DRILL OR DROP?

Restoration of the Broadford Bridge oil site in West Sussex is due to begin this summer, officials have confirmed.

The Broadford Bridge oil site during operation. Photo: Weald Action Group

The site, near Billingshurst, is subject to two council planning enforcement notices after the operator, a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), failed to return the well pad to farmland.

Broadford Bridge 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.

A council spokesperson said today:

“Two Breach of Condition Notices (BCNs) were served on 13 February 2026. These remain live and require the operator to remove all associated infrastructure (including buildings, plant, machinery, fencing, gates and other structures) and restore the site in accordance with the approved restoration scheme by 31 December 2026.

“The operator has advised that the intention is for restoration works to commence this summer with a view to achieving restoration by the required date.”

Restoration includes work to clean and remove surface stone layers, take-up impermeable membranes, in-fill drainage ditches and regrade the soil from surrounding earth bunds to return the site to its original appearance and use.

Access application Access track application plan. Source: WSCC/036/26

The restoration timeframe emerged in a new planning application for Broadford Bridge (WSCC/036/26).

The application, to keep the site access track, was submitted on behalf of Sheila Francis by the Zetland planning consultancy which has previously worked for UKOG companies.

It revealed: “the well site is to be restored (Summer-Autumn 2026)”.

The application seeks to retain the 450m track to the well site for “agricultural purposes” and the junction of the track with the B2133 Adversane Lane. The application does not seek to retain the former well pad area and fencing around it.

Comments on the access track application can be made online. The deadline for comments is 20 August 2026. A decision is expected by 21 September 2026.

The assessment of the climate impact of expansion at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey contains “multiple errors and misleading and irrelevant information”, campaigners said today.

The Weald Action Group, which won a landmark Supreme Court ruling on greenhouse gas emissions, said the assessment, submitted by the developer, made “spurious claims” and failed to comply with the latest guidance.

The flaws led to the “false conclusion” that the climate impact was “not significant”, the group said. It added:

“This is incorrect and must be disregarded”.

Horse Hill oil site near Redhill, Surrey. Photo: Weald Action Group

Weald Action Group (WAG) has called for evidence that the assessment was written by an appropriately qualified practitioner”.

The assessment estimated that four new production wells and extraction of more than 600,000 tonnes of oil over 20 years, would result in more than two million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. But it stated that the emissions would not be “significant for the climate”.

Kirsty Clough, of WAG, said:

“The oil company’s assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts is fundamentally flawed. Had they done the job properly, they could not have avoided concluding that the effects on the climate would be highly significant. The Council cannot grant permission on the basis of such a deficient assessment.”

In its response to Surrey County Council, submitted today, WAG said:

“The technical competency of the consultant who prepared the assessment of climate significance is in question.”

The document was apparently prepared by an air quality consultant.

WAG said the job requires “a broad knowledge of UK climate mitigation policy, in the context of international obligations, to be able form a judgement of significance”.

It said:

“We question whether an air quality consultant would have the relevant technical skills and expertise … to undertake a robust GHG [greenhouse gas] and climate impact assessment.”

It added:

“A lack of competency is observative in the numerous shortcomings and inaccuracies.

“In particular, the author has failed to draw on relevant available guidance, policy and scientific evidence”.

WAG said:

“We urge Surrey County Council to raise the issue of technical competency with the applicant. Specifically they should be required to provide evidence that the assessment was written by an ‘appropriately qualified practitioner’.

“Multiple flaws”

The climate assessment focussed on the emissions resulting from burning Horse Hill oil, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions. The Supreme Court ruling now requires these emissions to be taken into account when deciding fossil fuel proposals.

WAG said its analysis found the Horse Hill assessment was “flawed in multiple ways”.

The group said the assessment failed to comply with:

• new government guidance on assessing the effects of downstream scope 3 emissions
• Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017
• Institute of Sustainability & Environmental Professionals’ Guide to assessing greenhouse gas emissions

WAG said the assessment failed to regard the government guidance as a material planning consideration, even though a developer and climate expert agreed in a separate project that it should be.

The Horse Hill assessment also failed to describe the state of the climate, WAG said.

Scientists have forecast that the maximum amount of carbon we can emit and stay within the legal limit of 1.5C temperature rise is 130-170 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). This volume of CO2 will be breached in a few years, the group said.

It added:

[This] “conceals the true state of the climate and how little time, if any, we have left to prevent global average temperature rise exceeding the 1.5C limit.”

WAG said the assessment further failed to assess the actual impact of 2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases on, for example, human health, biodiversity, land, soil water, air and climate. This is required by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, it said.

There were also “multiple errors and misleading and irrelevant information” about projected UK oil production and demand and global energy and climate scenarios, WAG said.

It said the assessment implied that new domestic oil production was needed to meet a shortfall in demand up to 2050 and to bolster energy security.

WAG said this “presents a false picture of future oil demand and its relationship to domestic production and shows a lack of understanding of energy markets”.

There was also a “spurious” claim, WAG said, that oil from Horse Hill would substitute for imported oil, which may have a higher carbon intensity.

WAG said no evidence had been provided and the claim should be disregarded:

It said the assessment made unfounded claims that oil from Horse Hill would remain in the UK, even though more than 80% of domestically produced oil and gas is exported. The group said:

“There is no guarantee that oil from Horse Hill will remain and be used within the UK.”

The assessment failed to place Horse Hill greenhouse gas emissions in a global cumulative context of all current and approved fossil fuel projects, WAG said. An estimate in 2022 forecast the emissions from these projects amounted to 936 gigatonnes of CO2.

The group said:

“The significance of the scope 3 emissions arising from the Horse Hill development should … have been assessed relative to the available space in the remaining 1.5C aligned global carbon budget, once the emissions from existing and committed fossil fuel projects (the cumulative effect) have been accounted for. The developer has failed to do this.”

WAG added:

“There is no space in the rapidly dwindling 1.5C global carbon budget for any new fossil fuel developments, and a massive excess of emissions from existing oil, gas and coal infrastructure which will now need to close before the end of its economic life.

