Wood Barn Farm, Adversane Lane, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9EB
Planning permission for Broadford Bridge was granted in 2013 to the previous operator of the site, Celtique Energie. It said it was interested in exploring for gas in the Sherwood sandstone. Celtique constructed the well in Autumn 2014 but following a financial dispute with US partner Magellan, work stopped and the rig wasn’t mobilised. UKOG acquired 100% of PEDL 234 from Celtique Energy in August 2016.
UKOG has not been entirely transparent to locals about its intentions at Broadford Bridge as Celtique only had a permit to drill conventionally. On acquiring the licence, Stephen Sanderson, UKOG’s Executive Chairman, said: “The BB-1 [Broadford Bridge] well is designed not only to test a geological mirror-image of the Horse Hill* Kimmeridge oil discovery, but, more significantly, to also seek to establish whether Kimmeridge Limestone oil is truly an extensive resource play.
“If so proven, given the sheer size of the PEDL234 Licence, our 100% interest, and the existence of further multiple identified drilling targets, the impact of BB-1 success would likely be transformational.
“Our wider strategy over the forthcoming 18-24 months aims to de-risk the overall Kimmeridge Limestone oil play, both commercially and geographically. “Through the planned extended production testing, sidetrack and new well at Horse Hill, the goal is to establish that the Kimmeridge can be brought into commercial production.”
But the Kimmeridge Limestones cannot be reached by conventional methods. Unconventional techniques could bring new problems, such as pumping acid or other fluids into the well. The use of fluid in drilling in faulted geology risks groundwater contamination, and according to the Environment Agency there are no suitable facilities in the region for treating waste fluids.
Local residents have deep concerns at the lack of public information on UKOG's acidising techniques. There is also the usual concerns over air and noise pollution, traffic increase and the industrialisation of the wider rural area are all of concern. In the words of one resident "Oil development should not be taking place as it clearly affects climate change. We need to listen to the results of scientific studies and think of how such actions will affect future generations." See www.drillordrop.com for independent journalism and updates on BB.
In February KOGL (UKOG) submitted to the Environment Agency a variation on their Waste Management Permit. These variations are so distant in character from the original planning permit we cannot understand why WSCC has not agreed that this requires new planning permission. Purely for the sheer scale of difference this variation should be rejected by the EA.
A public meeting took place in Pulborough on April 30th which was attended by 150 people. UKOG felt the need to send their security and the police to drop off their leaflets and take a look around. David Smythe, geologist presented Scientific and Economic Objections to Unconventional Drilling at Broadford Bridge and Kia Trainer, from CPRE Sussex presented their EA Objection.
In mid-May, UKOG confirmed that it had raised £6.5m through a share placing to carrying out drilling and extended well testing at Broadford Bridge and work at other sites in the Weald in southern England.
On 25th May, UK Oil and Gas confirmed that it has installed a drill rig at its oil exploration site at Broadford Bridge. UKOG said all regulatory permits were now in place and drilling started on 29th May
It is not at all clear that this is the case. UKOG are now seeking oil in the limestone-rich Kimmeridge shale. This is quite different from their original plan. Their planning permission allows them to seek gas, not oil, at a much greater depth in a totally different kind of rock. Extracting oil from the Kimmeridge limestone will require other infrastructure on site, drilled to a different depth along a different pathway. Surely for this they need new planning permission from West Sussex County Council? And how are they allowed to start drilling without the Environment Agency permit variation EPR/AB 3806-CG? This variation is for flow-testing that is to occur in Phase 3b, immediately after drilling. Why would they be allowed to start drilling without ALL the permits from Phase 2 (drilling) to Phase 3 (testing) in place? We know Phase 3b includes acidisation . Bear in mind that this is a heavily faulted area of the Weald. Are they trying to force the hand of the Environment Agency to approve their variation as their drills are already in the ground? A lot of questions need to be answered.
A new group was formed on 25th May called the Broadford Bridge Action Group. They aim to appeal to the 100,000 home owners in the wider Pulborough area supplied by the Hardham water treatment works as all of these homes are under threat of water pollution
There are weekday protests happening outside the site and weekly Saturday gatherings to raise awareness. Please see events
*Horse Hill, Surrey, RH6 0HN
Balcombe, West Sussex
Lower Stumble Wood, London Road, Balcombe, West Sussex
On October 26th 2017 Cuadrilla UK submitted a new planning application to WSCC to flow test oil rates at the Balcombe well drilled in the summer of 2013. Their new application seeks permission to acidise the horizontal well and includes the installation of a 14 m high flare to burn off the gases produced in the process. Cuadrilla state they will complete this work in a 6 month time period and work will be undertaken by 2020. The application also states they will apply for a production license if flow test results are promising. It is worth noting that the terms of their PEDL licence include drilling another well in the area by 2021. Full details of the application can be found here: http://buildings.westsussex.gov.uk/ePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=2178
The public consultation is open until November 30th and we urge you all to object. Children as well as adults can respond; Application no WSCC/040/17/BA http://buildings.westsussex.gov.uk/ePlanningOPS/loadRepresentation.do?pprAplId=2178
Guidelines for objecting can be found at: https://www.facebook.com/FrackFreeSussex/posts/1459766500785397 Please bear in mind, only objections relating to what is happening above the ground will be considered; what happens under the ground is not up for consultation and is in the domain of the EA. Objections raised include air pollution (and associated health risks), site location, risk of water contamination, noise, light pollution, toxic waste disposal and transportation, traffic volume, accident risk, wildlife and environmental damage and disruption to village / community life.
