Industry

Oil company seeks extension of planning consents at Broadford Bridge in West Sussex

180211 BB BBAG

Broadford Bridge, West Sussex, 11 February 2018. Photo: Broadford Bridge Action Group

Kimmeridge Oil & Gas has given formal notice that it is seeking to extend the planning permissions at its exploration site at Broadford Bridge, near Billingshurst.

The company, a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas Investments plc, posted an official notice (below)  in this week’s County Times newspaper.

180614-bb-newspaper-the-county-times2.jpgIt said Kimmeridge Oil & Gas (KOGL) would be applying to West Sussex County Council to amend the duration condition of a previous planning permission.

This would allow another 18 months for site retention and restoration, the notice said.

The current planning permission, approved unanimously in September 2017, is due to expire on 15 September 2018.

If approved, KOGL’s new application could take the expiry date to February 2020.

A separate notice (below right) says KOGL will apply to extend another consent at the site for security fencing, gates and cabins, also for a further 18 months.

That permission is due to expire on 30 September 2018 or within three months of the end of operations at the site, whichever is soonest.

The notices are required under Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015.

This obliges people proposing to apply for planning permission for mineral working to inform formally the owners or tenants of land to which the application relates.

180614 BB newspaper The County Times1Under the order, the notice must be displayed for not less than seven days in the period of 21 days immediately before the application is made to the local planning authority.

Any representations must be made to West Sussex County Council by 28 June 2018. This period does not replace any public consultation period when the application has been submitted and published by the council.

In March 2018, UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) announced it had stopped flow testing and suspended the well at Broadford Bridge. It described oil flows in the well and sidetrack (known as BB-1 and BB-1/z) as likely to be “sub-commercial”.

In a statement to investors on 29 March, UKOG said:

“A further BB-1z sidetrack and/or alternate completion and reservoir stimulation techniques are under consideration to help deliver higher sustainable rates and possible future commerciality at BB-1/1z.”

In May, Executive Chairman, Stephen Sanderson, said a further sidetrack of the Broadford Bridge well “remains very much on the cards”.

The Broadford Bridge well was first granted planning permission in February 2013. Site construction began in September 2014 but drilling did not begin until May 2017. In August 2017, UKOG confirmed a sidetrack well had been drilled to avoid problems in the main wellbore.

DrillOrDrop site page for Broadford Bridge

17 replies »

  1. This is an interesting short video on the question of why we or any other nuclear industry are not using Thorium in nuclear reactors to produce energy, in stead we use Uranium. The answer is rather revealing of other agendas, in particular,

    ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=J_9ldMw–HI )

    Thorium is available almost everywhere and is much more productive of energy than Uranium and produces little or no highly radioactive by products, its use in reactors does not produce fissile material, ie Plutonium, and is hence no good for weapons production. Thorium does need an initial boost to get it going so to speak, however and Uranium could easily supply that.

    Uranium, is only available in a few places in the world, and the ore is composed of two useable elements, Uranium 235, which yields fissile materials for weapons production, and Uranium 238, which does not, Uranium has to be enhanced, and the by products are highly radioactive and are stored underwater in tanks that are slowly deteriorating, hence the interest in deep boreholes to dispose of it. this is where the frackers turn off, because they dont much like the association with plans to use fracking bores as deep storage for highly radioactive nuclear waste, even though it has been proposed and tested in USA,and has been attempted to be tested here, but was rejected by popular local protest.

    it is clear that Thorium, is a far more widely available and a far better prospect for nuclear energy production than Uranium, and yet all the countries go for the worst case scenario with all its attendant “benefits” and “disadvantages”.

    The theory is, that if Thorium was properly installed and operated, that it would outstrip fossil fuels and several other alternatives and would in effect be another less toxic string to the renewable arsenal.

    Now, i am not offering Thorium nuclear energy production as some sort of saviour fuel, i am more interested in proposing here is that there are many such examples of this present monopolistic energy insanity and nuclear proliferation of weapons, and it is those and renewables that will, if we are intelligent enough, get us out of this present suicidal trap that we find ourselves enmeshed in.

