DRILL OR DROP?

Nearly twice as many Reform UK voters would back a solar farm in their area than support fracking, according to a new poll published today.

Gooseneck at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 5 August 2019. Photo: Ros Wills

The findings, for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, are at odds with Reform’s national support for fracking.

The poll found that 43% of people who planned to vote Reform UK in this month’s local elections said they would back a solar farm as the best way to create energy locally.

This compared with 23% who said they would support fracking.

Among all voters, 60% said they would pick solar. Just 10% supported fracking.

Higher-volume fracking is currently prevented by a moratorium in England.

But Richard Tice, Reform UK’s energy spokesperson and deputy leader, has repeatedly called for a revival of fracking, particularly in Lincolnshire. He has also opposed renewable energy, including solar farms.

The party’s mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, has had talks with Egdon Resources, which wants to frack for shale gas in the Gainsborough Trough. Egdon is owned by the Texas-based oil and gas firm, Heyco Energy, which has used multi-stage hydraulic fracturing in the US Permian Basin.

Despite Reform UK’s national support for fracking, some of its local authorities have opposed the operation.

Lancashire’s Reform-led council said last year the countywas “not conducive” to fracking”. The Fylde region, near Blackpool, experienced experienced many small earthquakes caused by fracking by Cuadrilla at its Preston New Road site in 2018 and 2019.

Scarborough’s Reform-led town council unanimously opposed plans for lower-volume fracking in the North Yorkshire village of Burniston.

Alasdair Johnstone, of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said today:

“Reform’s pro-fracking, anti-solar stance appears not only at odds with broad public opinion, but also the opinion of their voters who would prefer a quiet solar farm over a noisy fracking pad in their area.

“That divergence is also playing out between the national level of the party and local councils some of which have said they don’t want fracking in their area.

“Public opposition aside, Reform would find it tough to emulate Trump’s pro-fracking push as British geology is very different to that in the US.

“Reform voters clearly back renewable energy which is helping to reduce the UK’s dependence on volatile gas markets and foreign imports.”

• Polling by More In Common was carried out from 21-27 April 2026 with 1,441 adults living in areas of England where there were local elections.

A Conservative-led council has urged the UK government to deliver its promise to ban fracking.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

East Riding of Yorkshire Council voted unanimously last month in favour of a motion opposing fracking in the county.

The motion focussed on plans for lower-volume fracking at Rathlin Energy’s West Newton-A oil and gas site in Holderness.

But it also included a resolution to write to the energy secretary, Ed Miliband.

In a letter sent this week, the council requested “progress and urgency for the legislation detailed in their [the Labour government’s] election manifesto to outlaw such high pressure and extreme procedures.”

The council also wrote to the oil and gas industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA). The letter said:

“the council wishes to place on record its view that proposals to authorise hydraulic fracturing or similar extreme extraction techniques beneath or near West Newton raise serious concerns.”

It added:

“This letter is intended to ensure that the Council’s opposition is clearly understood, formally recorded, and taken into account in the discharge of the NSTA’s statutory duties in relation to any proposals affecting the East Riding of Yorkshire.”

The letter urged the NSTA to carry out a “fully independent assessment of safety and risk” before granting consent for any form of high-pressure stimulation.

The assessment should be accompanied by “the publication and transparent scrutiny” of the hydraulic fracture plan (HFP), the council said. An HFP is a required document for any form of fracking in England. It is intended to describe how seismic events caused by fracking would be managed and minimised.

• The HFP for fracking plans at West Newton-A is part of a legal challenge brought by a local campaigner against the Environment Agency. More details here

Legal papers have been submitted to the High Court in a legal challenge against plans for lower-volume fracking at an oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.

Campaigners opposed to the West Newton oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.
Photo: West Newton Said No

The case, brought by local campaigner Peter Lomas, seeks to quash the Environment Agency’s decision to permit the operation at the West Newton-A site in Holderness.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy, plans to inject liquid and proppant into the West Newton-A2 well at pressures high enough to fracture surrounding rocks.

The operation is intended to make oil and gas flow more readily to the surface and allow the commercial exploitation of the well.

The A2 well is drilled through the chalk aquifer, which supplies water locally. The West Newton-A site is 882m from the Lambwath Meadows site of special scientific interest.

The case

The case papers set out Mr Lomas’s three main reasons for applying for a judicial review of the decision:

• The EA breached environmental permitting and water protection regulations by failing to recognise the prohibition of inputting hazardous substances into groundwater. The EA has admitted an error in law by stating there would be an “indirect input” into groundwater. In fact, there would be a direct input. As a result, there was insufficient information for the public to comment, making a consultation so unfair as to be unlawful.
• The EA breached its responsibilities on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, facilitating public participation and understanding the effects of proposed work on the climate.
• The EA erred in law by granting Rathlin’s request for a variation of its environmental permit to allow fracking, without first reviewing the Hydraulic Fracturing Plan (HFP). This is a required document that aims to manage the risk of seismic events caused by fracking. Rathlin submitted the HFP to the EA three hours after the decision to allow fracking had been issued.

Peter Lomas said today:

“As can be seen by the grounds of my challenge it’s important that I oppose this environmental permit variation as far as I can.

