DRILL OR DROP?

Reabold Resources has detailed its work programme for the West Newton oil and gas field in East Yorkshire.

The majority investor in the West Newton licence today restated its plan to carry out lower-volume fracking, described as reservoir stimulation, on the West Newton-A2 well this autumn (quarter 4 2026).

In interim accounts, published today, Reabold also outlined longer-term commitments for West Newton, agreed with the industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).

The company did not mention a High Court challenge by a local campaigner against the Environment Agency over permission for lower-volume fracking at West Newton. It also did not refer to an court application by the campaigner for interim injunction to prevent the start of work.

Lower volume fracking and well test

Reabold said the operation to re-enter and recomplete the West Newton-A2 well was intended to establish sustained gas flow. It said the gross cost was expected to be £2.5m, excluding Reabold’s contingency of £2.1m.

The accounts said:

“The reservoir stimulation will aim to open fractures within the reservoir and then prop the fractures open using sand. The operation is designed to restore and enhance near wellbore permeability. The JV [joint venture] partnership believes this is a low risk and low-cost approach to derisk the project.”

Reabold also said its subsidiary, the West Newton site operator, Rathlin Energy, was “in the early stage of planning an EWT (extended well test)”, if the reservoir stimulation were successful.

This would allow an assessment of the extent and performance of the reservoir, required before deciding on full field development, Reabold said.

Reabold added:

“Until the reservoir characteristics are fully understood, through an EWT, it is too early to determine the most suitable method for transporting gas to market.”

Options include pipeline connection to the national transmission system or direct supply to local industrial users, Reabold said.

Commitments

In the near term, Reabold repeated there were proposals for small-scale electricity generation at West Newton-A to supply onsite computing or data centre facilities. It said this would reduce the need for flaring, and “minimise waste and environmental impact”.

Reabold said it had agreed with the NSTA to recomplete the WNA-2 well and carry out the EWT by 30 June 2027.

Other commitments listed in the accounts were:

• Investment decision and long-term EWT/Data centre development by 30 June 2028
• Investment decision and drill horizontal well by 30 June 2029
• Test horizontal well and submit a field development plan by 30 June 2030

Fundraising

Reabold said it had raised £4.3m in the first half of 2026.

Of the total, £1.9m was from a group of US investors, including £1.5m from Rohan Oza. In addition, £1.5m was from a placing and £0.9m from direct subscriptions.

Proceeds would be used on the recompletion and lower volume frack on the A2 well at West Newton-A in East Yorkshire.

Reabold has a 69.9% economic interest in the West Newton licence PEDL183. The company has a 79.8% interest in Rathlin Energy and a 16.67% direct interest in the licence.

Sachin Oza and Stephen Williams, Co-CEOs of Reabold, said:

“In Q4 2026, we expect to commence recompletion works at the West Newton A-2 well, a pivotal step towards unlocking the full value of our flagship UK project. The support shown by new and existing investors, including from a group of US strategic investors, enabled us to raise a total of £4.3 million during the period, positioning the Company to fund Reabold and Rathlin’s share of the recompletion.

Key figures

Unaudited interim accounts for six months to 30 June 2026

Loss for six months to June 2026: £1m (First half of 2025: loss of £1.4m)

Total comprehensive loss for the period: £1.453m (First half of 2025: loss of £1.435m). Reduced loss due to £0.6m gain on sale of its 47.6% share of LNEnergy to Beacon

Total exploration and evaluation assets (onshore and offshore in UK and beyond): £29.3m. (First half of 2025: £29m)

Total liabilities: £1.104m. (First half of 2025: £1.214m)

Decommissioning provision for West Newton: £0.8m (31 December 2025: £0.7m)

Net cash or operating activities: £0.9m (30 June 2025: £0.9m)

The new board of Union Jack Oil has repeated its recommendation to shareholders to reject the takeover bid by Reabold Resources.

The offer period expires at 1pm on Friday 2 October.

Craig Howie
Photo: Craig Howie, LinkedIn

The executive chairman, Craig Howie, appointed at a special meeting last month (August 2026) urged shareholders to take no action and not to return Reabold’s acceptance form.

He said the new board, also comprising John Americanos, “continues to unanimously and unequivocally reject the offer”.

In Union Jack’s interim half-year accounts, published on 29 September 2026, he said:

“The new board believes that the offer does not represent fair value for the company, nor does it represent an adequate premium for ceding control to Reabold.”