“Any emissions from the Horse Hill oilfield development will be additional, cumulative and hence contribute to the further exceedance of the 1.5C global carbon budget.

“On this basis, the scope 3 emissions arising from the Horse Hill development must be deemed significant in terms of their climate impact.”

• Weald Action Group said it would be submitting further objections, including on seismicity and earthquake risk.

A public consultation opened today on the Environment Agency’s (EA) draft decision to grant consent for gas drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

The consultation runs for six weeks until Wednesday 23 September 2026. It gives people a chance to have their say before the final decision is made.

Equipment proposed during lower-volume fracking stage at Burniston. Source: planning application

This is the second EA consultation on the proposals by Europa Oil & Gas in the village on the edge of the North York Moors National Park.

The first consultation, on the initial environmental permit application, was held a year ago. The deadline for comments in that consultation was extended after complaints by the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, that key information was missing.

Today’s new consultation seeks views on a draft environmental permit.

This is separate from the decision by North Yorkshire Council on 24 April 2026 to refuse planning permission, later confirmed in May.

The Burniston development can go ahead only with both planning permission and the environmental permit.

The EA said it was minded to issue a permit for the proposed wellsite, known by Europa as Cloughton-2, as well as drilling and testing a borehole and the lower-volume fracking process called proppant squeeze.

Proppant squeeze is one of several lower-volume fracking operations that remain legal in the UK, despite the moratorium on high-volume fracking. The process aims to improve the flow of gas and involves injecting fluid into the well under pressure to open fractures in the surrounding rocks.

The EA said it was legally required to issue a permit where an application met requirements under environmental legislation. It can refuse an application only where one or more of these requirements are not met, including where the proposed activity would pose an unacceptable risk to people or the environment.

Ian Foster, EA area manager for Yorkshire, said today:

“We recognise there is significant public interest in this application, particularly following the local planning authority’s decision to refuse planning permission.

“The Environment Agency has a different legal role. Our responsibility is to independently assess whether the application meets the requirements of environmental legislation and whether the proposed activities can be carried out without unacceptable risks to people or the environment.

“Our assessment is evidence-based and we have published the reasons for our draft decision. We encourage anyone with an interest in the application to read the consultation documents and provide their views before we make our final decision.”

The local MP, Alison Hume, who opposed the Burniston proposal, said today:

“I will be submitting my comments on the EA’s draft permit decision and highlighting my concerns about Europa’s plans to carry out small-scale fracking … on the edge of the North York Moors.

“Given the level of concern that many local residents have expressed about this proposal, I have also written to the relevant minister to make them aware of these developments and the strength of feeling among constituents. I will continue to monitor the situation closely and keep in contact with the relevant authorities as the process moves forward.”

The consultation comprises 31 documents, including the EA’s draft decision.

All the documents can be viewed online. Comments can also be made online or by phoning the EA on 03708 506 506.

The EA can take into account:

• Relevant environmental regulations and technical standards
• Information on the local population and sensitive sites
• Whether the right process or technology is proposed by the developer
• The impact of the proposal on the use of land around the site, whether the impact is acceptable and what pollution control may be required
• The impact of noise and smell from traffic on site
• Correcting incorrect information in the application
• Information the EA has not been made aware of in the application

The EA cannot take into account

• Issues outside the remit of the environmental permitting regulations
• Whether a site should have a formal ecological designation
• Whether the activity should or should not be allowed
• Land use issues
• Impact of noise and smell from traffic travelling to and from the site
• The process followed by the EA to determine a permit

The deadline for comments has been extended because the consultation is during the summer holiday.

DrillOrDrop will report on comments submitted to the consultation.

Gas drilling in a small village in the Yorkshire Wolds would cause “unacceptable harm”, a leading campaign organisation has said.

Entrance to the proposed gas site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has strongly objected to the plan at Foxholes, about nine miles from Scarborough, in North Yorkshire.

CPRE said a planning application by Egdon Resources should be refused.

A detailed response by the organisation’s North and East Yorkshire branch said:

“The proposal is inappropriate in this rural location, would cause unacceptable harm to countryside character and amenity, raises unresolved environmental and water protection concerns, would generate significant traffic and operational disturbance, and is inconsistent with the direction of travel required by climate change policy and responsible rural planning.”

It added:

“The proposal would introduce an intrusive industrial hydrocarbon exploration operation into a rural landscape, with associated drilling, testing, heavy goods vehicle movements, lighting, noise, emissions, water protection risks and long-term landscape and climate implications.

It said the operation, if approved, would “erode the local character and tranquillity of the area and would be at odds with the public interest in protecting the countryside for its landscape, amenity, ecological and cultural value”.

The organisation also said the application was “contrary to both national and local planning policies, inconsistent with the protection of rural character and amenity, and fails to demonstrate that the development can be made acceptable in this sensitive location.”

The earmarked site is on the edge of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, a designation that would bring the same level of protection given to national parks.

Egdon proposes to drill an exploration well through the chalk drinking water aquifer and next to the Gypsey Race, a rare chalk stream. Both the aquifer and the stream are considered internationally significant.

6CPRE formal response to Foxholes gas drilling planningk application Download Key issues

CPRE said the proposal would generate some short-term construction work, possibly increase exploratory knowledge and may contribute to future gas production.

But the organisation said there were many disadvantages, including:

• climate conflict and lack of need for new gas
• harm to the Yorkshire Wolds and proposed National Landscape sensitivity zone
• unacceptable noise risk in a quiet rural area
• unresolved highway safety, congestion and emergency-routing issues
• risk to the Gypsey Race and chalk aquifer
• disturbance to residents, vulnerable road users, agriculture and tourism
• uncertainty over restoration and future production pressure

“Undermine protection of the Yorkshire Wolds”

CPRE said the site is in the setting of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, a distinctive region of open, rolling farmland, dry valleys, historic villages and relative tranquillity. The site is also within the 3.5km sensitivity zone of what would be a protected area.