“The regulators need to be held accountable at all stages of the environmental and planning processes. Scrutiny is paramount, as is transparency throughout all processes.

“Playing with figures, percentages and confusing wording when it comes to the very real risk of our precious drinking water being compromised is not negotiable. The risk of seismic events is a reality, it’s not an untruth.

“We simply cannot sit by and do nothing about it in the hope that it will all go away. We must all act and that’s why I’m acting as an individual, in the hope of quashing this permit variation.

“I thank everyone so far that have helped me in realising my legal challenge, and I hope that this will be a catalyst for others to follow suit.”

Fracking using large volumes of liquid has, in effect, been banned in England by a moratorium, in force since 2019.

But lower-volume fracking, like that proposed at West Newton and at Burniston in North Yorkshire, is allowed.

Environmental campaigners have described this as a legal loophole and urged the government to ban all forms of fracking.

• The campaign group, West Newton Said No, has launched a crowdfunder to raise money for Mr Lomas’s legal fees. At the time of writing, it had raised more than £2,000 from 36 donations. The target is £20,000.

The campaign group behind a landmark legal judgement on carbon emissions has criticised official advice to government on the climate impact of onshore oil and gas.

Methane emissions from a UK onshore hydrocarbon site.
Photo: Clean Air Task Force

The Weald Action Group, which secured the 2024 Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court, said the Climate Change Committee (CCC) may have underestimated the climate risks from onshore petroleum operations in guidance to ministers.

The CCC is required by law to provide advice to the government every five years on how onshore petroleum extraction in England affects the UK’s ability to meet its climate targets.

Earlier this year, the CCC told the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, greenhouse gas emissions from conventional onshore petroleum production in England were “a small contributor to carbon budgets and Net Zero”. The CCC also assumed that emissions would decline as onshore sites matured and closed.

But the Weald Action Group (WAG) said in a response this week that the CCC’s assessment was “incomplete” and not “a robust basis” for determining whether onshore oil and gas operations were compatible with UK carbon budgets.

In a letter to the CCC chair, Nigel Topping, the group said this year’s advice “failed to reflect the current reality of the onshore petroleum sector”.

WAG also said the CCC relied on assumptions that were “inconsistent with observed industry activity and regulatory practice”.

The CCC did not appear to have taken into account new expansion plans by onshore operators, WAG said. It said the CCC’s conclusions contradicted previous support for tighter limits on oil and gas production and a presumption against further exploration.

WAG also suggested:

“the assessment used to inform the Committee’s advice is incomplete and therefore underestimates the climate risks from onshore oil and gas under current policy and regulation.”

Expansion plans

WAG identified eight proposals to expand onshore oil and gas in the UK.

The plans include four sites in North and East Yorkshire (Burniston, Foxholes, Ebberston Moor and West Newton), three in Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire (Wressle, Whisby and Glentworth) and one in Dorset (Waddock Cross).

WAG said a moratorium on further onshore petroleum development would be a “reasonable and logical position for the CCC to adopt”.

Regulatory failure

WAG also said the climate impact of onshore oil and gas was compounded by a failure of regulators to ensure disused wells – a source of methane emissions – were decommissioned in “a timely manner”.

WAG said:

“evidence from multiple UK onshore sites indicates that decommissioning is frequently delayed, increasing the likelihood of prolonged emissions from inactive or suspended wells”.

The group accused the onshore sector of deferring well abandonment and site restoration for as long as possible “due to financial constraints, a reluctance to incur costs where funds are available, or broader political and strategic ambition”.

WAG said this was abetted by a “laissez-faire approach” from the industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).

The group said the NSTA had allowed Star Energy to schedule decommissioning of the South Leverton field in Nottinghamshire in 2028, even though production had stopped in 2020-2021.

WAG added that at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site in Lancashire, the NSTA extended the deadline for decommissioning wells beyond the expiry of planning permission.

“Questionable data”

WAG also said the CCC had relied data on methane emissions from upstream oil and gas activities recorded in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI).

The group said:

“There is doubt over the reliability of using NAEI data to estimate the impact of the onshore sector on carbon budgets – particularly regarding methane emissions.”

The CCC relied upon a production emissions baseline based on what it admitted was “limited publicly available information”, WAG said.

It added that research in 2023 indicated that the NAEI data could be underestimating true methane emissions, particularly from onshore venting.

Europa Oil & Gas, the company behind rejected plans for lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, is also pursuing developments at three other sites onshore in the UK, it revealed today.

Opposition to Europa’s plans at Burniston. Photo: DrillOrDrop

In company accounts, Europa predicted the sites – at Burniston and three in production in the midlands – would generate “a stable revenue base”.

Europa, which also has interests in Equatorial Guinea and offshore Ireland, is considering an appeal against last month’s refusal of its plans at Burniston (also known as Cloughton).

The company said:

“Europa is now assessing its options with a view to appealing the decision and is confident that on appeal the planning permission will be approved”.

It also confirmed it was still seeking a farm-in partner to carry out work at Burniston.

