G2. Local Greens

By Jeanne Jackson, Treasurer

We Would Love to Have Your Support

For nearly 30 years FoGR has relied solely on the hard work of volunteers who donated their time for the day-to-day operation of our organization. As mentioned above, we’ve now hired a part-time staff person to carry out the work of the TMDL program, among other projects. That program exists thanks to your previous generous donations, which paid for our attorney costs to negotiate the settlement with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board as described in Dylan’s article above.

Now more than ever, we will need your help. The combined costs of our stormwater consultant together with the expenses of on-going water quality monitoring in the estuary and the gathering of stormwater samples for lab analysis shared with The Stream Team are significant. We are gathering scientific knowledge that can help us in the future to continue with our mission to ensure that the Gualala water quality is improved and protected. Your donations will help us carry on these ambitious programs. Thank you for your continued support!

To donate by credit card (or Paypal):

Donate by credit card

If you prefer to write a check, please send it to:

Friends of Gualala River, PO Box 1543, Gualala, CA 95445

We welcome volunteers as well. If you have a skill that you would like to share with us or if you are interested in participating in one of our programs, please contact us at info@gualalariver.org.

For more information about FoGR’s work, please visit our website at gualalariver.org.

A Landmark Step Toward Restoring Coastal Louisiana MAUREPAS, LA (Dec. 3, 2024) – Today, the state of Louisiana broke ground on the critical River Reintroduction into Maurepas Swamp project, which would reconnect one of the largest forested wetland complexes in the nation with the Mississippi River to aid in preventing further wetland loss and habitat degradation. The project will benefit more than 45,000 acres, providing a wetland buffer that can reduce storm surge for communities stretching from the Greater Baton ...

Read The Full Story

The post Groundbreaking Ceremony for River Reintroduction to Maurepas Swamp Project appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

ELPC will keep fighting for clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and to protect communities against toxic threats. To succeed, we'll need more talented, effective ELPC staff to work with our coalition partners and clients. And we will!

The post Putting ELPC’s Money Toward Our Post-Election Environmental Protection Commitment first appeared on Environmental Law & Policy Center.

Keep up to date with December 2024’s news with our digest of daily updated headlines about the business, regulation and campaigns around UK fracking, shale, and onshore oil and gas.

Christmas carols protest outside IGas’s shale gas site at Tinker Lane in Nottinghamshire in 2018. Photo: Ross Monaghan Friday 6 December 2024

Residents secure extended consultation and info event on West Newton oil and gas plans. DrillOrDrop reports that the Environment Agency has extended a public consultation on changes to the operation of an East Yorkshire oil and gas site after pressure from residents.

Thursday 5 December 2024

Northern Ireland to ban all onshore oil and gas operations. DrillOrDrop reports that the Northern Ireland Executive has agreed to ban exploration and production of all forms of onshore oil and gas.

Tuesday 3 December 2024

Wressle seeks environmental permit consents for gas refining and small-scale fracks. DrillOrDrop reports that the UK’s second largest onshore oil producers is seeking permission to refine gas and carry out small-scale fracking.

UK onshore oil and gas production in figures and charts – September 2024. DrillOrDrop reports that monthly UK onshore production fell in September 2024 on all measures, to the lowest level in the previous year, according to official data.

Monday 2 December 2024

Call for action on delay to restoration of mothballed oil site. DrillOrDrop reports that campaigners are urging a council to insist on the speedy restoration of a suspended oil site in West Sussex where decommissioning deadlines have been missed.

For headlines from previous months, click here. Please let us know if we’ve missed something important  contact@DrillOrDrop.com

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

The UK’s second largest onshore oil producer is seeking permission to refine gas and carry out small-scale fracking.

Site plan for changes to the Wressle oil site.
Source: Application for variation of environmental permit.

Operators of the Wressle site, near Scunthorpe, want to refine more than 1,000 tonnes of gas a year and improve the flow of oil with proppant squeeze operations.

Egdon Resources, now owned by the US company Heyco, also wants to drill two more wells on an extended pad and export refined gas by pipeline to the national network.

The company has applied to the Environment Agency to vary Wressle’s permit. A public consultation on the permit changes is now underway and closes on 30 December 2024.

The application, accompanied by nearly 70 documents, can be viewed online. Responses can be made online, by email (pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk) or by phone (03708 506 506).

The non-technical summary, which is part of the application, sets out the proposed activities at the Wressle site:

Gas refining: The permit variation, if approved, would allow Wressle to refine 1,000 tonnes or more of gas in a 12-month period. Currently, the gas is used to generate electricity for the site or is flared. Official data shows that Wressle has flared an average of 257 Ksm3 (thousand standard cubic meters) a month since production officially began in July 2022.  

Drilling and small-scale fracking: The plans include drilling two new boreholes, to be known as Wressle-2 and Wressle-3. The operator may also carry out proppant squeeze operations to increase production rates. This is the injection of fluid and proppant into the new boreholes and is regarded by the Environment Agency as small-scale hydraulic fracturing.

Extension: The site and containment ditches would be extended from the southern boundary

The new activities may need variations to the mining waste, water discharge and groundwater activity sections of the permit.

