DRILL OR DROP?

A second community group has asked for more time to comment on the environmental impact of fracturing plans in Yorkshire.

Rathlin Energy’s West Newton site.
Photo: DrillOrDrop

Last week, the Environment Agency (EA) extended the consultation period on lower-volume fracking at Burniston near Scarborough, after a request from Frack Free Coastal Communities

Today, West Newton Said No, a community campaign group in East Yorkshire, asked for more time to comment on a similar operation in at West Newton in Holderness.

The EA had said it was minded to approve the application by Rathlin Energy (EPR/BB3001FT/V006) to vary its environmental permit to carry out small-scale hydraulic fracturing at the West-Newton-A site.

The regulator set a deadline for final comments of 9 September 2025.

But West Newton Said No asked for a further month to comment until 9 October 2025.

The group said it was seeking the extension because new information in the application was complex and technical.

It said there was confusion about plans to carry out hydraulic fractures in a secondary fracture zone within the Kirkham Abbey.

It also said the permit imcluded no hydraulic fracturing plan and no details on how the process would be contained safely.

West Newton Said No complained that the consultation had been scheduled during the school summer holidays. The group said people who wanted to comment may be away for large parts of the consultation period and specialists could be unavailable to help.

It said:

“We understand that you respectfully listened to Frack Free Coastal Communities regarding Burniston and gave them an extension so I hope you can extend the same courtesy to the residents of East Yorkshire and beyond.”

It urged the EA to host a series of face-to-face public information events. It said a significant number of local people did not have internet access and the documents were complex.

“The public needs more clarity about the consultation directly from the Environment Agency so that they have the chance to ask pertinent questions before they make their comments.”

The group also called for several online question-and-answer events for people who could not attend face-to-face events.

West Newton Said No reminded the EA that it should follow government guidance on the duration, timing and accessibility of consultations.

Two mothballed gas sites in East Yorkshire could be used for cryptocurrency mining, company announcements revealed today.

Rathlin Energy’s West Newton-A site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Partners in the West Newton sites in Holderness unveiled plans to use gas from the wells to generate electricity needed to mine Bitcoins. Links to announcements here and here

The operator, Rathlin Energy, has entered a non-binding agreement with the Texas-based company, 360 Energy Inc, to design what was called a Bitcoin mining solution.

Rathlin said last year that it did not have enough money to meet its drilling and abandonment commitments at West Newton.

Today’s announcements said the scheme offered “an innovative and significant near-term value generating opportunity, providing early production and cash flow in advance of any planned full gas field development decision”.

But there have been sceptical comments this morning from investors in Reabold Resources and West Newton’s other partner, Union Jack Oil.

According to the announcements, the plan would begin at West Newton-A, with an onsite data centre powered by electricity generated by burning gas from the A2 well. The project would later be rolled out for the West Newton-A1 well and at West Newton-B with the B1z well.

Rathlin Energy’s West Newton-B site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The scheme is expected to need planning consents.

West Newton-A currently has permissions for 20 years of gas production but no work has been carried out at the site for six years. The site is currently seeking environmental consent for lower-volume hydraulic fracturing of the A-2 well.

At West Newton-B, there is planning permission for an additional well but not gas production. No work has been carried out at West Newton-B since December 2020.

Reabold Resources, which has a 79.8% shareholding in Rathlin Energy, said Bitcoin mining would “complement both the early production scheme and the full field development” at West Newton.

Sachin Oza, co-chief executive of Reabold Resources, said:

“We believe that the creation and accumulation of new Bitcoin through mining operations offers a significantly enhanced, sustainable return, and one which is superior to simple cash purchases and accumulation of Bitcoin on the balance sheet, popularly referred to as a Bitcoin treasury strategy.

“The accumulation of mined Bitcoin, taking advantage of Rathlin’s access to extremely low cost energy, is both a precursor and supplement to the unlocking of the substantial low-cost natural gas at West Newton, which we believe will play an invaluable role in UK energy security in the years ahead.”

He also suggested that West Newton’s low operating costs would make it “ideal” for powering artificial intelligence data centres.

Mr Oza and his co-chief executive, Stephen Williams, are directors of Kryptobyte Limited. It changed its name today from Yorkshire Data Centre Services Limited. Before that it was known as Reabold Investments UK Limited. In April 2025, the company filed accounts for a “dormant company”.

Union Jack, which has a 16.665% interest in the West Newton field, said:

“The relationship with 360 Energy has the potential to enable the Joint Venture partners to realise significant returns from natural gas volumes via wells that would not otherwise contribute to either the early production scheme or the full field development”.