Bo Kroll, who became Europa’s executive chairman in February 2025, said:

“we are pursuing parallel workstreams across Wressle, Cloughton [Burniston], Crosby Warren and West Firsby, each offering meaningful value creation and collectively providing a stable revenue base from which to pursue the development of our wider portfolio.”

He also said:

“Our onshore UK portfolio continues to deliver steady operational progress across each of our producing and development assets and underpins our efforts to advance the development of our other high-potential assets.

“We also see significant opportunities for growth in our onshore UK assets, with the current macroeconomic climate emphasising the importance of reliable, domestic energy supplies.”

At Wressle, in North Lincolnshire, where Europa has a 30% stake, there are plans for two new wells, lower-volume fracking, a gas pipeline and 15 years of production. A climate impact assessment of the plans has been published online.

The accounts said production at Wressle generated an average of 84 barrels of oil per day (bopd) for Europa, from a total average of 281 barrels per day.

At Crosby Warren, also in North Lincolnshire, Europa announced last year it was looking to “optimise production”. The company, which has a 100% stake in the oil field, said Crosby Warren’s existing production could be “significantly increased through a simple workover programme that is currently being considered”.

The fourth site, at West Firsby, in Lincolnshire, has seen an extension of the licence, DL003, for another five years.

Today’s accounts said:

“This extension provides operational continuity and the long-term framework within which to optimise and maximise the value of this producing field.”

Revenue

The accounts also gave details of Europa’s revenue by site:

• Wressle £2,412,000
• Crosby Warren: £923,000
• West Firsby: £346,000
• Whisby: £15,000

Accounting period

The accounts covered 17 months from 1 August 2024 to 31 December 2025. This followed a decision to move the end of year date from 31 July to 31 December.

Since the end of the new accounting period, Europa raised £4.1m, of which £3.5m was through the placing of new ordinary shares to institutional investors. The money would be spent on drilling Barracuda prospect in Equatorial Guinea and for general working capital, the accounts said.

Key figures for 17 months to 31 December 2025

Revenue: £3.9m, of which £3.566m was from the UK. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.6m)

Cost of sales: £3.293m, all from UK operations. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.117m)

Impairment of producing fields: £323,000 (12 months to 31 July 2024: £189,000

Gross profit: £0.3m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £0.3m)

Admin expenses: £2.4m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £1.9m)

Pre-tax loss: £2.7m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.8m)

Loss for the period: £2.737m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.781m)

Total comprehensive loss for the period: £2.842m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6.798m)

Total assets: £7.545m, of which £2.68m are for UK assets.(12 months to 31 July 2024: £9.779)

Total liabilities: £6.422m, of which all are for UK operations. (12 months to 31 July 2024: £6m),

Net assets: £1.123m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £3.779m)

Cash balance at 31 December 2025: £0.3m (31 July 2024: £1.5m)

Total directors’ payments: £1.024m, of which £675,000 was for William Holland, the chief executive

Staff costs: £1.853m (12 months to 31 July 2024: £1.149m)

An investor in the Wressle and West Newton fields warned today that government policy has made its UK business “increasingly difficult to progress”.

In annual accounts, Union Jack Oil blamed successive governments for:

“complex planning, regulatory burden and high taxation, resulting in unpredictable approval timeframes bringing additional uncertainty, significant cash costs and lost opportunities”.

Union Jack’s executive chairman, David Bramhill, said:

“the cost of maintaining a number of our non-producing UK licence interests has become increasingly difficult to justify regardless of their potential future value”.

The company, which recently invested in the US, gave up interests in 2025 at Biscathorpe and North Kelsey in Lincolnshire and at Dukes Wood and Kirklington in Nottinghamshire, the accounts said. They added that Union Jack was also in the process of relinquishing its stake in the Laughton licence in Lincolnshire.

Mr Bramhill said:

“During the remainder of 2026 and beyond, the Company intends to continue to review the merits of its UK non-production licence interests while prioritising asset allocation in favour of growing its hydrocarbon exploration, development and production enterprise in Oklahoma.”

The accounts also said Union Jack “believes investors will only wish to provide finance to companies and projects that support a transition to a low-carbon economy. As part of the Company’s ongoing strategy in respect of the environment, Union Jack commits to be totally transparent in respect of its projects and on how its carbon management practice is implemented”.

Union Jack said it remained focussed on interests at the Wressle oil site, in North Lincolnshire, where the operator has just published estimates on emissions resulting from a proposed site expansion.

The Wressle development would “support the company with revenues for at least another decade”, Union Jack said.

The company said it also continued to invest in the oil site at Keddington in Lincolnshire, where production resumed in mid-2025 after site upgrades. Planning consent is already in place for a sidetrack to one of the existing wells. The location has been finalised and the well would be drilled “when the operator deems appropriate”, Union Jack said.

At West Newton, in East Yorkshire, Union Jack said the partners had been “evaluating ways of generating additional value through early production schemes, ahead of any longer-term full gas field development”.

Last year, one of the investors at West Newton proposed using the sites for cryptocurrency mining.

Earlier this year, the Environment Agency approved plans for lower-volume fracking at West Newton. The approval is being challenged by a local campaigner (details here and here), whose crowdfunder has so far raised more than £1,800.

