DRILL OR DROP?

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

Singleton oil site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Interim results for the first half of 2026 reported:

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

Chief executive Ross Glover said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Singleton

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

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

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

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

The company said:

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

Other  onshore developments

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

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

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

Stockbridge, Hampshire: conversion of well to water injector

Bletchingley, Surrey: installation of gas generator

Welton, Lincolnshire: installation of replacement separator

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

Key figures for six months to June 2026

Interim unaudited results released on 169/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss on commodities hedge: £5m

Capital expenditure in oil and gas: £3.2m.

Expected net cash capital expenditure for 2026: £6.6m

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

May 2026 fundraise (net of expenses: £8.5m

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

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

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

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

Photo: DrillOrDrop

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

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

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

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

“Questions unanswered”

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

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

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

Cllr Parsons added:

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

He said:

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

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

He said:

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

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

Incorrect and unclear information

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

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

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

The EA told us

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

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

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

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

The EA replied:

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

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

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

No 3D seismic survey

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

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

This has concerned some consultation participants.

Burniston Parish Council said:

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

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

One consultation participant said:

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

One participant said:

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

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

But one participant asked:

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

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

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

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

The participant told the EA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind closed doors

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

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

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

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

Burniston Parish Council has also raised concerns about openness.

It said:

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

It said the EA should:

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

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

Uncertainty

One consultant participant said:

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

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

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

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

The council said:

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

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

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

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

Inconsistency

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

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

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

Specific concerns

Burniston Partish Council identified other concerns including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on HFP and 3D licence commitments

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

The company added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy minister Martin McCluskey. Photo: Parliament TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr McCluskey told MPs:

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

He added:

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

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

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

He added:

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

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

Opposition

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

She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

She added:

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

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

Other arguments

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

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

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

Labour’s Phil Brickell said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline 4 December 2025: Cuadrilla refused more time

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

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

Campaigners called for immediate restoration of the site. Details

3 June 2026: original enforcement notice served

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

The enforcement notice set three deadlines for the work.

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

1.0 Enforcement Notice LCC 3.06.26_Redacted(1)Download

8 June 2026: media announcement

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

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

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

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

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

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

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

24 June 2026: Cuadrilla asks for an extension

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

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

Cuadrilla cited the following reasons for its requested delay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It added:

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

4.0 Cuadrilla Letter 0207261_RedactedDownload 3 July 2026: Council replies

Lancashire County Council replied a day later.

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

It concluded:

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

6 July 2026: appeal confirmed

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

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

It said the company

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

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

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

27 August 2026: Withdrawal of appeal

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

28 August 2026: Withdrawal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed the appeal had been withdrawn.

Why did the council agree to changes?

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

A spokesperson said:

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

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

The council spokesperson said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wressle oil site. Photo: Egdon Resources

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

The accounts said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burniston/Cloughton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other UK onshore sites

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

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

Key figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See full statement below from West Newton Said No

Data centre plans

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

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

It said:

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

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

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

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

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

Other details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WAG’s Lorraine Inglis:

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

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

WAG campaigner Emily Mott said:

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

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

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

A fundraiser is live now. Link here

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

Horse Hill drilling plans. Source: planning application

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

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

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

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

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

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

The company submitted a revised planning application in June 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A statement by Cuadrilla about the controversial Balcombe oil site in West Sussex apparently conflicts with information from officials and the company’s own partner.

Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, said planning permission remained in place for a well test at Balcombe, the focus of opposition for more than a decade.

But earlier this year (2026), the mineral planning authority confirmed that the permission had lapsed.

Days later, Angus Energy, which operates Balcombe on behalf of Cuadrilla and its parent company, A J Lucas, told investors it would be resubmitting a planning application.

Official records confirm this has not yet happened.

Photo: Helen Savage

Cuadrilla’s statement was part of the A J Lucas annual report, published in Australia earlier today (31 August 2026).