    There is only one real question, and that is, do we use our intelligence to solve our problems? Or do we continue down this ignorant path of preserving the overflowing established fossil fuel rice bowls of the few, and continue to lose our governments to desperate expediency and to hell with the future, and all at the expense of the many, and eventually the few too will suffer and perish?

    Just how intelligent are we really?

  2. OGA approval for HH today.

    Onwards, and downwards, or upwards or sideways or forwards-depending upon your point of view.

    But, certainly not backwards.

  3. Kinda depends upon which direction you are going? As usual, its a matter of perspective, one mans meat and all that?

    Forward! To the Past!

  4. Hmmm
    Public do not like the idea of storage of nuclear waste in deep boreholes in US.
    But nothing to do with drilling to frack ( or indeed drilling for conventional,oil and gas ).
    I think this has been run through ad nauseam before on DOD, but always good to write a bit of fiction for fun.

    • Phil C
      Indeed I do know the nuclear waste disposal in frack wells is garbage.
      Others can start with Wiki and move on to what the University of Sheffield have to say about it.
      But remember you promised not to read my posts.
      Then you can continue to believe the anti frackers are quiet on subjects.

      • Ha! Ha!

        Oh, no i didnt! Dear me? That little diversion again?.

        In fact your entire silly comment is a diversion away from what i was saying. Which was that Thorium is not used for nuclear power generation even though it is much more available and suitable for simple energy production. and that the failure to do so is simply not an intelligent use of resources, whereas the use of Uranium 235 is much much more dangerous, but produces the desired results at a price? A very great price in fact. The rest you can read yourself if you are so moved? Somehow i doubt it?

        However you want to make a silly comment about one single sentence that i knew was going to be a red rag to a bull, and hey presto!

        Along comes a crimson bovine?

        Do we really need to do this?

        Dear me? OK, if you insist? And before we continue, If this is just an excuse to stretch out into endless boring repetition, you are, again, as always, on your own.

        OK, Let us get something straight right here, right now shall we?

        Perhaps you could explain to us all here why you decided to string out replies ad nauseum and ad (very nearly) infinitum in our last conversation? What was that supposed to achieve? Exhaustion? Time wasting? Space wasting? Time and Space wasting? Do tell?

        Do you keep a little list like martin about these things? You all seem to? A bit sad isnt it?

        I am going by memory here, but i said something like, i would not to reply to your endless repetition on that particular subject and i would not comment elsewhere whilst you were refusing to address any question other than repeating endlessly the one you had prepared earlier? i tried everything, poetry, humour, jokes, wit, wisdom, like throwing entire planets into a bottomless pit of humourless blackness?

        Unlike some i don’t refuse to acknowledge anyone, but only when something is worth saying or make a direct response to a personal comment will i respond in kind, but not if the response is either ad nauseam or ad infinitum? Quite fair isnt it?

        You only reacted to one sentence in my text which wasnt addressed to you at all, it was your choice to single out one sentence, the rest you ignored, we see that all the time, selective focus, ignore anything you dont want to discuss, that is a management negotiation technique, i was trained in that too, but i rejected it as being a total travesty of human communication. i said:

        ” hence the interest in deep boreholes to dispose of it. this is where the frackers turn off, because they don’t much like the association with plans to use fracking bores as deep storage for highly radioactive nuclear waste, even though it has been proposed and tested in USA,and has been attempted to be tested here, but was rejected by popular local protest.”

        You made a direct comment, “I think this has been run through ad nauseam before on DOD, but always good to write a bit of fiction for fun.”

        i replied

        “You should know.”

        You then stretch it out (again) and say this:

        “Phil C
        Indeed I do know the nuclear waste disposal in frack wells is garbage.
        Others can start with Wiki and move on to what the University of Sheffield have to say about it.
        But remember you promised not to read my posts.
        Then you can continue to believe the anti frackers are quiet on subjects.”