Union Jack’s executive chairman, David Bramhill, said “regulatory uncertainty” had hampered progress at onshore projects, like West Newton. Onshore developers had been “forced to ‘think outside the box’ in order to make progress and deliver growth”, he said.

Last year, operators of a suspended oil site in West Sussex suggested geothermal heat could be used for tea production. (The scheme was not implemented and the site no longer has planning permission.)

Mr Bramhill added:

“The Board of Union Jack believes this proposed concept to produce Bitcoin through mining operations is innovative, offers strong scope for a sustainable return and could lead to the Company introducing a new Bitcoin Treasury strategy, on success.

“In addition, we believe that 360 Energy’s association with West Newton is complementary to Union Jack’s position as a profitable, transatlantic oil and gas business with production in both the UK and USA.”

“Pure theatre”

One Union Jack shareholder said “beware of the ‘Emperor’s new clothes”. Another described it as a “a gimmick”. Another said: “Gas-to-bitcoin will never happen, it’s pure theatre”.

Bitcoin mining – the validation of transactions in the cryptocurrency – demands large amounts of electricity

The IMF estimated a year ago that one Bitcoin transaction required about the same amount of electricity as the average person in Ghana or Pakistan consumes in three years.

One Union Jack investor questioned whether West Newton could generate enough electricity to meet demands.

Comments on Reabold Resources’ announcement were also sceptical. The company’s share price fell this morning from 0.06p to 0.052p. One comment said: “The market is understandably unimpressed.”

Another said: “more pie in the sky”.  Another said: “On the face of it this appears to be bandwagon stuff”. But the comment added that high demands for energy from AI could be a loophole for oil and gas companies through net zero policies.

Cryptocurrency is expected to generate greenhouse gas emissions. The IMF estimated crypto mining could generate 0.7% of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2027.

Rathlin Energy says on its website that it understands that climate change is a global concern but its gas project at West Newton “aligns with the UK’s commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050”.

The public consultation has been extended on the environmental impact of plans to drill and fracture a gas well at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

Well diagram from the Europa Oil & Gas environmental permit application

The Environment Agency (EA) originally set a deadline of Wednesday 13 August 2025 for comments on an application for an environmental permit from Europa Oil & Gas.

But following concerns about the application, the consultation has been extended until Friday 19 September 2025.

The EA has added new information, including a previously missing inventory of chemicals that would be used in the operation.

The local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, complained to the EA that the chemical inventory was “crucial” for people to be able to assess the risk to groundwater, soils and local ecology.

The 12-page inventory lists the substances that would be used during drilling and cleaning the well and in the controversial fracturing operation, known as a proppant squeeze. This is a form of lower-volume hydraulic fracturing, which is not prevented by the moratorium on fracking in England.

The environmental permit is one of several consents that must be granted before work at Burniston could begin. Link to permit and consultation details.

A planning application is currently being considered by officials at North Yorkshire Council.

Discrepancies

Frack Free Coastal Communities also identified what it described as “material discrepancies” between the information on the proppant squeeze in the permit application and the planning application.

The permit application (Waste Management Plan, p36) seeks consent for up to four treatments of proppant squeeze, each using 300m-500m3 of carrier fluid and 12.5 tonnes of proppant. If Europa carried out all four treatments using the maximum amount of fluid and proppant, this would require a total of 2,000m3 of fluid and 50 tonnes of proppant.

The planning application (Planning Statement, p17-18) suggests a single operation, using 300-500m3 and 60-80 tonnes of proppant.

Frack Free Coastal Communities said:

“This discrepancy should be clarified before people can be expected to make an informed response to the consultation”.

The group said the discrepancy had implications for the number of heavy goods vehicle journeys needed to transport water and chemicals to the site and their environmental impact. It said the discrepancy raised questions about data on traffic movements and emissions in the planning application.

Consultation problems

Frack Free Coastal Communities also complained that the permit application’s non-technical summary contained “complex and technical information” that “a layperson would find difficult to understand without explanation”. The group said it needed more time to assemble and make available relevant explanatory information.

The group also said several technical experts it wanted to consult were taking family holidays during the original consultation period.

It called for structured discussions with young people in schools and colleges, that could be done only in term time. It also requested face-to-face public information events and online question-and-answer sessions.

Government consultation principles, which apply to the EA, include guidance to:

• Give enough information to ensure that people consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses
• Ensure the consultation lasts for a proportionate amount of time, based on the nature and impact of the proposal
• Consider extending the length of consultations that take place during holidays
• Target consultations to the needs and preferences of particular groups

The Reform UK mayor of Greater Lincolnshire has said her party will frack a shale gasfield near Gainsborough if it wins the next general election.