The Wressle site is the UK’s second largest onshore oil producer, after Wytch Farm, in Dorset. It produced an average of 2,589m3 a month since production began officially. Using data released this week, the site contributed 3.31% of UK onshore oil and 0.07% of total UK oil production.

The changes proposed for Wressle need planning permission, as well as variations to the environmental permit.

North Lincolnshire Council approved the site’s planning application in September 2024. But the permission was quashed in November 2024. This followed a Supreme Court judgement which decided that applications for hydrocarbon production must take into account climate emissions from the use of oil or gas. The Wressle decision was judged to be unlawful because it didn’t do this.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

Monthly UK onshore oil production fell in September 2024 on all measures to the lowest level in the previous year, according to official data.

Onshore gas production by volume and weight was down slightly in September compared with the previous month, though the daily rate was slightly higher.

The contribution of onshore production to the UK total also fell, for both oil and gas.

The volume of flared and vented gas from onshore oil fields was down slightly.

Key figures

Daily oil production:  11,193 barrels of oil per day (bopd) (August 2024 11,776 bopd, July 12,314 bopd)

Oil volume: 53,387m3 (August 2024 58,037m3, July 60,690m3)

Oil weight: 44,133 tonnes (August 2024 47,948 tonnes, July 2024: 50,148 tonnes)

Daily gas production: 8.67 thousand standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/d) (August 2024 8.59 mmscf/d, July 2024 7,22 mmscf/d)

Gas volume: 7,367 thousand standard cubic meters (Ksm3) (August 2024 7,540 Ksm3, July 2024 6,339 Ksm3)

Gas weight: 6,034 tonnes (August 2024 6,186 tonnes, July 2024 5,143 tonnes)

Onshore oil’s contribution to UK total production: 2.08% (August 2024 2.70%, July 2024 2.16%)

Onshore gas’s contribution to UK total production: 0.92% (August 2024 0.96%, July 2024 0.74%)

Volume of flared gas at UK onshore oilfields: 943 ksm3 (August 2024 975 ksm3, July 2024 1,035ksm3 )

Volume of vented gas at UK onshore oilfields: 98ksm3 (August 2024 100ksm3, July 2024 123ksm3)

Number of onshore fields which recorded some oil production in September 2024:  31 (August 2024 31, July 2024: 31)

Number of onshore sites which recorded some gas production in September 2024:  8 (August 2024 7, July 2024 8)

Number of onshore producing fields which recorded no oil production in September 2024: 12 (August 2024 12, July 2024 12)

Number of onshore producing fields which recorded no gas production in September 2024: 16 (August 2024 18, July 2024 16)

This article uses data compiled and published by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) from reports by oil and gas companies. This is published about three months in arrears. All the charts are based on the NSTA data. Occasionally, figures change retrospectively.

Details Daily production Volume and weight Contribution to total UK oil and gas production Flaring and venting Producing fields Oil

The September 2024 data confirms a 10% monthly fall in production at Wytch Farm, the UK’s largest onshore oil producer (see chart at the start of this article).

Production also fell at Wressle, by 6% in September 2024 compared with August 2024. Singleton, the third-ranked onshore oil site, saw production rise slightly (4%). The data also confirms that Horse Hill was continuing to produce oil, three months after its planning permission was quashed by the Supreme Court,

Gas

The UK’s biggest onshore producer saw its production fall nearly 3% in September compared with August 2024. Production resumed at Albury but not by enough to replace the lower volume at Saltfleetby.

Non-producing fields Oil

The September 2024 data shows there was no production at 12 UK onshore oil fields. This was the same number and fields as in August and July 2024.

The non-producing fields were:

• Angus Energy: Lidsey
• Britnrg Limited: Newton-on-Trent
• Heyco (formerly Egdon Resources): Dukes Wood, Fiskerton Airfield, Keddington, Kirklington, Waddock Cross
• Star Enery (formerly IGas): Avington, Egmanton, Nettleham, Scampton, South Leverton

Gas

There was no production reported at 17 UK onshore producing gas fields in September 2024. This is three fewer than in August 2024. Production resumed at Albury, Markham Main and Newmarket.

The full list of non-producing fields is:

• Cuadrilla: Elswick
• Heyco: Kirkleatham
• EP UK Investments: Humbly Grove Gas Storage
• Ineos: Airth, Doe Green
• Infinis Energy: coal mine vents at Askern, Bevercotes, Cadeby, Florence, Gedling, Kings Mill Hospital, Mansfield, Prince of Wales, Sherwood, Warsop and Whitwell
• Scottish Power: Hatfield

Operators Oil Gas 2022-2024 onshore oil data archive

August 2024

July 2024

June 2024

May 2024

April 2024

March 2024

February 2024

January 2024

December 2023

November 2023

October 2023

September 2023

August 2023

July 2023

June 2023

May 2023

April 2023

March 2023

February 2023

January 2023

2022 annual production

November 2022

October 2022

September 2022

August 2022 – see note about revised data

July 2022 – see note about revised data

June 2022

May 2022

April 2022

March 2022

February 2022

January 2022

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Date: 12/2/2024 
Contact: Anja Semanco | anja@alaskawild.org | 724-967-2777 

Alaska Wilderness League Applauds Leadership of Representative Raúl Grijalva 

Washington, D.C. – Alaska Wilderness League expresses its deep gratitude to Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) for his exceptional leadership as Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee. His decision this week to pass the torch marks the end of an era defined by unwavering dedication to environmental stewardship and justice. 