Mr Howie said Reabold’s acceptance condition currently requires valid acceptances of not less than 75% of Union Jack shares by the revised unconditional date (2 October 2026).

Last week, Union Jack reported it had received irrevocable undertakings and letters of intent not to accept the offer from approximately 24.39% of the company’s existing issued ordinary share capital.

The most recent takeover statement from Reabold reports that at 1pm on 29 September 2026 the company had received acceptances of the offer from investors holding approximately 6.8% of the Union Jack capital.

Mr Howie also said the company’s priority was now to review Union Jack’s asset portfolio and central cost base, particularly directors’ remuneration.

He said three new non-executive directors were due to be announced next month (October 2026). The company also had a new team of restructuring and technical advisors, Mr Howie said.

Key figures for the six months ending 30 June 2026

Oil and gas revenues (UK and overseas): £1.56m (six months to 30 June 2025: £1.28m)

Cost of sales – operating costs: £0.776m (six months to 30 June 2025: £0.645m)

Gross profit: £0.56m (six months to 30 June 2025: £0.45m)

Operating loss: £0.941m (six months to 30 June 2025: £0.603m)

Net loss before impairment: £0.42m (2025: £489,674)

Loss before taxation: £0.896m (six months to 30 June 2025: £0.489m)

Total assets: £19m (six months to 30 June 2025: £23.543m)

Total liabilities: £3.07m (six months to 30 June 2025: £2.162m)

Net assets: £15.933m (2025: £21.381m)

Closing net cash: £0.52m (accounting for £1m loan from Egdon Resources)

A formal complaint has been made against the Environment Agency (EA) over the way it has handled plans for gas drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

Campaign poster in Burniston. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The complaint, by campaigner Dennis May, said the EA had provided “inaccurate, inconsistent and contradictory information”.

He called for the withdrawal of the current consultation on a draft decision by the EA to grant an environmental permit for the site.

He also said there should be a review of onshore oil and gas permitting in England and the EA should establish scientific definitions that were then universally applied.

The EA has been criticised locally and nationally for the Burniston draft decision document, published on 3 August 2026.

Yesterday, Friends of the Earth formally objected to the decision. Last week, DrillOrDrop reported on concerns that the draft decision document contained errors, uncertainty and missing information.

This morning, the EA announced on its website that the Burniston permit consultation, due to end on 26 September 2026, would close instead 25 days later on 21 October 2026. There was no explanation about why the consultation had been extended.

DrillOrDrop asked the EA why it had delayed the closing date. We have received no response.

“Not acting in the public interest”

Mr May, a member of the Nottinghamshire campaign group Frack Free Misson, accused the EA of failing to act in the public interest and of regarding the public consultation as “a mere formality, irrespective of evidence”.

In his complaint, submitted last week, he said:

“The EA has conveyed inaccurate, inconsistent and contradictory information to the public.”

He said the EA had “aligned with misleading, confected, and conflated terminology employed by the applicant”, Europa Oil & Gas plc.

He also said the EA had failed to remain impartial and had “fallen short of its stated aims to provide information correctly, clearly and in a professional manner”.

Mr May added:

“It is disappointing a statutory regulator has allowed the applicant to set the standard of its discourse with the public. In this, the EA could be seen as acting under the influence of lobbyists and thereby not in the public interest.”

He concluded:

“It is a reasonable expectation for a statutory regulator to demonstrate a consistent and structured scientific approach to the processes it oversees; such is clearly not evident in this case. A recognisable and structured taxonomy, containing terms with robust definitions is a primary requirement.

“Given this evidence, the current consultation should be withdrawn while a review of onshore oil and gas permitting is conducted, with the aim of establishing robust, scientific definitions and parameters, set by the regulator and universally applied.”

The Environment Agency has said it will respond to the complaint within 20 working days (approximately 16 October 2026). DrillOrDrop will report on the response.

Details

Mr May’s complaint focuses on three main areas:

Inconsistent and contradictory information

The complaint gave examples from the draft decision document and draft permit including:

• Contradictory information on the type of hydraulic fracturing fluid to be used
• Contradictory information on which formations would be fracked
• Misidentification of the purpose and targets of the permit application
• Inconsistent and contradictory use of terms to explain the proposed fracking process

Mr May said:

“Such a lack of accuracy and precision in terms of identifying both target formations and the nature of the fracturing fluid is a failure to correctly and professionally convey the most basic of information, a fundamental requirement of any public agency.”