Andrea Jenkyns, Reform UK mayor of Lincolnshire.
Photo: still from video of event in Boston on 30 July 2025

Dame Andrea Jenkyns acknowledged there was currently a moratorium on fracking in England. But she said Reform pledged to “drill, baby, drill”.

She told a Reform UK event in Boston this week that she had recently met the oil and gas company, Egdon Resources, which has the licence to explore and produce hydrocarbons in the area known to geologists as the Gainsborough Trough.

The company has estimated total production from the field at 16 trillion cubic feet. It said this was enough to meet the entire UK gas needs for 6.7 years at current consumption.

But Egdon’s estimates have been questioned by industry commentators. One told DrillOrDrop the claims were “so misleading as to be ridiculous”.

Ms Jenkyns said:

“Last month, I met with a fracking company responsible for a gas find in West Lindsey. But did you know that if we unleash this we would add hundreds of billions of pounds to the exchequer, create 250,000 jobs and obviously make us less reliant on foreign energy. I think this is a good thing.”

Referring to the energy secretary, she said:

“Miliband may have a moratorium banning fracking but as mayor, I can ensure that Lincolnshire people have the right skills so come 2029, if we have a Reform government, we can drill, baby, drill. And we can ensure that it is Lincolnshire people who have got these jobs.”

She also quoted the US president who had described North Sea oil was a “treasure chest” for Britain and how we had “essentially told drillers and oil companies that ‘we don’t want you’”.

Ms Jenkyns said:

“Donald is wise and we will not make that mistake. We value our oil and gas industries and know that they are essential for Britain’s energy security and to fuel our homes.”

A video of the mayor’s comments are on her Facebook page.

The latest advice to the government from its independent advisor, the Climate Change Committee, was for a rapid switch away from gas. Last month, the CCC said it was “important to get off unreliable fossil fuels and onto homegrown, renewable energy as quickly as possible. The fossil fuel era is over – cheap, clean electricity is our future.”

Reform inconsistencies

There have been recent inconsistencies in Reform UK’s support for fracking.

The Reform-led Scarborough Town Council in North Yorkshire objected unanimously last month to plans for lower-volume fracking at Burniston.

And a senior member of the Reform-led Lancashire County Council has called for a former fracking site to be fully restored after the operator applied for a two-year extension.

Joshua Roberts, the council’s cabinet member for rural affairs, the environment and communities, told BBC News:

“We want the site fully restored without further delays – progress has been far too slow.”

He said:

“Any extensions need to be backed by solid reasons and not excuses.”

The councillor said:

“We will look to see if everything on the site needs to stay for another two years, like fencing.”

He also said that although Reform’s national policy supports fracking, the process “has its place, but not everywhere”.

The government has committed to banning associated hydraulic fracturing, which is prevented by the moratorium in England. It has also suggested that it would consider widening the moratorium to lower volume forms of the process that are currently not included.

The energy minister, Michael Shanks wrote in a parliamentary answer, last month:

“We are committed to banning fracking for good and any future decision on national planning policy for fracking will take into account all volumes of hydraulic fracturing.”

UK onshore gas production fell again in May 2025, for the fifth consecutive month. The May figure was the lowest for 18 months, despite a small increase in production from the largest field at Saltfleetby.

Onshore oil volume was up slightly in May 2025 compared with April – but only marginally more than would have been expected from the longer month.

Key figures

Daily oil production:  barrels of oil per day (bopd): 12,490bopd
April 2025 12,441bopd, March 2025 12,310 bopd, February 2025 12,651bopd, January 2025 12,393bopd, December 2024 12,538bopd, November, 12,395bopd, October 11,000bopd, September 11,193 bopd, August 11,776 bopd, July 12,314 bopd

Oil volume: 61,558m3
April 2025 59,337m3, March 2025 60,671m3, February 2025 56,316m3, January 2025 61,080m3, December 2024 61,793m3, November 2024 59,120m3, October 2024 54,213m3, September 2024 53,387m3, August 2024 58,037m3, July 2024 60,690m3

Oil weight: 50,857 tonnes
April 2025 49,000 tonnes, March 2025 50,079 tonnes, February 2025 46,520 tonnes, January 2025 50,444 tonnes, December 2024 51,029 tonnes, November 2024 48,858 tonnes, October 2024 44,849 tonnes, September 2024 44,133 tonnes, August 2024 47,948 tonnes, July 2024 2024 50,148 tonnes

