Member Info for Ibug

Shame UKOG can't even get this bit right "As five judges and the Court of Appeal have previously dismissed Finch et al's case". Not sure where they get the 5 judges from. Think they are getting their numbers mixed up.

First intervention of the OEP: This is the first time the Office of Environmental Protection, established in November 2021 as an independent watchdog for enforcing environmental law, has intervened in a court case. It said it was seeking to “highlight the importance of clarity in the law to promote good environmental decision-making”. Friends of the Earth, which has also intervened in the case, in support of Sarah Finch, said:

“It is very positive that the OEP is intervening, as it shows the significance of the issues in the case.”

Impact on other decisions. The Horse Hill case could undermine other decisions in favour of proposed fossil fuel projects, including the Whitehaven coal mine. The EIA for that project also did not assess the end-use emissions. The project’s promoter, West Cumbria Mining, has also intervened in the case. Friends of the Earth has estimated that end-use emissions from burning the coal could be 220 million tonnes of CO2e, compared with about 2 million tonnes of CO2e for residual operational emissions.

Clarifying decisions. The EIA process is designed to provide information to decision-makers. But Friends of the Earth has argued that there is potential for different outcomes when the full climate impacts of fossil fuel projects are understood and considered, compared with when they are not.

Government defence: It is unusual for central government to involve itself in court cases about decisions by planning authorities. But the department of levelling up, communities and local government has joined the council and HHDL in defending the original EIA decision through all the challenges at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Climate limits: The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure are enough to breach the critical limit of 1.5C in global temperature rise. It said any new projects, such as oil and gas wells, would make passing 1.5C more likely.

Sarah Finch said today:

“The biggest climate impact from this project will occur when the oil is eventually burned. If councils can ignore these ‘downstream’ impacts when making planning decisions, then we have no hope of staying within safe climate limits. The present lack of clarity over Environmental Impact Assessments is dangerous. I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel development – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.”

Katie de Kauwe, lawyer for Friends of the Earth, said:

“Sarah Finch’s landmark legal challenge could force planning authorities to evaluate the emissions when the extracted gas, coal and oil is actually burnt – with potentially huge repercussions for developments such as the proposed coal mine in Cumbria.”

Why does landmark challenge on Horse Hill oil matter?

A pivotal legal challenge that will have major implications for new fossil fuel projects in the UK opens at the Supreme Court in London this morning.

The case, brought by campaigner Sarah Finch, challenges the decision by Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for oil production at the Horse Hill site near Horley.

It is likely to set a precedent for future fossil fuel projects. If it succeeds, it could challenge whether the government was right to approve a new coal mine in Cumbria.

It also makes legal history and campaigners are arguing that it could be critical to limits on carbon emissions and temperature rise.

Full climate impact of oil and gas

Today’s case centres on whether Surrey County Council acted lawfully over how it assessed the climate impact of four new wells and 20 years of oil production at Horse Hill.

The council ruled that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) did not need to assess emissions arising from the end-use of the oil, likely to be burned for transport.

Friends of the Earth has estimated these end-use emissions, also known as indirect or scope 3 emissions, could be more than 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

Instead, the council required the EIA to assess only the emissions from the process of oil extraction. This was estimated by the site operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited (HHDL) at 112,000 tonnes of CO2e.

Ms Finch has argued that the failure to assess the full climate impact of a project did not conform with the obligations of the EIA Regulations to factor-in the indirect effects of the project.

Her case dates back to September 2019, when a committee of councillors granted planning permission to HHDL.

Ms Finch, then a Surrey resident, brought a legal challenge at the High Court, backed by the Weald Action Group, in 2020 (more details here and here).

Her challenge failed but she won the right to take the case to the Court of Appeal in 2021 (more details here and here).

The appeal court judges were divided in their ruling, two against the challenge and one in favour. Ms Finch got permission to appeal once more to the highest court in the UK.

So why does this case matter?

Climate case at the Supreme Court: This is one of the first climate cases to go before the Supreme Court. The court hears a small fraction of the total number of cases in the UK legal system and only cases with an arguable point of law of general public importance.

Disagreement over climate law: The Court of Appeal ruling shows there is disagreement among senior judges on interpreting law on climate change. Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Lindblom ruled that Surrey County Council had acted lawfully. They said it was a matter for planning authorities to decide whether end-use emissions from fossil fuels developments were assessed in an EIA. The dissenting judge, Lord Justice Moylan, argued that the coun

It's a long wait till the Autumn to get the results. Imagine what the SP could do in that time.

No doubt the chuckle brothers will be hastily looking up the definition of "treasury shares" as neither know what they are. The "expert" trying to make himself look clever really shot himself in the foot.

Elle

That was 9 months ago. Please keep up.

Elle

What is your problem? The facts speak for themselves. How can oil production be negative? It is only negative to you because they are not producing enough. Whose problem is that? Certainly not mine.

https://drillordrop.com/2023/06/02/uk-onshore-oil-and-gas-production-in-charts-march-2023/

You would have thought by now after BP, ESSO, Conoco and some of the other big boys would have been able to find the oil if it had been there wouldn't you? But no they didn't and even the small boys can't find it in great quantities.

The biggest producer in the Weald is only producing 372 bopd from over 20 wells which is about 20 bopd each.

In your dreams boys.

Elle

Promises, promises. I'm really scared. Is your mum joining the board then or is it your gran?

