DRILL OR DROP?

A feasibility study has supported plans for a £1.1bn data centre and electricity generator, powered by onsite gas at a drilling site in East Yorkshire

Image described as “hypothetical visualisation, indicative only” of engine hall (left), data hall block (right) and existing West Newton-A well pad beyond the generation compound. Source: Kent and pmo hive feasibility report.

The study said the project, at West Newton in Holderness, would cost about £1.1bn, excluding drilling the gas wells. The cost of the electricity generating plant was estimated at £385m and the data centre at £765m.

The research was commissioned by Reabold Resources, the majority investor in West Newton, from the consultancy firms, Kent and pmo hive.

According to the study, the estimated cost of electricity for the data centre would be £44-54/MWh for onsite generation, compared with £217.8/MWh for UK grid electricity.

It assumes that West Newton gas would be supplied to the generation plant at cost.

The study envisaged twelve 15Mwe reciprocating gas engines. Ten would operate as duty units, delivering about 130Mwe to the site, with two on standby.

The study also assumes ten 6.6 MW data halls and two network rooms, that would all be air cooled.

It said there was scope to support a data centre with about 67MW of computing capacity. The data centre’s annual consumption was estimated at 719 GWh.

A development programme suggested the first power could be generated in the second half of 2030.

Sachin Oza, co-chief executive of Reabold Resources, said in a statement today:

“Against the backdrop of the UK’s ambitions for AI sovereignty and data security, this Study demonstrates how West Newton gas could support these ambitions whilst also dealing with the significant power constraint challenges facing UK data centre developments.

“In addition, by bringing the data centre to the energy, we are able to reduce, substantially, the timeline to first compute substantially versus other greenfield development projects. We look forward to progressing through the next steps, which include establishing commercial partnerships, land arrangements, permitting, technical work and financing.”

The feasibility study, which can be viewed here, said the gas combustion plant must be “decarbonisation ready”. It said this was most likely through carbon capture, which was “ not yet scoped”. It said the CO2 could go to the as yet unsanctioned Humber CO2 transport and storage infrastructure.

Agreements and consents

No planning or environmental applications have been submitted for gas-powered electricity generation or a data centre at West Newton.

The feasibility study recommended a single Development Consent Order (DCO) as “the most straightforward and lowest risk route to consent”.

A DCO under the 2008 Planning Act is a single statutory order that can grant planning permission and legal powers for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). It replaces the need to apply for multiple separate consents, permits and licences.

The West Newton-A site currently has planning approval for four new wells, lower-volume fracturing, long-term production and site expansion.

The site has a environmental permit variation that allows for lower-volume fracking. But this is being challenged at the High Court by a local campaigner.

He is also seeking an injunction to stop the fracking operation at West Newton-A, due to be carried out before the end of the year, until the permit case has been resolved.

There is currently no agreement on the proposed data centre or power generator between Reabold Resources and the minority investor at the site, Union Jack Oil, which has a 16.665% stake.

We reported last week that the proposed lower-volume frack at West Newton-A was likely to “materially reduce” available cash at Reabold Resources. The work is expected to cost £3m. Reabold reported cash balances of £4m in June 2026.

• Recent photos taken outside West Newton-A suggested that a new fence may be being constructed within the site, along with possible maintenance work.

Suggestions of a new fence at West Newton-A. Photo: We Said No! 7/11/2026

The planned lower-volume frack at the West Newton-A wellsite in East Yorkshire is likely to “materially reduce” available cash at an oil and gas company, it has emerged.

West Newton-A well site in East Yorkshire. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The total cost of entering and recompleting the A-2 well has been estimated at £3m.

Reabold Resources, the majority owner of the oil and gas field, had cash balances of £4m in June 2026.

Directors said this was “sufficient” to fund the group’s general and administrative expenditure, committed obligations and on-going non-project expenditure.

But they said:

“The Group’s current strategy includes the recompletion of the A-2 well at West Newton, which is expected to materially reduce the Group’s available cash resources and the Group will likely require additional funding thereafter in order to continue its planned activities and future obligations.”

The statements were in annual accounts for Rathlin Energy, Reabold’s subsidiary and the West Newton operator. The accounts were published today by Companies House but delayed since 30 September 2026.

According to the accounts, Rathlin’s cost share of the West Newton operation, estimated at £2m, would be funded from a £5m loan from Reabold, due to mature on 30 June 2027.

Work on the West Newton-A2 well has been scheduled for the final quarter of 2026. But, with just eight weeks remaining, there has been no reported work on the site and question marks over whether the operation will be completed on time.

A local environmental campaigner has brought a legal challenge against the Environment Agency over the environmental permit for the West Newton-A frack. He is also seeking a High Court injunction to halt work until the permit challenge has been resolved.

The accounts warned:

“the timing and availability of any future funding remain uncertain and may be significantly influenced by the outcome of the recompletion of the A-2 well.”

If the well recompletion were unsuccessful (described by the accounts as an unlikely event) the Group’s ability to secure further financing may be “adversely affected”.

The accounts acknowledged:

“there can be no assurance that the planned strategy will achieve the anticipated outcome or support the Group’s future funding requirements required to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities”.

They said: “there exists a material uncertainty concerning the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern”.

The accounts, which cover the year to December 2025, do not mention management changes at Union Jack Oil, a partner in the West Newton licence.

New Union Jack directors, appointed in August 2026, have said they are carrying out a “detailed review” of the company’s entire asset portfolio and discussions were underway with partners on some company interests.

Craig Howie, Union Jack’s executive chairman, said:

“We will be disciplined in where we allocate capital and only invest in projects with a clear commercial rationale and realistic prospect of success.”

The accounts also do not refer to Reabold’s failed takeover bid for Union Jack Oil.

Other details

Rathlin reported that its accounts did not include a strategic report, under an exemption in the Companies Act.

Rathlin said it had used CBIZ for an independent audit. But it said CBIZ was not registered as a UK statutory auditor so its audit report did not constitute a statutory auditor’s report under the Companies Act and so had not been included in the financial statements.

Rathlin also reported that West Newton decommissioning costs were now “expected to be incurred in 2070”. The company said this date had been extended in 2024 from 2033. Rathlin said:

“The revision to the timing was based on the latest estimates of the economic life of the field and the geological chance of success at West Newton”

In March 2025, Rathlin appointed Paul Harris, former chief executive of NEO Energy, as a non-executive director.

Key figures

From annual accounts for Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited for the year ending December 2025

Loss for the year: £778,000 (20An24: £804,000)

Admin expenses: £703,000 (2024: £775,000)

Net cash used in operating activities: loss of £715,000 (2024: loss of £673,000)

Total cash capital expenditure: £548,000 (2024: £805,000)

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the period: £158,000 (2024: £723,000)

Total employee costs: £372,000 (2024: £289,000)

Average number of employees: 5 (2024: 4)

Total assets: £21,931,000 (2024: £22,934,000

Total liabilities: £1,591,000 (2024: £1,816,000

Charges for management services from Connaught, former 20.4% shareholder: £278,689 (2024: £848,003)

Ownership of Rathlin Energy by Reabold Resources: 79.8%

Councillors in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston said today they would continue to stand by their community in the face of an appeal over gas drilling and lower-volume fracking.

Extract from joint statement on Europa Oil & Gas appeal.
Full document at the end of this article

The company behind the scheme, Europa Oil & Gas, gave notice earlier this week that it would challenge the refusal of its planning application. It informed the stock market yesterday.

