Drilling consent for UKOG’s Turkish well

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) has announced the Turkish energy ministry has granted formal drilling consent for the Basur-3 well.

Extract from UKOG presentation on prospects in south east Turkey, compared with the weald basin. Source: UKOG

In a statement to shareholders, UKOG said construction of the well site in the Resan licence in south east Turkey was expected to be completed by the end of May 2021.

It said the Basur-3 well was the “first key step towards establishing the commerciality of the Basur-Resan Mardin oil pool”.

UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

“The speedy grant of drilling consent from the Turkish government further illustrates how oil and gas projects can be pushed ahead more rapidly and with more certainty in Turkey than in the UK onshore, a key enabler for value creation and preservation.”

UKOG is challenging the refusal of planning permission for gas drilling and testing at Dunsfold in Surrey. A public inquiry is due to begin on 27 July 2021.

The company’s oil production site, at Horse Hill in Surrey, is the subject of a legal challenge at the Court of Appeal. Environmental campaigner, Sarah Finch, will argue that Surrey County Council, which approved planning permission for site expansion, should have taken into account the greenhouse gas emissions from burning Horse Hill oil. The latest production figures at Horse Hill show falling volumes.

10 replies »

  1. Think the joke is on you, Jono.

    Share price at the end of the day was up 45%. Lots of smug punters.

    Strange how that was missed within the commentary.

    [Edited by moderator] explain how oil-maybe-produced in Turkey and exported to UK would not be required to show greenhouse gas emissions from burning-if it was-but UK oil should? Or, same for Nigeria, etc. etc.? That would be fun, as I have yet to see any coherent argument that addresses that issue.

  2. MH

    I’m surprised that Jono has not disappeared there already. Perhaps he has crowd funded Ms. Finch so much he needed to have invested a little in UKOG shares to raise the fare?

    Or, just maybe, there is little thought given to the realities of the oil market and what curtailing UK on shore production actually does for the environment. It actually makes the situation WORSE, with imports just taking up the slack, usually coming from countries where standards are lower and then plus the costs and emissions of transportation, delays in the Suez Canal and need for the SBS to rescue cargoes from Nigeria. On such a premise, then US chicken should be a non issue, but strangely it is, and often for the same individuals.

    The downstream emissions from imported oil are just the same as UK produced oil. The upstream emissions are ALWAYS higher. Really don’t see why a Court of Appeal is needed to consider that. Local farm shops versus imported veggies have demonstrated that for years.

    • Martin Collyer

      Why is the appeal going ahead under a obsqure part of EU law.

      The UK does not fall under European law or the European court as we are no longer part of Europe?

  3. Dear MH
    Thank you for your comment.
    Here’s the link to the judgement in the case at the High Court:
    You’ll see from this that the challenge is brought under Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The regulations apply the Environment Impact Assessment Directive to the planning system in England. There are more details here:
    The case centres on whether the developer’s obligation to provide an environmental statement should assess both direct greenhouse emissions (resulting from the project itself) and indirect emissions (resulting from the use of the product – in this case burning the oil).
    Surrey County Council argued that the Environment Statement needed only to assess direct emissions. Ms Finch argued that indirect emissions should also be assessed.

    • Ruth

      That ruling concerned the judges comments with reference made on 21.12.2020 when we were still under EU law & the European court as of 1.1.21 we were no longer bound by European law.

  4. Those arguing against the development and exploitation of new sources of fossil fuels are not arguing that such should be restricted to foreign countries. They are against them per se as contributory factors in global heating and ecocide. The development of such sources in the U.K. (or elsewhere) simply adds to the sources available, transport pollution notwithstanding.

  5. Except 1720 there is no indication that imported oil will not continue, quite the contrary, especially if you need a new keyboard! So, protest as much as you like against UK production and if you are successful imports will increase. That is the simple truth.
    Based upon your previous admission that you were unaware of the simple truth about another protest you wanted to be part of, I see a trend, but not one based upon the reality of what happens.

    If activists stopped UK car production would UK citizens stop buying cars? Nope. Your excuse is just that and does not stand scrutiny.

    I know it is common place for protests against issues that are not understood by those protesting, which is maybe one reason new legislation is required, but I have no sympathy with those adversely impacting the freedom of others without knowing sufficient about the subject. Nimbys are more honest in their objections, but they do now seem to be reluctant to admit that is their position, after previous bad press.

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