DRILL OR DROP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weald Action Group reaction “classic case of misdirection”

Campaigner Sarah Finch said:

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

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

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

Campaigner Kirsty Clough said:

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

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

“Approving Jackdaw will only make the situation worse”.

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

Kyle Lischak, head of UK at Client Earth

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

The organisation also said:

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

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

E3G – “more drilling is the wrong answer”

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

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

Friends of the Earth – “bridge to nowhere”

Energy campaigner, Danny Gross, said:

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

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

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

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

Greenpeace – “toxic grip of fossil fuel lobbyists”

Ami McCarthy, head of politics, said:

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

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

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

Uplift – “caving to oil industry”

Tessa Khan, executive director,said:

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

She also said:

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

She added:

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

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

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

Photo: DrillOrDrop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spokesperson added:

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

Details

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

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

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

Many complaints had not been addressed in the revisions.

The parish council chair, Richard Parsons, told DrillOrDrop:

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

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

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

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

Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC) said:

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

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

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

FFCC also said:

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

It added:

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

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

DrillOrDrop will report separately on responses to the revised documents.

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

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

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

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

Oil production has been suspended since October 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

The letter concluded:

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

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

Core fuel

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

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

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

It added:

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

Climate impact

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

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

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

The letter added

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

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

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

Policy support

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

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

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

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

Decision date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Production halted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundraising

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

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

He said today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many other local concerns about the documents remain.

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

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

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

Extract from Environment Agency website on Burniston environmental permit

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

Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fracking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended consultation

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

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

Angus Energy has given details today of plans to increase production at its Brockham oilfield in Surrey.

Work on the Brockham BRX4z, January 2017. Photo: Brockham Protection Camp

In a stockmarket statement, the company said preparations for a workover of the BRX4Z borehole were “well advanced”.

It said the rig was due to be mobilised in early November 2026. The workover is expected to take about three weeks. The operation will include perforation and acidisation of the Portland reservoir, Angus said.

If successful, the operation would bring BRX4Z into production, the company added.

The well, which is currently suspended, was drilled in January 2017 as a sidetrack to the BRX4 well.

It was controversial at the time because local campaigners and Surrey County Council said the well did not have planning permission. In September 2017, Angus Energy was granted part-restrospective planning permission for BRX4Z

In 2024, a separate planning application stated that BRX4Z did not flow commercial volumes of oil from the Kimmeridge clay. But interim accounts published earlier this year said preparations were underway for production from the shallower Portland reservoir.

Angus has an 80% operating interest in PL235, the licence covering the Brockham field near Dorking. The other investors, with 10% each, are Brockham Capital Limited and Terrain Energy Limited.

The company running the West Newton oil and gas operation in East Yorkshire has failed to file its annual accounts on time.

Extract from Companies House listing for Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited 13/10/26

The latest financial figures from Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited were 13 days overdue today.

Companies House said the accounts for the year should have submitted by 30 September 2026 for the year up to 31 December 2025.

Previous Rathlin accounts have been filed by the deadline.

Rathlin Energy operates two sites in Holderness: West Newton-A and West Newton-B.

The company has given notice of plans to start lower-volume fracking at West Newton-A and an extended well test before the end of the year.

Pre-operational conditions for the planning permission, including passing places on the lorry route, have now been met.

But a local campaigner has filed a legal challenge against the Environment Agency (EA) over its approval of a permit for the fracking operations.

He is also seeking an interim injunction to halt the work until the EA case has been decided.

Companies Houses fines firms that are up to one month late or more with their accounts.

Rathlin Energy is a subsidiary of Reabold Resources and classified as a private company. The fine for private companies that are up to one month late is £150, rising to £1,500 for more than six months late.

The Environment Agency (EA) has admitted mistakes in its official assessment of plans for gas drilling and fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, following widespread criticism.

But this has failed to satisfy critics, who have called on the EA to scrap the assessment and start again.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

In August 2026, the EA said it was minded to approve the permit application, by Europa Oil & Gas, for plans at Burniston. The environmental permit is considered separately from planning permission, which was refused by North Yorkshire Council earlier this year.

The EA set out its reasons for the minded to approve in a report, the draft decision document. It invited comments before making a final decision.

In past two months, the EA has been accused of errors in the draft decision document, as well as inconsistency and missing information.

The document was the subject of a formal complaint by one campaigner. There have also been numerous objections from organisations and individuals.

Update from EA website on Burniston permit application

In an online update, the EA has responded to some of the objections:

“There are a number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in use of terminology, within our published draft decision document.”

“While we acknowledge these drafting errors, we would like to reassure you that they do not affect the underlying technical assessment, evidence base or regulatory considerations. 

“Our assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the relevant legal and technical requirements and remains subject to scrutiny throughout the permitting process.

“We will upload our updated decision document onto this consultation page as soon as possible. The technical assessment remains unchanged.

“We will keep the consultation open during this time.”

The update followed an earlier announcement by the EA that the public consultation on the draft decision document, due to end on 26 September 2026, would close instead 25 days later on 21 October 2026. At the time, there was no explanation about why the consultation had been extended and the EA did not respond to our questions.

The EA’s update has already been criticised by local organisations and campaigners, including Burniston Parish Council and a community group.

“EA process and report discredited”

Richard Parsons, chair of Burniston Parish Council, said the EA’s description of “minor typographical errors and inconsistencies” seemed to be “a long way from the truth”.

He said in a statement to DrillOrDrop:

“At Burniston Parish Council we have been looking with great interest at the Environment Agency report into the Europa Oil and Gas proposed gas fracking site at Burniston.

“The EA held a public meeting at Burniston as part of the planning process and the EA report process. After the meeting there was concern from both Councillors and members of this community that the EA had little understanding of the effect that fracking for gas in this location would have on the environment, both locally and further afield.