The organisation said:

“approving hydrocarbon exploration in this landscape would set an undesirable precedent for further industrialisation of the Wolds and their rural setting”.

It said North Yorkshire Council, which will decide the planning application, should “attach ‘substantial weight’ to landscape protection, rural amenity and the conservation of countryside character”.

CPRE added:

“The council should not ignore the national significance of the landscape evidence or permit development within its immediate sensitivity zone that would prejudice, undermine or conflict with the purposes of designation”.

“Traffic risks on rural roads”

CPRE said the scheme should be refused because of the impact on local roads from a “significant number of heavy goods vehicle [HGV] and operational vehicle movements”.

It said:

“Rural roads in and around Foxholes are not designed to accommodate sustained industrial traffic without harm to local amenity, road safety, verges, agricultural access and quiet enjoyment of the countryside.

Increased HGV traffic would add noise, vibration, emissions, perceived danger for residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other road users, the organisation said.

It added:

“the rural road network should [not] be used to support fossil fuel exploration where the claimed public benefit is speculative and limited.”

CPRE also raised concerns that the proposed lorry route to the Foxhole site crossed Staxton Hill, 515ft high with a 1:4 gradient.

It said Egdon Resources had not provided sufficient detail of any alternative or emergency route if Staxton Hill were closed or unavailable.

“Without a fully assessed and consulted-upon emergency routing plan, the council cannot lawfully or rationally conclude that safe and suitable access has been demonstrated for all phases of the development”.

The organisation said the impacts of the scheme on local roads “should therefore be treated as severe, or at the very least inadequately assessed, and permission should be refused until the applicant has demonstrated safe and suitable access for all users and the absence of unacceptable or severe cumulative transport effects”.

“Unresolved risks to water resources”

CPRE said the application had not “demonstrated that standard mitigation, monitoring and regulatory controls are sufficient to overcome the planning objection in this sensitive rural and hydrogeological context”.

It said the Yorkshire Wolds chalk aquifer was particularly vulnerable because groundwater can move through fractures and fissures and contaminants may travel unpredictably and rapidly.

It urged the council to apply a precautionary approach and “require clear, independent evidence that serious or irreversible harm can be ruled out”.

CPRE said North Yorkshire Council should not defer “fundamental questions of water protection to later permitting regimes where those matters are also relevant to land use planning.

The organisation added it would be “perverse” for the planning system to support a project to restore the Gypsey Race, “while simultaneously permitting a new fossil fuel drilling operation” nearby “without a compelling need and without eliminating the risk of harm to the chalk aquifer and chalk stream system”.

“Disturbance to residents”

CPRE said of the drilling proposal:

“it would introduce noise, lighting, dust, odour and industrial activity harmful to residential and rural amenity”.

It said planning conditions would not “adequately protect residents and the rural environment”.

CPRE said the current night-time noise levels were very low. It specifically opposed Egdon’s suggested night-time noise limits.

It said:

“the Council should require Egdon to show why materially lower night-time limits cannot be achieved and why the operation cannot be designed to avoid night-time drilling noise impacts altogether.”

“Climate change and fossil fuel dependence”

CPRE said it objected in principle to new hydrocarbon exploration because this would prolong dependence on fossil fuels when national policy, scientific evidence and public interest required accelerated transition to renewable and low carbon energy.

It said the planning case for the Foxholes proposal was “weak”. The development was not needed to meet a compelling local or national requirement for new gas extraction, the organisation said.

“The claimed economic benefits here are limited and temporary, while the proposal would enable a form of energy development that is inconsistent with the direction of national climate policy and the urgent need to decarbonise. On that basis, the development is not sustainable development and should be refused.”

Link to planning application

Union Jack, which has interests at Wressle and West Newton, has recommended shareholders vote against a proposal to remove the board.

The company has called a requistioned general meeting for next month (August).

This follows a resolution by two investors holding more than 14% of voting rights to remove the three current directors: David Bramhill, Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips.

The investors, described by Union Jack as requisitioners, are former board members, Craig Howie and John Americanos. They have also tabled a resolution for their reappointment as directors.

In a statement today, Union Jack said:

“The Company will today post a circular to shareholders convening the Requistioned GM [general meeting] and outlining the unanimous recommendation by the Company’s board to directors to vote against all the resolutions to be proposed at the Requisitioned GM.

The statement added:

“The Board believes that the Requisition is misguided, ill-timed and destined to lead to a destruction in value for the Company’s shareholders.”

The requisition notice was dated 7 July 2026, less than a week after a takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

Union Jack’s statement continued:

“by proposing the Resolutions just six days after the announcement of the all share offer by Reabold Resources plc, the Requisitioners are simply being opportunistic by seeking to replace the Board during the Offer process without providing the Company’s shareholders with the opportunity to realise a control premium.”

Union Jack also announced it had reconvened the previously postponed annual general meeting. This was adjourned on the day it was planned, 26 June 2026, because of the Reabold takeover offer. The AGM will now be held after the requistioned meeting.

The requisitioned meeting will be at 11am on 24 August 2026 at the offices of Keystone Law, 48 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JF.

The reconvened AGM will be held on the same date and place, at 12 noon, or as soon as the requisitioned meeting has ended.

People have three weeks to comment on the controversial Rosebank development, Britan’s biggest undeveloped oil and gas field.

A public consultation by the government runs until 17 August 2026.

The Rosebank field, 80 miles north west of Shetland, was granted a licence by the Conservatives. But this was ruled unlawful by Scottish courts in January 2025.

That decision followed the landmark Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court, which established that environmental impact assessment for fossil fuel projects must account for the emissions produced when extracted fuel was burned.

These emissions, known as scope 3 or downstream, were included in a resubmitted document for Rosebank in 2025.

The new energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is expected to decide whether to grant consent for the field after the consultation. Her decision will be based on the revised environmental impact assessment.

Rosebank is estimated to hold more than 480 million barrels of oil. Some estimates suggest it would release emissions totalling 254 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over its lifetime. This is said to be equivalent to nearly 70% of the UK’s entire annual emissions in 2024. This would make it incompatible with the UK’s legally-binding climate commitments, campaigners have said.