Daily gas production: million standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/d): 5.90mmscf/d
April 2025 6.27mmscf/d, March 2025 7.91mmscf/d, February 2025 8.77mmscf/d, January 2025 9.09mmscf/d, December 2024 9.52 mmscf/d, November 2024 9.28 mmscf/d, October 2024 9.94 mmscf/d, September 2024 8.67 mmscf/d, August 2024 8.59 mmscf/d, July 2024 7.22 mmscf/d

Gas volume: thousand standard cubic meters (Ksm3): 5,178ksm3
April 2025 5,329ksm3, March 2025 6,948ksm3, February 2025 6,952ksm3, January 2025 7,982ksm3, December 2024 8,356ksm3, November 2024 7,882ksm3, October 2024 8,726Ksm3, September 2024 7,367Ksm3, August 2024 7,540Ksm3, July 2024 6,339Ksm3

Gas weight: 4,173 tonnes
April 2025 4,266 tonnes, March 2025 5,444 tonnes, February 2025 5,478 tonnes, January 2025 6,273 tonnes, December 2024 6,652 tonnes, November 2024 6,291 tonnes, October 2024 6,861 tonnes, September 2024 6,034 tonnes, August 2024 6,186 tonnes, July 2024 5,143 tonnes

Onshore oil’s contribution to UK total production: 2.08%
April 2025 2.02%, March 2025 2.01%, February 2025 2.05%, January 2025 2.02%, December 2024 2.02%, November 2024 2.18%, October 2024 1.88%, September 2024 2.08%, August 2024 2.70%, July 2024 2.16%

Onshore gas’s contribution to UK total production:  0.56%
April 2025 0.58%, March 2025 0.71%, February 2025 0.77%, January 2025 0.74%, December 2024 0.78%, November 2024 0.82%, October 2024 1.04%, September 2024 0.89%, August 2024 0.91%, July 2024 0.72%

Volume of flared gas at UK onshore oil fields: 893ksm3
April 2025 571ksm3, March 2025  899ksm3, February 2025 848ksm3, January 2025  940ksm3, December 2024 880ksm3, November 2024 1,067m3, October 2024 951 ksm3, September 2024 943 ksm3, August 2024 975 ksm3, July 2024 1,035ksm3

Volume of vented gas at UK onshore oil fields: 91ksm3
April 2025 90ksm3, March 2025 98ksm3, February 2025 98ksm3, January 2025 135ksm3, December 2024 103ksm3, November 2024 106ksm3, October 2024 119 ksm3, September 2024 98ksm3, August 2024 100ksm3, July 2024 123ksm3

Volume of produced water at UK onshore oil fields: 1,406,011m3
New data field – we will add past data in the coming months. April 20251,385,532m3, March 2025 1,335,865m3, February 2025 1,280,605m3

Volume of reinjected produced water at UK onshore oil fields: 1,389989m3
New data field – we will add past data in the coming months. April 2025 1,370,247m3, March 2025 1,319,683m3, February 2025 1,266,963m3

Volume of produced water at UK onshore gas fields: 189m3
New data field – we will add past data in the coming months. April 2025 137m3, March 2025 187m3, February 2025 176m3

Number of onshore fields which recorded some oil production in May 2025: 27
April 2025  29, March 2025 29, February 2025 29, January 2025 29, December 2024 29, November 2024 30,October 2024 30, September 2024 31, August 2024 31, July 2024 31

Number of onshore fields which recorded some gas production in May 2025: 8
April 2025 11, March 2025 12, February 2025 14, January 2025 15, December 2024 15, November 2024 11, October 2024 13, September 2024 8, August 2024 7, July 2024 8

Number of onshore producing fields which recorded no oil production in May 2025: 16
April 2025 14, March 2025 13, February 2025 14, January 2025 14, December 2024 14, November 2024 13, October 2024 13, September 2024 12, August 2024 12, July 2024 12

Number of onshore producing fields which recorded no gas production in
May 2025: 17
April 2025 14, March 2025 13, February 2025: 11, January 2025 11, December 2024 10, November 2024 15, October 2024 13, September 2024 17, 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 production Flaring and venting Produced and reinjected water

The data shows no reinjected water at onshore gasfields

Producing fields Oil Gas Non-producing fields Oil

The May 2025 data shows there was no production at 16 UK onshore oilfields. This was two more than in April 2025. Kimmeridge, Beckingham West and Humbly Grove recorded no production in May 2025. Keddington, which had no production in April 2025, produced in May 2025

The non-producing fields were again:

• Angus Energy: Lidsey
• Britnrg Limited: Newton-on-Trent
• EP UK Investments: Humbly Grove
• Heyco (formerly Egdon Resources): Dukes Wood, Fiskerton Airfield, Kirklington, Waddock Cross
• HHDL/UKOG: Horse Hill
• Perenco: Kimmeridge
• Star Enery (formerly IGas): Avington, Beckingham West, Egmanton, Nettleham, Scampton, South Leverton, Stainton

Gas

There was no production from 17 onshore fields in April 2025, according to the data. This was three more than in April 2025. The additional non-producing fields were Cadeby, Bevercotes, Markham. Hatfield Moor Gas Storage was not listed in the data for May 2025.