        I am replying that you are incorrect (wrong in plain speak), there are indeed plans to use fracking or ex fracking bores as deep bore high level nuclear waste disposal. links elsewhere, and it is not garbage, unless of course that is a new scientific term for high level nuclear waste disposal of course? And incidently, that your remark is unnecessarily offensive, and betrays some degree of emotional irritation, aside from being wrong, which is something we see from the anti anti damage limitation team all the time now it seems? A strategy, nothing more.

        There you are, all solved, nothing more to be said? Happy now?

        Byeee!

        Always a pleasure.

        • Phil C
          Pop in a link to those peer reviewed papers showing where ex fracking wells are planned to be used to pop nuclear waste into the shale.
          Good luck. Crack on with the work of fiction.

          • You have reached the OGA/EA/GUV/FRACKURASS/NUCLEARWASTEDUMPING Emergency hot line. All of our sales…..err, call centre representatives are busy serving drinks to other more valuable customers right now, but we would like to return your call as soon as possible. For current pricing and Emergency services information or to check the status of your enquiry, please visit us on the web at

            http://www.nofrackingworldclassstandardsofanykind/anotherthirdworldcountry.corp.guv.PEUK.

            If you are fracking operator and require permission to devastate an entire country, please refer to our dedicated rubber stamp department on freetofrackphone 666

            Otherwise, please leave us a message with your name and number and party political financial contribution (dollars only please) after the tone. If you would like to return to the previous menu, press !, if you would like to hold on at premium rate, then please remain on the line, and we will answer your enquiry sometime in the next ten years or so, if you want to know more, then please refer to our freedom of information service for which there is a minimum fee payable to a fossil fuel charity of our choice, if you wish to complain or comment on our service, then kindly hang up and go away.

            • Phil C
              Strangely, neither Site works for bt.
              But for anyone else interested then Wikipedia has a short overview of what the issue is.
              In the UK Sheffield University are active in this area, see link 7 from Wikipedia ..’deep Borehole disposal’.

              Phil, any facts to share on who is proposing to use ex frack boreholes here in the UK for deep disposal

              Any thoughts on what may happen in Scotland where fracking is banned?

              Any thoughts on how a labour gov would manage the issue, having banned fracking and still having the nuclear waste?

              Indeed, anything other than waffling around the subject would be good.

            • Are we going to play nice now? Or is this just another lead in for an insult? At which event i shall taunt you a little more? We can all play silly frackers hewes, but perhaps we can converse on an even keel from now on?

              Some times it takes a while?

              Yes or no?

            • Phil C
              Even keel is good.
              Have you any links to evidence, or papers showing there are plans to use ex frack wells to store nuclear waste in the UK.
              Or any questions you may have based on the Sheffield University paper.
              My own opinion is that opposition to deep Borehole storage will prevent it hapenning onshore.

            • Hmm, we shall see, past experience is hardly reassuring, but i was never a quitter.

              i ran through a lot of info before on Drill Or Drop, i’ll dig it out when i get a chance, i shall be working all weekend, so i’ll get back to you.

              Perhaps you could find peer reviewed papers and verification of the opposing view assuring us that it will not be done, just to be balanced about it?

  5. “The world’s reliance on burning fossil fuel for electricity has barely changed in two decades.” Spencer Dale, BPs chief economist.

    Coal still increasing, mainly due to growth in India. (Yet, they have gas fields that could be fracked!)

    The growth of renewables had been largely offset by the decline in nuclear power over the last two decades
    The share of non fossil fuels in the power generation mix, such as nuclear, hydro., wind and solar was only 35% last year, down from 37% in 1997.

    Key-

    The rise in emissions last year reflected a 2.2% jump in global energy demand. China added 50 gigawatts of solar panel capacity last year, but the average output from these was nearer 8 gigawatts.

    The sober reality over the fiction.

    • Ha! Ha! Sober!? Reality!? BP’s chief economist!? Oh dont make me laugh? Dear me! My melting arctic ice flow sides are splitting?

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.