Opponents have argued that the field would not lower UK energy bills or improve energy security because 90% of reserves are oil destined for international markets. They have stated that the field’s small gas reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1%, if none were exported.

At the weekend, the Guardian reported that production at Rosebank, if approved, could be delayed after equipment from a rig was accidentally dropped into the North Sea in April 2026.

The field operator, Adura, now expects production would be delayed from the end of this year to sometime in 2027, the Guardian reported.

The Rosebank development is in two phases.

• Phase 1 involves drilling four production and three water injection wells.
• Phase 2, dependent on results of phase 1, involves drilling a further 3 production and 2 water injection wells.

Wells would be connected by new flowlines to a redeployed Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO). Gas would be exported from the FPSO to a new gas export pipeline connecting to the existing West of Shetland Pipeline Systems. Oil will be offloaded using tankers.

Consultation details

Official notices of the consultation were published in Shetland Times, Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Daily Telegraph earlier this month.

All representations should quote reference number ES/2022/001 and be made to:

• OPRED@Energysecurity.gov.uk
• Business Support Team Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment & Decommissioning Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, AB1 Building, Crimon Place, Aberdeen AB10 1BJ

The energy secretary’s decision will be published here (see link).

Rosebank is currently owned by Adura (a joint enterprise of Shell and Equinor 80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%). Energy Voice reported last week that Adura has called for voluntary redundancies among staff at its Aberdeen headquarters. It is not known how many job cuts are planned.

Links to government notices and official documents on Rosebank

Guide to Rosebank by the campaign organisation, Uplift

• A public consultation on the Jackdaw gas field, also owned by Adura, is due to finish on 10 August 2026. The Guardian reported earlier this month that, if approved, Jackdaw would create just 27 direct full-time jobs.

Star Energy has given up environmental consent to produce hydrogen at the Albury gas site in Surrey.

Albury Park well site. Photo: Surrey County Council

The company failed to get planning permission in 2023 for a scheme to manufacture grey hydrogen from methane at the site near Guildford. Surrey councillors unanimously rejected the proposal.

The Environment Agency has now accepted the partial surrender of the site’s environmental permit for hydrogen production using the steam methane reformation process with gas from the Albury-1 well.

The site permit had been varied in 2022 to add a hydrogen production process and a new medium combustion plant.

The surrender notice, published today, revealed that Star Energy had applied in April 2026 to surrender the hydrogen variation.

It also confirmed there had been no hydrogen production at Albury and no plant associated with the process had been constructed on site.

The EA said:

“We have determined this is an application to remove authorisation to carry on an activity which has not been put into operation.”

The remaining permit continues to allow operations at Albury including:

• flaring of gas
• use of an electricity generator fuelled by methane
• receipt, storage and handling of raw materials used in the production process
• management of extractive waste

The formal boundary of the site remains unchanged.

According to official data, Albury continues to produce small amounts of gas. In 2025, the site produced 1,648 ksm3 (thousand standard cubic meters), at an average of 137 ksm3 a month.

Campaigners have criticised another oil operator for a “flawed assessment” of the climate impact of drilling and production plans.

Methods used in an application for expansion of the Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire have been condemned in a public consultation as “unscientific wishful thinking” and of failing to comply with the latest guidance.

Objectors have said the Wressle scheme should be refused planning permission.

Existing Wressle well site. Photo: Egdon Resources planning application

Earlier this week, DrillOrDrop reported calls for rejection of an expansion scheme at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, partly because of the way carbon emissions had been estimated.

At both Horse Hill and Wressle, developers have claimed the impacts on climate change would be “insignificant”, despite the release at each site of more than a million tonnes of damaging carbon pollution.

Key criticisms have centred on how the companies assessed the significance of greenhouse gases resulting from burning the extracted oil or gas, known as downstream or scope 3 category 11 emissions.

The Wressle operator, Egdon Resources, estimated in a revised application, published in May 2026, that the expanded operation would produce an extra 1 million+ barrels of oil over 15 years and an additional 5.264 billion cubic feet of gas.

Egdon predicted that the site would release more than 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tco2e), most of it through scope 3 category 11 emissions.

Campaigners have argued there is no space in the global carbon budget for any new fossil fuel developments or expansion of existing sites if the world’s temperature increase is to remain within the legally-binding limit of 1.5C.

Egdon had been granted permission in 2024 for two new production wells and lower volume fracking.

But the approval was later quashed following the landmark Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court.

This was a successful challenge brought by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, which required decision-makers to take into account the scope 3 category 11 emissions.

“All eyes on Wressle”

The decision on the Wressle scheme, to be made by North Lincolnshire Council, could be the first fossil fuel production application in England to be made using the Finch Ruling.

Other applications have been withdrawn (Biscathorpe), postponed (Waddock Cross in Dorset) or faced requests for more information (Rosebank and Jackdaw).

The Weald Action Group (WAG) said in its response to the Wressle application:

“All eyes will therefore be on North Lincolnshire and the decision will be closely scrutinised, as its approach could set an influential precedent for future decisions on similar projects.”

Fossil Fuel Free Lincolnshire (FFFL) told DrillOrDrop:

“Once again at Wressle, the oil and gas industry claims that the emissions from a single development are insignificant when set against global carbon budgets.

“That misses the point entirely.

“The remaining carbon budget is disappearing fast, which means every tonne of emissions counts. The claim that one more oil and gas development won’t make a difference is ludicrous – especially as they say it every time!

“Each new development locks us into fossil fuels and adds to global emissions.”

FFFL said:

“We’ve presented robust legal and planning arguments showing why this proposal should be refused, backed by national climate policy and North Lincolnshire’s own Green Future Plan. The planners have both the evidence and the policy framework they need. Now they just need the courage to resist industry pressure and make the right decision.”

Lincolnshire Climate Commission told us:

“Limiting the worst impacts of climate change requires a rapid reduction in fossil fuel use across all sectors, not the expansion of oil and gas production that extends reliance on fossil fuels.