The non-producing fields were:

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

Operators Oil Gas 2022-2025 onshore data archive

April 2025

March 2025

February 2025

January 2025

Production review of 2024

December 2024

November 2024

October 2024

September 2024

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

Plans to carry out a lower-volume hydraulic fracture at the West Newton-A oil and gas site in East Yorkshire look likely to get the go-ahead.

West Newton-A wellsite, April 2025. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The Environment Agency has said it is minded to approve proposals by Rathlin Energy to inject oil-based fluid and proppant into the target reservoir at pressures high enough to fracture rocks.

The process is designed to improve the flow of oil and gas from the A2 well at Fosham Road, Marton.

A final public consultation on a variation to the environmental permit is now underway and runs until 9 September 2025.

Kathryn Richardson, area environment manager for the Environment Agency in Yorkshire, said:

“We have carefully considered all the documents, as well as the consultation comments, and currently can’t find any reason to refuse the variation application.  

“I’d encourage interested parties to view the decision document and send us their comments.

“We will make our final decision once we have reviewed the responses to this consultation.”

People can respond to the consultation online or by email to pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk or by contacting the EA on 03708 506 506

Stimulation, proppant squeeze or fracture?

The application and EA documents describe Rathlin’s proposed operation as well stimulation. At other existing and planned sites, such as Wressle in North Lincolnshire and Burniston in North Yorkshire, the same process has been called proppant squeeze.

The draft revised permit for West Newton has 25 references to stimulation and none to proppant squeeze.

But the EA’s  decision document said stimulation was also known as low volume hydraulic fracturing, proppant squeeze or mini frack.

It confirmed that the fluid injection would be above fracture pressure. It also said the difference between fracking and reservoir stimulation was the smaller quantity of fluid used.

If approved, the fracturing operation at West Newton would be carried out once, pumping 60-70m3 of fluid and 12.4 tonnes of sand into the Kirkham Abbey Formation at a depth of about 1.7km, the EA said. The maximum daily permitted volume of fluid would be 85m3. This would include the volume of fluid for a diagnostic fracture injection test.

The process is expected to create fractures up to 30m high, the EA added. It also said that between 50% and 70% of the fracturing fluid was estimated to remain underground.

A section of the EA decision document on hydraulic fracturing (page 9) used identical words to a report commissioned by Rathlin Energy from the geological consultancy, Outer Limits (page 31).

Extract from EA decision document Extract from Outer Limits report

Rathlin’s proposal is not covered by the current moratorium on associated hydraulic fracturing in England. This has a presumption against hydraulic fracturing that uses more than 1,000m3 of fluid per stage or 10,000m3 in total. A campaign is underway to widen the scope of the moratorium to lower-volume hydraulic fracturing.

The EA also confirmed that the West Newton-A operation would need an approved Hydraulic Fracturing Plan before work could start (see EA responses below).

Concerns

An earlier consultation raised a wide range of concerns about the West Newton-A plans. These included:

• Induced seismicity leading to earthquakes and/or fault movements
• Seismic predictions based on modelling
• Lack of a hydraulic fracturing plan or acid stimulation plan
• Groundwater contamination
• Site liner not fit for purpose  
• Production of naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM)
• Lack of information on MO-1V Breaker fluid
• Use of oil-based gelling fluids
• Increased traffic and noise
• Application was not accessible, lacked clear and concise information or had missing or contradictory information
• Process is not compatible with the UK’s net zero ambitions or climate change action
• EA capacity to regulate the site
• Onsite chemical storage and mixing

EA responses

The EA responded in its decision document to many of the concerns. The responses included:

Earth tremors: The EA said the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) was responsible for regulating seismicity. But the EA said: “We are satisfied that the changes in this variation do not increase the potential for tremors”. It added:

“Low level hydraulic well stimulation can generate micro seismicity however, the proposed activities pose a very low risk with respect to seismic risk.

“The proposed activities are at the lowest end of the pressure spectrum associated with conventional hydraulic fracturing and are therefore unlikely to induce any seismic movements in the area.”