“When the report was published alongside a public consultation process it was scrutinised in great detail. A series of errors and apparent lack of understanding from the EA were identified. Our Council responded in detail.

“To call the errors ‘minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in use of terminology’ seems to be a long way from the truth. It’s a mess!

“The public response time was extended from the 23rd of September until 21st October, based, it would appear, on the EA report being incorrect. The report is lengthy and requires a lot of time to scrutinise and respond to. For anyone to respond accurately on the latest version of the EA report, is not possible.

“We have asked for a further public open meeting based on the evidence that is now available. To date we have received no reply.

“It appears as though the EA process and report is now discredited. We request that the EA report is withdrawn and started again. Also a public open meeting arranged prior to the report being finalised.

“At Burniston Parish Council we would take the opportunity to remind the Environment Agency of the requirements to prepare and publish a report, that is based on all the evidence and is accurate in its conclusions. Anything less, including errors and inconsistences, is not acceptable.’

“EA assurance is disingenuous”

The campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC), welcomed the EA’s acknowledgment of drafting problems in the draft decision document.

But it added:

“Their assurance that this does not affect the technical assessment and evidence base informing their decision is disingenuous.

“It is their misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the evidence base that has led to inconsistencies in terminology. This in turn derives from their reliance on language and interpretations of evidence provided by Europa in their permit application.

“We suspect that this partial mea culpa is a face-saving first step in a process of reviewing their assessment and decision making. Extending the consultation by four weeks simply to correct a few typos is not credible – a more fundamental review is surely (and rightly) under way. And when a revised decision document is published, we expect the Environment Agency to re-start the consultation so that the new documents can be subject to the same public scrutiny as the ones they now admit are flawed.”

“EA quality control depends on public”

The EA has also responded to the formal complaint by campaigner Dennis May.

He had accused the EA of multiple problems with its handling of the Burniston permit, including:

• Failing to act in the public interest
• Providing “inaccurate, inconsistent and contradictory information”
• Aligning itself with “misleading, confected, and conflated terminology” used by Europa Oil & Gas
• Failing to remain impartial
• Regarding the public consultation as “a mere formality, irrespective of evidence”.

The EA said in response:

“We have reviewed the points you raised and agree that there are a number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in the use of terminology, within the published draft decision document.

“We are taking steps to correct these, and to understand how they occurred, so that we can minimise the risk of similar issues arising in future.

“We appreciate that accuracy and attention to detail are important in maintaining public confidence in our regulatory processes. While we acknowledge these drafting errors, we would like to reassure you that they do not reflect our underlying technical assessment, evidence base or regulatory considerations that form part of our determination.

“Our assessment has been undertaken in accordance with all the relevant legal and technical requirements and remains subject to scrutiny throughout the permitting process.

“We will upload an updated draft decision document onto the Citizen Space consultation webpage as soon as possible. We will keep the consultation webpage open during this time. Our technical assessment remains unchanged.

“We will then allow an extra two weeks for the consultation to run in light of the changes made.”

On Mr May’s criticism of terminology, the EA said:

“The terms used by oil and gas operators to describe their activities are not always used consistently across the industry. Unless a term is defined in law, there is no single agreed definition. When we write permits and decision documents, we often use the same terminology as the operator’s application to help readers compare the documents more easily.”

Mr May said today:

“The EAs failings in this matter are strongly indicative of systemic shortfalls in the management of the permitting process.

“It is concerning that any semblance of quality control appears to be totally dependent upon intervention by members of the public.”

Reabold Resources has announced its takeover offer for Union Jack Oil has lapsed.

At the today’s deadline, the bid was supported by holders of just over 13% of Union Jack share capital.

Reabold said in a statement this evening it had not received sufficient acceptances from Union Jack investors by 1pm.

Extract from Reabold Resources statement, issued at 5.15pm, 2 October 2026

The offer was conditional on receiving acceptances from holders of at least 75% of Union Jack’s existing share capital.

Reabold said that at 1pm today (2 October 2026), it had received acceptances from about 13.02%.

The statement said:

“As such, the Acceptance Condition has not been satisfied and the Offer has now lapsed”.

It added that the offr would have addressed challenges facing Union Jack and would have allowed shareholders to “participate in a better-capitalised platform with enhanced access to funding and a wider portfolio of assets”.

Reabold said it reserved the right to make a further offer if it were recommended by the Union Jack Board or a third party announced it intended to make an offer for Union Jack.

At the time of writing, Union Jack has not made a formal statement on the outcome of the takeover bid.

The offer, first made in June 2026, was backed by Union Jack’s then executive chairman, David Bramhill, and the company’s board. They had urged Union Jack shareholders to accept the offer.

But Mr Bramhill and two other directors were removed from the board on 24 August 2026 at a special meeting of shareholders.

They were replaced by Craig Howie and John Americanos, who opposed the Reabold takeover bid.

On 11 September 2026, in a circular to investors, the new Union Jack board recommended rejection of the offer. The board described the offer as “opportunistic” and said it “significantly undervalues Union Jack’s current project portfolio”.

Union Jack has the largest individual interest (40%) in the Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire, PEDL180 and PEDL182.

It also has a 16.665% share in the West Newton oil and gas licence, PEDL183, in East Yorkshire and interests in PEDL5, PEDL209, PEDL241 and EXL294.

Last month, there were clashes between Union Jack and Reabold over West Newton, where there are plans for lower-volume fracking before the end of the year.

Union Jack said West Newton remained “an undeveloped gas and condensate discovery that has yet to establish sustained commercial production”. It also said “the outcome of the proposed stimulation” was not known.

Reabold Resources said it “strongly rejects” the suggestion that West Newton lacked “strategic merit”, It accused the new Union Jack board of “highly selective views” on the field.

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.