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association (FFBRA) also advise not to mention fracking / hydraulic fracturing in your responses as objections may be discarded; At this stage the application is for acidising, not fracking however the process involves similar environmental, medical and climate risks, as well as some certainties like air pollution, traffic and stress.
FFBRA are also keen to point out that in 2014 Cuadrilla told the govt that to be financially viable in the Weald they would “need to rely, to a significant degree on being able to undertake hydraulic fracture stimulation(s)”. No Fracking in Balcombe Society (NoFIBS) has this to say ““At test stage they will not need to frack. At production stage they would acid frack...and when they do acid frack the limestone, it will no longer be legally defined as fracking. Westminster changed the definition of fracking in the Infrastructure Act of 2015, dividing fracking from not fracking according to the amount of water used.... once they have acid fracked the limestone, they will hydraulically frack the shale.” https://drillordrop.com/2017/10/19/cuadrilla-seeks-planning-consent-again-to-test-balcombe-oil-well-west-sussex
Please sign and share the petition: https://www.change.org/p/balcombe-drilling-cease-the-oil-exploration-activities-of-cuadrilla-in-balcombe/w
South Holt Farm, Dean Lane End, Forestside, Rowlands Castle, West Sussex
UPDATE! MESSAGE FROM MARKWELLS WOOD WATCH
Thank you to each and everyone for your objections and support of the campaign to protect Markwells Wood from oil development. Our collective efforts have paid off--UKOG has withdrawn their application 10 days before the decision was to be made..
Since UKOG first filed their controversial application in September 2016, over 2,000 individuals and organisations have objected to their plans to drill for oil in the South Downs National Park. The most notable objections came from statutory consultees— the Environment Agency, Portsmouth Water and West Sussex Highways. Hampshire County Council Highways had also opposed the application along with a slew of environmental organisations. All our neighbouring parishes as well as Chichester and Portsmouth City Councils also joined in the opposition.
It was very likely that the SDNP officers were going to recommend refusal of the application, and UKOG knew this. It is no surprise that UKOG walked away in the final moments before facing the embarrassment of a refusal.
UKOG have made various statements. They say they have “temporarily withdrawn” the application. They have not. The application is withdrawn. If they do reapply it will be with an entirely new application.
The company tried to blame the Environment Agency by suggesting they had put in an eleventh hour request for information and the Park Authority for not giving them extra time for more research.
The reality is UKOG was given 6 months to respond to requests for detailed information. We know they had meetings with the EA and PW directly, via telephone and email which would give them plenty of opportunity to clarify any issues. They were told to address key risks yet the new reports submitted were inadequate, erroneous and had serious omissions.
We understand that the Environment Agency rarely opposes applications outright, so UKOG must have known that their initial application was seriously flawed. Despite this, their second attempt was still weak and thereforeagain opposed by both the Environment Agency and Portsmouth Water.
UKOG have also made statements that they are going to do additional surveys because they appreciate that "Given the potential sensitivity of the Markwells Wood site to the adjacent chalk groundwater system, it is in the public interest that this subject be investigated as thoroughly as possible prior to any further site activity.“ Their concerns about “the public interest” come rather late in the day, and only after the public put in a lot of work and research and commissioned their own hydrogeology report.
We are not sure whether UKOG intends to reapply for planning permission or whether this is a statement meant to sooth shareholders. We think that out own hydrogeological survey shows the potential risk to our water supply is real, and any further studies by UKOG are not going to change the local geology or groundwater.
The extreme method of well stimulation proposed by UKOG is acidisation which is not proven to be safe to the environment or to human health. Acidising brings most of the negatives of hydraulic fracturing: traffic, road tankers, air pollution, flares, possibility of potential water pollution via spills, leaking wells and faults, processing plants, large volumes of toxic liquid waste and stress on communities. The concern is that this could have huge risks for drinking water in surrounding areas.
It is clear that water is a more valuable asset than oil in our region. It is also abundantly obvious that there is no social licence for drilling here.
We would like the Environment Agency to reconsider the Source Protection Zoning. We would also like the well pad in Markwells Wood restored to woodland, as UKOG should have done by September 2016.
If UKOG does apply again they may well try that old trick of doing it in the summer holiday period, in the hope that no one will notice. Be quite sure, we will notice! Hold onto your objections as we may need them again in a few months time...
Markwells Wood Watch will be campaigning until there is a positive resolution. We thank everyone who has supported the campaign thus far and will be in touch with further news and actions as time progresses.
Here you will find Emily Mott from Markwells Wood's full objection.
Further info: http://www.markwellswoodwatch.org/