The biggest O&G company in Turkey produces 70,000 bopd. They have drilled all over the Basur/Resan licence area and found didly squat. What makes you think UKOG who only produce just over 60 bopd from their exploits in the last 10 years could do what they have failed at?

Adrian

3D seismic doesn't come cheap. It cost DL his last twitter account! You would think he would have learnt by now but no he hasn't.

They couldn't have picked better dates given that is the Summer Solstice.

Elle

Only in your imagination. We have plenty of oil and solar out here and love it all. You are barking up the wrong tree mate. We don't have many trees either.

Adrian

HH-2Z has nothing to do with Finch. Finch is about HH-3 to HH-6 as you well know so stop telling porkies. I thought you were supposed to be the expert on HH? Doesn't sound like it does it?

UKOG could start work on the Reinjection for HH-2Z any time they like. Ask yourself why they aren't and it has nothing to do with finch.

But PPP don't have the cash or the permission to carry out a 3D survey at HH. The same as they do not have anything to do with HH at the moment.

Everything is in place for UKOG to carry out the Horse Hill Water Reinjection for HH-2Z and has been for over a year.

Has the borehole sampling found a problem?

And don't forget;

"One-year work programme extension on PEDL137 Horse Hill

UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that the North Sea Transition Authority (formerly the Oil and Gas Authority) has granted a one-year extension to the agreed Retention Area work programme of the Company's operated PEDL137 licence (UKOG 85.635%) containing the producing Horse Hill oil field and its underlying Kimmeridge oil pool.

The extension grants an additional year in which to drill a second Horse Hill Kimmeridge well, with the commencement of drilling to be prior to 30th September 2023."

Will UKOG will have to go cap in hand to the NSTA yet again. Tik tok.

And yet "In June 2023, 42 percent of British adults would vote for the Labour Party in a general election"

elle. I'm guessing you are just making it up as usual.

LMFAO. The price greenies have to pay.

Nutters, the lot of them.

In a speech in Leith today, leader Keir Starmer said clean energy was now “essential for national security”.

“If your energy security relies on a volatile fossil fuel market, that leaves you exposed”, he said.

The party has committed not to award new licences to explore oil and gas fields. It also said it would create a publicly-owned Great British Energy to grow future clean industries.

But it said it would not revoke licences or permissions existing at the time of the next election, which must be held by January 2025.

Onshore licences

Asked if the policy would apply beyond the North Sea, a Labour spokesperson told DrillOrDrop:

“Yes the same policy applies to onshore.”

A Labour briefing said new licences “would not offer the right answer for the economy or the environment”.

The most recent onshore licensing round, the 14th, was announced in 2015. It offered a total of 93 licences, of which 63 were for shale exploration and would potentially be fracked.

At the time of writing, 55 of the issued 14th round licences now remain. None have been fracked or explored for shale gas. There are no current planning permissions in place for exploration in the 14th round licence areas.

There are also another 66 onshore licences from earlier rounds, some of them very small. There are no publicly-available plans for another onshore licence round.

The UK has 73 producing onshore oil and gas fields. But on the most recent data, 28 of these fields did not extract any oil or gas.

UK onshore oil represents less than 2% of total UK production, while gas is less than 1%.

Full story here:

https://drillordrop.com/2023/06/19/labour-to-phase-out-onshore-oil-and-gas-as-well-as-north-sea/

Just think yourself lucky it is only a 7" gun need as that is probably the maximum size they do off the shelf. Who normally uses one that size? UKOG were obviously not expecting to have to perforate a 9⅝ inch casing. If memory serves me right a 7" casing and 4 1/2" gun is the norm.

Outgoings are twice incomings. Will the next interim confirm it? imo yes. I also think revenue will be down for the 6 months.

6 months ended 31 March 2022 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 911 Other Cost of sales (408) Administrative expenses (1402)

6 months ended 31 March 2021 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 721 Other Cost of sales (544) Administrative expenses (915)

6 months ended 31 March 2020 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 88 Other Cost of sales (40) Administrative expenses (715)

6 months ended 31 March 2019 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 103 Other Cost of sales (43) Administrative expenses (1560)

6 months ended 31 March 2018 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 116 Other Cost of sales (54) Administrative expenses (933)

6 months ended 31 March 2017 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 104 Other Cost of sales (167) Administrative expenses (967)

6 months ended 31 March 2016 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 66 Other Cost of sales (78) Administrative expenses (1199)

6 months ended 31 March 2015 (Unaudited) £'000 Revenue 197 Other Cost of sales (127) Administrative expenses (491)

year ended 30 September 2021 £'000 Revenue 1562 Other Cost of sales (1067) Administrative expenses (2,098)

year ended 30 September 2020 £'000 Revenue 908 Other Cost of sales (1171) Administrative expenses (1755)

year ended 30 September 2019 £'000 Revenue 213 Other Cost of sales (97) Administrative expenses (4166)

year ended 30 September 2018 £'000 Revenue 225 Other Cost of sales (97) Administrative expenses (3244)

year ended 30 September 2017 £'000 Revenue 207 Other Cost of sales (254) Administrative expenses (1785)

year ended 30 September 2016 £'000 Revenue 151 Other Cost of sales (204) Administrative expenses (2062)

year ended 30 September 2015 £'000 Revenue 240 Other Cost of sales (146) Administrative expenses (1192)

year ended 30 September 2014 £'000 Revenue 7 Other Cost of sales N/A Administrative expenses (544)