Plans for shorter Balcombe well test

Angus Energy’s new plans to test for oil at its Balcombe site in West Sussex have been published.

Earlier in 2020, the company withdrew a previous application for a three-year test after council planners said it was  “not in the public interest” and “not appropriate to the area”.

The new proposal, validated yesterday (26/8/2020), seeks permission for a one-year test. It stresses the importance of oil for energy and as an industrial feedstock and argues that any impacts would be “minor adverse”, “temporary and reversible”.

A consultation on the application runs until 28 September 2020.

Photo montage of proposed flow test at Lower Stumble, Balcombe. Source: Angus Energy planning application

“Positive contribution”

Angus Energy said the well test was needed to “further understand the viability of extracting hydrocarbons in the future”.

It said the Lower Stumble site in Balcombe had the “potential to make a positive contribution” to UK energy supply and energy security”.

The site was considered a “sweet spot” in the Weald Basin, the company said, and was “the most appropriate site in West Sussex to accommodate this type of development”.

The application estimated the development would create or support up to four permanent and up to 33 temporary jobs.

Latest bid to test

The proposal is the latest of four applications to test the Balcombe-2z well, drilled by Cuadrilla in 2013.

But so far, the only test carried out was for seven days in 2018 and was inconclusive. For most of the past seven years, there has been no work at the site.

The previous test application, published in October 2019, was opposed by Balcombe Parish Council and 535 organisations and individuals, including Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association, Sussex Wildlife Trust and CPRE.

West Sussex County Council planners recommended refusal, saying three years of testing would “establish a continued presence of industry which is not appropriate to the area”. They also said the application did not pass tougher planning hurdles required for a major development in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The developer has to show there are exceptional circumstances to support the scheme and that it is in the public interest.

Angus said the new application was “modest and temporary” and the site would be an “unobtrusive presence”.

 The proposal had “sufficient merits to justify development” in the High Weald AONB, the company said.

A previous well, Balcombe-1, was drilled at Lower Stumble in 1986 and Angus makes the case that the site had been “subjected to oil and gas exploration for over 30 years”.

But the planning history reveals that for much of this time the site was used instead for forestry storage. The total duration of drilling and testing at Balcombe amounts to less than a year, in short periods during 1986-7, 2013 and 2018.

Work and impacts

Protest outside Angus Energy oil site at Balcombe, West Sussex, 18 September 2018. Photo: DrillorDrop

Angus said it planned to carry out testing work at Balcombe in four phases over a period of 18 months.

Operations would begin by removing wellbore fluids to establish whether there was dry oil in the well. If oil was confirmed, the company would install a new impermeable membrane across the active part of the site to meet current regulations.

A 55-week extended well test would follow to provide information about flow rates, hydrocarbon composition and the likely volume of formation water. The well would then be shut in and either be plugged and abandoned or a new application submitted for production.

Angus said it had three contingency options to improve oil flow rates: nitrogen lifting, acid wash and installation of a bridge plug (see more information below).

According to the application, the well test would use a flare, measuring nearly 14m tall, to burn any waste gases. Other equipment listed included a linear rod pump or pump jack, coiled tubing unit, tanks, generators and pipework.

Angus Energy acknowledged there was potential for noise disturbance from the flare and plant on site. But it said planners had previously considered that noise could be “adequately controlled by conditions requiring monitoring, and remediation if levels are exceeded”.

Lower Stumble is acknowledged to be in “a sensitive area”. It is surrounded by ancient woodlands and there are sites of special scientific interest nearby. The application said the surrounding area was considered to be of high value for foraging and commuting bats. But the site itself has a low value, the company said.

The previous planners’ report on the three-year flow test concluded: “the proposal is acceptable in terms of its potential impact on ecology”.

The impact on the landscape was considered to be ““locally minor adverse” and “negligible” beyond 0.5km.

Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) will be brought through Balcombe village to the site. Angus Energy quoted the planners’ previous conclusions that “the increase in HGV traffic would not be significant in highways terms, and would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or a severe impact on the road network”.