Incorrect and misleading information

The complaint said the draft decision document and draft permit contained incorrect and vague terminology. It said:

“EA propagated and/or failed to amend both incorrect and misleading information regarding the scale of intended operations along with a misconception of the terms ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional.’”

It accused the EA of being “party to a PR exercise, a role which a statutory regulator should not be involved in”. The complaint added:

“The use of vague, undefined terms is unscientific and thereby inappropriate.”

Mr May said:

“The granting of permits should be undertaken impartially, in a logical, scientific and evidence-based manner. Appropriate terminology should also be framed around a recognisable taxonomy so based, not adopted to suit the whims of an applicant’s PR campaign. To do otherwise could compromise the EA’s position in enforcement proceedings.”

Lack of definition and denial

The complaint also said the EA’s responses to an earlier consultation, summarised in the draft decision document, continued to “perpetuate the lack of definition, misleading information and denial that the target formations are unconventional”.

Mr May said this included:

• Lack of distinction between well and reservoir stimulation
• Arbitrary use of the term proppant squeeze across well and reservoir stimulation
• Claims that seismicity [earthquakes] occurred in previous shale fracks because of the use of “far higher injection volumes” compared to what is proposed at Burniston

On the third example, Mr May said this was not based on fact because the quantities proposed at Burniston were similar stage volumes to those used in fracking at Cuadrilla’s PNR2 well in Lancashire in 2019 that led to earthquakes and a moratorium on associated hydraulic fracturing in England.

He said the EA had:

“adopted a position whereby it is relying upon what has proven to be ineffective shale gas legislation, with thresholds which have never been attained, as a datum upon which to base its assessment of risk.”

EA under fire

The Burniston complaint is the second current challenge to the EA on its permit process in the onshore oil and gas sector in England.

In East Yorkshire, another campaigner, Peter Lomas, is seeking a judicial review of the decision by the EA to grant a permit variation allowing lower-volume fracking at the West Newton-A site.

Yesterday, we reported that Mr Lomas had also applied to the High Court for an interim injunction to stop the fracking operation at West Newton until his legal challenge with the EA had been decided.

An environmental campaigner has applied to the High Court for an interim injunction to halt lower-volume fracking at the West Newton-A site in East Yorkshire.

West Newton-A site. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

The application, by Peter Lomas, is linked to his earlier legal challenge against the Environment Agency (EA) over its permission for the fracking operation.

A court document reveals that Mr Lomas sought an undertaking a fortnight ago from the West Newton-A operator not to start work until his case against the EA had been decided.

But we understand the operator, Rathlin Energy, refused to give the undertaking and indicated that it intended to carry out the work in November 2026.

Earlier this month, we reported that Rathlin Energy said the lower-volume fracking, which aimed to improve the flow of gas and hydrocarbon fluids, was scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026.

The first phase of work, the construction of passing places on one of the roads to West Newton-A, was due to start today.

Lawyers for Mr Lomas said he had no option but to apply for an urgent interim injunction given what was described as Rathlin Energy’s “intransigence”.

The High Court was asked to issue an interim injunction prohibiting Rathlin from carrying out the work before the related legal challenge to the EA had been settled.

No date has yet been set for a hearing.

DrillOrDrop invited Rathlin Energy to respond to the injunction application. The company told us (24/9/26) it would not be commenting on the application for an interim injunction.

Seismicity concerns

In his challenge to the EA, Mr Lomas is seeking a judicial review of the organisation’s decision in February 2026 to grant a variation to the West Newton-A environmental permit .

His case centres on his concerns that the lower-volume frack at West Newton-A could risk seismic activity and groundwater contamination.

He also claims that the EA breached its climate responsibilities and failed to take into account Rathlin Energy’s hydraulic fracture plan (HFP) in its decision-making process.

An HFP must be produced by any company planning to carry out fracking. It seeks to assess the risk of seismic activity and show how it would be mitigated and monitored.

The West Newton-A HFP was published about three hours after the EA announced the permit variation. The EA did not discuss the HFP with the North Sea Transition Authority, the industry regulator responsible for seismicity.

Mr Lomas lodged his challenge to the EA with the High Court in May 2026.