In a joint statement, Burniston Parish Council and the area’s North Yorkshire councillor, Derek Bastiman, said:

“Although the intention to appeal comes as no surprise, we are somewhat concerned that EOG [Europa Oil & Gas] have not listened in any way to the serious concerns that over 1,600 people expressed during the planning process.

“If it is possible to find a suitable, safe place for fracking and the underground dumping of chemicals, so close to where people live, we would be very surprised. We can say with great certainty, it is not here.”

The statement, signed by the parish council chair, Cllr Richard Parsons, and Cllr Bastiman, said the refusal of the planning application by North Yorkshire Council in May 2026 was “clear and absolute”.

It added:

“No-one, including Europa Oil and Gas ltd, were left in any doubt as to why the application was refused.”

North Yorkshire’s planning committee rejected the application on five grounds, despite a recommendation from officials to approve. The grounds for refusal were:

• Harm to the heritage coast and landscape
• Proximity to homes and impact on amenity
• Harm to the setting of the North York Moors
• Impact on tourism and lack of economic gain
• Conflict with council climate commitments

The statement added:

“The objections to this application were overwhelming and were clearly listened to by the Planning Committee. The words that were submitted were clear, they were accurate and they were precise. Many mistakes and missing information in the application were exposed. The planning committee listened, understood and delivered their decision in the most decisive manner.”

Cllr Parsons said:

“Cllr. Bastiman, myself and Burniston Parish Council stand absolutely alongside our community as a whole. We will continue to ensure that the voices of our communities are heard. We will continue to represent those voices. We listen to, understand and agree with the views of our community and the wider community. They reject the application in its entirety for all the right reasons.

“Nothing has changed, the refused application is still the same, the grounds for refusal remain as valid today, as they were six months ago. We expect the planning inspector, even if the request to hear this appeal is granted, to support the decision of the planning committee.

“The application was for a fracking process that has been shown to be far from safe. This is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.”

The statement said the parish council had been notified about the appeal “in what appears to be a rather unconventional manner”:

“No formal notice appears to have been received, just a laminated card attached to a public noticeboard in Burniston Village, by Europa Oil and Gas Ltd informing of the appeal and requiring ‘representations about this appeal’ by November 25th 2026.”

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS), which handles planning appeals, told DrillOrDrop that Europa’s notice, was part of a formal procedure, known as DMPO (Development Management Procedure Order) 2015.

This requires appellants to give 21 days’ notice of the appeal to any owners or tenants of the site.

The appeal will then be submitted to PINS, where it will be validated.

PINS will set out a timetable for the appeal process.

The local planning authority, North Yorkshire Council, must then notify all interested parties about the appeal and give them a deadline in which to submit written representations.

That date has not been set and is separate from the 21-day deadline mentioned on Europa’s notice.

261105 Burniston joint press releaseDownload

The government said today it would deliver its promise to ban fracking by outlawing the issuing of new onshore oil and gas exploration licences.

Anti-fracking campaigners opposing plans for lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, April 2026.
Photo: DrillOrDrop

The news has disappointed environmental campaigners, who had called for an outright ban on all forms of fracking.

Friends of the Earth said the measure, in the Energy Independence Bill, failed to meet Labour’s manifesto commitment to “ban fracking for good”.

The bill, published today, would not stop lower-volume fracking operations, which some scientists warn carry equally large and unpredictable seismic risks.

It would also not remove existing licences in onshore shale gas areas, such as Lancashire and Lincolnshire.

Fracking – the injection of liquid at pressures high enough to fracture rocks – is highly controversial in the UK.

Operations by Cuadrilla in 2018 and 2019 caused earthquakes felt by people living across the Fylde region near Blackpool.

A moratorium, in November 2019, introduced a presumption against associated hydraulic fracturing in England, defined as fracks that use more than 1,000m3 of fluid per stage or 10,000m3 in total.

But the moratorium did not cover operations using lower volumes of liquid. Campaigners have described this as a legal loophole and said it should be closed.

Permission has been granted for a lower-volume frack at the West Newton-A oil and gas site in Holderness, East Yorkshire. An appeal is imminent on refusal of plans for a similar operation at Burniston, near Scarborough in North Yorkshire.

The text of the Energy Independence Bill did not mention a specific ban on any form of fracking.

There was no reference to the fracking process, the current moratorium or permitted lower-volume fracks.

A government background document on the bill said:

“we will show climate leadership by implementing our manifesto commitment to not issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields, including delivering our commitment to ban fracking.”

It added:

“we will implement plans to not issue new licences to explore new fields (in England), including those which could be used for hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (‘fracking’).”

There had been hints in September 2026 that the existing moratorium would not be turned into a formal ban.

The energy minister, Martin McCluskey, speaking in a parliamentary debate on fracking, said:

“The [Energy Independence] Bill was announced in the King’s Speech and will meet our commitment to not issue new licences to explore new fields—onshore and offshore—including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That will deliver on our commitment in law to ban fracking.”

He also rejected the idea of extending the moratorium to lower-volume fracking operations. His argument, rejected by campaigners and some scientists, stated:

“Low-volume hydraulic fracturing has been happening in the UK for decades. It has been used not just in respect of oil and gas but in the water industry and geothermal. In that time, there has been no clear evidence that it induces seismicity that can be felt on the surface.”

Reaction

Friends of the Earth’s energy campaigner, Danny Gross, said:

“Ending new gas and oil licences is extremely welcome, but this bill falls a long way short of delivering on Labour’s manifesto pledge to ban fracking for good.

“It won’t affect areas that are already licensed and leaves a gaping loophole in the existing fracking moratorium – one that companies are already exploiting to push ahead with new projects.

“One fracking scheme has already been granted approval, and more applications are in the pipeline. Just yesterday, Europa Oil and Gas lodged an appeal against the refusal of its planning application for a low-volume fracking project in North Yorkshire.

“The threat is real and growing. And the Bill still leaves communities across the country exposed to the threat of fracking.”

James Knapp, of the Weald Action Group, said:

“This is very weak from Labour. A frack ban in name only, which doesn’t add to or strengthen the existing moratorium and can easily be undone by future governments.

“It will do nothing to protect local communities from the risks of earthquake damage or water contamination since it ignores acidisation and proppant squeezes, forms of fracking currently in use in the UK.

“Proppant squeezes still fracture formation rock in the same way, and there’s a distinct lack of evidence to show it’s a safer form of fracking than the high volume hydraulic fracturing captured by the moratorium”.

Dennis May, of Frack Free Misson, said:

“The government claims to take an evidence-based approach to fracking, while turning a blind eye to any that would inconvenience the industry’s ambitions.

“Cuadrilla is continuing to procrastinate over the site restoration of the site at PNR, and in its 2025 accounts confessed:

‘At our PNR shale gas exploration site, the NSTA (North Sea Transition Authority) required the Company to plug and abandon two exploration wells. […] Whilst we are unlikely therefore to be able to re-use the wells, the underlying shale gas resource that they have helped to reveal, remains intact, waiting to be appraised and developed as and when the political will to do so emerges. In summary we continue to maintain a low-cost presence in the UK, with the objective of increasingly “self-funding” that position whilst continuing to hold an option on a very significant discovered shale gas accumulation.’

“Meanwhile at Burniston, Europa is proposing to drill and frack the same shale-encased strata that was targeted at KM8, using volumes of fluid proven to carry risks of induced seismicity.
This more of a bus lane than a loophole.”

• DrillOrDrop will update this article with further reaction as we get it.

Lower-volume fracking in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong location, local representatives said today in response to news that a drilling company is to appeal against the rejection of its plans.