“As a steadfast champion of the Arctic Refuge, Grijalva has tirelessly supported legislation to permanently protect this iconic wilderness, stood shoulder to shoulder with the Gwich’in people in defending their ancestral lands, and helped stop all oil and gas leases on the Refuge’s Coastal Plain,” said Kristen Miller, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League. “Under his tenure, we have witnessed significant progress for disenfranchised communities and for wild Alaska. He has fought to stop oil and gas development across America’s Arctic—a testament to his unwavering commitment to protecting our planet for future generations.” 

Rep. Grijalva leaves an impressive legacy of protecting wild places that will inspire the next generation of leaders. We stand ready to work with incoming leadership to ensure that Alaska’s wild lands, wildlife, and communities remain at the forefront of federal protections. 

### 

The post Alaska Wilderness League Applauds Leadership of Representative Raúl Grijalva appeared first on Alaska Wilderness League.

Campaigners are urging a council to insist on the speedy restoration of a suspended oil site in West Sussex where decommissioning deadlines have been missed.

Broadford Bridge oil site in January 2024. Source: planning application

The Broadford Bridge site, near Billingshurst, has been dormant since 2018 and has had no planning permission for more than eight months.

The council said in March 2024 the wells should be plugged and abandoned, and the site restored, “as a matter of urgency”.

The operator, a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), initially estimated the whole project would be completed by November 2024.

But correspondence between council planners and UKOG shows that even decommissioning work on the wells had not begun by that date. The company also failed to meet targets for starting and finishing the site restoration phase of the work. The project’s finish date has now slipped to July 2025.

The correspondence reveals a possible shortage of companies with the skills and equipment to decommission onshore oil and wells in the UK. This could have implications for other UK onshore sites.

According to the correspondence, West Sussex County Council appears to have considered enforcement of planning conditions at Broadford Bridge at least twice.

But the council has apparently taken no formal action. It would not answer our detailed questions about what steps had been, or would be, taken to enforce restoration of the site.

The authority gave us a statement, first issued in September 2024, which confirmed that the restoration deadlines had now passed. The statement said:

“As a result, this is an enforcement matter.

“The County Council is in active dialogue with the operator about timeframes and progress towards restoration and, if necessary, will take more formal action.

“It is recognised that the operator will need reasonable time to secure the specialist equipment and staff (for which availability is limited) and secure further consents from other regulatory bodies, both of which are necessary to plug/abandon the well and return the site to agriculture.”

The correspondence was released in response to a freedom of information request by the Weald Action Group, which successfully opposed UKOG’s application to extend the Broadford Bridge planning permission in March 2024.

Ann Stewart, who made the request for the group, said:

“We at the Weald Action Group are disappointed, but not surprised that the initial date for restoration has shifted from November 2024 to July 2025. We hope this will be the last delay.

“At the planning application meeting in March we said that we believed that UKOG was wanting to extend their planning permission simply to avoid the costs of restoring the site. We are pleased to see that WSCC are pursuing the restoration of the site and hope they will continue to insist that the site be restored at the earliest opportunity.”

DrillOrDrop invited UKOG to comment but it did not reply.

Broadford Bridge is one of two UKOG sites in southern England where there is no current planning permission. The Supreme Court quashed permission at the Horse Hill site in Surrey 9n June 2024 after deciding that the consent had been granted unlawfully. Surrey County Council confirmed last week it had not taken formal enforcement  action or issued a stop notice for operations at Horse Hill.

Dates and delays March 2024 – refusal and urgency

On 19 March 2024, West Sussex councillors voted against UKOG’s fifth application to extend the planning consent at Broadford Bridge.

Three days later James Neave, a county council principal planner, wrote to UKOG’s planning consultant, Nigel Moore. Mr Neave asked for an urgent response about how the company intended to proceed.

Mr Moore replied in the following week, suggesting a phone conversation before Easter.

Mr Neave wrote back on 28 March 2024 saying the county council expected plugging and abandonment of the Broadford Bridge wells and site restoration to “progress as a matter of urgency”.

The email referred to formal enforcement action and set a deadline for a restoration timetable:

“Without prejudice, if the County Council is to consider withholding formal enforcement action/being open to considering any delay to completing restoration, by 15th April 2024 the applicant must provide a detailed proposed timetable for securing all necessary approvals, the plugging of the well, and restoration of the site.”

Mr Moore acknowledged the date and said “ball in our court”.

April 2024 – new dates

On 15 April 2024, Mr Moore wrote a letter to Mr Neave acknowledging “the expectation of urgency”. He said a rig to decommission the wells would be mobilised in early August 2024 and set the estimated date of 18 November 2024 for completion of plugging, abandonment and restoration of the Broadford Bridge site.

But Mr Moore warned:

“technical constraints that come with the acquisition of specialist equipment and staff (that cannot reasonably foreseen by UKOG) can disrupt or delay”.