The lower-volume frack on the West Newton-A2 well seeks to establish permeability in the Kirkham Abbey formation. Rathlin Energy had said the operation was needed to “create and reinstate natural fractures”.

Liquid would be pumped into the well at pressures high enough to fracture the surrounding rocks. Proppant, such as sand or tiny ceramic beads, would hold open the fractures, allowing any hydrocarbons to flow.

Council officers have allowed the access track to remain to the former Broadford Bridge oil exploration site in West Sussex.

Broadford Bridge access track

The site, near Billingshurst, has been suspended for about eight years. The operator, UK Energy Group plc (formerly UK Oil & Gas plc), is subject to official enforcement action to return the well pad to farmland.

But the track, originally constructed in about 2015, can remain, following a decision this week.

The planning permission was granted to Sheila Francis by county council officers on 21 September 2026 under delegated powers. It did not go to a planning committee meeting of councillors. Link to planning application

The approval allows retention of the 4.5m wide, 400m long track. It also permits the installation of two new 5-bar steel agricultural gates with Adversane Lane.

It requires the applicant to submit a landscaping plan within six months. This is expected to include belts of native shrub planning alongside parts of the track.

According to a report on the application, there were no objections from local councils. Three objections from members of the public focused on:

• Failure to adhere to previous commitments/planning requirements to restore the land following completion of temporary hydrocarbon exploration activities.
• No agricultural need demonstrated
• Impacts on historic landscape character
• Loss of agricultural land
• Loss of habitat and potential impacts on biodiversity

The report by planning officer, James Neave, said:

“it is considered that the development would support the needs of agriculture and would likely result in modest operational benefits to agricultural practices”.

The report also said:

“the proposed development would suitably integrate with its countryside setting and not give rise to any unacceptable landscape character or visual impacts.

“It is further considered that agricultural use of the track would be consistent with established farming activities and would not lead to any significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.”

Planning breach

The Broadford Bridge exploration site, at Woodbarn Farm, has had no planning permission since March 2024 when West Sussex County Council refused an application for a fifth extension of consent. Before that, the site had been mothballed since 2018.

An operation to plug and abandon two Broadford Bridge wells ended in February 2026.

But the well pad, fencing, gates and soil bunds remain, despite a planning condition requiring the operator to return the site to farmland. West Sussex County Council took enforcement action in January 2025 and February 2026.

The officer’s report said:

“the main well pad and associated bund and fencing are in the process of being removed/the land resorted [restored] to agriculture.”

It added:

“The site is subject to live enforcement action (Breach of Condition Notices), that require the restoration of the site by the end of 2026.”

Reabold Resources has hit back at doubts over plans to frack at West Newton in East Yorkshire made by the partner it is seeking to acquire.

Road closure plans as part of West Newton fracking operation. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Earlier this month, Union Jack, which has a 16.665% stake in West Newton, said it had concerns over the “technical viability of the project” to recomplete the West Newton-A2 well (WNA-2), due to be carried out by the end of 2026.

Union Jack, which rejected Reabold’s takeover bid, also said it was concerned about the ability of the site operator, Rathlin Energy, to deliver “overall sustained commercial production”.

This morning, Reabold accused Union Jack of “speculative” and “unsupported” comments over West Newton. Official statement

“Undeveloped discovery”

In a circular to shareholders on 11 September 2026, Union Jack said:

“West Newton remains an undeveloped gas and condensate discovery that has yet to establish sustained commercial production.”

Two wells drilled in the West Newton field had “failed to establish sustained flow”, consistent with wellbore formation damage, Union Jack said.

It added that an initial review had concluded:

“The outcome of the proposed stimulation is not known.”

Union Jack also raised concerns about possible legal action over the Environment Agency’s variation of the West Newton permit. It said:

“The outcome of those proceedings (if any) is outside the control of either company, and an adverse outcome, or interim relief granted before or during operations, would immediately halt the planned work and capital expended to date could be at risk.”

“Misleading, selective and highly speculative”

This morning, Reabold said it “strongly rejects the suggestion that West Newton lacks strategic merit”.

It accused the Union Jack board of “highly selective views” on West Newton. It also said the Union Jack circular contained “a number of misleading, selective and highly speculative statements regarding Reabold, the offer and the West Newton project”.

Reabold, which has a near 80% stake in Rathlin Energy, said:

“The New Board seeks to characterise West Newton as a risk that Union Jack Shareholders should avoid.