Proposed entrance to Europa’s gas site at Burniston. Photo: DrillOrDrop

A formal announcement on the villlage notice board this morning confirmed that Europa Oil & Gas had lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, nearly six months after North Yorkshire Council refused the company’s planning application.

The chair of Burniston Parish Council, Cllr Richard Parsons, told DrillOrDrop:

“Today we have found out that Europa Oil and Gas Ltd [EOG] will appeal the planning decision that went against their application, when heard by the North Yorkshire Council strategic planning committee nearly six months ago.

“We have not as yet received any formal notice.

“Although this comes as no surprise, we are somewhat concerned that EOG have not listened in any way to the serious concerns that over 1600 people expressed during the planning process.

“The planning committee listened, understood and delivered their decision in the most decisive manner.

“At Burniston Parish Council and in our community,  we are confident that having exposed the many flaws, inconsistencies and failure to gather  information, that any responsible applicant would include in such an application, for a planning meeting, the Planning Inspector will return the same refusal.

“At this Council we do listen to, understand and agree with the views of our community and the wider community. They reject the application in its entirety for all the right reasons.

“If anyone can find a suitable place for fracking and the underground dumping of chemicals, particularly so close to where people live, I can say with great certainty, it is not here.

“I expect the planning inspector, even if the request to hear this appeal is granted, to support the decision of the planning committee.

“Burniston Parish Council will continue to represent the views of this community and ensure those views are clearly heard in this process. We expect a similar response from North Yorkshire Council.

“The application for a fracking process that has been shown to be far from safe, is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong location.”

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

“This comes as no surprise. Within minutes of the council’s decision, Europa’s chief executive Will Holland boasted he was confident it would be overturned at appeal. That confidence doesn’t change the facts.

“North Yorkshire’s planning committee looked at the evidence and heard from around 1,600 objectors before voting against the application. They gave five robust reasons why the proposals were contrary to planning policy and regulations.

“The volumes of fracking fluid Europa proposes for the site remain greater than those that caused a 2.9 magnitude earthquake at Preston New Road in 2019. Our cliffs remain unstable. And we remain in a climate emergency in which opening new fossil fuel sites makes no sense, however they’re dressed up.

“We will study Europa’s grounds of appeal carefully and respond more fully in the coming days. Meanwhile, our message to Europa, and to the Planning Inspectorate, is the same as it was on 24 April: this community said no for good reason, and nothing in an appeal can change that.”

Friends of the Earth campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said:

“This appeal will only create more concern and uncertainty for local residents who are understandably worried about the impact of fracking on their community and environment.

“Now we need the government to act. Proppant squeeze is simply fracking by another name. Ministers must deliver on their promise to ban fracking for good by ensuring it includes all forms of this technique – including proppant squeeze. Failure to do so will leave many more communities at risk.”

Europa Oil & Gas has given notice that it will appeal against the rejection of its plans for gas drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

A formal announcement was posted on Burniston’s village notice board this morning. It comes more than 24 weeks after North Yorkshire Council refused the company’s planning application.

The appeal, which is likely to be decided by a government-appointed planning inspector, had been expected.

Europa has until Friday 13 November 2026 to submit its formal appeal.

At the time of writing, Europa had not informed the stock market. (A formal notice was published on 4 November 2026.)

DrillOrDrop has reported separately on reaction to the news.

Details

Today’s notice is part of the formal procedure for planning appeals, known as DMPO (Development Management Procedure Order) 2015.

Under Articles 13 and 36 of the DMPO, an appellant must give 21 days’ notice of the appeal to any owners or tenants of the site.

The appeal will then be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS), where it will be validated.

PINS will set out a timetable for the appeal process.

The local planning authority – in this case North Yorkshire Council – must then notify all interested parties about the appeal and give them a deadline in which to submit written representations.

This is separate from the 21-day deadline mentioned on today’s notice.

We understand Europa’s notice contains at least one inaccurracy. PINS no longer uses the Appeals Case Portal referred to at the end of the notice.

Background

Europa had previously said it was “disappointed with the LPA’s [local planning authority’s] decision and strongly disagrees with the basis of the refusal”. It had said it was “confident that on appeal the planning permission will be approved”.

North Yorkshire Council’s planning committee refused the application, against the advice of officials, on five grounds:

• Harm to the heritage coast and landscape
• Proximity of the site to homes and amenities
• Harm to the setting of the North York Moors National Park
• Impact on tourism and lack of economic gain
• Conflict with the council’s climate commitments

The Burniston proposal has been strongly opposed locally and nationally.

All the local parish and town councils had objected and more than 1,600 individuals objected to the planning application. Other opponents included Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, Salby and Newby Village Trust, Frack Free Coastal Communities, Frack Free Scarborough, Frack Free Ryedale, North Yorkshire Moors Association, CPRE and Friends of the Earth.

Since the North Yorkshire planning decision, the government has revised the rules for onshore oil and gas in England.

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the planning blueprint for decisionmakers, made the following key changes in August 2026:

• Removed a requirement to give “great weight” to the economic benefits of onshore oil and gas proposals
• Removed a previous requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas developments
• Introduced a new policy to refuse onshore oil and gas extraction proposals except in defined circumstances

Europa has separately applied for an environmental permit for the Burniston operation.

In August, the Environment Agency, which issues permits, said it was minded to approve the company’s application.

Local people have urged the EA to reconsider its draft decision. They have also criticised errors and missing information in the EA’s draft decision documents and what has been described as a close working relationship with Europa. A formal complaint has been made about the Burniston permit process.

Correspondence about permission for gas drilling and fracking in North Yorkshire has prompted concerns about the independence of the environmental regulator.

Emails, seen by DrillOrDrop, reveal what has been described as a “close working relationship” between the Environment Agency (EA) and Europa Oil & Gas, the company that wants to drill for gas at Burniston, near Scarborough.

The correspondence shows that the EA shared the draft environmental permit with Europa, which would be required to comply with its conditions.

The company suggested changes to wording, most of which were agreed by the EA, and asked for sections to be removed.

The emails were written during an important period for public comment on the Burniston permit application.

Residents and local organisations had complained about errors and inconsistencies in key documents. But they were unaware of discussions between the EA and Europa or that the company was involved in changes to the permit.

“Growing concerns”

The correspondence was released in response to a freedom of information request by DrillOrDrop.

We sent the released emails to Burniston Parish council, which said:

“The concerns around the Environment Agency’s handling of the Europa Oil and Gas application for an environmental licence grow with every new piece of information we receive.

“Our community and the wider community are struggling to understand quite why the EA appears to be so quick to assist EOG [Europa Oil & Gas] and at the same time, fail to respond to the very genuine questions and concerns raised by members of our community.”

DrillOrDrop also shared the emails with the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities. It said:

“The email chain shows the close working relationship between the regulator and the fossil fuel industry.

“We see details of the draft permit being shared with the company that will be bound by its provisions, giving them the opportunity to suggest amendments that will suit their operational interests and remove bothersome constraints.”

Regular contact

The correspondence, covering Tuesday 29 September 2026 to Tuesday 6 October 2026, shows the EA was in regular contact with Europa.

In the six working days in this period, the EA and Europa corresponded eight times. On three days, at least two emails were exchanged.

This contrasts with the experience of local people and organisations, who complained that the EA had not responded to their correspondence.