Mr Neave replied on 18 April 2024 saying the council would “continue to consider its enforcement options to bring about the timely restoration of the site”. He said the council required “identified steps to be progressed as a matter of urgency”.

The following day, Mr Neave sent another email to Mr Moore, but all the content was redacted.

Mr Moore replied briefly on 24 April 2024 saying “UKOG should be with you shortly about the next steps”.

UKOG’s 15 April 2024 timeline for plugging and abandoning the Broadford Bridge wells and restoring the site. Source: correspondence between the company and the county council. May 2024 – “rig acquisition progressing”

On 1 May 2024, Mr Moore told Mr Neave that UKOG was “progressing” with rig acquisition and would provide an update later in the month. Details about aftercare of the site would be submitted “shortly”, Mr Moore said.

Nine days later, Mr Moore sent Mr Neave UKOG’s strategy for site restoration. This said well abandonment and decommissioning would begin on 5 August 2024 and restoration work would begin on 15 October 2024. Restoration work was still forecast to finish on 18 November 2024.

Mr Neave replied the same day saying UKOG was required to submit a separate aftercare scheme for approval by the council.

On 13 May 2024 Mr Moore wrote that a “key date” would be 5 July 2024 when UKOG hoped to confirm a rig had been secured and would be ready for mobilisation.

Mr Moore submitted the aftercare scheme on 21 May 2024.

June 2024 – aftercare problems

On 18 June 2024, Mr Neave said the aftercare scheme, dealing with management of trees, hedgerows and grassland, did not “have sufficient information to enable the condition to be discharged”. He asked Mr Moore to address six different sections of the scheme.

Mr Moore sent an amended aftercare scheme on 25 June 2024.

July 2024 – aftercare condition discharged

On 5 July 2024 Mr Neave said the council had approved the aftercare scheme and the planning condition had been discharged.

UKOG’s “key date” of 5 July 2024 for securing a rig passed with apparently no written correspondence between the company and the council.

August 2024 – urgent update requested

The estimated date of 5 August 2024 for the start of well abandonment passed, again with apparently no written correspondence from UKOG to the council.

On 16 August 2024 Mr Neave asked for an update and evidence on restoration progress. He asked:

• Has a rig been secured (and placed on standby)?
• Has the well abandonment programme been progressed?
• Have site decommissioning contractors been approved?

On 22 August 2024, Mr Moore told Mr Neave “UKOG were in contact with rig suppliers” and he was waiting for an update on progress. Most of the rest of his email is redacted.

In the following week, Mr Moore sent an update that UKOG was working with a company, name redacted, which he described as “the leader for onshore well servicing operations and workover rig supply in the UK”. The company had made a statement, Mr Moore said, “recording they are running at maximum”.

Two days later, on 29 August 2024, Mr Neave asked Mr Moore, “as a matter of urgency please provide a more substantive update on restoration”. This should be supported with “additional explanations/evidence where necessary”, Mr Neave said.

Mr Neave said the letter from REDACTED (presumably the well services company) “provides very little demonstration that substantive actions are being taken towards the restoration of the site.”

He said:

“If anything, it suggests that there could be further delays. It is assumed that there is more than one company with the necessary specialist staff/equipment to carry out the plugging and abandonment of the well; indeed your submitted timeline suggests this is something that would be put out to tender.”

Mr Neave added:

“Further you have not provided any evidence of further engagement and advance with other regulators that would be necessary to agree a well abandonment programme, nor indicated whether any progress has been made with contractor acquisition for site decommissioning.”

The first paragraph of this email is redacted.

September 2024 – new timeline

Mr Moore emailed Mr Neave on 13 September 2024 about the issues raised in the correspondence on 29 August 2024.

The redacted company was the only onshore UK company who can plug and abandon the wells, Mr Moore said. He added:

“We are chasing REDACTED and I will report back progress”.

Mr Moore said preparatory submissions for plugging and abandonment had also been made to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

He said he and UKOG were preparing a revised timeline to account for the delay with REDACTED. A large section of the rest of the email is also redacted.

October 2024 – “confidential” UKOG’s revised timeline, dated 4 October 2024, for plugging and abandoning the Broadford Bridge wells and restoring the site. Source: correspondence between the company and the county council.

On 4 October 2024, Mr Moore sent Mr Neave a revised timeline flagged “confidential”. The timeline trebled the length of time for rig acquisition from 60 to 180 days in “recognition of the supply constraint imposed by REDACTED”.

“Acquisition is now expected before the end of the year”, Mr Moore said. The timeline set the target date for rig acquisition for 20 December 2024. This was more than five months later than the original date of 5 July 2024.

The timeline’s target date for completion of site restoration was now 5 May 2025, more than six months later than the original deadline of 18 November 2024.

But the timeline indicated that the project would not finish until 18 July 2025. The details of the final stage of work appear to have been redacted.

The correspondence also attaches a formal acknowledgement from the HSE of the plugging and abandonment methodology for Broadford Bridge. This document was dated 23 March 2022 and reportedly accepted the methodology unconditionally.

UKOG planned a site visit on 10 October 2024 to Broadford Bridge and invited Mr Neave and the county council’s compliance and enforcement officer, Kirstie May.

The day after the meeting, Mr Moore, asked Mr Neave for a brief update call. Mr Neave reported in an email that he would be meeting council colleagues in the following week to discuss Broadford Bridge.