“Reabold considers this position inconsistent with Union Jack’s longstanding investment in West Newton and the repeated statements made by the former Union Jack board regarding the significance of the project.

“West Newton remains one of the largest onshore conventional gas and condensate discoveries in the United Kingdom. Significant technical work has been undertaken to understand historic well performance and to design the forthcoming WNA-2 recompletion programme.”

Reabold described as “largely speculative” the new board’s comments on reservoir performance, permitting matters and future development activity.

It added:

“Importantly, the New Board provides no independent technical report to support its assertions regarding the project’s prospects.”

Reabold described the rejection of its offer by the new Union Jack board as “self-serving” and said it was “not in the best interests of Union Jack as a whole or for Union Jack shareholders”.

It said Union Jack may require additional funding to meet future commitments, including those at West Newton.

• The Takeover Panel has extended the deadline for the Reabold offer for Union Jack until 1pm on 2 October 2026.

Road closure

The first stage in the West Newton project is construction of passing places along the lorry route on Pasture Lane. The road is due to be closed from Wednesday 23 September to Monday 5 October 2026.

Star Energy, the oil and gas operator with multiple UK onshore sites, is planning to expand its portfolio, according to company accounts.

Singleton oil site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Interim results for the first half of 2026 reported:

“we are seeking to materially increase profitable production through a combination of acquisitions and the development of our existing in-field and near-field opportunities.”

Chief executive Ross Glover said:

“we have been actively evaluating a number of acquisition opportunities, both in the North Sea and more widely, and have committed management and technical resource to this process.

“We are encouraged by the range of opportunities we are seeing, but to date we have not identified a transaction where the combination of asset quality, risk and valuation will provide the level of return we require for shareholders.”

Star Energy said its “core UK oil and gas business remains fundamental to our strategy.”

It said it intended to use the £8.5m proceeds from a fundraise in May 2026 to increase profitable production. The company said it was focussing on operated or non-operated portfolios of up to 2,500 boepd [barrels of oil equivalent per day].

Star Energy’s net production in the first half year averaged 1,866 boepd. This was down from 1,894 boepd in the same period in 2025.

The company said production had been “adversely affected” by “temporary operational and reliability issues across parts of the portfolio, together with the natural variability associated with operating mature fields”.

But production in July and August 2026 was “materially higher” than the first-half average, following “the resolution of a number of these issues and the completion of optimisation activities”, the company said.

Singleton

Star Energy also blamed delays in the grid connection at the Singleton gas-to-wire project in West Sussex for the fall in production rates.

It said the project, which involves generating electricity from waste gas, would add 74 boepd and reduce routine flaring.

Electricity would be transmitted 1.4km by cable from the Singleton site to a grid connection on the A286 road.

Star Energy said all major equipment had been delivered to the site during the first half of 2026. Export cabling had been laid to the substation and gas processing equipment installed and commissioned on site.

The company said:

“We are working closely with the Distribution Network Operator to complete the final stages of the grid connection, following which final commissioning will be undertaken. First production is currently expected in early October 2026.”

Other  onshore developments

Official figures show Star Energy operated 27 formal producing oil and gas fields onshore in the UK in 2026. The fields comprised 18 producing oil and 1 producing gas. There are also 8 oil fields where there had been no production in 2026..

The company said it had invested £3.2 million in oil and gas assets in the first half of 2026, including the Singleton project (see above). Net cash capital expenditure for 2026 was expected to be £6.6million, the company said.

Investment was being targeted to offset what Star Energy called “natural declines” and improve operating reliabilities. The accounts described work at:

Stockbridge, Hampshire: conversion of well to water injector

Bletchingley, Surrey: installation of gas generator

Welton, Lincolnshire: installation of replacement separator

Glentworth, Lincolnshire: development of the western extension of the Mexborough reservoir that could add 162 bopd, Star Energy said. It said technical and regulatory work is progressing to maintain the site as “a development-ready opportunity”.

Key figures for six months to June 2026

Interim unaudited results released on 169/2026

Revenue: £23.2m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £18.3m)

Oil sales: £22.5m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £17.80m)

Profit before tax: £0.6m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £4.5m)

Profit/(loss) for the period: £2.361m (Six months to 30 June 2025: (£4.069m))

Oil and gas adjusted EBITDA: £6.2m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £5.5m)

Operating cashflow before working capital movements: £6.0m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £4.8m)

Net cash/(debt): £4.6m (Six months to 30 June 2025: (£4.3m))

Cash and cash equivalents: £15.7m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £7.6m)

Loss on commodities hedge: £5m

Capital expenditure in oil and gas: £3.2m.