“The UK’s long-term energy security depends on accelerating the transition to renewable energy and improving energy efficiency, rather than continued investment in new fossil fuel extraction and associated infrastructure.

“We urge decision-makers to ensure that the Wressle planning application is assessed in light of the UK’s climate commitments and the wider, long-term public interest.”

Lincolnshire climate campaigner, Amanda Suddaby, said in her formal response that Egdon Resources had failed to “provide a transparent or robust assessment of the project’s full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions or their significance.”

She said the proposal would extend the original 15-year production life of Wressle:

“this application represents a material extension of fossil fuel extraction that is not consistent with the basis on which the original temporary permission was granted, nor with current national and local policy requirements relating to climate change.”

Key points “Unsound and inadequate environmental statement”

Opponents of the Wressle expansion have outlined in formal responses to a public consultation what they said were numerous flaws in the environmental statement (ES) that accompanied the planning application and included the climate assessment.

FFFL said in its response:

“The ES is logically unsound and legally inadequate. On that basis alone, permission for the proposed development should be refused.”

The group said North Lincolnshire Council should not give Egdon “yet another bite at the cherry” by asking for a further revised environmental statement. It said:

“The most robust and cogent response would be to refuse permission”.

“Contrary to latest guidance”

Several responses argued that Egdon had not complied with the latest guidance on assessing climate impacts.

WAG said:

“We consider that the assessment does not comply with EIA Regulations 2017, the Department of Energy and Net Zero scope 3 supplementary guidance, or the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professions 2022 guidance regarding assessing greenhouse gas emissions and evaluating their significance.

“Nor does it refer to the 2025 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change or the 2024 proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Ignored latest forecasts”

Several responses also stated that Egdon’s environmental statement did not consider the most up-to-date forecasts of the remaining 1.5C aligned global carbon budget.

WAG said:

“There is zero space in the remaining 1.5C aligned global carbon budget for any new fossil fuel developments or expansions to existing sites; and a massive excess of emissions from existing oil, gas and coal infrastructure which will now need to close before the end of its economic life.

“The 917,999 tco2e of scope 3, category 11 emissions from an expanded Wressle development would be additional, cumulative and hence contribute to the further exceedance of the 1.5C global carbon budget. As such, and based on established guidance, these emissions should be considered as significant for the climate.”

Amanda Suddaby said:

“The development of new fossil fuel extraction is fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s climate obligations and with Paris-aligned 1.5C pathways which are essential for maintaining a habitable planet and avoiding runaway climate breakdown triggers.”

“Insignificant impact” – “scientifically-flawed”

Egdon Resources assessed the significance of the category 11 emissions at Wressle as a percentage of overall global carbon budgets and in relation to emissions reduction pathways published behind paywalls by the fossil fuel consultancy, Global Energy Outlook.

The company said:

“while the unmitigated, worst-case effect is moderate adverse, the overall assessment concludes that the effect is minor adverse when viewed in the context of global mitigation trajectories.”

Lincolnshire Climate Commission described this conclusion as “scientifically flawed”.

FFFL said:

“This startling conclusion is entirely without rational foundation.

It said:

“The reasoning for how an acknowledged significant adverse effect can become ‘not significant’ in the absence of any mitigation is demonstrably flawed.”

FFFL added:

“All the factors … point to a major adverse impact, given the project [is] being assessed as a fossil fuel project which locks in emissions because it adopts a business-as usual or do-minimum approach to compliance with global mitigation trajectories (themselves unscientific).”

FFFL said of the company’s assessment approaches:

“Neither is an adequate approach to contextualising the significance of the project’s emissions since neither allows for the project’s contributions (or lack thereof) towards the achievement of net zero to be clearly understood.”

Professional judgement “unscientific wishful thinking”

Egdon Resources concluded that the scope 3 category 11 emissions would have a moderate adverse effect, reducing to minor adverse when “professional judgement” was applied. The company referred to guidance from the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professions (ISEP).

But the ISEP guidance on ‘professional judgement’ states this must be based “on available guidance, policy and scientific evidence”.

FFFL said:

“The so-called ‘professional judgement’ reducing the moderate adverse effect … to a minor adverse effect is unmoored from any available guidance, policy or scientific evidence. It is unscientific wishful thinking.”

FFFL added:

“It is self-evidence that the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from the proposed development would have a significant effect on the climate and that the effect would be major adverse, applying the ISEP guidance and the supplementary guidance.”

“Failed to assess cumulative effects”

The supplementary guidance, published by the UK government after the Finch Ruling, states that global emissions reduction pathways should be “inherently cumulative” so that they can function as a cumulative assessment of a project’s climate effects.

FFFL said pathways used by Egdon were “not inherently cumulative”.

They relied on “abstract projections and modelling of reducing demand for fossil fuels over time rather than real world data and implemented policies”, FFFL said.

FFFL described the Egdon pathways as “untethered from the reality of existing, consented and planned projects.”

FFFL said the company failed to “carry out a proper assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed development in relation to other planned and permitted fossil fuel projects”.

WAG said:

“By not considering forecast emissions from already existing and approved oil and gas projects it fails to place Wressle’s scope 3, category 11 emissions within a global cumulative emissions context.”

Amanda Suddaby said it was “mathematically unsound” to argue that any single development was insignificant in the context of a larger overarching budget.

She said:

“Treating any source individually rather than additionally is to misunderstand the nature of the mitigation problem: emissions from all sources must be rapidly cut, with no scope for additional fossil fuel extraction”.

She added:

“The drop in the-ocean argument has been rejected by courts around the world, and by the government”.

“No substance to substitution argument”

Egdon suggested that demand for oil would be met from alternative sources if Wressle expansion did not go ahead. It said the sources could include imported oil, resulting in additional emissions from transport and different regulatory standards.

UK government guidance requires developers to provide evidence of substitution if it relies on this argument.

WAG and FFFL said no evidence of substitution had been provided and the argument should be disregarded.

FFFL said:

“Egdon purports to rely on alleged substitution and a reduction in the need for imports into the UK, that is inappropriate and unlawful.”