The emails also revealed

• The EA agreed (Tuesday 29 September 2026) to most of Europa’s comments on the draft permit raised in a conversation the previous week.
• The EA sent Europa the revised permit with the company’s amendments on Friday 2 October 2026. But the document was not posted online for public comment until Wednesday 7 October 2026. The EA said it wrote to people about the revised version but some said their letter arrived too late for them to comment.
• The EA told the public the changes in the amended version corrected drafting and “minor typographical errors”. But, according to the emails, amendments included changes to key permit conditions and operational issues.
• The EA promised (Tuesday 6 October 2026) to share with Europa further changes in the wording of a permit condition in the following fortnight, something not offered to the public.
• The EA also offered Europa the chance to discuss “outstanding matters” even after the public consultation closed, again not offered to the public.
• Generally, the EA responded quickly to Europa’s emails, in contrast to some residents’ experiences.

“Demonstrate equality”

Burniston Parish Council, which opposes the gas drilling proposal, said it was concerned that the EA has taken different approaches to the company and the local community.

Cllr Richard Parsons, the parish council chair, told DrillOrDrop, the community was looking for equal treatment:

“We at Burniston Parish Council would once again urge the EA to show that they are independent and understand the need to communicate, on the same footing with this community and the wider community, as they are communicating with EOG. In other words demonstrate equality in their process.”

Cllr Parsons said the council and others had asked for a public meeting with the EA about errors in an earlier version of the permit documents. He said:

“we have received no response.

“Nobody here is asking for preferential treatment, just equality.

“I would challenge the EA, ‘if you are not prepared to communicate with those who have legitimate concerns over the granting of this licence, whilst communicating with EOG, say so’.”

He added:

“There should be no need to remind the Environment Agency of their independent role, the requirement to protect our environment and to act in a manner that is fair and equal whilst acting in a manner that is open, honest and transparent. Because our concerns are growing, the time is well overdue for the EA to demonstrate understanding of their role.”

“Unwarranted influence”

Professor Chris Garforth, of Frack Free Coastal Communities, said:

“Essentially, the emails show how successive opportunities to comment on and suggest changes to the wording of the permit are giving Europa unwarranted influence on the key provisions that they would need to abide by if their proposed drilling and fracking were ever to go ahead.

“The response from the EA is to accept most of Europa’s suggestions. They do push back on one, however: Europa asked them to remove reference to specific depths for the underground waste operation (following fracking of four separate geological formations) – presumably to allow them leeway to frack at any depth they choose. The EA point out that these are specific depths at which Europa said in their application they would frack and see no reasons for changing that specification in the permit.”

Professor Garforth said the emails did not contain from the EA “any concern at all about the inconsistencies in the draft decision document”.

He also said the emails revealed a gap in the regulatory process.

At Europa’s request, the EA removed a reference to the “loading, unloading, handling and storage of crude oil”.

Professor Garforth said:

“Why is this? Europa will argue (as they do in the application) that crude oil coming up during the well testing and appraisal will not be treated as waste but as a commercial product – and so is outside the scope of the Waste Management Plan and the permitting regime.

“However, they did not mention in their planning application to NYC [North Yorkshire Council] that they expect oil to be produced. Consequently, no part of the regulatory framework has explicitly considered the procedures and facilities on site necessary to handle this oil.

“We pointed this out to NYC at the time the initial consultation on the environmental permit was launched but were ignored. It seems to us that Europa is deliberately and cynically using the different parts of the framework to hide certain parts of their intentions from regulatory and public scrutiny.”

Europa did not respond in the released emails to the EA’s question on 29 September 2026 about wildfire risk. The EA had asked the company whether it had a plan to mitigate fire risks from flaring of waste gas.

Professor Garforth said:

“The many residents who raised concerns about this in the 2025 consultation (when the devastating wildfire on the North York Moors was still raging) will be keen to know the answer.”

DrillOrDrop has sent this article to the EA for comment.

Europa Oil & Gas has announced an extension to the life of its Crosby Warren licence in North Lincolnshire.

The company reported in a statement that the industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), had agreed to extend licence DL001 to 18 October 2032.

Interim results, issued by Europa last month, confirmed the licence had been due to expire next year (2027).

Europa has a 100% working interest in the Crosby Warren licence. The licence was issued on 19 October 1987 and now measures 9km2.

NSTA data shows that the first full year of production at Crosby Warren (1988) produced the highest oil volume (15,483m3) in the history of the field.

Source: NSTA

In each of the past three full years, (2023-2025), annual production at Crosby Warren has been below 1,000m3, averaging 483m3 a year.

In 2025, Crosby Warren ranked 26 out of 30 UK producing onshore oil fields for volume. Its contribution to UK onshore oil production in that year was 0.08%.

Last month (September 2026), Europa said a workover operation on the CW-1 well at Crosby Warren was “expected to be concluded imminently”.

In this guest post, David Eddy, a campaigner with Drawing a Line in the Chalk in North Yorkshire, reviews the change in direction in national planning policy on onshore oil and gas and asks whether it will make any practical difference to the communities living with the risks?

Artwork: Drawing a Line in the Chalk

In October 2025, I wrote for Drill Or Drop about the challenges faced by local communities confronting technically complex oil and gas planning applications.

Writing as the then chair of Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council, I described a system in which well-resourced developers could call on specialist consultants and technical advisers, while parish councils and residents struggled to obtain information, scrutinise environmental assessments and secure independent expertise.

I argued that fragmented regulation, inadequate transparency and an over reliance on mitigation left communities at a structural disadvantage.

A year on, the national planning landscape has changed. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in August 2026, and its updated mineral policies, published in September, introduce a more restrictive approach to onshore oil and gas extraction.

But the question remains: Has the planning system changed in ways that will actually help communities protect their environment?

A change in policy direction, but not a ban

In chapter 11, the revised NPPF contains a specific policy on development involving peat, coal and onshore oil and gas.

Policy M5 states that development involving onshore oil and gas extraction should be refused unless it falls within specified exceptions. These include development necessary to facilitate exploration, appraisal or production where the North Sea Transition Authority (NTSA) has granted petroleum rights.

This is a significant change in the way national policy expresses its approach to fossil-fuel development. But it does not amount to a blanket prohibition on projects within pre-existing licensed areas.

For communities challenging exploration proposals, the implications need careful examination. The existence of petroleum rights does not, by itself, demonstrate that a particular development is environmentally acceptable or that it satisfies every other relevant planning policy.

The question is whether decisionmakers will properly scrutinise the evidence, apply the relevant environmental protections and explain why the benefits of a proposal do, or do not, outweigh its impacts.

The evidence must be good enough to support the decision

Our experience at Foxholes illustrates the challenge.

A technically complex application can contain hundreds of pages of assessments without necessarily answering every question that matters to the community.

A hydrogeological assessment, for example, needs to be examined not simply for its conclusions but for the evidence supporting them:

• What site-specific investigations have been undertaken?
• Which assumptions have been made?
• How are uncertainties addressed?
• What happens if containment systems fail, extreme weather occurs or impacts persist after operations have ceased?

These are not arguments claiming that every development will cause harm. They are questions that must be answered sufficiently well before a planning authority can make a properly-informed decision.

The revised NPPF’s Policy M4 requires mineral development to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment and human health, taking account of other national decision making policies and cumulative effects. It also addresses restoration and aftercare.

That framework makes the quality of the evidence particularly important. A conclusion that impacts are acceptable should be supported by evidence, not simply by a statement of intent or an expectation that proposed mitigation will work.

Mitigation is a lessening of risk. Mitigation is not the same as eliminating risk.

Communities are frequently reassured that risks will be controlled through engineering measures, planning conditions and environmental permits. Those measures can have a role to play and may be important. But their existence does not automatically resolve every concern.

There is a difference between demonstrating that a risk can be managed in principle and showing that the proposed arrangements are appropriate for a particular site, geology, groundwater system and operating plan.

