Regulation

Angus shares keep rising despite no resolution to planning dispute over Brockham oil site

Brockham night working Brockham Protection Camp

Night working at the Brockham oil site. Photo: Brockham Oil Watch

Surrey County Council and Angus Energy are standing firm in their conflicting positions in a long-running dispute over the Brockham oil site near Dorking.

The council has repeatedly said the company did not have permission to drill a sidetrack well at the site earlier this year and needs consent to produce oil from it. Angus has consistently disagreed.

Last week, the company told shareholders the new well would go into production this summer.

 

Speaking during a telephone conference for investors, Managing Director, Paul Vonk (pictured right), said:

“We are fully approved by all regulators – the four regulators – local council, Environmental Agency, Health and Safety and Oil and Gas Authority”.

He said Angus was waiting for the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) to approve an update to the site’s field development plan.

“The moment that arrives we will put the well into production”.

But Surrey County Council told DrillOrDrop on 19 July 2017 that its position had not changed.

A spokesperson said:

“Angus Energy did not have planning permission to drill the sidetrack well BRX-4Z earlier this year.

“Angus Energy do not have planning permission for production from the unauthorised sidetrack well BRX-4Z.”

Rising share price

Despite the conflicting positions, the Angus share price has continued to rise over the past month.

It stood at 10.75p on 20 June and closed today at 31.63p, a rise on the day of more than 20%.

The dispute dates back to at least September 2016 when Surrey County Council told Angus that it did not have planning permission for a sidetrack well.

The well was drilled in January into Kimmeridge limestone, the same rocks being explored by UK Oil and Gas Investments at Horse Hill in Surrey and Broadford Bridge in West Sussex.

In the conference call last week Mr Vonk and the company chairman, Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius, were asked whether the OGA was waiting for a written statement from the council that planning permission was not needed.

Mr Tidswell-Pretorius said he couldn’t speak for the OGA but added:

“At this point we haven’t received anything official from Surrey County Council. We’ve received no legal letters, we’ve received no legal advice.”

Mr Vonk added:

“It’s been very clear from the beginning. All our planning permissions are in place, have been for years. It’s simply a case of bad reporting. We’ve been very clear in our communications afterwards. This is the last time we will be addressing this issue.”

What is a planning breach?

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines a breach of planning control as

  • Carrying out of development without the required planning permission
  • Failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted

Government guidance gives local planning authorities responsibility for taking “whatever enforcement action” may be necessary, in the public interest, in their administrative areas.

According to the guidance, enforcement action is discretionary and should be proportionate. Effective enforcement is importance as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system, it says.

A planning authority could choose to take no action, or require a retrospective planning application. It could also issue an enforcement notice, stop notice, breach of condition notice or a planning enforcement order.

“Potentially transformational”

Brockham well Brockham Protection Site

Brockham oil site. Photo: Brockham Oil Watch

During the conference call, the Angus executives did not estimate the flow rate or production volume from the Brockham sidetrack. But they said they were optimistic about the well and described the Kimmeridge limestone as “potentially transformational”.

Mr Vonk said:

“Why we’re so excited, why we’re pleased with the results we got back from the Brockham sidetrack is it is really the first commercial Kimmeridge production we’re focussing on at Brockham.

“Basically we’ve got a 400m thick layer of Kimmeridge part of which 200m is naturally fractured. It is just as mature as Horse Hill and the indications are that we are talking about a single oil column.”

They also said they may sink more wells at Brockham. Asked if Angus had permission for more drilling, Mr Vonk replied:

“There is planning permission in place for a total of six wells. We currently have three boreholes to surface and the three boreholes to surface we could sidetrack depending on the result of the X4Z [the sidetrack] production. Those six wells can all be developed in the future.

“We don’t want to have more sites. We want to achieve the maximum amount from the Brockham site. You can drill from there, same as like the North Sea, it is a small platform but you can access really a wide and larger area. They have a word for that, it’s called octopus drilling. That’s something that we can deploy at Brockham.”

Mr Tidswell Pretorius said the ability to transport oil out of the Brockham site was “not an issue”.

“We don’t have any restriction on the number of trucks that we can move in or out, and things like that, unlike what may have been speculated. And to be honest when the site first designed, it was designed to take some very large tankers, in fact BP had four 800 barrel tankers there initially.”

He added:

“We’re also exploring other options. We’ve got train lines nearby, we’ve got pipelines in the area. We have to assess every option. But the amount of oil we produce is not a problem in this case that’s for sure.”

There was also “no issue” technically with Angus drilling from the Brockham area into the surrounding Holmwood licence, Mr Tidswell Pretroius said.

“From a technical point of view, it’s a no-brainer”.

Link to recording of Angus conference call

Updated on 21 July 2017 to include date of statement from Surrey County Council

10 replies »

  1. Why are you so negative above an operator proposing conventional methods to extract oil? Don’t you use cars, aircraft or buses??

  2. I note there is no detail in the report of when you allege “Surrey County Council told DrillOrDrop that its position had not changed”.

    More bad reporting and disingenuous from DorD at best.

    Angus Energy’ QC has stated the legal position; planning permission is and was in place. Since then SCC have not stated otherwise to Angus Energy so that suggests that SCC have reluctantly agreed with this position after taking their own legal advice.

    Having reviewed all the planning and meeting documents it’s clear to me that the mistakes lie at the feet of SCC officers failures in their incomplete and inaccurate reports to committee which in turn mislead others at SCC into wrongly believing temporarily that there had been a breach.

    • Dear Ed. Thank you for your comment. I contacted the Surrey County Council press office by phone and email this week on this issue and reported accurately the response for the council spokesperson. Best wishes, Ruth

  3. Then reference them Ruth! Ed is correct, poor journalism, not your usual standard Ruth, faceless comments from someone without the power of conviction at best.

  4. Marcus and Ed: I am not sure how much clearer his can be reported.. There is a date, detail on who (council spokesperson) and verbatim quote of what they said. What else is required in your opinion?

    • How about a name and an official and formal document ? Otherwise anything on a website can be made up. I spoke with someone at SCC today and guess what? I got the opposite view. I think I’ll believe the legal experts and what I was told by SCC rather than a fictional person on a wordpress website like this.

      • Ruth spoke to the Press Office at Surrey County Council, who then made enquiries within the council before giving a response.

        It is customary not to name press officers, as they are relaying the opinions of the organisation they represent, not their personal views.

        The Press Office reported the current official view of the council – it is of course possible that an individual within the council (who Ed doesn’t name) may think differently.

    • Hi Mike

      I think the approval you refer to is for retrospective planning permission for buildings, lighting and fencing which is already on the site.

      The planning dispute covered in the article is over whether Angus had planning permission in place to drill the sidetrack well in January.

  5. The drill issue is included in the reply and Mole Valley obviously do not have a problem with it.
    4
    Representations
    4.1
    23 letters of representation were received raising the following summarised concerns;
     Facilities are an upgrade to support new type of drilling
     Dispute between applicant and SCC re new drilling
     Concern that shale drilling/fracking is taking place
     Need for development not demonstrated
     Applicant has failed to comply with SCC requests
     New comers Angus Energy cannot be trusted have abused community trust
     Angus Energy say different things to Shareholders and community
     Development is unsuitable and unsustainable
     Concerns regarding chemicals used for extraction
     Light Pollution from lorries
     Damage to wildlife
     Infrastructure unable to cope with increased traffic
     Development has no benefit to community
     Site has no valid planning permission for drilling

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s