The EA added:

“Low level reservoir stimulation has no past record of causing seismicity which has only been associated with large scale, high volume hydraulic fracturing of shale gas formations.”

But it did not acknowledge that fracturing by Cuadrilla at Preston New Road in Lancashire induced earthquakes after injecting volumes of fluid as low as 142m3.

The report for Rathlin Energy said there was a 99% probability that seismicity caused by the operation would not exceed a maximum magnitude of M0.8. This would not be felt by people nearby, the report said. It also said the installation of local seismicity monitoring arrays was not warranted.

Hydraulic fracture plan: The EA said this plan must be submitted for approval at least two months before the start of the lower-volume fracture. It must include a summary of the planned operation, maps showing local faults, information on historic seismicity, a risk assessment of induced seismicity, processes to identify vertical and horizontal extents of fractures, steps to assess and mitigate fractures beyond the permit boundary or outside the target formation, measures to monitor seismicity and proposed reporting during and after fracturing.

Acid stimulation: The EA said an acid stimulation plan was not needed because Rathlin Energy did not propose to use acid stimulation.

Groundwater: The EA said: “We are satisfied that measures can be taken to ensure that the fracturing fluids do not migrate from the target formation”. It said the proposed fracture did “not present a significant risk to groundwater”. It said the upward movement of fracturing fluid from the Kirkham Abbey Formation would be limited by the overlying Fordon Formation of anhydrite and halite.

Liner: The EA included an improvement programme which it said was intended to ensure the liner’s integrity was maintained and necessary improvements made (see Conditions below)

MO-1V Breaker fluid: The manufacturer of this chemical had claimed confidentiality to restrict publication of the composition. But the fluid had since been removed from the application, the EA said.

Oil-based fluids: The EA said Rathlin Energy had argued that oil-based fluids would be used because water-based alternatives had previously damaged the Kirkham Abbey Formation. It said the formation had readily accepted these fluids but returned them slowly, which appeared to restrict the flow of gas.

Pollution and human health: The EA said: “We are satisfied that this facility will not cause significant pollution or harm and that it will provide a high level of protection for the environment as a whole”.

Management plans: The EA said it was satisfied with the application’s hydrological risk assessment, waste management plan, odour management plan, noise and vibration management plans and ecological impact assessment.

Traffic and noise: The EA said it was not responsible for regulating traffic. But it said it was “extremely unlikely” that the proposal at West Newton-A would increase traffic movements.

Regulation: The EA said it would regulate the site with continual assessment of plant operations and environmental performance. Regulation would include site inspections, onsite audits, assessment of how Rathlin Energy monitored emissions, requirements that breaches of emissions limits were reported and the investigation of complaints.

Climate change: The EA said it could not consider energy policy when determining a permit variation application.

NORM: The EA said the management of radioactive materials was regulated under a radioactive substances permit.

Conditions

The draft permit requires the approval of a hydraulic fracturing plan before work can start.

It also included conditions that set limits on the maximum daily discharge of fracturing fluid, the discharge rate and the surface injection pressure. Conditions limit emissions from a gas flare during well testing and production and from gas engines. They require monitoring of substances in groundwater and emissions from stock tanks.

The EA also required an improvement programme for West Newton-A. This included approval of a secondary and tertiary containment plan and work to ensure the integrity of the site’s impermeable liner.

The oil company at the centre of a landmark legal ruling on climate emissions has again delayed the publication of its annual report and accounts.

UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) announced this week the accounts for 2024 would be published “no later than early September 2025”.

The news came two days before the company’s promised publication date.

UKOG said its interim results for the six months to March 2025, which had also been delayed, would be published at the same time.

The original deadline for publication of the annual accounts was 31 March 2025. But three days before, UKOG said the date would not be met because of “additional time required by its auditors”.

Share trading was suspended until the accounts were published, which the company said would be “as soon as possible”.

Three months later, UKOG said the annual report was “now well advanced and the Company expects to publish the report before the end of July”.

UKOG said it had changed auditor earlier this year. The company’s website reports that the auditor is Moore Kingston Smith LLP.

The accounts for the year to September 2023, published on 1 April 2024, were audited by PKF Littlejohn LLP. The auditor’s report highlighted “a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the company’s [UKOG’s] ability to continue as a going concern”. PKF Littlejohn said it was willing to “continue in office as auditor”.

Planning permission problems Horse Hill

UKOG is the parent company of the operator of the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, where planning permission was quashed in 2024 when the Supreme Court ruled the decision was unlawful. The court said Surrey County Council should have considered the climate emissions of burning the oil, not just the emissions from the production process. Production has stopped at Horse Hill but the latest reports said the site has not been cleared.