There is also a difference between the controls imposed at the planning stage and those subsequently dealt with through environmental permitting or other regulatory regimes.

Communities need to understand which authority is responsible for each issue, what evidence it has considered, how compliance will be monitored and what happens if something goes wrong?

Long-term well integrity, restoration and the financial responsibility for dealing with future problems deserve particular attention. A planning decision should not rely on an assumption that a risk will somehow be resolved by another regulator at a later stage.

The cumulative evidence problem

One of the most important lessons from our experience in Foxholes is that environmental risks cannot always be assessed adequately in isolation.

In its consolidated response to Egdon Resources’ application, Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council have challenged the way the proposed development’s impacts were assessed separately. Traffic, air quality, noise, light, landscape, groundwater and public amenity are not independent issues experienced by different communities. They interact in the same place, at the same time, and affect the same residents and environment.

The revised NPPF now provides a particularly relevant framework for examining this problem. Policy M4 requires mineral development proposals to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment and human health, taking account of the other national decision-making policies. Crucially, it explicitly includes the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality.

At Foxholes, that means looking beyond individual assurances that particular impacts can be mitigated.

The proposed wellsite involves drilling through the Principal Chalk Aquifer, within a complex groundwater environment connected to local surface water systems. The assessment must also consider the potential implications of well integrity, subsurface geological pathways, methane or saline migration, operational chemicals and hydrocarbons, and the consequences if containment fails.

At the same time, the development would bring additional heavy traffic onto rural roads, alongside existing traffic, noise and road safety concerns. Construction, round the clock drilling, vehicle movements and potential flaring could combine to affect residential amenity and the character of the surrounding countryside.

Each of these issues deserves proper assessment in its own right. But that is not enough. The local planning authority also needs to understand how the impacts interact: do the assessments use an adequate baseline and would the combined effects be acceptable at this particular location?

There is a further question about the boundaries of the assessment. The applicant acknowledges that a successful exploration programme could lead to subsequent applications for appraisal and production. Those later stages would require their own planning decisions, but their foreseeable implications should not be confused with wholly unrelated future development. The authority needs to be clear about what the current application includes, what it excludes, and whether any relevant cumulative effects have been left unexamined.

The same applies to the history of the site. The nearby Fordon-1 proposal was withdrawn in 2013 following objections from Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency concerning groundwater vulnerability and containment. That history does not prove that the present proposal is unacceptable, but it is relevant evidence that should be considered when assessing whether the current application has adequately addressed the risks associated with the local hydrogeological system.

There is also a significant development in the evidence base.

In December 2025, the British Geological Survey (BGS) completed new geological mapping of the Yorkshire Wolds, improving understanding of the Chalk Aquifer’s complex geological structure and fault network. This work post-dates Egdon’s Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment, submitted in November 2025. North Yorkshire Council must therefore establish whether this new evidence has been taken into account and whether Egdon’s assessment adequately reflects the latest understanding of geological structures and potential groundwater pathways. Where a development involves drilling through a Principal Aquifer supplying drinking water to over 900,000 people in East Yorkshire, the adequacy and currency of the evidence are fundamental to determining whether the risks have been properly assessed.

The central question is, therefore, not whether every individual risk can be described as unlikely, or whether a mitigation measure exists for each one. It is whether the evidence demonstrates that the combined impacts and uncertainties have been properly understood and that the development would be acceptable in this particular setting.

Policy M4 gives decision-makers a clear reason to ask that question. The challenge now is to ensure that cumulative impacts are genuinely assessed, rather than acknowledged in policy but overlooked in practice.

The imbalance in resources remains

Even where national policy provides a clear basis for challenging a proposal, communities must still assemble the evidence and make their case.

Developers can employ specialist planners, lawyers, geologists and hydrogeologists. Parish Councils and volunteer campaign groups, such as Drawing a Line in the Chalk, often have to scrutinise the same technical material with limited funds, often no experience or expertise in this field, and considerable demands on their time.

That inequality matters. An objection supported by specialist evidence may expose a weakness that would otherwise go unexamined. But obtaining that evidence can be beyond the means of the people most directly affected.

If the planning system expects communities to engage meaningfully with complex applications, it should consider how they can access independent professional advice.

Modest funding for technical scrutiny, early access to application documents, clear non-technical summaries and sufficient time to review substantial new evidence would make a practical difference.

Independent review need not mean that every applicant-funded report is unreliable. It means ensuring that important conclusions can be challenged and tested where the consequences of getting them wrong could be serious.

What should change now?

The revised NPPF is an opportunity to improve both the substance and the practice of planning decisions. Local planning authorities (North Yorkshire Council in our case) should ensure that decisions are based on sufficiently robust evidence, with risks, uncertainties and cumulative impacts addressed explicitly.

Regulators should make relevant information available in a way that enables the LPA and the public to understand the issues within their respective remits.

Applicants should provide accessible explanations of their proposals and make the supporting evidence available early enough for meaningful scrutiny.

Government should consider practical support for communities facing complex applications, including support from the LPA and access to independent technical advice.

Finally, decision makers should distinguish between the existence of a mitigation proposal and evidence that it is adequate, enforceable and appropriate for the site concerned.

A fairer system is still needed

The new national planning policy establishes a more restrictive approach to onshore oil and gas. That is a welcome development in the policy debate, but the practical test will be how the NPPF is applied to proposals.

For communities such as ours, the issue is not opposition to development for its own sake. It is whether decisions are made on the basis of sound evidence, with environmental risks properly understood and local people given a meaningful opportunity to participate.

A year ago, I described the experience as playing a board game in which another rule was announced after we had rolled the dice. The rules have now changed. But will communities finally have a fair chance to play by them?

So the central question now is not simply whether the new NPPF is better, but whether a more restrictive national policy on fossil fuels will be matched by a planning process in which communities can properly scrutinise the evidence and decisionmakers fully utilise the evidence to inform decision making and ensure they are accountable for the conclusions they reach.

David Eddy, Drawing a Line in the Chalk

Councillors in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston have called on the Environment Agency to reconsider its refusal to allow more time for comments on local drilling and fracking plans.

The EA told us last night it had closed the public consultation on an environmental permit – despite repeated requests for an extension to the deadline.

The parish council had now asked the EA to hold a public meeting in Burniston and extend the consultation for at least two months.

The parish council chair, Cllr Richard Parsons, told us today:

“Our request for a further public open meeting in Burniston has so far been met by a wall of silence.

“I would urge the Environment Agency to reconsider their decision and allow further time for responses and a public open meeting.”

The council, local campaigners and residents had said the EA had not allowed enough time for them to review two key documents on the permit.

The documents had been revised earlier this month following complaints about errors and inconsistencies.

The EA said yesterday people had been allowed enough time to comment on the amendments.

But some residents did not receive a letter from the EA about the changes. Others did not receive the letter until less than a week before the deadline.

Cllr Parsons said:

“The Environment Agency appears to believe that the many and substantial changes did not merit proper scrutiny.

“They appear to have decided that, in many cases, less than a week was more than sufficient for ‘interested parties’ to read, investigate and comment on those changes, despite being informed that the time given to respond in detail and with accuracy was not enough.”

He said the EA had an “overarching responsibility” to “protect and enhance the environment in England as a whole, in order to contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development”.

He said:

“Allowing those people, who are likely to be directly affected by the proposed gas drill, hydraulic fracturing and underground waste storage, little time to respond to the changes to the EA report is not justifiable.

“The Environment Agency have left this community and the wider community with the belief that they have little or no regard for the public consultation process and equally have little or no regard for public comments.”