Key figures for year ending 31 December 2025

Gross profit: £691,001 (2024: £1,968,101)

Net loss (including impairment of Biscathorpe and North Kelsey): £7,029,350 (2024: £649,213)

Basic loss per share: 5.68p (2024: 0.61p earnings)

Admin expenses (excluding impairment): £2,477,222 (2024: £1,878,089)

Total assets: £19,083,850 (2024: £23,846,105)

Total liabilities: £2,251,878 (2024: £1,975,354)

Net assets: £16,831,972 (2024: £21,870,751)

Net current assets: £1,365,622 (2024: £3,172,066)

Expansion of the Wressle oil site near Scunthorpe would result in more than one million tonnes of climate-damaging greenhouse gases, documents have revealed.

But the developer, Egdon Resources, has said the proposal would not have a significant impact on climate change.

Well trajectories (proposed in red and existing in green) from the Wressle oil site.
Source: Egdon Resources application

The expansion would produce an estimated extra 1 million+ barrels of oil over 15 years. Gas produced alongside the oil would be an additional 5.264 billion cubic feet.

The figures were published in a new assessment of the climate impact of the plans.

Egdon first submitted the proposal in March 2024 for two new wells, lower-volume fracking, 15 years of production and a 600m gas pipeline.

An approval by officials at North Lincolnshire Council in September 2024 was quashed in a legal case brought by a local campaigner.

This followed the landmark Finch ruling at the Supreme Court, which required decisionmakers to take account of the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of onshore oil or gas production.

Egdon had previously said the plans did not need a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA).

But the company agreed earlier this year to voluntarily submit a slimmed-down version of an EIA, looking at just climate change, socio-economic impacts and cumulative effects.

Emissions estimates

Egdon’s consultants, Bureau Veritas, has estimated that at worst the greenhouse gases from the project would amount to 1,007,731 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).

More than 90% of the total, 917,999 tCO2e, would be from burning the oil and gas produced at the site, known as scope 3 category 11 emissions.

The remaining emissions, mainly from the production process, are estimated to total 89,732 tCO2e.

The climate assessment said:

“Overall, the Proposed Development is not expected to result in significant adverse effects on climate change, and the assessment demonstrates that emissions and climate risks have been considered in a proportionate and robust manner, consistent with relevant guidance and best practice.”

On the scope 3 category 11 greenhouse gases, the assessment said:

“While these emissions represent a very small proportion of global emissions, it is recognised that climate change is highly sensitive to cumulative emissions.

“Taking into account the global and downstream nature of these emissions, their lack of direct control at the project level, and their consistency with broader decarbonisation pathways, the effect is … considered to be minor adverse overall.”

The assessment estimated that at peak annual production, the scope 3 category 11 emissions would represent, at worst, 0.00033% of the remaining global carbon budget.

This would indicate a moderate adverse effect, the assessment said. But it concluded that the effect was “minor adverse when viewed in the context of global mitigation trajectories”.

The scope 1 and 2 emissions and scope 3 excluding category 11, were also considered to be “minor adverse following mitigation”.

These emissions, compared with UK carbon budgets) ranged from 0.0009% (seventh budget) TO 0.002% (sixth budget).

Other assessments

An updated ecological impact assessment on the Wressle plans said there would be no significant impacts on air quality affecting internationally-important wildlife sites on the Humber Estuary.

It also said there would be no “significant adverse effects” on sites of special scientific interest at Broughton Far Wood, 210m away from the well site, and Broughton Alder Wood, 600m away.

The socio-economic impact assessment concluded there would be “moderate to major beneficial effects” for employment and economic performance in civil engineering, mining and quarrying industries.

On cumulative effects, the assessment said:

“No long term significant effects identified and no greater [impacts] than for the proposed development in isolation”.

Public consultation

People and organisations can now comment on the new documents, either online (go to bottom of application webpage and click submit comment button), by email to planning@northlincs.gov.uk or in writing to the Development Management team, North Lincolnshire Council, Church Square House, 30-40 High Street, Scunthorpe, DN15 6NL, quoting PA/2024/275.

The application’s website lists the closing date for the consultation as 30 June 2026.

DrillOrDrop will report on reaction to Egdon’s climate and other assessments.

The formal refusal of planning permission for drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire was confirmed this afternoon.

Banner at decision meeting on Burniston plans, 24 April 2026. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The county council’s strategic planning committee voted almost unanimously in April against the proposal by Europa Oil & Gas.

But members were limited at the meeting to a “minded to” refuse decision. This followed a request to the local government minister to review the detailed environmental information that accompanied the application.

Less than a week later, the minister said there would be no need to review the information, clearing the way for publication of the formal decision notice.

260515_NY20250030ENV_Decision NoticeDownload

The notice, dated today, lists five reasons why the application had been refused:

• 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

Officials had advised councillors not to include in the reasons a risk of induced seismicity and damage to local cliffs.

Europa Oil & Gas has already said it will appeal against the refusal. The decision notice starts the clock on when that appeal must be lodged.

The company has six months, by Friday 13 November 2026, in which to submit its challenge to the Planning Inspectorate. News of an appeal is, however, expected sooner.

The committee’s refusal over-ruled the recommendation of council officers to approve the application. It came after five hours of discussions and presentations.