Mr Moore replied to “informally seek your assurance that WSCC [West Sussex County Council] would not be considering any formal enforcement at this stage”. He said: “This is not what UKOG want and I don’t think it would be necessary given that discussion are on-going REDACTED”. Mr Moore referred to UKOG’s “commitment to resolve these matters as soon as reasonably practicable”.

On the day of the council meeting, (15 October 2024) Mr Neave emailed Mr Moore to offer an online meeting later that week. On 25 October 2024, Mr Moore sent an update to Mr Neave –all the text is redacted.

On 29 October 2024, Mr Neave emailed Mr Moore saying: “Re Enforcement Matters, the County Council will take whatever steps it considers expedient/necessary”. The rest of the email, except the signature, is redacted.

November 2024 – report of site visit

On 1 November 2024, just over a fortnight before the original target for completing work at Broadford Bridge, Kirstie May sent her report on the site visit to UKOG’s chief operating officer, Matt Cartwright.

The report has sections redacted but Ms May said:

“it remains the expectation of this Authority that the land will be restored as required by the approved plan”.

Her report repeated that the company was not compliant with two conditions of the now-expired planning permission. She also referred to the formal enforcement options available in “light of non-compliances on the land”.

DrillOrDrop will report on future developments at the Broadford Bridge site, starting with what happens on 20 December 2024, the target date for rig acquisition.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

Dazzling light displays are one of the most stunning parts of the holidays. But imagine all those lights powered by the sun, wind and water. That’s what we're wishing for here at the Clean Air Alliance – a renewable future that will be greener and a whole lot more fun. After all, the swift, silent acceleration

The post Light up the holidays the right way appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

People are being asked to comment on plans by Angus Energy to transport highly saline water extracted from other oil and gas sites to prolong production at a well in Surrey.

The company already has planning permission to inject liquid, produced alongside oil and gas at the Brockham wellsite, back into the local rock formation.

But it is now seeking consent to transport liquid from other suitable hydrocarbon sites in southern England and inject it at Brockham.

Surrey County Council opened a public consultation yesterday (28 November 2024) on a planning application submitted by Angus Energy.

The consultation runs until 23 December 2024.

Brockham wellsite 2022. Photo: Used with owner’s consent

The Brockham site, between Reigate and Dorking, began producing oil in the late 1980s. Until this summer, extraction had been suspended for several years.

Details of the new proposals are included in a planning statement, which accompanied the application.

This document said reinjection of additional fluid from other sites was needed to increase the pressure in the Portland Sandstone reservoir and allow Brockham’s oil production to continue.

It said reservoir pressure had dropped at Brockham by about 500 psi (pounds per square inch).

At this pressure, oil production was “viable only for a limited period of time” and injection of the produced water from Brockham alone was not enough to raise the reservoir pressure, the statement said.

But injection of fluid from other sites into Brockham’s BRX3 well could restore reservoir pressure to 65-80% of the original, the statement said, and allow estimated production of another 300,000 barrels of oil.

The statement said fluid could come from two other Angus sites in the Weald: Balcombe and Lidsey, both in West Sussex. Neither are currently producing oil.

It also hinted that fluid could come from sites operated by other companies:

“If there is a need to acquire supplementary brine water either from other producing wellsites or manufacture brine water, the water will need to be of similar salinity specification.”

The statement said fluid with salinity of 50,000-80,000 ppm (parts per million) would be compatible with Brockham’s reservoir fluids. Formation fluid can also include naturally occurring radioactive material.

A maximum 150 barrels of fluid, or about 25m3, would be injected at Brockham in any 24-hour period, the statement said.

It said the proposal would result in up to two additional tanker visits to the Brockham site on six days a week “potentially for the remaining operational life of the wellsite”, estimated at 11 years. This could be up to 6,864 additional tankers visits to the site, with two journeys (in and out) per visit.

The statement said the tankers would be classed as OGV1 (up to three axles) or OGV2 (articulated vehicles or vehicles with four or more axles).

They would follow an existing route for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), secured through a planning agreement, avoiding the village, the statement said.

It added:

“Such an increase in vehicle movements would be of a small scale and would not result in significant impacts on highway capacity along the specified HGV route.”

The planning statement also suggested the proposal could cut climate emissions:

“the reinjection of water into the BRX3 well would help enable the recovery of hydrocarbons from an existing wellsite, which would support the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy and avoid offshoring the UK’s emissions by providing indigenous hydrocarbons and reducing the need for imported hydrocarbons, which from some sources, have a higher carbon footprint due to long distance transportation.”

It added:

“the proposed development has the potential to make a contribution to helping maintain the UK’s security of energy supply, by reducing the need for imported hydrocarbons”

Location of Brockham oil site. Source: Surrey County Council

Production restarted at Brockham in June 2024. Official data, released three months in arrears, shows that Brockham is currently producing on average about 25 barrels a day. This represents about 0.2% of UK onshore production and 0.01% of total UK oil production.

If the site were to extract another 300,000 barrels of oil, as Angus Energy has estimated, over 11 years, it would need to almost triple the production rate to nearly 75 barrels a day. At current production levels, this would still represent less than 1% of UK onshore extraction and just 0.02% of UK total oil production.