Mr Egan said in his report on UK operations (p10):

“On the Balcombe licence in southern England, operated by Angus Energy and in which Lucas holds at 75% carried interest, planning permission remains in place to undertake a flow test of the existing well. We continue to monitor developments and assess opportunities to unlock value from this conventional gas discovery.”

A separate section of the annual report (p16) said:

“[the Balcombe] Operator can therefore now progress”.

DrillOrDrop put the apparent conflict to A J Lucas and Cuadrilla and asked them to confirm whether no current planning permission existed for the Balcombe well test. We will update this article with any response.

Under Australian and UK law, lodging or distributing an annual report that contains false or misleading information is a serious offence.

West Sussex County Council lists eight planning applications for the Balcombe site on its online planning portal, dating from the first in 2010.

The most recent application, for an extended well test, was submitted in 2020 and refused unanimously by the West Sussex planning committee.

Angus Energy appealed and a planning inspector overturned the refusal on 13 February 2023. A High Court challenge by a local residents’ group was rejected in 2025 and a judge confirmed the company could go ahead with testing the well.

But Angus failed to complete the work by the planning deadline.

Condition 1 of the appeal decision stated:

“The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.”

Angus Energy did not carry out the well test by 13 February 2026.

At the time, DrillOrDrop asked West Sussex County Council whether planning permission had lapsed. The council replied:

“Yes, permission has now lapsed”.

A council spokesperson said the council was not aware of any work at the site in the previous week. The spokesperson added:

“We have not received any notification about the well test or the Lower Stumble site from Angus Energy or its agents in the past week.”

On 19 February 2026, Angus Energy said in a statement to investors:

“Following extended delays associated with the planning process at Balcombe, the Company intends to resubmit its planning application in due course and will provide further updates as appropriate.”

In Angus Energy’s most recent annual report, published on 9 April 2026, the company stated the well test would not be carried out before planning permission lapsed:

“due to the prolonged uncertainty created by the legal challenge, the Company was unable to complete the detailed engineering, procurement and contracting work required to commence the well test and the existing planning consent will expire before it can be activated.

“Accordingly, the Group intends to submit a revised planning application following completion of a technical review of the site and updated development plan. Management considers this to represent a timing and procedural matter rather than a loss of technical or commercial viability of the underlying asset.”

The company also said:

“the requirement to submit a revised application reflects timing and process constraints rather than any loss of technical or commercial potential. The company will continue to engage constructively with the local authority and local community as it progresses the revised development plan.”

Since then, Angus Energy has issued 13 statements to investors, none of which mentions the resubmission of a planning application for the Balcombe well test.

• References to Balcombe in the A J Lucas annual report describe it as a “gas discovery”. Cuadrilla’s website refers to Balcombe as an “exploration oil well”. Angus Energy’s website refers to Balcombe as an oil field.

Preston New Road

The A J Lucas annual report said of Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road former shale gas site, : “our focus shifted to site restoration and aftercare”.

Earlier this month, DrillOrDrop reported that acoustic fencing had been removed from the site near Blackpool.

Cuadrilla has until 8 January 2027 to complete restoration at Preston New Road to bring the site to a standard fit for agricultural use.

Mr Egan said today the restoration work “does not affect either the underlying petroleum licence interests of the extensive shale gas resource identified through the exploration programme”.

Other Cuadrilla sites

Elswick: Cuadrilla said it was generating electricity from gas extracted at the Elswick site near Preston New Road. It said Elswick “remains an important source of self-generated cash flow and demonstrates our ability to derive value from conventional gas opportunities”.

According to official data, Elswick produced a monthly average of just over 13ksm3 of gas in the first four months of 2026 for which data is available.

Yorkshire: Cuadrilla said it continued to hold 25% in licences operated by Egdon Resources containing “a significant discovered conventional gas accumulation”.

Lucas key financial figures

(Year ending 30 June 2026)

Net profit after tax: $28.5m (2025: net loss of $15m)

Group EBITDA*: $40.7m (2025: $14.5m)

Group revenue: $119.6m (2025: 145.6m)

UK settlement of legal dispute: $25.9m (see details here)

*Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amorization

Rathlin Energy, the company planning lower-volume fracking in East Yorkshire, has appointed a new board member from its majority owner.