Lincolnshire Climate Commission said:

“Global oil markets do not operate on a one‑in, one‑out basis. Additional production from small fields such as Wressle adds to total global supply, increasing global emissions. This conclusion is consistent with independent climate‑energy research and the position of the UK Climate Change Committee. The substitution argument should therefore be given no weight in the planning balance.”

“Contradicts local climate plan”

Several responses said Wressle expansion would contradict local climate policies.

The North Lincolnshire Council Green Future Programme aims to create a “cleaner greener and more sustainable North Lincolnshire”, with its own commitment to net zero in operational emissions by 2030.

Amanda Suddaby said estimated emissions associated with Wressle expansion were approx 200 times greater than the council’s six-year carbon reduction target. She said:

“This highlights a fundamental inconsistency between the council’s stated climate ambitions and the continued approval of new fossil fuel developments”.

Lincolnshire Climate Commission said:

“Approving further oil extraction at Wressle would directly contradict these strategic aims, undermine the Council’s stated commitment to a “cleaner, greener and more sustainable North Lincolnshire,” and increase the very climate and nature risks the Council has pledged to reduce.”

The UK energy minister has suggested that lower-volume fracking does not have the same earthquake risk as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

Michael Shanks, who kept his post in the Burnham government reshuffle this week, said in a letter to East Yorkshire Council:

“there is no evidence that low-volume hydraulic fracturing has the same risks of induced seismicity as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas”.

Mr Shanks was replying to the council after members voted unanimously to oppose fracking in their county.

They resolved that the council should write to the energy secretary urging him to outlaw what they called “such high pressure and extreme procedures”.

Their vote recorded opposition to plans for lower-volume fracking at an East Yorkshire site at West Newton, in Holderness. Councillors also called for an independent report on the safety and risks associated with the West Newton operation.

In his reply, Mr Shanks said there was an “effective moratorium” on fracking for shale gas in England.

This was introduced in 2019 after fracking for shale gas at Preston New Road caused multiple small earthquakes.

The moratorium prevents fracking in shale using volumes of fluid of 1,000m3 per stage or 10,000m3 in total. It does not prevent fracking using lower volumes, including that planned at West Newton.

Briefing documents confirmed earlier this year that the Energy Independence Bill would deliver the government’s manifesto promise to ban fracking. But they did not specify which operations would be included in the ban.

Campaigners have said all forms of fracking should be outlawed. They have called this a legal loophole that is exploited by oil and gas companies.

Opponents of lower-volume fracking have pointed out that the Preston New Road fracks in 2019, which caused the UK’s largest fracking-induced earthquake, used lower volumes of fluid than the limit set in the moratorium. The Preston New Road volumes were also lower than proposed proppant squeezes at Burniston, in North Yorkshire, refused planning permission earlier this year.

Mr Shanks’ comment on earthquake risk may also contradict recent work by Stuart Haszeldine, the professor of geology at University of Edinburgh.

The professor’s analysis has concluded that the absence of high-volume hydraulic fracturing subject to the UK moratorium does not mean earthquake risks can be ruled out.

His work has focussed on a series of earthquakes in Surrey, which began eight years, and have been linked by some academic researchers to oil and gas operations.

In a recent report, Professor Haszeldine said:

“In my opinion, there is now a substantial body of evidence linking the 2018–2019 earthquake sequence in the Horse Hill and Newdigate area with oil production activities at Horse Hill.

“This includes the temporal relationship between production activities and earthquake occurrence, together with subsequent academic analyses published since the issue was previously considered by regulators.”

Separate studies by Robert Westaway, of Glasgow University, and Matthew Fox, of University College London, have shown pressure diffusion from oil, gas and water production can trigger earthquakes.

Mr Shanks did not refer in his letter to Labour’s manifesto commitment to ban fracking. But he did say forms of hydraulic fracturing in non-shale oil and gas operations, such as proppant squeeze or acid fracking, “had been used for decades”.

The Weald Action Group, which opposes oil and gas development in southern England, responded:

“We are fighting this. There is no evidence that supports his [the minister’s] statement that it has been used for decades.”

• A campaigner in East Yorkshire is seeking to bring a legal challenge against the lower-volume frack at West Newton.

Friends of the Earth map of areas where a form of fracking could be carried out. Link to interactive version of map

On the first full day of the Burnham government, campaigners have warned that people in 79 English constituencies could face a form of fracking unless a legal loophole is closed.

The previous Starmer administration promised to ban fracking for good. But it did not define which operations would be included in legislation.

The current moratorium, introduced in 2019, did not prevent lower volume fracking, also called proppant squeeze, reservoir stimulation or acid fracking.

These operations use a smaller volume of fluid than the statutory limit set out in the moratorium. They can be used on various rock types, not just shale.

It is unclear whether the Energy Independence Bill, which proposes to ban fracking, would outlaw these lower-volume operations.

Lower-volume fracking has already been approved for a site at West Newton in East Yorkshire and was recently rejected at Burniston in North Yorkshire. The Wressle oil site in North Lincolnshire is currently seeking permission for proppant squeeze.

The government also promised to ban new oil and gas licences. But this would not prevent lower-volume fracking in existing licences.

Friends of the Earth said its new analysis, published today, reveals constituencies in England with at least 1km where oil and gas developments are licenced.

The organisation identified the location of the affected constituencies:

20 in Yorkshire & Humber
17 in the south east
15 in the north west
14 in the east midlands
6 in the south west
5 in the west midlands
2 in the north east

More than half (46) the constituencies currently have a Labour MP, the analysis found. They include four members of Andy Burnham’s new cabinet:

• Chancellor John Healey (Rawmarsh & Conisbrough)
• Foreign secretary Ed Miliband (Doncaster North)
• Health secretary Yvette Cooper (Pontefract, Castleford & Knottingley)
• Culture secretary Lisa Nandy (Wigan)

Friends of the Earth campaigner Tony Bosworth said:

“Fracking blights our countryside, won’t cut energy bills, fuels the climate crisis and remains deeply unpopular.