The Environment Agency has refused to extend its public consultation on plans for gas drilling and fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

Proposed Burniston drilling and fracking site.
Source: Europa Oil & Gas permit application

DrillOrDrop reported yesterday that villagers had called for an extension to the final consultation on an environmental permit.

This followed local concerns about revisions to two key documents after the EA admitted what it called “a small number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies”.

An EA spokesperson told us this evening:

“We value the contribution of the community and have carefully considered requests for additional time.

“However, we are satisfied that there has been a reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to respond and have closed the consultation.

“We will provide the outcome in due course.”

The EA said the Burniston consultation period had already been extended to give people time to consider the updated documents.

The EA also said all the amendments had been “clearly identified and summarised”. It said the changes did not affect its draft decision to approve the permit.

The regulator also said it had used “a range of channels to raise awareness of the consultation, including notifying the local MP, councillors and parish councils, and issuing online information and community letters.

Deadlines and updates

The EA originally set a deadline for comments of 26 September 2026.

On 24 September 2026, the Burniston permit consultation webpage changed the closing date for comments to today, 21 October 2026. There was no explanation.

On 29 September 2026, an update on the webpage acknowledged errors in the draft decision document.

On 7 October 2026, a second update said the errors had been corrected and revised documents were now available on the webpage.

Some local people said the EA community letter about the revised documents had not reached them until 14 October 2026. Others said they had not received one.

Local reaction

The campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC), said this evening:

“We are disappointed – not so much that they have not extended the consultation but more that they have refused to engage with the fact that their revised decision document perpetuates the confused terminology of the first version.”

The group said yesterday the deadline had not “give sufficient time” and went “against the spirit of the EA’s published code of practice for consultations”.

FFCC said it needed more time to carry out a “comprehensive analysis of shortcomings that affect the EA’s technical analysis and appraisal of the permit application”.

Burniston Parish Council had asked the EA for an extension to the consultation of at least two months.

The council chair, Cllr Richard Parsons, said yesterday:

“Burniston Parish Council and members of our community have become extremely concerned about the changes that have been made to the Environmental Agency report into the Burniston Gas drill licence.

“There have, very recently, been a large number of changes many of which do not just cover minor errors.”

The government’s approval of the Jackdaw gasfield, off Aberdeen, has been widely condemned by environmental campaigners.

Previous protest against Equinor, one of the companies behind the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields. Photo: © Ron Fassbender

Opponents of the decision include the campaign network, the Weald Action Group, which with Sarah Finch, secured a landmark judgement later used to quash the original Jackdaw permission.

The government said today Jackdaw could begin extracting gas within months and increase UK production by about 6% at its peak. But it admitted that the field would not reduce household bills.

A decision has yet to be made on the Rosebank oilfield, off Shetland. The Guardian reported this afternoon that the government was leaning towards rejecting development of Rosebank. Oil from that field would be exported and sold on international markets.

Jackdaw and Rosebank were approved by the Conservatives. But in 2025 the Scottish Court of Sessions confirmed that both decisions were unlawful.

The judge said the Finch Ruling by the UK Supreme Court should apply restrospectively to both Rosebank and Jackdaw.

The Finch case had successfully argued that decisionmakers must consider the climate impact of greenhouse gases released when fossil fuels were eventually burned. The original decisions on Jackdaw and Rosebank had not taken account of these emissions, known as downstream or Scope 3.

Weald Action Group reaction “classic case of misdirection”

Campaigner Sarah Finch said:

“Giving the go ahead to Jackdaw is a mistake and classic case of misdirection.

“The UK has the oldest and least efficient housing stock in Europe with one in five homes lacking proper insulation.

“Instead of approving a gas field that will do nothing to cut heating bills this winter or make a meaningful difference to energy security, the UK government should be investing in a systematic and comprehensive home energy efficiency programme”.

Campaigner Kirsty Clough said:

“Governments around the world already plan to produce over 90% more gas than is compatible with keeping global average temperature rise below 1.5oC.

“At home droughts and wildfires blighted our country this summer. What more evidence do leaders need that the climate crisis is not some distant threat for future administrations to deal with? It is real and it is happening now.

“Approving Jackdaw will only make the situation worse”.

Other campaign reaction ClientEarth – “we pay price of extreme weather”

Kyle Lischak, head of UK at Client Earth

“The companies drilling our oil and gasfield will soon leave the empty oilfields with record profits, whilst we pay the price of extreme weather for decades to come.”

The organisation also said:

“The approval of Jackdaw showed the strength of the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying. To stop Rosebank, the Government must feel our collective opposition is even stronger.

“This is the final stage of a years-long fight by many individuals, communities and organisations. If enough people speak out now, we can make sure Rosebank is rejected once and for all.”

E3G – “more drilling is the wrong answer”

Ellie Mae O’Hagan, the UK energy programme lead, said:

“After a summer of deadly heatwaves, the public has made up its mind: more drilling is the wrong answer. If the prime minister wants a decade in power to change the country, he should invest in heat pumps and solar, not tax breaks for the oil and gas companies driving up our bills and polluting the planet.”

Friends of the Earth – “bridge to nowhere”

Energy campaigner, Danny Gross, said:

“Giving Jackdaw the green light is a huge blow to Labour’s green credentials. It comes the same day the UN warns the world must cut carbon emissions by nearly a fifth in the next four years to avoid climate catastrophe – and just weeks before the Prime Minister is due to attend the global climate talks in Turkey.

“With extreme heat, devastating floods, wildfires, droughts and rising food prices already giving us a glimpse of a future of climate chaos, the science is clear – there can be no new oil and gas if we’re to avert the worst of climate breakdown.

“Jackdaw is a bridge to nowhere. It will slow down the shift to cheaper, cleaner energy and the green jobs of the future.

“The coming months are now crucial for the government. Andy Burnham must put ordinary people before the interests of the oil and gas lobby and polluters by saying no to Rosebank and a third Heathrow runway and putting a pause on the energy-hungry data centres threatening communities and the environment. The government can’t keep allowing developments that blow holes in our carbon ambitions, fuel the climate crisis and put our future at risk.”

Greenpeace – “toxic grip of fossil fuel lobbyists”

Ami McCarthy, head of politics, said:

“Approving Jackdaw shows the toxic grip fossil fuel lobbyists still hold over our energy policy. Andy Burnham promised pragmatism, but there is nothing pragmatic about rubber-stamping a project that won’t lower energy bills, won’t boost energy security and will create just 27 full-time jobs.

“What Jackdaw is guaranteed to do is generate record profits for Shell and Equinor while supercharging the climate chaos hitting families here and abroad. Going on to approve Rosebank would detonate an even bigger carbon bomb, releasing as much carbon as 56 coal plants operating for a year.

“True pragmatism means severing our reliance on expensive oil and gas that leaves British households broke, supercharges extreme weather and leaves our energy security at the mercy of petrostates.”

Uplift – “caving to oil industry”

Tessa Khan, executive director,said:

“This benefits oil giants and their shareholders and doesn’t make life more affordable as Burnham promise. Clean energy is how we lower bills, reindustrialise regions and increase public control – not by caving to an oil industry making obscene profits while pushing up bills, laying off workers and driving the heatwaves we saw this summer.”

She also said:

“Jackdaw will provide around just 2 per cent of our gas demand for roughly ten years. It has been oversold and won’t stop the decline in North Sea jobs, as it will be largely unmanned and operated remotely.”

She added:

“Labour’s climate credibility is on the line. No new oil and gasfields are compatible with safe climate limits.”

“Shell will be cheering this decision but it won’t knock a penny off our energy bills, which is what’s keeping people up at night, or make a meaningful difference to our gas supply.”

