Angus plans electricity generation at Brockham site


Brockham oil site. Photo: Brockham Oil Watch

Angus Energy told investors this morning it was seeking the go-ahead for on-site power generation at its Brockham oil site in Surrey.

The company said in a statement it had included the proposal in changes to an addendum to its Field Development Plan, submitted to the Oil & Gas Authority (OGA).

The statement said:

“These provisions detail a safe and efficient production process which will have the added benefit of allowing the Company to repurpose surplus power to the National Grid.”

The site near Dorking is the subject of a planning dispute with Surrey County Council. Angus has said it had planning permission for a sidetrack well drilled in January 2017. It has also consistently said there is planning consent for future production from the well.

The County Council has said repeatedly that Angus should apply for retrospective planning permission for drilling the sidetrack. Production from the sidetrack would need a new planning application, the council has said.

Last week, the council’s planning committee approved a retrospective application for buildings, equipment and fencing at the Brockham site. But  Angus was accused of betraying the authority’s trust.  DrillOrDrop report

Despite this, Angus said in today’s statement:

“The Company is preparing for final site preparation and subsequent production once the amended FDP [Field Development Plan] Addendum is approved by the OGA.”

Angus had previously told shareholders it expected to produce from Brockham by the end of the summer. The statement conceded this would now not happen:

“Given the required amendments to the FDP Addendum, the Company’s previous guidance regarding bringing Brockham into production by the end of the summer is now delayed.

“The Company will work to commence production as soon as practical following OGA approval of the FDP Addendum and will update Shareholders in due course.”


The statement also said operations to drill a sidetrack well at the company’s Lidsey site near Bognor Regis in West Sussex were on schedule. It said:

“A 9 5/8” steel casing has now been set and cemented and the Company is preparing for the next phase of operations: drilling the 8 1/2″ section which will pass through the Kimmeridge layer.

“This will be followed by a 6” section to be drilled through the Great Oolite production reservoir.

“Upon completion of this well, the drilling rig will be mobilised off-site and the field is expected to recommence production.”


9 replies »

  1. Just wondering at what point are councils allowed to say “NO” to planning permission requests?? Angus and friends act like spoiled tantruming children who issue threats when they don’t get what they want, then expect to be forgiven – without punishment or fine, when they knowingly defy and breach planning provisions. Is this OK behavior? What message is the government sending these companies and is it not ok for local people to simply issue their own fines and restrictions on behavior??

  2. What threats Cindy??

    Angus have issued very little, which has frustrated quite a few. They have stated they have taken legal advice regarding the issue with SCC and the advice they have received. They are obliged to report this to investors.

    Councils (planning committees) in the UK are entitled to say no to planning permission requests, but they need to be able to support that decision with valid planning reasons, for that application. They will be advised by the council planning officer and legal officer in that process. If they say no to a planning application then the business concerned can appeal that decision and if that appeal is successful they can claim costs against the council. If that happens on a number of occasions and adds up to significant cost, then local tax payers get somewhat agitated and central government also starts to get uncomfortable. The winners are the legal profession, so some care is taken to avoid these situations. Councils are usually poorly prepared to deal with the legal issues.(Not just talking here about oil sites, but with building developments this is often the case.)

  3. They knew full well that the sidetrack did not have permission. They also peppered the council with DOZENS of simultaneous planning applications. There should be a law against planning abuse. Councilors should have a good budget to combat energy firms and each council affected by would be frackers should be required to contribute upfront towards any unexpected legal costs. If there is a deterrent, perhaps better behavior would follow?

  4. That is nonsense Cindy. Just factually false.

    Apart from anything else Angus are not “would be frackers”. I feel Donald has caused some over heating, over there, but please leave it over there.

    Councils are funded largely by local tax payers, not by any greens or eco warriors. Local tax payers certainly have other priorities for their local government.

    [Edited by moderator]

  5. I don’t think they will be applying any time soon. They need to sort this out first.
    1. The applicant is strongly encouraged to engage with the local community and the County Planning Authority in respect of all future development proposals at the site at the earliest opportunity.
    2. The applicant is reminded that this retrospective application is for the installation of onsite facilities only. The permitted on-site facilities are ancillary to the permitted drilling and production facilities under the existing planning permission (ref: MO06/1294) which relates to wellheads BRX1 and BRX2. Planning permission is required for each phase of hydrocarbon extraction. Applications can be made to cover more than one phase of extraction. However the applicant has to provide all relevant information, including environmental information, to support the full extent of the application.

  6. They will be applying-but for power generation plant. Which is a separate planning application and nothing to do with retrospective toilets. That fulfills point number one. Shows what good chaps they are.

    Point two is a different matter altogether. I suspect this will either be the OGA to sort out, or legal eagles. Looks as if there is a little time now for that to happen whilst they get their power generation sorted. Meanwhile, I suspect the legal department at SCC will be pretty busy dealing with other matters shortly, so I anticipate this matter could be settled quite quickly.

  7. The beginning of this UK Column report shows more of the arrest of Ian R Crane, at Kirby Misperton for “livestreaming?”, which is now seen by the police as obstructing a police officer?? Just how is that justified? And just exactly how did Ian R Crane end up in a ditch?

    This is deliberate targeting by the police on specific protesters just like the fabricated arrest of Tina Rothery.

    Clearly this situation is totally out of control and its not the protesters, but the police who are acting in a way guaranteed to cause a breach of the peace and obstruction of public legal rights.

    Purely on human rights grounds these ever escalating actions by the police are heading towards a police state. where are the MP’s and councillors protesting about this misuse of the police to turn them into a corporate private protection agency?

    Is this how we walk willingly into a corporate initiated fascist state?

  8. Not as bad as having a silage pit built or having cow manure spread on fields as is common with farmers . They don’t need planning
    permission for these activities.

Add a comment

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s