Christopher Connolly, the chief financial officer of Reabold Resources, became Rathlin’s secretary earlier this month. The appointment was confirmed by Companies House yesterday (26 August 2026).

Mr Connolly has been Reabold’s secretary since May 2022.

Reabold Resources has a near 80% stake in Rathlin Energy, which has two oil and gas sites at West Newton in Holderness, East Yorkshire.

A local campaigner is seeking to quash consent by the Environment Agency for lower-volume fracking at the West Newton-A site.

Reabold is also seeking to takeover Union Jack Oil, another investor in the West Newton plans. Shareholders ousted the Union Jack board this week.

Other recent board changes at Rathlin include the appointment in July 2026 of Philip Birch, a former director of Africa Energy UK Limited, Impact Oil & Gas Limited and IOG Energies Limited.

DrillOrDrop reported in April 2026 that Rathlin’s founder, John Hodgins (73), a Canadian petroleum geologist, had resigned from the board. He was chief executive of Connaught Oil & Gas Ltd, Rathlin’s former parent company.

The co-chief executive of Reabold Resources, Stephen Williams, has been a Rathlin director since 2019.

All three Union Jack Oil directors, David Bramhill, Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips, have been removed immediately from the board, the company announced today (24 August 2026).

They have been replaced by Craig Howie and John Americanos, again with immediate effect.

The announcement follows general meetings in London earlier today.

Last month, Mr Howie and Mr Americanos, both former Union Jack directors, called for the removal of the entire Union Jack board and their appointment in its place.

The former directors described the call as “opportunistic” and urged investors to vote against.

But Mr Howie was appointed today with 90.85% of the votes cast in favour and Mr Americanos with 90.82%.

A statement to investors reported that 90.89% of the votes cast were in favour of the removal of David Bramhill (the former executive chairman), 90.55% for the removal of Mr O’Farrell and 90.89% for the removal of Zac Phillips.

Union Jack, which has interests in the Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire and the West Newton oil and gas sites in East Yorkshire, is the subject of a takeover bid by Reabold Resources.

Earlier this month (5 August 2026), Union Jack, urged investors to support the takeover. It said the company would, “in the short term, be unable to meet its licence commitments”.

The company said the former board had “considered the likelihood of accelerated cash calls for the West Newton project (where Reabold has an economic interest of 69.9%) and payments for loss of office following the recent shareholder requisition received by Union Jack to remove all of its current directors.”

The former directors added:

“Consequently, in accordance with the licence terms, this may result in the forfeiture of key assets within the Union Jack portfolio.”

Today’s statement said Mr Howie would become executive chairman and Mr Americanos the executive director. Independent non-executive directors would be appointed, the statement said.

Mr Howie said:

“Following the Board changes announced today, Union Jack’s immediate priority must be an urgent right-sizing of its central cost base, particularly with regard to directors’ remuneration.

“This should be accompanied by significantly improved investor communication and corporate governance.

“Supported by a fresh commercial and technical approach, the incoming Board also needs to make considerably more effective capital allocation decisions at the asset and corporate levels, to preserve and grow value going forward.

“We look forward to updating shareholders once the most urgent steps have been taken, including the selection and appointment of independent non-executive directors to ensure the highest standards of boardroom oversight.”

Last week, Reabold Resources announced that it had received support for the takeover from holders of 2.35% of Union Jack’s share capital, 21 days after the takeover offer. The offer remains open until 25 September 2026.

Reabold Resources has not issued a formal statement to investors in response to today’s news.

DrillOrDrop will be posting updates here as a record of the clean-up of Cuadrilla’s fracking site at Preston New Road in Lancashire.

We reported last week that work had begun to remove the green acoustic fencing around the well pad.

19 August 2026. Photo: Maple Indie Media

Lancashire County Council issued an enforcement notice for the site in June 2026 after the operator, Cuadrilla, failed to meet an approved timetable.

