DRILL OR DROP?

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.

Shareholders opposed to the takeover of Union Jack Oil are seeking a general meeting to remove three directors from the board.

Union Jack share price this week. Source: London South East

Earier this week, the shareholders submitted a requisition notice for a general meeting.

The notice requests the meeting remove the chairman David Bramhill, and directors Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips.

It also seeks to appoint Craig Howie and John Americanos to the board.

Mr Howie and Mr Americanos were formerly non-executive directors of Union Jack Oil. Reports suggest the two represent more than 14% of the voting rights in the company.

This week, Union Jack accused Mr Howie and Mr Americanos of “determined opposition” to the takeover offer from Reabold Resources.

The company’s board said it believed the two would “attempt to frustrate the offer process if they were appointed to the board.

Union Jack has acknowledged the requisition notice. The board said it would convene the meeting to consider the resolutions.

Also this week, Union Jack issued another statement about its adjourned annual general meeting.

The meeting, originally planned for 26 June 2026, was postponed on the day until further notice because of the takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

The meeting is now scheduled to take place on the date falling five business days after the earlier of either

• 21 days after publication of the offer document containing terms and conditions of the offer
• Or the date on which the offer becomes or is declared unconditional.

Reabold Resources also issued a statement this week about its AGM. The meeting is at 10am 30 July 2026 offices of Hill Dickinson LLP, The Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London EC2A 2EW.

An American-owned hydrocarbon company is backing plans for gas production in the North York Moors National Park, it was revealed today.

Exhibition on plans for Ebberston South gas production, 9 July 2026. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Egdon Resources, now controlled by the Texas-based Heyco Energy Group, is supporting the development of the Ebberston South well site near Dalby Forest.

Egdon staff and consultants were at an exhibition on the plans this afternoon, held in the small North Yorkshire village of Ebberston (population about 600).

Egdon previously submitted official information on the Ebberston South plans, on behalf of Scarborough Energy, the company fronting the proposal.

Scarborough Energy was formed four years ago for the sole purpose of producing gas from Ebberston South, its staff said today.

It has no other projects and has not held an onshore hydrocarbon licence or operated an onshore hydrocarbon site.

The meeting revealed that Egdon was providing technical and financial support to Scarborough Energy, including on the submission of a planning application.

It also emerged that Egdon had an option to acquire part of Scarborough Energy if the Ebberston South proposal secured planning permission. The acquisition could range from 1% to 100%, we were told.

The licence to operate gas production at Ebberston South, PEDL120, is currently held by a subsidiary of Ineos Upstream. But Scarborough Energy said it would acquire the licence from Ineos, again if planning permission were granted.

The industry regulator was “happy” for the licence transfer to happen, Scarborough Energy said.

Ebberston South is an existing gas site, at Givendale Head Farm, about three miles north of Ebberston village.

A single well was drilled and tested in 2008-9 by Warwick Energy. But the well never went into production and the site has been suspended since then.

Opponents of Ebberston plans. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Today’s exhibition recorded 14 people in the first hour. Eight people in the room at that time were against the plans and also opposed plans by Europa and Oil & Gas and Egdon to drill and frack for gas in the village of Burniston, about 13 miles (21km) away.

The event was part of a company consultation, also online, that runs until 31 July 2026.

This does not replace the formal public consultation on any planning application, scheduled to be submitted in September 2026.

Exhibition panels below (photos: DrillOrDrop)

Details

Scarborough Energy said it aimed to develop Ebberson South in five stages:

• Reconfigure the existing wellsite and install environmental protection measures and surface aggregates
• Mobilise a workover rig to recomplete the well for long-term production and confirm gas pressures
• Install gas processing facilities and a 1.5km underground pipeline to connect to the Northern Gas Networks’ local transmission system
• Produce gas production for up to seven years
• Return the site to agricultural use after production ends

No further drilling or any form of fracking would be needed, Scarborough Energy said.

The company estimated that Ebberston South would produce an estimated 4 million cubic feet per day for up to seven years. The company said this total represented 85% of Scarborough’s current annual gas consumption.

The gas would go into Northern Gas Networks’ local transmission system, it said.

The exhibition said the site would create “employment and supply chain opportunities” but a company representative admitted that the site would run largely automatically and would require just one member of staff to visit each day.

Groundwater monitoring boreholes would be installed before operations began and sampling would continue during and after all phases, the company said.

A charitable trust would provide grants to local groups from any profits from gas production.

Scarborough Energy said

“Our work to explore for, and produce, the gas the country needs will help to provide the UK with secure energy supplies, reducing the need for imported gas and delivering local and national economic benefits.”