“If ministers are serious about banning it, they must close the loophole that allows planning applications for lower-volume fracking, such as proppant squeeze, and turn the current moratorium into a comprehensive legal ban.

“Anything less would leave communities in 79 constituencies, over half of which have Labour MPs, still potentially at risk from fracking. Failing to act would reduce the government’s promise to little more than empty words.”

Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC) is campaigning against plans by Europa Oil & Gas to carry out lower-volume fracking at Burniston, just north of Scarborough. Earlier this year, a parliamentary petition secured more than 10,000 signatures against the Burniston operation.

Professor Chris Garforth, chair of FFCC’s steering group, said:

“It took almost 1,600 objections, hundreds of people lobbying outside the Town Hall, and a planning committee willing to overrule its own officers to win a planning refusal at Burniston.

“Most communities won’t have those resources, and they shouldn’t have to spend their free time battling companies that put profit above health, climate and the environment. The solution is obvious. We need a comprehensive ban.”

Earlier this year, Friends of the Earth published analysis by Stuart Haszeldine, professor of geology at University of Edinburgh, which warned that lower-volume fracking could trigger earthquakes that are as large and as unpredictable as high-volume fracking.

Miatta Fahnbulleh has been appointed secretary of state for energy security and net zero in the new Andy Burnham government.

She replaces Ed Miliband, who has become foreign secretary.

Miattta Fahnbulleh. Photo: UK Government

Ms Fahnbulleh, the MP for Peckham since 2024, was previously a junior housing minister (September 2025-May 2026) and a junior minister at the department of energy security and net zero (July 2024-September 2025).

In 2024, the Guardian said of her:

“Fahnbulleh has pushed hard for serious action on the climate crisis and has advocated more urgency in the UK’s response. She is likely to be the big brain of the party’s soft left.”

She told LabourList in 2025 the route to long-term savings in energy was “weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and wholesale on the global market, which is why we are moving to deliver clean home-grown energy at such pace”.

She said:

“When we started, people were quite sceptical if we could get to clean energy by 2030. I think everyone has been staggered at the pace that we are driving through the things we need to do; removing the ban on onshore wind, the biggest ever auction that’s been delivered for renewables.

“We are absolutely driving it – and in the end, that is the way in which we will get bills down.”

Before becoming an MP, Ms Fahnbulleh was chief executive of the New Economics Foundation (2017-2023). She also worked as the director of policy and research at the Institute for Public Policy Research and was head of cities in the policy unit at the Cabinet Office (2011-2013).

She studied philosophy, politics and economics at University of Oxford and has a PhD in economic development from the London School of Economics.

She was born in Liberia and was brought to the UK in 1986 as a five-year-old by her parents fleeing the country’s civil war.

Reaction

Friends of the Earth energy lead, Imogen Dow, said:

“As someone who’s been vocal about the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and did a lot to shape the government’s Warm Homes Plan under Ed Miliband, it’s encouraging that Miatta Fahnbulleh has been appointed as his successor.

“She will, of course, inherit the same challenges. She must hold the line against harmful fossil fuel expansion – including the highly contentious Jackdaw and Rosebank fields – make cheap, clean energy available to all and build on Ed Miliband’s efforts to scale up our renewable power capacity.

“Today’s announcement to cut VAT from energy bills is certainly a step in the right direction, but this should come alongside a new social tariff to help those on the lowest incomes, which will make a meaningful difference in the long-term. Insulating more homes and boosting Britain’s homegrown wind and solar power production are how we can also drive down bills and slash climate-warming emissions for good.”

Other cabinet appointments

Chancellor: John Healey, former defence secretary and treasury minister

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Louise Haigh

Foreign secretary: Ed Miliband

Home secretary: Shabana Mahmood

Defence: Wes Streeting

Health and social care: Yvette Cooper

Education: Lucy Powell

Work and pensions: Pat McFadden

Housing: Angela Rayner

Business: Jonathan Reynolds

Equalities (minister): Bridget Phillipson

Culture: Lisa Nandy

Justice and Lord Chancellor: Alex Norris

Transport: Heidi Alexander

Environment: Angela Eagle

Northern Ireland: Chris Bryant

Scotland: Douglas Alexander

Wales: Stephen Kinnock

Chief secretary to the Treasury: Emma Reynolds

Chief whip: Anneliese Midgley

Attorney general: Ellie Reeves

Leader of the Commons: Alan Campbell

Leader of the Lords: Baroness Angela Smith of Basildon

Intergovernmental relations (minister): Hamish Falconer

Artificial intelligence (minister): Kanishka Narayan

Housing (minister): Matthew Pennycook

Updated 12.31 with reaction from Friends of the Earth to appointment of new energy secretary

A company’s assessment of the climate impact of oil production at Horse Hill in Surrey is flawed and any permission based on it would be unlawful, campaigners said today.

They urged Surrey County Council to refuse plans by UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) to revive extraction and drill extra wells at the site near Gatwick Airport.

Google Earth image downloaded 21 July 2026

An earlier permission for the scheme had been quashed in a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court more than two years ago.

The court decided that Surrey County Council should have taken account of carbon emissions from burning oil extracted at Horse Hill, as well those released in the production process.

The site has been suspended since October 2024. But UKOG is now seeking to reinstate the permission. Part of the application is a new estimate of the climate impact of the plans.

Environmental campaigner Sarah Finch, who successfully won the Supreme Court challenge, on behalf of Weald Action Group, said today the company had used the wrong guidance in assessing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The application should have assessed the emissions from Horse Hill oil on a global basis, taking into account the emissions from other existing and committed fossil fuel projects. It failed to do so, so I believe allowing the project on this basis would be unlawful.”

She added:

“The Weald Action Group defeated the previous application for Horse Hill oil production in the Supreme Court, so it is depressing to have to do it again!

“Once again the oil company has failed to recognise the impacts of this project to produce oil for 20 years. The science is clear. Any new oil and gas production will bust our chances of keeping global heating within safe limits.”