North Yorkshire Council had set today as the deadline for issuing the decision notice.

Publication of plans to restart oil production at Horse Hill – suspended after a landmark Supreme Court ruling – is unlikely for several weeks.

Horse Hill site, near Reigate, Surrey. Google Earth image uploaded 13/05/2026

UK Oil & Gas plc, majority owner of the Horse Hill operator, announced early this month that it had submitted a new planning application.

But so far, the proposal has not been published.

The application seeks to replace planning permission, quashed in June 2024 by the Supreme Court.

The court’s judgement, now known as the Finch Ruling, decided the permission for long-term oil production and new wells was unlawful.

The ruling said the decisionmaker, Surrey County Council, failed to take into account the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of Horse Hill oil.

The county council told DrillOrDrop today publication of the new application and a public consultation were expected late this month (May 2026) or early next month (June 2026).

A Surrey County Council spokesperson said:

“Further environmental and planning information was submitted by the applicant on 30 April 2026 in support of planning application ref: Ref: RE18/02667/CON which remains with the County Planning Authority (CPA) for determination. This follows the quashing of the original decision by the Supreme Court in June 2024. The submission was in response to a request from the CPA for the provision of additional information.

“Once the submission has been reviewed to ensure all the information requested has been provided by the applicant, there is a process to go through and arrangements that need to be put in place before publicity and consultation can begin. This process is more complicated for applications such as this which are accompanied by an Environmental Statement and the process needs to be undertaken alongside other work priorities.

“We estimate that online publication and public consultation are likely to take place towards the end of this month or in the early part of June.”

The government committed in today’s King’s Speech to a permanent ban on fracking – but there’s no still detail on which operations would be included.

Fracking equipment at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 20 August 2019. Photo: Ros Wills

Briefing documents confirmed that the Energy Independence Bill would deliver the government’s manifesto promise to ban fracking.

But campaigners said the ban must cover all forms of fracking.

A moratorium on fracking in England, introduced in 2019, has a presumption against fracking that uses more fluid than a threshold set out in law: 1,000m3 per fracking stage or 10,000m3 in total.

But lower-volume fracking, sometimes known as proppant squeeze or reservoir stimulation, is currently allowed. This has been described by opponents as a legal loophole.

There are plans to use lower-volume fracking to increase oil and gas production at onshore sites in North East Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire.

An application for proppant squeeze in North Yorkshire was refused permission last month. Europa Oil & Gas, the company behind that scheme, has said it will appeal.

Steve Mason, of Frack Free United and a North Yorkshire councillor said:

“I welcome this commitment to ban fracking…again, but let’s have some clarity. This pledge is merely a recycled headline that fails to close the loophole that the frackers just tried to drive a rig through in Burniston.

“That time, North Yorkshire Council stood with residents to reject ‘fracking by stealth,’ yet still the government plays semantic politics in Westminster, while communities are left hanging on the front line.”

He added:

“Its frustrating and exhausting that this has not moved a single inch since. The victory at Burniston proved that when you look past the policy mirage of labels like ‘proppant squeeze,’ you find the same unacceptable risks and the same climate ‘carbon bombs’.

“If the government wants to protect our communities, simply ban ALL new onshore fossil fuels extraction. If they won’t do that, then at least legislate for ban on the intent and product extracted and close the loophole that invites the industry game the system.”

Rosie Downes, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said:

“This legislation must shut the door on fracking once and for all. Labour has pledged a permanent ban – now it must deliver one that covers every form of fracking, including so-called “proppant squeeze”.

“A loophole in the current moratorium is already being exploited by fossil fuel companies, putting communities across England at risk.”

The bill would also meet a manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields.

The briefing says the legislation would aim to “scale-up home grown renewable energy and protect living standards for the long-term”.

Friends of the Earth said the Energy Independence Bill was “urgently needed to unlock the UK’s vast homegrown renewable potential and deliver a step change in energy efficiency”.

A tiny North Yorkshire village fighting a David and Goliath battle against gas drilling got advice last night from campaigns across the UK.

Entrance to Foxholes village. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Residents in Foxholes, population about 250, are opposing plans from a company run by one of the richest families in the US.

About 60 people attended a public meeting to hear what steps they could take to reject proposals by Egdon Resources, owned by Texas-based Heyco Group and controlled by the Yates family, previously estimated to be worth $2.5 billion.

Egdon wants to explore for gas in a field on the edge of Foxholes. It intends to drill through the chalk aquifer, which supplies drinking water to 900,000 people. A similar proposal was rejected when Yorkshire Water objected to the risk of contamination.

Sarah Hockey, a campaigner for 13 years against oil and gas development in East Yorkshire, said Foxholes has England’s most northernly chalk stream.

“This is one of the rarest habitats on earth.

“Everyone has a part to play.

“It doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you do something. Even if it’s a small thing, it could have a huge impact.”

Planning consultant Katie Atkinson, who has worked on multiple onshore oil and gas proposals across northern England and the midlands, said:

“Object, keep objecting, keep reminding everybody, spread the word.

“Get it out on social media. … Keep going.”