Organisations in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston are urging the Environment Agency (EA) to extend its consultation on plans for drilling and fracking.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

The deadline for comments is tomorrow (21 October 2026).

But local campaigners and councillors have called for more time to review two documents on the environmental permit, which the EA revised earlier this month.

The EA acknowledged what it called “drafting errors and “a small number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies”.

Burniston Parish Council has called for an extension to the consultation of at least two months.

The local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, said it needed more time for a “comprehensive analysis of shortcomings that affect the EA’s technical analysis and appraisal of the permit application”.

DrillOrDrop asked the EA to respond to the local complaints and calls for more time. The organisation replied on 21 October 2026 refusing to extend the consultation. More details soon.

The organisation initially said it needed more time to reply to us. A spokesperson described the issue as “a fairly complex matter” that required “a lot of different input from different officers and teams”.

The spokesperson added:

“it may take a day or two to provide a response”.

Details

The EA announced on 3 August 2026 that it was “minded to approve” the permit for gas exploration and lower-volume fracking at a site on the edge of Burniston.

But after widespread criticism of the draft permit, the EA extended the consultation and then issued revised versions of the draft decision document and the draft permit.

Analysis of the amended documents by DrillOrDrop found at least 58 changes to the updated draft decision document and more than 20 in the draft permit report here.

Many complaints had not been addressed in the revisions.

The parish council chair, Richard Parsons, told DrillOrDrop:

“Burniston Parish Council and members of our community have become extremely concerned about the changes that have been made to the Environmental Agency report into the Burniston Gas drill licence. There have, very recently, been a large number of changes many of which do not just cover minor errors.

“We appreciate that the EA realise that in order to hold a proper public consultation the end date needed extending. Taking into account the volume and importance of the changes, closing this consultation on October 21st does not leave enough time for anyone to respond in any detail. Many of our residents did not receive the change of consultation date letter, from the EA, until October 14th.

“It is worth noting that most of the changes and the extension, were made as a result of the original consultation, whereby the many and important EA errors in the report, were pointed out. 

“Burniston parish councillors have written to the Environment Agency requesting the public consultation is adequately extended to allow everyone to read, understand and comment in a timely manner. We would suggest this extension is for at least a further two months and whenever the EA make further changes, further extensions are applied.”

Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC) said:

“Revisions to the draft decision document are extensive and much more than the correction of minor typographical errors.

“The EA has admitted that they are aligning their terminology with that used by the applicant. Given the contradictions and inconsistencies in that terminology, some of which have been made worse by the revisions, proper public scrutiny of the revised document requires significant time.

“To close the consultation on 21st October does not give sufficient time and goes against the spirit of the EA’s published code of practice for consultations.”

FFCC also said:

“Letters to local residents informing them of the revisions and the new consultation deadline only began arriving on 12th October and some residents have not yet received theirs. This is contrary to the standards the EA holds itself to.”

It added:

“we require additional time to scrutinise the terminology used in the revised draft and compare it to the applicant’s documentation so that we can submit a comprehensive analysis of shortcomings that affect the EA’s technical analysis and appraisal of the permit application.

“This includes lack of evidence to support conclusions; confusion over the meaning of ‘phase’ and ‘stage’ of hydraulic fracturing and consequently over the potential volumes of fracking fluid to be used; and confusion about the purpose of the hydraulic fracturing (proppant squeeze) in the specific context of the target formations for the proposed well.”

DrillOrDrop will report separately on responses to the revised documents.

• The permit consultation is separate from the planning application, which was refused by North Yorkshire Council earlier this year.

A legal letter from a campaigner has warned Surrey County Council that approval of drilling and production at the Horse Hill oil site would be unlawful.

Horse Hill, Surrey, January, 2026. Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize

The site, near Redhill, was stripped of its planning permission in a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in June 2024. The court said the original permission granted in 2019 was unlawful because it failed to assess the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the end-use of the oil.

Oil production has been suspended since October 2024.

The site operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited (HHDL), it is now seeking to reinstate the permission. If granted, this would allow the company to drill four new production wells and extract 600,000 tonnes of oil over 20 years.

Use of the oil would release about two million tonnes of greenhouse gases, HHDL has estimated in new environmental information.

Dennis May, a member of Frack Free Misson who supported the Supreme Court case by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, is the latest campaigner to oppose the application. (More details here and here)

In a letter from the law firm, Leigh Day, he argues:

• The assessment of emissions from the use of the oil was “so flawed” that permission could not lawfully be granted under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations.
• The proposal contravened local planning policy, including the influential development plan, because it had not demonstrated the need for more drilling and production. The plans would also have “a significant adverse effect on the climate”.
• The proposal was not supported by national policy

The letter concluded:

“The Proposed Development is contrary to Development Plan policy, will have no guaranteed benefits for national energy security, receives no national policy support, and will have a major adverse impact on the climate.

“For all of these reasons permission should be refused. A decision to grant consent, on the basis of the information currently before the Council, would be unlawful, irrational and in breach of the EIA Regulations.”

Core fuel

HHDL had characterised the project as a “core fuel sector” activity under the Energy Act 2023. This seeks to maintain and improve core fuel sector resilience and ensure continuity of supply in the UK.

But Mr May’s letter said projects for the commercial extraction of crude oil were not included in the statutory definition of the core fuel sector. The letter said:

“HHD issimply wrong in law in its assertion that the activity is wihtin the core fuel sector regime”.

It added:

“HHD is wrong to seek to conflate its project for the commercial extraction of crude oil with the powers of the Secretary of State to safeguard downstream core fuel supplies.”

Climate impact

The company had also argued in the new information that the emissions from use of the oil would be “not significant” for climate change and that drilling and production at Horse Hill would contribute to national energy security.

Mr May’s letter said there was “no credible basis for suggesting the impact on the climate would not be significant”.

HHDL’s assessment of the climate impacts was “deeply flawed”, the letter said. Methods used to give context to the significance of the emissions did not follow relevant guidance and/or were misleading, it said.

The letter added

“When the correct principles are applied it is absolutely obvious that the grant of permission for new oil and gas development … will have a major adverse effect on the climate.

“The applicant’s scattergun calculations may make it difficult to establish the precise magnitude of the effect with confidence, but it will self-evidently be significant in EIA terms. Any suggestion to the contrary is smoke and mirrors.”

“The FEI [further environmental information] submitted by HHD is logically unsound and legally inadequate. On that basis alone, permission for the proposed development should be refused.”

Policy support

The letter said HHDL was wrong to argue that the application benefitted from “active national policy support” in the National Policy Statement for Energy

It said the statement did not support the argument that new oil and gas extraction should be considered as infrastructure for which there was an urgent need.

Mr May countered any argument that the application was not for new oil and gas infrastructure. He said previous lawful planning permissions at Horse Hill had been for exploration and appraisal, not production. The first permission for production had been quashed by the Supreme Court.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – the blueprint for decision-making – removed the previous positive weight given to the economic benefits of onshore oil and gas development, the letter added. The NPPF also removed the requirement on decision-makers to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas.

Decision date

No date has been confirmed for deciding the Horse Hill application.

But Surrey County Council told us today the January 2027 meeting of the planning committee was “currently looking the most likely”.

This meeting is expected to be on Wednesday 27 January 2027 at 10.30am. The committee usually meets in the council chamber at county council headquarters, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF.

energy B has announced an agreement that would give it total control of the suspended Horse Hill oil site in Surrey.

Horse Hill oil site in Surrey. Source: Google Earth downloaded 21/7/2026

In a stock market statement this morning, the company said it had agreed to buy the remaining stakes in Horse Hill, held by Arkadian Strategic Metals plc and Azzuro Resources.