The company said its previous plans could have an impact on air quality but these would be controlled by an environmental permit. The potential impact from increased vehicles was not considered to be significant, it added.

Angus said a hydrogeological risk assessment concluded there was “a very low likelihood of groundwater impact” from the flow test. This would be monitored and managed during the work and as part of decommissioning, it said.

DrillOrDrop will follow the application through the planning system and report on comments to the proposals

Site plan for proposed well test, Balcombe, West Sussex. Source: Angus Energy

Work phases and contingencies

Phase 1: Removal of wellbore fluids

Angus said it intends to pump out previously used drilling fluids to ascertain whether there is dry oil in the well.

Equipment: linear rod pump or pump jack, surge tanks, low pressure separator, pipework and manifold, oil and waste storage tanks, pressurised tank for fluid export and vapour recovery, generator and welfare unit.

Duration: Up to 4 weeks

Working hours: 24 hours/7 days a week for wellbore activities. Mobilisation: 7am-7pm Monday-Friday, 8am-1pm Saturdays.

Maximum daily two-way lorry movements: 16

Analysis period: Well suspended for several weeks to 3 months

Phase 2: Pad membrane

Site-wide impermeable membrane has to be installed to meet oil and gas standards. The membrane is intended to isolate spills and contamination from the well test.

Actions include:

  • Remove existing 300m granular platform surface material, existing polypropylene geo-grid and existing geotedxtile
  • Screen existing granular material if required
  • Construct V-type perimeter containment ditch
  • Install high density polyethylene (HDPE) impermeable membrane anchor berm around the active area of the wellsite
  • Install 2mm HDPE impermeable membrane across active area of wellsite and perimeter containment ditch
  • Additional polypropylene geo-grid installed above the HDPE membrane
  • 300m compacted granular material laid above geotextile

Duration: 8 weeks

Working hours: 7am-7pm Monday-Friday, 8am-1pm Saturdays.

Maximum daily two-way lorry movements: 14

Phase 3: Extended well test

Equipment: Test separator unit, data acquisition and reporting system, pipework and manifolding package, surface emergency shut down system, choke manifold, surge tank, oil and waste storage tanks, linear rod pump, flare unit, coil tubing unit and injector head, nitrogen tanks and convertor, hydrochloric acid wash tanks, vapour recovery tank.

Contingency options to improve flow rates:

  1. Nitrogen lift – pumping nitrogen from the surface into the wellbore to lift liquids to the surface
  2. Acid wash – pumping hydrochloric acid at 15% concentration into the well to remove scale or other deposits from well perforations and well-completion components and to restore natural porosity of the formation.
  3. Installation of bridge plug – isolate sections of formation which are producing water rather than hydrocarbons

Duration: 55 weeks plus 2 weeks for each contingency

Working hours: 24 hours/7 days.

Maximum daily two-way lorry movements: 16

After reviewing the data, Angus Energy said it would shut in the well and move to phase 4 or submit a new planning application for oil production

Phase 4: Plug and restore site


  • Removal of surface plant and equipment
  • Plugging – injecting cement into the wellbore to prevent the unintended release of fluids
  • Site restoration

Duration: 4 weeks for plugging and decommissioning; 8 weeks for site restoration

Working hours: plugging and decommissioning – 24 hours/7 days; restoration – 7am-7pm Monday-Friday, 8am-1pm Saturdays.

Maximum daily two-way lorry movements: 12

  • West Sussex County Council has set itself a deadline of Wednesday 25 November 2020 to decide the application. Details

6 replies »

  1. Another failure waiting to be announced by the company with the worst record for breaches. No wonder Cuadrilla wanted to get back some of their losses by offloading onto Anguish energy who have already admitted that Brockham Kimmeridge isn’t commercial without “Stimulating “ despite the well documented natural fractures. It’s just another fund raising ploy to pay wages while waiting for Saltfleetby production. What do you think Martin? How will you manage to get a reference to Tesla into this article?