Broadford Bridge and Dunsfold

A UKOG subsidiary operates the Broadford Bridge oil site in West Sussex, which also has no planning permission. Earlier this month (July 2025), West Sussex County Council told DrillOrDrop the well had not yet been plugged and abandoned and site had not been cleared or restored. Two breach of condition notices were served on 6 May 2025 requiring the operator, UKOG (234) Ltd, to do this work by 6 February 2026. The council confirmed today there was no change to its earlier statement on Broadford Bridge. Also earlier this month, UKOG (234) relinquished its licence to explore or produce hydrocarbons from the Broadford Bridge area. This also affected a proposed gas site at Dunsfold in Surrey.

People are invited to comment on a bid by Cuadrilla to extend the life of its former fracking site near Blackpool. A public consultation runs until Thursday 7 August 2025.

Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site on 21 June 2025. Photo: Maple Independent Media

An application by Cuadrilla was published earlier this month for a two-year extension of planning permission for the Preston New Road shale gas site.

The company said the extension was needed to allow for environmental monitoring required by the Environment Agency.

Lancashire County Council, which will decide the application, previously granted a two-year extension to the planning permission in June 2023.

But Cuadrilla failed to meet the deadline in that permission for plugging and abandoning the site’s two horizontal wells by December 2024 or the restoration of the land to agriculture by June 2025.

At the time of writing, the site restoration work is 46 days overdue.

A spokesperson for Lancashire County Council told DrillOrDrop:

“The timescale proposed by the applicant for these restoration works is likely to be a key consideration and officers will want to be satisfied in their report and recommendation to the Development Control Committee that restoration works to return the site to agricultural land are being expedited as swiftly as possible.”

The council added “Cuadrilla has confirmed to us that the plugging and abandonment phase is now complete”.

The industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) confirmed in correspondence to the council on 17 July 2025 that the wells had been plugged and abandoned “to industry standards”.

Lancashire County Council also told us:

“With these works completed, Cuadrilla advertised and has submitted a new application to allow the time limit for completion of restoration works to be extended until 30 June 2027.

“This application has been validated and has been published on the county council’s planning register.  It can be viewed on our website at Planning application by searching for Application Number LCC/2025/0018.”

County councillor John Singleton (Conservative), who also represents the area around the site on Fylde Borough Council, has already objected to the proposal.

He said the environmental monitoring work “was always known in order to demonstrate no lasting harm has been caused. This should have been taken into account over the previous 2 year extension”.

He said:

“In my opinion, it appears no one from this authority is monitoring the progress or lack of progress on these important milestones concerning the extensions. Our council tax payers, and those of our neighbouring district authorities, must be alarmed at lack of enforcement.

“The last time an extension was granted in 2023, it included all the decommissioning activities the council is being asked to extend again.

“In my opinion the land has not received the attention it should to meet the planning deadlines and I object to another 2 year extension as I fear in another 2 years we will be asking for another extension.”

He added that the extension, if approved, should be reduced to 18 months.

Online details now indicate that the application will be decided by the county council’s development control committee, rather than delegated to officers. No date has yet been set for the committee meeting.

DrillOrDrop will report on the responses to the planning application and the council’s decision.  

Link to application LCC/2025/0018

Yorkshire villagers are meeting to discuss plans by Egdon Resources for gas drilling at Foxholes.

Proposed site of Egdon’s gas exploration site at Foxholes in North Yorkshire. Photo: DrillOrDrop

A series of events has been organised by Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council. The campaign group, Fossil Free Foxholes, is planning more public meetings in the area. An event is also planned for Ganton and Potter Brompton residents.

 Egdon hosted a drop-in exhibition at Foxholes in May 2025, attended by 57 people.

The company said it proposed to seek a three-year permission to drill and test a gas well on land off Butt Lane in Foxholes, between Bridlington and Malton.

No applications for planning permission or environmental permits have yet been published. But Egdon has given notice that a planning application is imminent

In the past six weeks, members of Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council have attended six events to talk to local people about the proposals.

These included an introductory two-hour meeting, attended by 87 people, intended to “take on board your comments, questions and concerns”. link to slides

MP meeting

Last weekend, the council hosted a one-hour meeting, attended by the local MP Kevin Hollinrake, North Yorkshire Councillor Janet Sanderson, and Kathryn Richardson and Paul Crawforth, of the Environment Agency.

Residents raised concerns about traffic, risks of groundwater contamination, flooding and air pollution. There were also questions about site monitoring and Environment Agency resources.