The company now has until 8 November 2026, 80 days away today, to remove remaining plant, buildings, fencing, membranes and aggregates forming the drilling compound.

Replacing subsoil must be completed by 8 December 2026 (110 days). The deadline for returning top soil and making the land suitable for agriculture is 8 January 2027, in 141 days.

Preston New Road was the only UK onshore site to frack horizontal wells. The fracking operations in 2018 and 2019 caused numerous small earthquakes. Fracturing was suspended almost exactly seven years ago after the UK’s largest fracking-induced seismic event.

Thanks to everyone who let us use their photos.

21 August 2026

Eye witnesses report all the acoustic fencing has now been removed

Photo: Used with owner’s consent

The Fox Group, which has been working on thge site, said the acoustic fencing would be “sold on and reused elsewhere, giving the materials a second life rather than going to waste”. The company posted this video on Facebook today:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2775307122839993

Wednesday 19 August 2026 Photo: Maple Indie Media Photo: Maple Indie Media Photo: Maple Indie Media Photo: Maple Indie Media Wednesday 12 August 2026

Work begins to remove the green acoustic fencing.

Photos taken 12 August 2026 and 13 August 2026: Chris Holliday and used with the owners’ consents.

The government has unveiled its revised planning blueprint for England, with key changes to shape onshore oil and gas decisions.

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has:

• Removed a requirement to give “great weight” to the economic benefits of onshore oil and gas proposals
• Removed a previous requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas developments
• Introduced a new policy to refuse onshore oil and gas extraction proposals except in defined circumstances (see more below)

The previous policy on restoration and financial bonds for oil and gas sites is unchanged.

A year ago, nine environmental campaign organisations urged the government to end planning policies which they said favoured fossil fuels (details). They said the previous policies were “dangerous for the climate” and “unfair to communities”.

The government said the new NPPF policy on minerals sought to ensure a sufficient supply, “while restricting peat, coal and onshore oil and gas extraction for environmental reasons”.

The new NPPF replaces a version published in 2012 and revised between 2018 and 2024.

A public consultation on the new version ran from December 2025-March 2026.

National_Planning_Policy_Framework August 2026Download

“Great weight” gone

Previous versions of the NPPF required decisionmakers to give “great weight” to the benefits of mineral extraction to the economy.

This general policy, M3 (1), now reworded to “substantial weight”, remains. But the NPPF states specifically that it does not apply to onshore oil and gas projects. The new NPPF also no longer includes a requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas.

The government said this “represents a policy change for oil and gas”. It said:

“We are proposing this change in recognition of the need to transition away from using fossil fuels in order to reduce climate change impacts.”

In the public consultation, 45% agreed to the removal of oil and gas from policy M3, 14% disagreed and 42% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Restrictions on approval

A new policy, M5 (2), requires that proposals involving onshore oil and gas extraction or coal workings should be refused unless they are necessary.

One of the exceptions applies specifically to oil and gas:

“to facilitate the exploration, appraisal and production in an area where the North Sea Transition Authority [the industry regulator] has granted petroleum rights, including licensed areas”.

This formalises the current requirement that oil and gas development is allowed only in licensed areas.

But it does not mean that all proposals in licensed areas should necessarily be approved.

The government said:

“there was broad support for aligning national planning policy with wider government objectives on climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy”.

In a public consultation, 36% agreed with the M5 policy. 20% disagreed and 44% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Impacts of mineral development

A new policy, M4, brings together previous requirements on impacts.

This states proposals for mineral development should:

• Not have unacceptable adverse impact on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety
• Take into account the national decision-making policies in the NPPF
• Include the result of any cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality

Proposals should also ensure unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any vibrations from blasting will be controlled, mitigated or removed at source and that appropriate noise limits are established for extraction near noise-sensitive properties.

Restoration and bonds

Policy M4 also requires decisionmakers to continue to use planning conditions to ensure restoration and aftercare is carried out at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards.

On restoration bonds, the existing policy also remains:

“Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances”.