  2. Hard to understand how the revised proposal addresses the fundamental objection to “a continued presence of industry which is not appropriate to the area”.
    Well testing is a prelude to production. What are the lease or freehold arrangements? 25 years or 50 years like West Newton?
    Whatever promises are made one successful well test may lead to more wells , again like West Newton.
    This is not a temporary or minimal proposal, just a foot in the door to industrial exploitation of the Weald.

    • Jon Mager

      You would be correct in that well testing can be (but is not certain to be) a prelude to production.

      However, unless it needs HPHV fracking it is not likely to industrialism the countryside, and its not likely to be their for long, which is different when someone builds a housing development.

      I do not see any of the UK onshore oil and gas fields have resulted in industrialisation of the countryside. Its all a bit low key, even where hundreds of wells are drilled (such as the Eakring oilfield or its neighboring fields).

      An example of where oil extraction has led to such industrialisation in the UK would be good.

      This is unlike the coal industry and it associated steel industry. Hence the ‘industrial’ areas of Nottingham which are there due to coal mining, and the industrial areas around Corby and Scunthorpe which owe their existence to the steel industry.

      Not all industry results in an influx of people though, apart from oil, the ironstone mining areas between Lincoln and Stamford still retain their rural character, with the remains of that industry providing good walks and cycle paths away from traffic and areas left to nature.

  3. What do I think, Jono?

    I think the application is in, share price rose and there will be loads of people looking for work in UK over coming months. If some, who are comfortable in their own little fantasy world, wish to deny work and potential tax to help others into work they are not showing much empathy.

    But, what is your issue, Jono? If it is so doomed to fail, then a few months of minimal disruption to show that, and the site can be re-instated.

    Your logic is pretty illogical. You continually post about how a site will not succeed, but feel little confidence that should be allowed to be demonstrated. In this case, most of the construction work already done, so disruption even less than normal to prove one way or another.

    As for the bats, not sure that is a vote winner since Covid-19!

    Just hope they don’t hit granite, Jono! That could create a real issue as Swansea requires a huge granite quarry to make the lagoon work. St. Keverne not happy to allow that, so perhaps Balcombe? Closer than WN! (Interesting how blasting huge holes in the ground is okay for the antis but much lower noise relating to fossil fuel is such an issue. Wonder how those in Sussex have managed this year with the grain driers humming away to make the best of a bad wheat harvest-facilitated by fossil fuel. Helping to supply those motorway cakes! Oh, the irony within the reality.)

  4. My concern Martin is that this company is reckless and seem to think they can do whatever they like with or without consent as they have previously shown at Brockham and highlighted by the chairman of SCC , not to be trusted and a danger to health of locals and wildlife , all for 4 jobs , none of which will be given to local people. You know full well that these are lifestyle companies who only care about themselves.

  5. Your concern is based around the previous management of Angus, and even then is a complete nonsense. It was NOT shown at Brockham. What was shown was the issue of consent from different regulations being confused. Hardly anywhere near the Tesla German debacle-there, happy now?

    (Looks as if Angus are now keen to create even more “jobs” within BOW!)

    Please enlighten us on where conventional UK on shore oil and gas exploration has ACTUALLY been reckless and a danger to health of locals and wildlife. Maybe the WW2 drilling was a bit rushed, but very much the opposite of what you state. I can quote you quite a number of situations where alternatives clearly fall into that category, yet that is the “improvement” you wish to foist upon others. Jon has “industrial exploitation” as his concern, (whatever that means), so he seems to think there is commercial oil there to be extracted. He might be correct on the latter, only testing will tell, but on the former there is no sign of that from current and previous UK on shore oil extraction, so just scare mongering without substance. 25/50 year leases? What about the 99 year leases for solar farms covering much greater areas?

    Really quite amusing when the debate comes down to I don’t want that to happen, so here is my alternative for it to happen many times over, but no one will notice! Perhaps someone will apologize for the increased prices of bread etc.(AND CAKES) from a poor harvest whilst vast amounts of wheat are being consumed to make fuel? Nah-they will just continue to quote nonsense about fossil fuel subsidies and believe no one will notice the alternative subsidy.

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 )

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