Mr Hollinrake said gas exploration was “a fact of life in Ryedale”. He said gas would be part of the UK’s energy mix for the “next few decades”. “The choice is whether we produce or import it, it’s as simple as that”, he added.

[The government’s advisor, the Climate Change Committee, said last month the UK must use low-carbon electricity to replace oil and gas in surface transport, heat in buildings and industry if it is to meet its legally-binding carbon reduction targets.]

The MP also said he understood concerns that villagers may have. “We’re here to try and allay those concerns and explain a process from here”.

The panel was asked where residents could visit an operational site in Yorkshire to understand the impact.

Mr Crawforth said there were no operational sites in North Yorkshire or the East Riding.

There were also concerns about contamination of the Gypsey Race, a winterbourne watercourse that rises in the Great Wold Valley through a series of springs and runs intermittently through villages in the Foxholes area to the sea at Bridlington.

Much of the Gypsey Race flows underground through chalk aquifers. But at times, it can be seen bubbling up in fields. In wet weather, it becomes a stream and has flooded roads. One person said if pollution got into the watercourse it would never come out.

Mr Hollinrake replied: “That’s why we have to make sure this is the right location”.

Working party

Foxholes and Butterwick Parish council has established a working party to gather information about Egdon’s plans and consult villagers.

The council said a briefing document would be submitted to the parish council to “inform thinking and decision making”. The council said:

“This is being developed from a position of neutrality, exploring both benefits and issues”

Future events Friday 25 July 2025

Talk on Egdon’s plans, 7.30pm, Ganton Village Hall for residents of Ganton and Potter Brompton only. The publicity states “no photography or filming”. We have no details of the host organisation or any speakers.

Saturday 26 July 2025

Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council members will attend Fellas at Foxholes, 9.30am-11am, Foxholes Village Hall.

Monday 28 July 2025

Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council meeting, 7.30pm, Foxholes village hall, Foxholes. Guests include Cllrs Richard Parsons and Claire Topham, of Burniston Parish Council. Europa Oil & Gas has submitted applications for planning permission and environmental permits for gas exploration and lower volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire

Dates and venues to be fixed

Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council – talk by a member of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council – talk by Charlie Dewhirst, MP for Wold Newton

Fossil Free Foxholes – planning public meetings in villages, including Foxholes. The organisers said “all members of the public will be welcome at any of the meetings wherever they are held”.

Angus Energy says its talks with its lender, Trafigura, are continuing over a proposed reverse takeover of US production assets and the revision of the loan repayment schedule.

Angus Energy gas site at Saltfleetby in Lincolnshire.
Photo: Angus Energy

Angus said in a statement (21 July 2025):

“The company will inform the market once an agreement has been reached”.

Shares in the company have been suspended since an announcement in mid May 2025.

The company said a loan payment to Trafigura, due at the end of June, was still unpaid.

Saltfleetby gas down

Angus also reported a fall in gas production from its Saltfleetby site in Lincolnshire during the second quarter (April-June 2025), compared with previous three months.

This was because of the commissioning of a booster compressor and well testing, the company said.

Saltfleetby, the UK’s largest onshore gas producer, recorded sales of 3.90 million therms in Q2 2025, down from 4.55m therms in Q1.

Q2 production was an average of 1.3mm therms per month, Angus said, down 14% from 1.52mm therms in Q1.

Average gas condensate production was 67 barrels per day in Q2, down 18% against the average of 82 barrels a day in Q1.

Operational efficiency in Q2 was 87%, compared with 90% in Q1.

Angus reported that Saltfleetby’s annual maintenance shutdown began on 21 July 2025 for six days.

Brockham oil up

Total Q2 oil production at the Brockham site in Surrey was 3,890 barrels, or 43 barrels per day, Angus said.

This was up 80% compared with the 2,150 barrels and average of 24 barrels per day in Q1.

Brockham’s operational efficiency was 100% in Q2, compared with 98% in Q1.

Finance

Angus reported estimated revenues of £3.44m in Q2, down on Q1 because of lower gas volumes.

Legacy hedging volumes of 1.25m therms per month ended in June 2025. Hedged volumes for the rest of 2025 are 1.062m therms per month, with a price increase of 180%-213% on Q2 pricing.

Comment from DrillOrDrop reader

I know nothing about gas prices, but I calculate that the price per therm in Q2 is 8.8p (revenue of £3.44m in Q2 /3.90 million therms). How does this relate to Angus Energy’s internal pricing requirement? To world commodity gas price? I am trying to understand whether Angus are anywhere near making a profit on the (minute) amount of gas produced?