A key issue for the proposals could be the site’s position in the green belt. National planning rules state that mineral extraction is not inappropriate in the green belt provided it preserves openness.

The planning statement said the proposal would need no additional buildings, equipment or lighting. It “would result in a very small element of harm to the openness of the Green Belt”. But the statement added:

“The proposal would occur over a medium-term for a limited period. The harm to the green belt would be temporary and reversible. All buildings, plants and machinery constructed for any purpose would be required to be removed and the site reinstated in accordance with approved restoration details.”

The planning application is currently due to be decided by planning officers under delegated powers, rather than councillors at a planning committee.

Application details

Application: Re-injection of non-site derived produced water into Portland sandstone to enhance hydrocarbon production at the Brockham wellsite. Link

Reference: SCC_Ref_2024-0135

Applicant: Angus Energy Weald Basin No. 3 Limited (which holds an 80% stake in the licence)

Other Brockham investors: Terrain Energy (10%) and Brockham Capital Limited (10%)

Site address: Brockham wellsite, land at Felton’s Farm, Old School Lane, Brockham, Betchworth

Licence: PL235

History: Discovered in late 1980s. Site constructed in 1987. BRX1 drilled by BP in 1987 and found oil in Portland Sandstone.

Current planning permission for extraction: MO06/1294 (PL2022) extended in 2021 to May 2032- cease and site restored by 31 December 2036

Brockham wells:

BRX1 – plugged and abandoned

BRX2 – plugged and abandoned

BRX2Z – sidetrack off BRX2 – former production well now abandoned

BRX2Y – production well with permission to extract from the Portland Sandstone reservoir

BRX3 – sidetrack off BRX1 – used for water injection

BRX4 – planning permission granted in 2022 for reperforation and production for 12 years

BRX4Z – sidetrack from BRX4 drilled into the Kimmeridge clay and confirmed not to flow commercial volumes of oil

Nearest homes: within 500m

Distance from centre of Brockham village: 1.2km

Site size: 1.5ha

Distance from protected landscape:

• In the green belt
• 870m from the Surrey Hills National Landscape (formerly known as area of outstanding natural beauty)
• 2km from Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment special area of conservation
• 11 ancient woodlands within 1km, the closest 190m away

Distance from cultural heritage:

• Two scheduled monuments within 2km
• 87 listed buildings within 2km
• Three conservation areas within 2km
• One registered park and garden within 2km

Water protection: Drinking Water Safeguard Zone but bedrock classed as unproductive aquifer

Nearest water course: 470m from Tanners Brook

Land classification: Good to moderate

Air quality: No air quality management areas or noise important areas within 2km

Public rights of way: 17 within 1km

Proposed operating and delivery hours: Set by condition 5 of planning permission reference MO/2021/2103 7.30-6pm Monday-Friday and 8am-1pm on Saturdays.

Employees: Currently three people “directly associated with the site”

Consultation: 28 November-23 December 2024

Consultation responses:

• Online: https://planning.surreycc.gov.uk/Planning/Display/SCC_Ref_2024-0135
• By email: mwcd@surreycc.gov.uk
• By letter:  Planning Development (ref. SCC_Ref_2024-0135), Surrey County Council, PO Box 478, Reigate RH2 8EF

Determination: By delegated powers

DrillOrDrop will follow the application through the planning system and report on reactions to it.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

Lock the Gate Alliance response to warnings* from the NSW Net Zero Commission’s first report, released today (November 29), about proposed coal mining expansions.

Glencore and Yancoal’s joint venture has put forward an 18-month extension for their Hunter Valley Operations North coal mine, which raises issues about dangerous methane emissions and an on-going failure to have proper mine closure planning in place.

The Surrey wellsite that unlawfully extracted oil after the Supreme Court quashed its planning permission has not been issued with a formal stop notice, the county council confirmed today.

Horse Hill oil site near Horley in Surrey. Photo: Weald Action Group

Oil extraction at the Horse Hill site near Horley continued for four months after the court judgement in June this year.

Production stopped on 25 October 2024 when the operator, a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), voluntarily suspended work.

Responding to public questions, Surrey County Council planning officers said today:

“No formal enforcement or stop notice has been issued to date at the site.

“The matter remains subject to on-going review alongside the work necessary to review the voluntary cessation by the operator.”

Responding to public questions, the council’s planning development manager, Sian Saadeh, told a meeting of the planning committee this morning:

“The consideration of formal action at Horse Hill remains a live matter with the council’s enforcement and monitoring team.”

She added:

“We continue to monitor the situation closely at Horse Hill and that does not preclude further action being taken if it is deemed to be necessary.”

Asked by Sarah Freeman how the council would ensure that UKOG did not recommence unlawful activity at Horse Hill, Ms Saadeh said:

“If we receive evidence that that had happened that would clearly be a change in the circumstances and that may be the point at which we have to further consider formal enforcement action.

“The planning enforcement system cannot pre-emptively prevent something. It is a reactive system. So, if we receive evidence that there has been the recommencement of extraction we would need to consider a robust course of action at that point in time.”

Jackie Macey accused the council of failing to act on the unlawful oil production at Horse Hill.

