Opponents of fossil fuel extraction in Surrey have set up a climate camp on land proposed for gas exploration.
The site, near the village of Dunsfold, is at the centre of a planning dispute between local people and the drilling company, UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG).
Planning permission for gas exploration was refused twice last year by Surrey County Council. A nine-day public inquiry closed in mid August 2021 and a decision is still awaited.
The group behind the camp said they today would stay until UKOG’s plans were refused.
Dunsfold Climate Emergency Camp said in a statement this morning:
“We are here to peacefully stop UK Oil & Gas from drilling for oil and gas on this land and to prevent them from industrialising our countryside. We aim to do this with least disruption to the local community and whilst minimizing our environmental footprint.”
The statement said:
“The decision to go ahead with the camp in these unprecedented times due to the global Covid-19 pandemic has not been taken lightly but given the climate and ecological emergency that we are also facing we feel that we cannot afford to stand by and do nothing.
“After an application for drilling was twice turned down by Surrey County Council last year, UK Oil & Gas appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. An inquiry was held in July, but the final decision has yet to be announced. If the appeal is turned down, we will gladly disband the camp but until then we will be here.”
The statement referred to comments made in August 2021 by the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres. He described the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a “code red for humanity”. He also said the report “must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet”.
Dunsfold Climate Emergency Camp said:
“The continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change.
“Research shows that the carbon dioxide released from burning the oil, gas and coal in already-operating fields and mines globally will push the world far beyond 1.5°C of warming, the temperature above which leading climate scientists warn of catastrophic climate events.
“The message is clear – fossil fuels must be left in the ground.”
The group also referred to comments made by the International Energy Agency in May 2021. It said there should be no new oil and gas fields from now if the target of net zero emissions by 2050 were to be achieved.
The group added:
“Yet from the Cambo Oil field off the coast of Scotland, Whitehaven coal mine in Cumbria, to Horse Hill oil field in the south of England, new fossil fuel extraction plans continue to be pursued in the UK. This cannot be allowed to continue. We are here to stop this happening in Dunsfold.”
DrillOrDrop invited UKOG to comment on the camp. This article will be updated with any response.
At the Dunsfold public inquiry, UKOG said national and local policy recognised “a compelling need” for the continued exploration and exploitation of new gas reserves.
UKOG’s barrister, David Elvin QC, said the Dunsfold scheme was “an essential plank” and a “pre-requisite” of the government strategy to reduce carbon emissions. He told the inquiry:
“government energy policy requires the continuation of a security energy supply and the production of gas notwithstanding climate change issues and the move towards net zero by 2050”.
A High Court injunction is in force against protests at the UKOG site at Horse Hill, also in Surrey.
DRILL OR DROP? 
What are they BURNING on their campfire?, surely they should be using solar power, what are their banners made of? What are the trainers made of in the picture? what are the tents made of?, how was the metal fencing made without carbon immission?, what are their sleeping bags made of? What are their modes of transport made of without carbon immissions, the world IS changing to renewable energy, but it can’t be done overnight…..even wind turbines and solar panels have a carbon footprint in their manufacture……you are blocking off major roads causing massive pollution levels….foolish in the extreme!…..climate reform is happening……help don’t hinder
I believe the protest is about future extraction of fossil fuels from new areas not about what already exists , there’s plenty of fuel being produced elsewhere without this unsuccessful company trying to find more.
Jono
You would be right in that there are plenty of companies, and countries producing fossil fuel and busily opening up new coal / oil and gas fields. Hence (given its size) it is neither here nor there on a global scale whether is goes ahead or not. It must be a local issue, unless the area decides to be self sufficient in fossil fuel. I think that would concentrate minds somewhat.
Re Coal
The future of coal will largely be decided in Asia. Today, China and India account for 65% of global coal demand. With Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia included, that share rises to 75%. China, which currently accounts for half of the world’s coal consumption, will be especially influential. By 2025, the European Union and United States will account for less than 10% of global coal demand, down from 37% in 2000. This will make the impacts of any further changes in demand in these markets very limited.
“Renewables are on track to surpass coal as the largest source of electricity in the world by 2025. And by that time, natural gas will likely have taken over coal as the second largest source of primary energy after oil,” said Mr Sadamori. “But with coal demand still expected to remain steady or to grow in key Asian economies, there is no sign that coal is going to fade away quickly.”
There’s nothing to stop them or others following Balcombe
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/30/balcombe-energy-co-op-aim-take-power-corporations
It amazes me that where I live in Yorkshire, there was never any protests from these people when they were mining for coal under my house up until the late 80’s, but yet here we are with the ‘not in my back yard’ mentality! If this was in Yorkshire, they would be nowhere in sight!
With respect Tony , we have progressed since 1980’s Yorkshire and it’s about trying to save the planet not anyone’s back garden.
It unfortunate you did not have support but I can assure you that there are activists all across the UK. At the end of the day it is down to each of us to protect the things we care about, that in itsself portrays the not in my back yard cliche. We could instead celebrate the fact that people are willing to give up their jobs for the things that they feel passionate about, no matter where they are or where they come from.