Expected net cash capital expenditure for 2026: £6.6m

Proceeds to Star Energy of sale of Croation geothermal subsidiary IGeoPen: £1.1m

May 2026 fundraise (net of expenses: £8.5m

Average net production: 1,866 boe/d (Six months to 30 June 2025: 1,894 boe/d

Expected full year production for 2026: 1,900-1,950 boe/d

Net assets: £45.8m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £34.8m)

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

Photo: DrillOrDrop

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

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

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

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

“Questions unanswered”

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

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

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

Cllr Parsons added:

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

He said:

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

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

He said:

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

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

Incorrect and unclear information

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

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

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

The EA told us

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

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

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

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

The EA replied:

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

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

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

No 3D seismic survey

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

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

This has concerned some consultation participants.

Burniston Parish Council said:

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

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

One consultation participant said:

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

One participant said:

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

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

But one participant asked:

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

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

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

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

The participant told the EA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind closed doors

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

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

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

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

Burniston Parish Council has also raised concerns about openness.

It said:

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

It said the EA should:

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

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

Uncertainty

One consultant participant said:

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

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

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

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

The council said:

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

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

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

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

Inconsistency

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

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

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

Specific concerns

Burniston Partish Council identified other concerns including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on HFP and 3D licence commitments

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

The company added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy minister Martin McCluskey. Photo: Parliament TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr McCluskey told MPs:

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

He added:

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

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

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

He added:

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

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

Opposition

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

She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

She added:

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

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

Other arguments

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

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

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

Labour’s Phil Brickell said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline 4 December 2025: Cuadrilla refused more time

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

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

Campaigners called for immediate restoration of the site. Details

3 June 2026: original enforcement notice served

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

The enforcement notice set three deadlines for the work.

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

1.0 Enforcement Notice LCC 3.06.26_Redacted(1)Download

8 June 2026: media announcement

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

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

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

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

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

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

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

24 June 2026: Cuadrilla asks for an extension

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

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

Cuadrilla cited the following reasons for its requested delay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It added:

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

4.0 Cuadrilla Letter 0207261_RedactedDownload 3 July 2026: Council replies

Lancashire County Council replied a day later.

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

It concluded:

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

6 July 2026: appeal confirmed

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

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

It said the company

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

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

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

27 August 2026: Withdrawal of appeal

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

28 August 2026: Withdrawal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed the appeal had been withdrawn.

Why did the council agree to changes?

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

A spokesperson said:

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

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

The council spokesperson said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wressle oil site. Photo: Egdon Resources

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

The accounts said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burniston/Cloughton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other UK onshore sites

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

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

Key figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Companies behind plans in East Yorkshire for a £2.5m lower-volume frack, well test and data centre study have given notice of preparation work.

The news came in a formal statement by the majority owner, Reabold Resources, released this morning (9 September 2026).

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

The work is planned for the West Newton-A well site in Holderness. Reabold, which holds an almost 80% stake, said:

“preparatory work for the planned recompletion, stimulation and test programme at the West Newton A-2 well will commence shortly”.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy updated its website yesterday (8 September 2026), saying:

• Plans were “being progressed” on the lower-volume frack and test plans
• Work was targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026 (as announced in June 2026) if well completion and test contractors were available
• A community benefit scheme would be set up

The local campaign group, West Newton Said No, said this morning:

“Our monitors will be keeping a close eye on anything that happens and will take any and all actions it deems necessary to protect our precious aquifer and local communities.”

See full statement below from West Newton Said No

Data centre plans

Previous Reabold statements said gas extracted from West Newton could be used to generate electricity to run a bitcoin mining operation.

For the first time, Reabold said today a feasibility study was underway for a data centre on the West Newton site.

It said:

“The Company believes that West Newton’s onshore location, scale and proximity to existing grid and transport infrastructure make it well suited to such applications, and further updates will be provided as this work progresses.”

Stephen Williams, Reabold’s co-chief executive, said:

“It is particularly exciting that a study is underway to assess the feasibility of co-locating data centre infrastructure at site, which would be powered by West Newton’s natural gas, offering a uniquely positioned “behind-the-meter” development solution for digital infrastructure in the UK.