Ms Saadeh denied that the council had ignored extraction at the site:

“The operator was advised and told that the continued extraction was unlawful.” She said the production was not ignored – “an enforcement investigation was beginning”.

But when asked by Neville Kemp what remained to be investigated, Ms Saadeh said:

“we are reviewing information that has been obtained at this particular moment in time and that will inform what does happen next. Monitoring at the site is active – what the operator is doing at the site in terms of cessation and remediation of the site.”

She added:

“Part of our review of the information we have obtained is to inform future decisions as to what the conclusion of the case will be, but it remains live until the matter is resolved. There isn’t a defined point at this moment in time. Until we are satisfied that all necessary steps have been taken the investigation and monitoring will remain life. 

The Horse Hill planning permission will now need to be redetermined if the site is to continue work.

Surrey County Council has said it is waiting for additional information from the operator on the greenhouse emissions from burning the Horse Hill oil, the issue at the heart of the Supreme Court judgement.

But today’s meeting revealed that there was no deadline for the company to provide this data.

Ms Saadeh said:

“A definitive timescale hasn’t been set. That is a matter for ongoing conversation so I can’t, at this point, give a confirmed date by which we expect to have received additional information.”

Campaigners have called for the site to be restored to its former state now that there is no planning permission. But the council confirmed today that there was no deadline for this either.

It said:

“no formal date has been agreed by the council by which the restoration of the site must have been completed. On-going monitoring of the situation, both in discussion with the operator and by site visit, is taking place.”

Ms Saadeh added:

“The current position is that the development at site is unlawful and the operator should therefore be remedying the situation as soon as possible.”

Members of the public at today’s meeting contrasted the situation at Horse Hill with a nearby unlawful waste site, where the council had issued a stop notice “fairly promptly”.

Ms Saadeh said the Horse Hill operator had been working with the council towards a voluntary resolution.

Earlier this week, the campaign group, Weald Action Group, asked the council to prevent the sale of oil produced at Horse Hill after the Supreme Court judgement.

Today, the council was asked to take formal steps to ensure that UKOG did not profit from its “unlawful activity in Surrey”.

The planning committee chairman, Cllr Edward Hawkins, suggested this was beyond the remit of the meeting.

Ms Saadeh said:

“The purpose of the planning enforcement system is not to be punitive but to seek remedy, in terms of remedying the planning harm. And that must always be the thrust of what we are looking at.”

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

It’s time for Toronto to start soaking up the sun. Our new report finds that Toronto could meet 50-80% of its total electricity needsby tapping the power of the sun. It also finds that solar panels on parking lots, homes, schools, community centres and other buildings could produce six to nine times more power than

The post Solar is ready. Is Toronto? appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

On December 2nd Grassy Narrows will celebrate 22 years of their blockade! Stay tuned for upcoming actions and videos. 

Delays and U-turns on the climate by the last government have left the UK “overly reliant on expensive fossil fuels”, a new report argues this morning.

This has exacerbated both the climate and cost of living crises, said the report, which marks 16 years of the UK’s Climate Change Act.

Photo: James Eaden

The study, by Friends of the Earth, also warns that the net zero target in the act has been used by some companies and previous governments to justify the continued extraction and combustion of fossil fuels, compensated for by carbon capture and storage (CCS).

But Friends of the Earth argues that CCS is unproven at scale and won’t capture all emissions, including those from extracting and transporting fossil fuels.

It also describes as “problematic” expecting natural climate solutions, such as tree planting, to offset fossil fuel emissions:

“By leaving fossil fuels in the ground, their carbon won’t be emitted into the atmosphere for potentially millions of years as minerals like coal and oil act as very stable and long-term stores of carbon.

“In contrast, planted trees can die much sooner from diseases, wildfires or old age, releasing some of the CO₂ they absorbed back into the air.

“The severe risks and limitations of both engineered and natural carbon removals mean the government should aim to cut real emissions to as close to zero as possible through a fair, properly planned phase-out of fossil fuels that supports workers and consumers.”

Friends of the Earth argues that UK climate policy is at a precipice, with “targets spiralling dangerously off track”.

It said the political consensus on climate action was breaking down and the legacy of the act was threatened by setbacks under the last Conservative administration.

The last government’s climate plan was twice ruled to be unlawful by the High Court following legal challenges.

Labour must produce a new climate plan that is lawful, fair and ambitious, Friends of the Earth said.

The Climate Change Act, which became law in 2008, made the UK the first in the world to set legally-binding targets to reduce emissions. Since then, 33 countries have put emissions reduction targets into law.

The UK act had a transformative impact on cutting emissions, boosting climate leadership and improving lives, the report said.

In the past 15 years, UK emissions fell by 41%, compared with a fall of 16% in the 15 years before the act was passed.

But action to cut emissions has been inconsistent across different sectors. Electricity emissions have fallen by 74% since 2008 but agriculture has dropped by only 4%, the report said.

Danny Gross, Friends of the Earth campaigner, described the Climate Change Act as a ground-breaking piece of legislation. But he said:

“following heavy setbacks under Rishi Sunak’s premiership, Trump’s election victory and an escalating climate crisis we urgently need the UK government to show real leadership.