UKOG said it expected to extract more than 600,000 tonnes of oil over 20 years at Horse Hill. The company estimated this would release two million tonnes of carbon emissions, which it described as “insignificant”.

Friends of the Earth, which supported Ms Finch in the Supreme Court case, argued today that two million tonnes could not “realistically be described as insignificant”. The organisation said:

“Scientists are clear that there can be no new fossil fuel projects if global climate goals are to be met.”

Both Ms Finch and Friends of the Earth argued that the way UKOG assessed carbon emissions from Horse Hill was “out of step” with the Supreme Court ruling and did not follow government guidance or UK international climate obligations.

Friends of the Earth’s interim head of legal, Katie de Kauwe, said it was “disappointing” that a new application had been submitted and the organisation would stand with the Weald Action Group in opposing it.

She said:

“Fossil fuel companies continue to profit from the climate crisis they are driving, while ordinary people pay the price.

“This June was England’s hottest on record, putting lives, livelihoods and nature at risk. Such extreme weather is going to get worse and more frequent if governments do not take the action necessary to phase out fossil fuel projects.

“Approving Horse Hill would be a backwards step that we cannot afford to take.

“Oil drilling in Surrey will do nothing to help the cost-of-living crisis. It is clear that the UK’s continued reliance on fossil fuels leaves households exposed to volatile global markets, as the recent crisis in the Middle East has shown. The route to lower bills, greater energy security and a safer climate is a rapid transition to renewables.”

Friends of the Earth also submitted updated evidence warning of earthquake risks associated with the proposal.

A report for the organisation, by Stuart Haszeldine, professor of geology at University of Edinburgh, concluded that earthquake risks could not be ruled out if production resumed. He recommended enhanced monitoring and assessment before any future production began.

A swarm of more than 150 small earthquakes centred on Newdigate, near Horse Hill, in 2018-19. The majority of participants at a workshop of experts decided the swarm was not related to operations at Horse Hill.

But more recent research has concluded that oil operations could trigger earthquakes. Links here and here

Professor Haszeldine, who disagreed with the workshop conclusions, said today:

“In my opinion, there is now a substantial body of evidence linking the 2018–2019 earthquake sequence in the Horse Hill and Newdigate area with oil production activities at Horse Hill.

“This includes the temporal relationship between production activities and earthquake occurrence, together with subsequent academic analyses published since the issue was previously considered by regulators.

“I have not identified evidence that additional work has been undertaken to assess or mitigate future seismicity risks associated with renewed production activities. In my view, enhanced baseline monitoring, together with regular and frequent ongoing monitoring of seismicity and both tophole and downhole well pressures, should be undertaken before and throughout any further production operations.”

The company behind gas plans in North Yorkshire announced losses of more than £4 million in its annual accounts.

Egdon Resources, which has interests in proposals at Burniston, Foxholes and Ebberston South, reported a loss for 2025 after taxation of £4.34m, up from a loss of £3.76m in 2024.

Current assets were down slightly at £26.63m and current liabilities rose from £0.79m in 2024 to £2.57m in 2025.

Egdon is now privately-owned by the Texas-based Heyco Group. The accounts were published by Companies House this week (15 July 2026).

According to the accounts, Egdon paid its directors a total of £455,267. The highest paid received £247,635.

Site news

The accounts revealed that Egdon had written off £2.105m of value at Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire (PEDL253) after deciding to withdraw from an appeal against refusal of planning permission.

The company also impaired £178,000 of the value of the Keddington oil field in Lincolnshire because plans for the Keddington-6 well were “not an immediate priority for investment”. The net present value of the site had assumed no further action for improvement, the accounts said.

Egdon impaired another £448,000 off the value of the Kirkleatham gas field. It said a low carbon greenhouse was planned next to the Kirkleatham wellsite. If, constructed, Egdon would have to relinquish its easement for a gas pipeline. Based on this, the pre-tax value for the Kirkleatham wellsite was assessed at £0.975m, the accounts said.

The oil and gas licence, PEDL118, which contains the Dukes Wood oil field in Nottinghamshire, had been relinquished during 2025 and the value fully impaired in the accounts.

Egdon also revealed that operations had begun at Avington in Hampshire (PEDL070) to plug and abandon two wells. The value of Egdon’s interest was fully impaired at the end of the financial year (31 December 2025).

Key figures

Year ending 31 December 2025

Loss for the year after taxation: £4.344m (2024: £3.764m)

Turnover: £2.455m (2024: £3.168m)

Admin expenses: £0.875m (2024: £1.082m)

Other operating income: £132,461 (2024: £95,081)

Operating loss: £4.467m (2024: £3.956m)

Current assets: £25.634 (2024: 25.966m)

Current liabilities: £2.574 (2024: £0.794m)

Net assets: £20.615m (2024: 24.959m)

Employees: 9 (2024: 10)

Directors’ remuneration: £455,267 (2024: £521,417)

Highest paid director (excluding employer’s NI and pension contributions): £247,635 (2024: £245,395)

Book value of unconventional assets: £13.5m (2024: £13.2m)

Shareholders in energy B have approved the company’s plans to acquire the majority stake in the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey.

Horse Hill oil site in Surrey. Source: Google Earth image uploaded 13/05/2026

energy B announced last month (12 June 2026) that it had entered into a share purchase agreement with UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG).

Under the £1m deal, energy B would acquire UKOG’s 77.9% shareholding in Horse Hill Developments Ltd, the Horse Hill operator.

energy B would also buy all of UKOG’s wholly-owned subsidiary UKOG (137/246) Ltd, which has a stake in the Horse Hill licence.

energy B said in a statement that shareholders had approved the acquisition at a general meeting this week (15 June 2026). It said:

“the Company will now continue to work towards satisfying the various conditions precedent to the Acquisition.”

The meeting also approved share subscriptions and the grant of options for three directors. The executive chair, David Lenigas, chief executive Neil Ritson, and director Jonathan Colville will now be able to subscribe for a total of 529,133 new ordinary shares and be granted 4 million options over shares.