“The UK is experiencing a significant acceleration in demand for digital infrastructure, driven by AI and the growing digital economy for which securing and scalable, affordable and reliable power has become a key constraint.

“We believe West Newton has the potential to provide reliable power generation, creating an additional value pathway alongside the project’s existing traditional natural gas development plans.”

Other details

Rathlin Energy said plans were “being progressed” for the proposed lower-volume frack, described as a well stimulation, and the well test, due to last up to a year

The West Newton-A project also requires the construction of passing places on the access road, Pasture Lane.

Rathlin confirmed that Pasture Lane would be closed for about four weeks from mid-September 2026.

Reabold said in its statement that authorities for expenditure had been issued for the highways work and procurement of long-lead items, including speciality chemicals.

It also said final engineering activities and award of contracts were currently underway. It said:

“Subject to the completion of these preparatory activities, the well will be recompleted, followed by a period of testing.”

Rathlin Energy said the North Sea Transition Authority had approved its applications for the lower volume frack and well test.

The company also restated that the hydraulic fracture plan had been approved by the NSTA and Environment Agency (EA).

The EA’s decision to permit the fracture operation is the subject of a legal challenge by local campaigner, Peter Lomas.

• At the time of writing, there has been no statement today on West Newton from Union Jack Oil, the other investor in the operation. Union Jack is the subject of a takeover bid from Reabold Resources. Union Jack shareholders recently voted to remove the entire board . The new directors are due to make a statement this week. Union Jack issued a statement at 10.50am.

Reaction

The campaign group, West Newton Said No, issued a statement this morning:

“Today’s RNS [regulatory news service statement] from Reabold comes as no surprise, following the rebuttal by shareholders over at Union Jack Oil for a takeover of their company. We see this as just another can kicking excercise by the industry and an attempt to bully UJO [Union Jack] into selling up.

“This farcical story has continued for years, and what’s even more farcical is that now Reabold are talking about using the gas, which has never been proved to flow at any rate, let alone commercial rates to power AI data centres, a change from its originally proposed bitcoin mining farms.

“The planning condition to construct passing places on Pasture Lane where originally planned for construction in August, these were scrapped.

“West Newton Said No will be actively campaigning for the liaison group to reject any community fund. It’s just another bribe to placate the local communities and has been used as a weapon worldwide, take the money and if anything untoward happens your gagged.

“A question needs to be answered here, if they plan on constructing a data centre, and if they ever get permission, which is highly doubtful , do they plan on abstraction of our clean fresh drinking water from our irreplaceable chalk aquifer to cool it ?

“Our monitors will be keeping a close eye on anything that happens and will take any and all actions it deems necessary to protect our precious aquifer and local communities.”

Campaigners gathered outside the Horndean B oil site in Hampshire yesterday (6 September 2026) to launch a fundraiser for a legal challenge over methane pollution from onshore oil and gas sites in the UK.

Campaign launch outside the Horndean B oil site in Hampmshire. Photo: Weald Action Group

The Horndean site, operated by Star Energy, is at the centre of the latest legal campaign by the Weald Action Group (WAG), the network fighting expansion of oil and gas operations in southern England for more than a decade.

WAG is now focussing on how methane emissions from oil and gas sites are regulated.

It said it would use a combination of legal action, investigations, technical research and field data to expose regulatory gaps and systematic failures that allow unchecked methane emissions.

In 2024, WAG secured a landmark victory at the UK Supreme Court with the Finch Judgment, which changed the legal landscape for fossil fuel planning decisions by requiring the assessment of downstream emissions from the use of oil and gas.

Methane, regarded as a super climate pollutant, is more than 80 times more potent for global warming than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 20 years.

Unlike CO2, methane breaks down in the atmosphere within a decade. Urgent action has a real chance of slowing warming in our lifetimes.

WAG said the focus of its climate litigation was to help secure faster and more effective action on reducing methane emissions across the UK.

If successful, the group said cases could limit methane emissions in Environment Agency permits issued to oil and gas sites in the UK and to ensure that the UK onshore industry was held accountable.

WAG’s Lorraine Inglis:

“This summer we’ve experienced severe drought and wildfires in communities across the UK, a stark reminder that climate breakdown isn’t a distant threat, it’s happening here and now. Every site like Horndean that continues to emit methane makes the crisis worse, and fixing the leaks is one of the fastest, cheapest wins we have in this crisis.”