It added:

“Gas from Ebberston South would enter the local network close to where it’s needed at the right pressure and with far fewer steps [than other sources of gas].”

The company did, however, admit that propane would probably have to be added to the supply to make it meet demands of North Gas Networks.

It said gas flows may need to be restricted in summer if demand was low.

It did not mention that water could be produced along with the gas and this would need to be removed and processed. Other impurities would also need to be removed in a processing plant.

The company said its target date for a decision on the proposals was February 2027.

Concerns

Some of the local people attending the exhibition criticised the information as “low on detail and heavy on spin”. Key concerns include:

Company track record

Some people DrillOrDrop spoke were concerned about what would happen if Scarborough Energy got planning permission but went out of business before it could restore the site.

The exhibition described Scarborough Energy “as a responsible operator” that was “committed to the highest standards of health, safety and environmental performance”.

But the company has no other projects apart from its plans for Ebberston South and no track record as an onshore fossil fuel oil and gas licence operator.

Scarborough Energy’s most recent annual accounts recorded net current liabilities of £162,716. There were no details of earnings or income.

The exhibition did, however, note that the founders had experience as petroleum or reservoir engineers and in the gas processing and the transmission network.

Egdon’s owner, Heyco Energy Group, is privately-owned and its corporate value is not publicly disclosed. But its annual revenue has been estimated at $24.4m.

National Park

The Ebberston South pad is within the boundary of the North York Moors National Park.

Some visitors to the exhibition said sites like this should not be allowed in the national park.

Climate change

Several visitors to the exhibition, held on a very hot sunny day, said there should be no more oil and gas extraction because of climate change. One asked a company representative whether he had “any conscience about climate change”. The representative did not reply, the resident said.

Gas destination

Scarborough Energy said if approved any gas produced would be sent through the new pipeline to a connection point on the Northern Gas Networks’ local transmission system. The company said:

“From here it will feed into local homes and businesses”.

But visitors to the exhibition were concerned about where the gas would actually go.

Ebberston village is not on the gas network. A consultant admitted that most of the gas was likely to go to Hull, about 40 miles away (64km) where industry and other large customers would be able to use the gas year round.

Wildlife

The exhibition said preliminary ecology survey has been undertaken and one panel claimed “no species were found on the site, or within the proposed area”.

A member of staff said this should have read “no protected species”. The exhibition said “full surveys” would be repeated before any work began.

The exhibition also said the site would have no “adverse impacts on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance located in the wider area”.

One resident, who attended the exhibition, manages two nearby sites of scientific interest, one of which is 400m from the compound. He was concerned about the impact of noise on rare species.

A habitat classification survey map one of the exhibition panels did not identify the nearest SSSI. An aerial photograph suggested that the compound was surrounded by woodland but one resident said part of this woodland had been clear felled in the past few years.

Noise

The exhibition said the loudest noise would be during construction and earth moving, short-term work carried out during daytime hours. It predicted this would range from 37043 dBA, which it said was “well below typical construction noise limits of 65 dBA.

One resident was concerned that the noise levels did not take into account gas processing, which would continue during the production life of the site.

Traffic

One resident raised concerns about the narrow single-track route which marks the final section of access to the site.

He said the route was already used by mountain rescue and traffic visiting a recycling centre.

The exhibition said during production, an average of one heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and one car or light goods vehicle (LGV) would visit the site each day. There were local calls for this to be a maximum not an average.

During the eight weeks of site configuration, there would be a total of 213 cars or LGVs and 155 HGVs. This represented an average of four cars/LGVs and three HGVs visiting the site each day, each making two journeys, in and out.

That number would rise to five cars/LGVs and four HGVs visits a day during the four weeks of well preparation.

During well decommissioning and site restoration, the estimated number would reach an average of six cars/LGVs and eight HGVs visits a day.

The estimated total vehicle visits over the project would be 2,947 cars/LGVs and 1,705 HGVs.

Views and recreation

The exhibition noted that the Tabular Hills footpath runs along the southern boundary of the site. One resident said many visiting walkers and cyclists used this route and would have a view of the site during that part of their route. The exhibition said a 3m earth bund would be built along this side of the site.

A 10m tall enclosed ground flare would be installed on site to burn waste gas. The company said use of the flare would be “limited” because the produced gas would be piped to the transmission system.

The flare may operate for “short periods” to confirm gas pressures during recompletion of the well, the company said. It said there would be no visible flame and the flare would not operate at night.

Heritage

The pipeline is planned to cross part of the Oxmoor Dikes, an ancient earthwork dating back to the bronze age.

No mitigation measures were required, the company said, and archaeological monitoring would be sufficient to record any finds.