Foxholes in numbers. Artwork by Drawing a Line in the Chalk

Foxholes’ near neighbours at Burniston, which recently defeated another gas application, advised the community to work together.

Richard Parsons, chair of Burniston Parish Council, said it had been “massively important” that local councils had coordinated their campaign and worked alongside the local opposition group, Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC).

He said Foxholes must engage with its MP and the local representative on North Yorkshire Council. At Burniston, the campaign had the support of MP Alison Hume and the local ward councillor, Derek Bastiman.

Neither Kevin Hollinrake MP nor Cllr Janet Sanderson attended last night’s meeting, though they had been speakers at a previous meeting. Four councillors from neighbouring East Yorkshire, including a former council leader, were at last night’s event.

Mr Parsons said:

“I would not let them [Mr Hollinrake and Cllr Sanderson] get away with that. If they’re not prepared to engage with you, who are they representing? Your councillor should be here. Your MP should be here.”

He said if they were not supportive, the public should know about it.

Chris Garforth, of FFCC, said the group had put its arguments about the Burniston plans to the 90 individual members of North Yorkshire Council and 15 members of the strategic planning committee that decided the Burniston application.

But he warned:

“Keeping up the momentum in a campaign, keeping it alive in people’s minds, requires effort. We’ve used newsletters. We have a What’s App group. We’ve tried to use press, radio and TV as much as we can. We use social media. We have a very good website.”

He said the company behind the Burniston plans, Europa Oil & Gas, would appeal against the refusal of planning permission. It was “crucial to maintain momentum and stop interest flagging”, he said.

David Eddy, a member of Drawing the Line in the Chalk, called for people with expertise in campaigning, fundraising, media, traffic and  to join the campaign.

He told the meeting there had been more than 500 objections to the plans so far and the village had set a target of 1,000. Foxholes Parish Council had objected on 45 individual grounds.

After the meeting, Mr Eddy said:

“The inspirational speakers contributed to a hugely educational meeting, which has re-energised Drawing a Line in the Chalk and the community. It starkly illustrated the challenges and obstacles we face whilst also offering support and potential solutions to explore.”

Other tips

Speakers at the meeting also gave the following advice:

Campaigning

Be seen: Be creative and produce eye-catching banners and posters.

Fundraising: Use fundraising events as a further way of raising awareness.

Take advice: Learn from the experience of other groups that have experience of oil and gas campaigns.

Local expertise: Use local skills in design, marketing, broadcasting, fundraising, technical expertise.

The case

Use new legislation: A new law protects the setting and core of a National Landscape, the new name for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Foxholes is in the setting of the new Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape. If the proposed lorry route over Staxton Hill were blocked, heavy goods vehicles visiting the site could be diverted through the new National Landscape.

Existing planning policy: National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 112, which requires mineral planning authorities to be satisfied that key issues can be or will be adequately addressed, by taking advice from relevant regulatory regimes.

Revised planning policy: Use the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which is due to remove a requirement to give “great weight” to the benefits of onshore oil and gas.

Keep an eye on fracking: Just because the Foxholes application does not include proppant squeeze or lower-volume fracking, it could be applied for in future.

Water security: What would happen if the chalk aquifer were contaminated? No one knows the answer to this so how could the application be approved? If there is a risk, it can’t be allowed to happen.

Climate policy: Is the scheme compatible with North Yorkshire’s net zero targets and climate emergency goals?

Planning meeting

Be prepared: In five-minute presentations to the committee, coordinate with other opponents to avoid repetition. Focus on major problems with the application, weaknesses in the officer’s report and areas you can prove, disprove or doubt.

Making your case: Outline evidence in a clear, concise, professional manner that councillors can understand.

Don’t assume: Don’t think you are guaranteed success.

Dividing line: Ensure there is a clear dividing line between the parish council and community groups. This gives another opportunity for an objection presentation at the planning meeting.

Demonstration: Organise a peaceful demonstration outside the planning meeting.

Expert help: If a decision goes to appeal, get expert legal and planning help.

Update: Asked about the meeting, Cllr Janet Sanderson said:

“I did not attend this meeting because I attended another parish with a very difficult issue and a public appeal hearing the following day. I have been voted to serve communities, but I have around 28 parishes in my division and I have to prioritise which ones need it greatest at the time.

“I await the response form the LPA, for your information, I have recently been invited to lunch at an exclusive restaurant with a gas company developer. I refused lunch but I will meet with them to hear their views unencumbered by the lure of a free lunch or an attempt to sway my opinion. I will listen to everyone and make my own mind up as to how I think the community will be best served irrespective of my position at the next election.

“I understand your concerns, I respect your views, I await hard evidence.”

Link to a poem by Margaret Gormley, which closed the meeting

The campaigner challenging consent for lower-volume fracking in East Yorkshire has added a new ground to his case.

Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Peter Lomas, from Hornsea, is taking the first legal steps against the Environment Agency (EA), over its issue of a permit at the West Newton-A site in Holderness.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy, had said lower-volume fracking is required to allow commercial exploitation of a well at the site.

The new ground is based on the Finch Ruling, a successful case at the Supreme Court brought by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group on climate emissions from onshore oil and gas.