WAG organised ”Cake at the Gate” at the Horndean site to mark the launch of the fundraiser. This repeated a popular event at previous protest campaigns at Horse Hill in Surrey and Broadford Bridge in West Sussex.

WAG campaigner Emily Mott said:

“It was a joy to catch up with climate campaigners from across the South East, all working toward the same goal: averting the worst of global warming.

“Every tonne of methane kept out of the atmosphere makes a difference, and the onshore oil and gas industry has a real opportunity to act. Weald Action Group’s Clean Air Clear Future campaign is calling for an end to routine venting and flaring, and faster, more frequent leak detection and repair.

“We are also calling on the government to include emissions from the onshore sector in their Methane Action Plan. “

A fundraiser is live now. Link here

No decision is expected this month (September 2026) on controversial plans for expansion and long-term production at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, the county council has confirmed.

Horse Hill drilling plans. Source: planning application

A council spokesperson told DrillOrDrop the planning committee meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 23 September 2026, would not consider the Horse Hill application.

The spokesperson also said the council was “not in a position to confirm a date yet as work on the application is still ongoing”.

The Horse Hill plans were at the centre of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 2024.

A successful legal challenge, by campaigner Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, required decisionmakers to take into account the carbon emissions from the use of extracted oil.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Horse Hill planning permission, granted by Surrey County Council in 2019, was unlawful because it had not done this. The consent was quashed immediately.

Four months later, HHDL announced it was voluntarily stopping oil production, although oil continued to be extracted in the following month.

The company submitted a revised planning application in June 2026.

This revealed that the site was expected to produce more than 600,000 tonnes of oil over the next 20 years and release about two million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

The company concluded that emissions from use of the oil were “not significant” for climate change.

But campaigners have argued that the assessment was “flawed” and have questioned its competence.

HHDL is seeking permission for four new production wells, bringing the total at the site to six. The plans also include expanding the site from 2.08ha to 2.8ha, allowing 20 years of oil production, and adding a new oil processing area, tanker loading facilities and a water reinjection well.

HHDL’s parent company, formerly UK Oil & Gas, now renamed UK Energy Group plc, is seeking to sell Horse Hill to energy B.

New directors of Union Jack Oil will give their views next week on the proposed takeover by Reabold Resources, according to a statement to investors.

Craig Howie and John Americanos replaced the previous directors at a general meeting last month (24 August 2026).

They told shareholders on Friday (4 September 2026) the Union Jack board was “considering its position” on the Reabold Resources offer. The statement added:

[the board] “would set out its views, together with the independent financial advice it had received, in a circular to be published during the course of the week commencing [Monday] u7 September 2026.”

Two crucial dates in the offer process have been reset, Union Jack also said.

It said day 60 – the latest date by which the conditions of the offer must be satisfied or waived) – would be reset to the 21st day following publication of the Union Jack circular. Day 46, the latest date on which Reabold may publish a revised offer, would also be reset.

The Union Jack statement followed an announcement from Reabold Resources (also on 4 September 2026) on support for the takeover bid. Reabold said it had received acceptance from 5.70% of the Union Jack shareholding by day 35 of the offer.

In the UK, Union Jack has interests in the Wressle oil site in North Lincolnshire and the West Newton oil and gas field in East Yorkshire.

UK Oil & Gas, the company behind controversial expansion plans at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, has changed its name.

A listing on the Companies House website reveals that the company name, usually abbreviated to UKOG, is now UK Energy Group plc.

Companies House said the certificate for change of name was issued on Friday 4 September 2026. It has not yet been published online.

UKOG still has an account on X and the company’s UKOGplc.com website is still working.

The company announced in June 2026 that it was seeking to sell Horse Hill to energy B. The deal must be approved by the industry regulator and energy B’s shareholders.

Horse Hill was the company’s sole remaining oil and gas site.

This is the fifth name change for the company, according to Companies House.  

For two months, from 2004-20005, it was called Pinco 2231 plc. It became Sarantel Group plc in 2005. In 2013, the company was renamed UK Oil & Gas Investments plc. The name changed to UK Oil & Gas plc in July 2008.

The directors remain the same, according to Companies House. They are: Stephen Sanderson (the longest-standing director from 2015), Nicholas Mardon Taylor, Allen Howard II, Guzyal Mukhametzhanova (secretary) and Kristopher Bone.