“Keir Starmer’s pledge to cut UK emissions by 81% by 2035 was a welcome move towards rebuilding this country’s tarnished reputation – now we need an ambitious climate action plan to ensure this target is met in a way that ensure everyone benefits from a fair transition to a zero-carbon economy. This will also boost energy security, lower bills and give businesses the confidence to invest in the green economy and create new jobs.”

Lord Deben, former chair of the Climate Change Committee, which advises the government, urged ministers to introduce a clear plan for getting climate targets back on track. He warned:

“If it fails to do so the negative implications for the international climate regime and for business confidence will be severe.”

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

HARRISBURG, PA (November 25, 2024) – On November 21, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) completed an initial review of a rulemaking petition submitted by Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project to increase minimum no-drill zones around homes, schools, and streams. The Protective Buffers PA coalition, comprised of environmental and public health organizations, is championing the rulemaking petition. The rulemaking petition will now move to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for consideration. 

Setbacks, also referred to as protective buffers and no-drill zones in the context of fracking, are mandatory distances that fracking wells must abide by to keep them separated from homes, schools, hospitals, drinking water wells, and surface water. Pennsylvania’s current fracking well location requirements—which include a waivable 500-foot setback from buildings and a 1,000-foot setback from water supply extraction points—are woefully insufficient to protect public health and the environment from the dangers of fracking.

The rulemaking asks the EQB to consider instituting the following research-informed setbacks:

• 3,281 feet from any building and from any drinking water well;
• 5,280 feet from any building serving vulnerable populations (e.g., schools, hospitals); and
• 750 feet from any surface water of the Commonwealth.

The EQB regulations provide that the next step in the process is that the petition will be announced at the next EQB meeting, and Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project will have the chance to give a 5-minute presentation on why EQB should accept it. The DEP will make a recommendation as to whether EQB should accept it. If EQB accepts it, DEP then has 60 days to prepare a report evaluating the petition, to which the groups will be able to respond, and then DEP will make its final recommendation. If DEP recommends a regulatory change, it has 6 months to develop a proposed rulemaking for EQB consideration.

“This is an important first step in the right direction to protect the millions of Pennsylvanians who live near fracking,” said Alex Bomstein, Executive Director of Clean Air Council. “No one deserves to live with the harms and perils of fracking in their backyard.”

“Study after study shows that fracking too close to buildings and waterways has caused grave and undeniable harm to Pennsylvanians, so we’re glad our petition is moving forward.” said Lisa Hallowell, Senior Attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. “DEP’s job is to protect people and the environment from pollution, and increasing minimum setback distances from fracking sites should be an obvious next step to protect everyone in the Commonwealth regardless of one’s politics.”

“There is no evidence that shale gas development can be done without harm to human health,” said Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project. “However, greater setback distances are ultimately better for reducing health harms. The EQB’s consideration of a petition to increase setbacks can begin the critical work of correcting what was unquestionably an egregious public health error made when fracking was in its infancy. Today, we know better.”

“Those of us living on the front lines of fracking activity have known for decades that this activity is way too close to thousands of families across Pennsylvania, which was affirmed in the 43rd Grand Jury report”, said Gillian Graber Executive Director of Protect PT, a member of the coalition. “We would encourage the EQB to take swift action to support families impacted by fracking by instituting these changes,” said Graber.

“The EQB’s acceptance of this petition marks a significant step toward adopting long-overdue protections for Pennsylvania communities,” said Katie Jones, Ohio River Valley Coordinator with FracTracker Alliance. “As Attorney General, Governor Shapiro strongly advocated for commonsense measures to protect public health, including expanded no-drill zones to shield Pennsylvanians from the harmful impacts of fracking. At FracTracker, our data consistently highlights the disproportionate risks faced by frontline communities, and we urge swift action to transform this proposal into enforceable safeguards that deliver meaningful relief to those most affected.”

“Earthworks has spent the last decade proving that oil and gas operations pollute nearby homes and entire communities,” said Melissa Ostroff of Earthworks. “Requiring polluters to operate at a distance less harmful to the health of people, and especially children, is common sense and the right thing to do. We appreciate the DEP’s decision to move the petition forward, and Governor Shapiro and his administration should act quickly to set safe setback distances to protect all Pennsylvanians.”

Fracking contaminates groundwater (used for public and private drinking water supplies) and also pollutes surface water, damaging headwater streams and other ecosystems. Furthermore, spills often occur in watersheds linked to drinking water sources. 

Dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies show that a person’s proximity to fracking wells is associated with severe human health risks and a wide range of ailments, including increased cancer rates, increased hospitalization rates, and higher rates of respiratory, neurological, dermatological, and muscular symptoms. Vulnerable populations are particularly susceptible—numerous studies have shown that proximity to fracking wells harms health for infants and children. In addition to these studies, first-hand accounts of residents living near Pennsylvania fracking wells demonstrate the profound harms of living close to fracking.

Our new report finds that Toronto could meet 50-80% of its total electricity needs by tapping the power of the sun.  It also finds that solar panels on parking lots, schools, community centres and other buildings could produce six to nine times more power than the polluting Portlands gas-fired power plant on the city’s waterfront.

The post Transforming Toronto With Solar appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.