In a legal letter in early April, solicitors Leigh Day set out four grounds for Mr Lomas’s challenge:

• Risk of induced seismicity
• Risk to groundwater pollution
• Impact on the Lambwath Meadows site of special scientific interest
• Failure to consider international guidance on climate change

But a second letter has recently added that the EA failed, when making its decision on the permit, to consider and undertake a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The planning permission for production at West Newton-A was passed without an EIA, in March 2022.

This was more than two years before the Finch Ruling, which stated that decisionmakers must consider the downstream carbon emissions from using oil or gas produced onshore.

The Finch ruling also emphasised the importance of public participation in the EIA process and public understanding of the environmental impact of developments.

Mr Lomas’s lawyers argued there had been no environmental information about the downstream emissions from oil or gas produced at West Newton-A.

They said the EA was obliged to assess the environmental impact of oil and gas production resulting from lower-volume fracking.

Information was needed, they said, on emissions from using hydrocarbons from the well to ensure the public could properly participate in the process.

The lawyers have also revised the fourth ground in the case. It now argues that the EA failed to consider the impact of lower-volume fracking on climate change, under its duties in the Environment Act 1995.

Leigh Day has asked for further information from the EA on the first three grounds.

The company behind the suspended oil site that is subject of a landmark Supreme Court ruling has reported declining assets and revenue.

UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) revealed today in delayed annual accounts that it has interests in just one hydrocarbon site.

The value of the company’s total assets and its revenue both fell by more than 60% in the year to September 2025.

During the same period, the accounts show that UKOG gave up an onshore PEDL (production, exploration and development licence) and two exploration sites.

It also sold its stake in two more UK production sites in southern England and exited from its Turkish licence interests.

The company’s remaining oil and gas site at Horse Hill – once called the Gatwick Gusher – has been mothballed since October 2024. The Supreme Court stripped the site of its planning permission in what became known as the Finch Ruling in June 2024.

A separate statement this morning announced UKOG had submitted a retrospective planning application for the reinstatement of production consent at Horse Hill. The application announcement was not mentioned in the accounts and the details have not yet been published online.

But the accounts admitted:

“There is no certainty when consent will be reinstated or that production [at Horse Hill] will recommence.

“The Group continues to evaluate available technical data and maintain cost discipline; however, the timing, level and economic viability of any future production remain uncertain.”

Loss of oil and gas assets

The accounts confirmed that in June 2025 the company relinquished PEDL246, which included the Broadford Bridge oil exploration site in West Sussex and the planned Loxley gas site, near Dunsfold, in Surrey.

UKOG said it had plugged and abandoned the Broadford Bridge wells, BB-1/1z, in February 2026, despite discussions on their geothermal potential.

The company said:

“This milestone confirms the Company’s compliance with its regulatory obligations, demonstrating its continued commitment to responsible operations and asset stewardship during its transition into clean energy.”

But it did not mention the planning requirement to restore the site to farmland, which has not yet happened, nor the planning contravention notice issued against UKOG’s subsidiary, the site operator, and the landowner.

UKOG said it relinquished PEDL246 because representatives had failed to find a farm-in partner to drill at Loxley.

UKOG also sold its subsidiary, UK (GB) Ltd, which had stakes in the Horndean (10%) and Avington (5%) oil fields in Hampshire.

It exited its Turkish licence in October 2024 and later received a claim of $100,000 from its former partner, the accounts reveal. They said UKOG directors considered there was “no remaining formal legal or contractual basis for the claim”. To date, UKOG has received nothing further, the accounts added.

Finances

UKOG said the 2025 financial year “marked a period of strategic realignment for the Group as the Group continued its transition from legacy oil production towards hydrogen storage and clean energy infrastructure”.

But according to the accounts, the company remains largely dependent on revenue from hydrocarbon sales. The auditor noted a “material uncertainty exists that may cause significant doubt on the group’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

Revenue, entirely from Horse Hill and Horndean crude oil sales, fell to £432,000 in 2025, from £1.1m in 2024. The accounts said the decline reflected lower volumes from Horse Hill, which voluntarily suspended production in October 2024.

Total UKOG assets fell from £3.361m (restated) in 2024, to £1.136m in 2025. Cash and cash equivalents were down from £1m to £40,000.

Net liabilities rose from £2.471m in 2024 to £5.684m in 2025.

Total annual losses were reduced compared with 2024, when the balance sheet included £32.544m in impairment of oil and gas assets.

Key figures

Revenue: £432,000 (2024: £1.1m)

Cost of sales: £423,000 (2024: £912,000)

Gross loss: £20,000 (2024: £189,000)

Total comprehensive loss: £4.09m (2024: £38.490m)

Admin expenses: £2.636m (2024: £1.716m)

Decommissioning provision at 30 September 2025: £1.591m (2024: £1.253m). Of the £1.591m, £1.184m was for Horse Hill and £407,000 was for Broadford Bridge.