The deals will cost a total of £167,748, energy B said.

In June 2026, energy B agreed to buy the majority interest in the site, near Gatwick Airport, then held by UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG).

Today’s announcement would give energy B full ownership of the operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited (HHDL), the company said.

All three deals must be approved by the industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).

Energy B said formal application for the change of control was made to the NSTA on 30 September 2026.

DrillOrDrop recently asked NSTA whether the deal with UK Oil & Gas had been approved. The regulator said it could not comment on individual cases.

Production halted

Oil production at Horse Hill has been suspended since October 2024. This followed the landmark Finch ruling by the Supreme Court, which quashed planning permission at the site.

The court ruled that the consent had been granted unlawfully in 2019. The decision-maker, Surrey County Council, had failed to assess the greenhouse gas emissions from using Horse Hill oil, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions.

HHDL submitted a new planning application in May 2026 for further drilling and long-term oil production at Horse Hill.

The application has been widely criticised by environmental campaigners, particularly over the assessment of scope 3 emissions. (Details here and here.)

Surrey County Council suggested today that a decision on the Horse Hill plans would not be made in 2026. A spokesperson said the date of the deciding planning committee meeting had not been confirmed but January 2027 was “currently looking the most likely”. More details

Neil Ritson, chief executive of energy B, said today:

“These minority interest buyout agreements are important to us as they will give us day to day control of the Gatwick energy site going forward. This will allow us to streamline our approach to the future field development and in dealing with the UK Government and regulators.

“We hope to restart production at the site early 2027 but timing depends on the discussions that are ongoing with the Surrey Country Council and the field’s planning amendments that are currently before them.”

Fundraising

energy B also said it had received firm commitments to raise £100,000 in share issues.

These include a £50,000 conditional subscription from the company’s chair, David Lenigas.

He said today:

“Consolidating our ownership of the Gatwick energy site into one single entity under energy B paves the way to reopen the site and supply British oil and gas to the British market.

“Historically, all of the oil from Gatwick has gone to the Fawley refinery near Southampton. It is the largest refinery in the UK, and it supplies about a fifth of the nation’s refinery capacity.

“Around 85% of its products travel to five distribution terminals plus, Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham airports. The oil from HH-1 also goes into the mix for Fawley’s dedicated jet fuel pipelines to the major airports.

“The Gatwick energy site can again be a home-grown contributor to Britain’s energy security.”

The decision on plans for drilling and long-term oil production at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey is unlikely to be made this year (2026).

DrillOrDrop asked Surrey County Council when the application was likely to be considered by its planning committee. The council told us this morning:

“The January [2027] meeting is currently looking the most likely but is still to be confirmed”.

The January 2027 meeting is likely to be on Wednesday 27 January 2027 at 10.30am. The committee usually meets in the council chamber at county council headquarters, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF.

Application

The application, by the site operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited (HHDL), seeks permission to drill four new production wells and extract oil for 20 years.

A previous permission for the work, granted in 2019, was quashed by the Supreme Court in the landmark Finch Ruling in June 2024.

The court said the permission had been unlawful because Surrey County Council failed to consider the climate impact of emissions from using Horse Hill oil.

Oil production at the site has been suspended since October 2024.

HHDL submitted a new application to reinstate permission in May 2026. It was published in mid June 2026.

Since then, environmental campaigners have objected to the application, particularly its claims that there would be “no significant” impact on climate change or that it had national policy support.

The most recent criticism warned the county council that approval of the application would be unlawful. Report coming soon.

• energy B, the company which agreed to buy the majority stake in HHDL, announced today a deal to buy the remaining share. More details soon.

Correction: January meeting of Surrey’s planning meeting is on Wednesday 27 January 2027 (not 2026 as previously stated)

The Environment Agency (EA) has amended its much-criticised assessment of gas drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

The EA has corrected what it described as “drafting errors” in two key documents on an environmental permit.

It has now acknowledged “a small number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies” and published revised versions.

However, analysis by DrillOrDrop has identified at least 58 changes in the updated draft decision document and more than 20 in the draft permit.

Many other local concerns about the documents remain.

The permit process at Burniston is the subject of an official complaint against the EA. The documents have also been strongly criticised by residents and campaigners, the local action group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, and Burniston Parish Council.

The EA was accused of inaccurate, inconsistent, contradictory and missing information. It was urged to withdraw its draft decision to approve the permit.

But the EA said its technical assessment was unchanged, despite the errors in the original documents.

Extract from Environment Agency website on Burniston environmental permit

DrillOrDrop will report separately on reaction to the revised permit documents. The environmental permit is a separate process from planning permission, which was formally refused for the Burniston proposal in May 2026.

Changes

DrillOrDrop used the EA’s list of changes (p3) to the 92-page draft decision document. We found:

• At least 50 unique amendments
• At least a third of pages (30) had amendments
• Two pages each had at least five changes and another page had at least four
• One section comprising five-and-a-half pages had at least15 amendments

In the 30-page draft permit, again using the EA’s list of changes, we found:

• At least 20 unique amendments
• At least a third of pages had amendments (10)
• One page had four changes, all in one section
• Another two pages each had three changes

The EA’s lists of changes refer to additional amendments to key terms that had been made throughout both the draft decision document and draft permit.

These, and many of the listed amendments, are not always easy to find in the revised versions. We found:

• Page numbers in the list of changes did not always match the pages in the new draft decision document
• Some amended paragraphs were numbered in the list but not in the document
• Some terms listed as amended throughout the draft decision document appeared in different forms in the list and the original document
• Some terms listed as amended throughout the draft decision document did not appear in searches of the original

Some of the amendments were basic corrections. These include the use of the term “oil-based” fracturing fluid and the naming of the target rock formation as within the Kirkham Abbey Formation.

Other amendments were more complicated and potentially contentious, particularly about the proposed lower-volume fracking operation.

Fracking

The term fracking appeared in the EA text in the original draft decision document but was removed from this section in the revised version.

“Fracking” has been used by residents, at least once by the would-be Burniston operator Europa Oil & Gas and by the EA in the permitting process for another site. A legal opinion by a KC has confirmed that the Burniston operation qualified as fracking.

The revised draft decision document now widely refers to the proposed operation as proppant squeeze. But most references in the document to “proppant fluid” have been replaced with “hydraulic fracture fluid”. A new definition has been added for “carrier fluid”, also called hydraulic fracture fluid.

The EA’s revised draft decision document continues to state that a “small” volume of hydraulic fracture fluid would be used at Burniston. We previously asked the EA to define “small”. It said “small” would be removed from the revised document.

The draft decision document also retains the statement that high -volume associated hydraulic fracturing, currently subject to a moratorium in England, “typically involves the injection of thousands of cubic meters of fluid”.

The EA does not give an example of a fracking site using this volume of fluid.

The most recent high-volume fracks in England were at Preston New Road in Lancashire in 2018 and 2019. Both operations induced multiple earthquakes. The 2019 fracks, which led to the moratorium, used a total of 2,485m3 of fluid in seven fracking stages, with an average volume of 354m3 per stage.

Europa Oil & Gas has said it intends to use 300m3-500m3 per stage (p25) with up to four stages. This would potentially use a total volume of 2,000m3.

Extended consultation

The EA has said “In the interests of transparency and openness” it has extended the consultation until 21 October 2026.

But DrillOrDrop understands local organisations are calling for more time to review the updated documents. We will report on any further change to the consultation period and to reaction to the EA’s revisions.