension to the DL003 licence at West Firsby, in Lincolnshire, secured in November 2025, “continued to provide operational continuity for the field”. The company said it was considering a workover of WF-7 well to improve productivity.

At Crosby Warren, also in Lincolnshire, Europa said a workover was underway on the CW-1 well to optimise production. The company expected the operation would be “concluded imminently”, after which the well would come back online.

Key figures

For the half-year to 30 June 2026 for all Europa operations

Revenue: £1.5 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: £1.5 million)

Gross profit: £0.3 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: £0.2 million)

Pre-tax loss: £0.8 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: pre-tax loss £0.9 million)

Net cash used in operating activities: £0.9 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: net cash generated £0.02 million)

Cash balance at 30 June 2026: £2.8 million (31 December 2025: £0.3 million)

Administrative expenses: £0.85 million (6 months to 30 June 2025 £0.71 million)

The NSW Department of Planning and Environment has approved a two-year extension to the Ulan coal mine near Mudgee, despite the project being previously invalidated in the NSW Land and Environment Court after the local climate change impacts were found to not be properly assessed. 

The North Coast Water Board has changed the date of the adoption hearing for the Gualala Roads Assessment Order. Previous announcements indicated that Order adoption would be proposed at the December 2026 meeting of the North Coast Water Board.

To provide North Coast Water Board ‌‌staff sufficient time to meaningfully consider the significant volume of public comments received from landowners and other interested parties, the adoption hearing is being moved to February 2027.

Additional information about the February 2027 proposed adoption hearing will be provided when available through this email subscription service, on the North Coast Water Board’s Board Meeting page (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
northcoast/board_info/board_meetings/2027/index.html), and on the Gualala Roads Program web page (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/
water_issues/programs/gualala_roads/).

New directors of Union Jack Oil have unanimously rejected the takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

Wressle well site in North Lincolnshire, where Union Jack has a majority stake.
Photo: Egdon Resources planning statement 2026

In a circular to investors, released on 11 September 2026, the board also recommended Union Jack shareholders reject the offer.

The board, appointed after a requisitioned general meeting last month, said it had carried out a detailed review of Union Jack’s assets, liabilities and its strategic and financial positions.

It said:

“The New Board strongly and unanimously believes that the Offer is opportunistic and significantly undervalues Union Jack’s current project portfolio and the Company as a whole. Accordingly, the New Board unanimously and unequivocally rejects the Offer and recommends that Union Jack Shareholders should also reject the Offer.”

Reabold Resources announced the takeover offer for Union Jack on 15 June 2026. Reabold said it had reached agreement on the offer with the former Union Jack board in July.

The Union Jack circular said Reabold’s market share price had fallen about 27% since the start of the offer period, making the value of the offer now 3.2895 pence per Union Jack share.

It said the new board and another significant Union Jack shareholder, had undertaken not to accept the offer, including any “new, revised, improved or increased offer”

Other individual Union Jack shareholders had provided letters of intent not to accept the offer, the circular added.

It also said the parties refusing to accept the offer represented 23.02% of Union Jack’s existing issued ordinary share capital.

The takeover panel executive has reset day 60 , the latest day by which conditions must be satisfied or waived. This will now be 2 October 2026, the 21st day after publication of the circular. Day 46, the latest day on which Reabold may publish a revised offer, would also be reset to 18 September 2026.

On 3 September 2026, Reabold had secured support for its offer from 5.7% of Union Jack share capital.