Non-current assets: £337,000 (2024: £1.705M)

Total assets: £1.136m (2024 restated: £3.361m)

Cash and cash equivalents: £40,000 (2024: £1m)

Total liabilities: £6.822m (2024: £5.832m)

Net liabilities: £5.684m (2024: £2.471m)

Operating loss: £3.9m (2024: £3.8m)

Loss before tax: £4.098m (2024: £38.490m)

Stephen Sanderson total earnings from UKOG: £243,000 (2024: £314,000

Total payments to directors: £504,000 (£457,000)

Loan interest payments: £152,000 (2024: £128,000)

Total finance cost: £202,000 (2024: £172,000)

Loans payable to non-controlling interests: £3.462m (2024: £3.310m)

Outstanding loan balances owed to HHDL shareholders at 30 September 2025: Alba Mineral Resources £2.8m (2024: £2.6m), Doriemus plc £0.6m (2024: £0.6m), UK Oil & Gas plc £18m (2024: £17.8m)

UK Oil & Gas plc announced this morning it has submitted a revised planning application for its Horse Hill site , near Redhill, in Surrey.

The company said the retrospective application seeks to reinstate consent for oil production.

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

Planning permission for the Horse Hill site, now UKOG’s only hydrocarbon asset, was quashed by a landmark climate judgement, known as the Finch Ruling, at the Supreme Court in June 2024.

The court ruled that the planning permission granted by Surrey County Council in 2019 was unlawful. The judgement said the permission failed to take into account the climate impact of burning oil from the site.

Sarah Finch, who brought the challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group, was last month awarded the leading international award, the Goldman Environmental Prize.

The Weald Action Group said this morning:

“This is an appalling but predictable move by UKOG. After repeatedly claiming they were transitioning away from fossil fuels, they have now submitted plans to Surrey County Council to restart oil production at Horse Hill, showing that they are still relying on this site as a financial lifeline.

“There is simply no room left in the rapidly dwindling global carbon budget for any more fossil fuel developments.  Instead, the site should be urgently decommissioned and fully restored. Given their disastrous financial position, with cash reserves reported at just £32,000, this application appears to be a way by which UKOG can further delay meeting these costly obligations.

“Enough is enough, this cannot be allowed to drag on any longer, and this application must be rejected.”

Immediately after the Supreme Court judgement, UKOG said it was working to reinstate planning permission.

This required a revised application with information on the carbon emissions from combustion, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions.

Surrey County Council reported in November 2024 it was waiting for this information.

Since then, UKOG has promised the details but repeatedly delayed submission.

At the time of writing, the new application was not listed on the county council planning register.

When the application has been validated, a public consultation is expected on the new information.

In a statement today, UKOG said:

“The Company has worked closely with its planning advisors and SCC to prepare the revised planning submission, which includes updated ecology, environmental and technical baseline studies and an assessment of downstream emissions in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment.

“A successful planning outcome would permit stable production at Horse Hill to resume, generating valuable revenues which would help support the Company’s ongoing transition to its announced clean energy projects in Dorset and Yorkshire.”

UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

“This retrospective planning submission seeks to address the Supreme Court’s ruling on SCC’s 2019 Horse Hill planning consent in a thorough and transparent manner. Horse Hill remains a valuable UK onshore asset and, subject to planning consent, has the potential to generate revenues that can be responsibly reinvested to support the Company’s strategic transition towards hydrogen storage and other clean energy initiatives.

“The Company continues to pursue a balanced approach, managing its legacy oil and gas assets while actively investing in the UK’s energy transition and clean power future.”

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) previously announced production had voluntarily ceased in October 2024.

More reaction

The local MP, Chris Coghlan (Lib Dem)

said:

“Last year I urged the government and Surrey County Council to ensure Horse Hill is restored to woodland. It’s no surprise that UKOG has now submitted a retrospective planning application, but with the company’s financial track record, I am worried they will not be able to deliver proper site restoration. Any decision by Surrey County Council must recognise residents’ concerns and guarantee that the site is fully returned to woodland.”

Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council said in a statement:

“In 2024, Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council supported local resident Sarah Finch in her ground-breaking legal challenge against Surrey County Council’s decision to extend planning permission for the oil drilling site at Horse Hill which is in our parish. Councillors recognised Sarah’s argument that the Environmental Impact Assessment failed to include the effects of emissions released from burning the extracted oil, assessing only emissions from the development itself.

“What began as a local campaign evolved into a five-year legal battle that climbed through the courts, culminating in a historic ruling by the UK Supreme Court in June 2024 and, crucially, the planning permission being overturned. The Parish Council was delighted to see Sarah Finch and her colleagues at the Weald Action Group recently being awarded the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize for Europe. Sarah’s landmark legal victory is already reshaping climate accountability across the UK and beyond.

“In August 2025, we also wrote to Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, expressing concern as to who will be responsible for restoration of the Horse Hill oil site in the event the UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) entered formal insolvency.

“The Parish Council has been advised on 5 May 2026 that UKOG will be submitting a retrospective planning application for reinstatement of production consent at the Horse Hill site. Once formally notified, Councillors will review all the new planning documents and make representation on the application on their merits including consideration of protection to our Green Belt and the local environment.”

• UKOG also announced today the month-long suspension of its shares had been lifted. Trading was suspended after the company missed the stock market deadline for publishing its accounts. The accounts, due to be published at the end of March 2026, were released this morning (5 May 2026). DrillOrDrop has reported on the contents of the accounts.