No No No , you are so wrong, when fracking was being suggested for all parts of Yorkshire there were antifracking groups literally all over the county particularly in former mining areas like here in Wakefield, They would not, nor will not, frack here without a fight
The message is clear, any new investment in energy production must be directed solely at renewable sources. The sooner this happens the sooner we’ll start to see our current dependence on fossil fuels reduce, thereby reducing the risk of severe climate change. Even without exploiting new sources of fossil fuels, we are currently on target to exceed the 1.5 degree target by 2050. Every day’s delay for positive action increases the risks to life on this planet.
So how are you going to stop the likes of China and India from pumping out the pollution that they are?
No, the message is not clear at all, Malcolm. There is no sign that new investment is being curtailed over the horizon-eg. $110 billion gas project by Aramco.
All this silliness in Surrey does is encourage a market for that gas that may be possible to supply from a local source, and reduce transport emissions by so doing.
Every day such silliness delays such local sourcing is what increases the risks to life on this planet.
Part of the problem not part of the solution.
Malcolm – your message is not getting through (see links below). As for Dunsfold Climate Emergency Camp, they are irrelevant but do provide some amusement. They would be better off issuing free condoms……
“Driven by increasing populations and fast-growing economies, EIA projects that consumption of liquid fuels will grow the most in non-OECD Asia, where total energy consumption nearly doubles from 2020 to 2050. EIA projects that consumption will outpace production in these countries, driving an increase in imports of crude oil or finished petroleum products, primarily from the Middle East.
“The fast-growing economies in Asia could combine to become the largest importer of natural gas and crude oil by 2050, given their significant increase in energy consumption,”
The EIA offer several scenarios in their October 2021 report:
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021/executive-summary
My money is on the Blue or Yellow lines in the EIA graphs.
As for stopping significant oil and gas projects, there is a lot of work for them to do:
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/10/6/global-energy-consumption-and-emissions-will-climb-through-2050-eia-projects
https://www.offshore-technology.com/comment/130-new-oil-gas-projects-asia-commence-production-2025/
https://www.nesfircroft.com/blog/2020/01/10-major-oil-and-gas-projects-to-watch-in-2020
https://www.nesfircroft.com/blog/2019/12/10-upcoming-oil-and-gas-projects-in-europe-that-you-need-to-know-about
I think the best solution would be to put another fence all around the outside of there camp perimeter so they have no choice but to stay.
You mean THEIR fence ? A common mistake 😊
is it THEIR land?
Oh Jono
I had credited you with a little more intelligence but alas you let yourself down again.
A fence around a fence is like a fortified encampment with no way in or out. It would also serve well for ‘Health and Safety’ ensuring that those on the inside don’t sustain any induries while the work is being completed.
MH , obviously your intelligence doesn’t stretch to spelling injuries correctly even in this age of spell checker, how I laugh at the irony of your attempt to have a dig at me 😊😊
Spelling of one word aside you still don’t get the point or choose to ignore it, which says it all really.
and taking pitiful actions like this at a tiny company like UKOG is REALLY going to make a difference isn’t it, when China is bringing online a coal powered power station each week?
Using the China argument for us to do nothing is weak. We can’t control what happens out there apart form trying to minimise purchases from China. If other countries be it China, USA or India are producing a lot of pollution, all the more reason for us to produce less. We have certainly produced more than our share in the past. We should lead by example of decarbonising now. Nobody in Dunsfold wants a fossil fuel plant in their village, only this one selfish land owner. Credit to the locals and eco activists from further afield for organising this little thorn in the side of a dirty industry.
You’ve got it correct arthur, “nobody in dunsfold wants a fossil fuel plant in their village” , by the way how did they transport all that “ecologically made fencing and equipment” to the camp site…..it must taken many trips with the old handcarts so as not have a carbon footprint. As hardly anything in the world is produced carbon neutral it makes anyone buying anything culpable
Well, Arthur, you could start to do what you preach! Seems it is impossible for you to manage without YOUR plastic keyboard, and YOUR use of energy to light your darkness at 10.25pm.
Of course, whilst there are those like yourself who insist on using the benefits of fossil fuel, they should make sure they are not compounding that by transporting gas and oil from far afield if it can be produced locally. “We” can control that. Check the news-the supply chains being over stretched show clearly the extent of maritime emissions-and you wish to maintain that! Until when? Another Torrey Canyon?
Leading by example? You mean giving the rest of the world a laugh? If planning is approved at Loxley, then this camp will either be left there if it is of no inconvenience to the drilling, or it will be removed and an injunction produced to protect the operator. It is really about a few people being rather silly. Will such an “example” do anything in respect of Aramco funding $110 billion into just one new gas project? The only impact in that respect will be an ENCOURAGEMENT, with Aramco thinking, “Hmm, looks as if our export markets will be pretty healthy, let’s get cracking.”
As far as “we have certainly produced more than our share in the past” it is just a repeat of a fake, one sided equation. That was the industrial revolution that started that, Arthur, (in the UK) and if you want that equation to be set out correctly then how about the other countries that benefitted from it not expecting compensation for it but perhaps showing their appreciation and returning the favour?
So, for UKOG’s barrister the Dunsfold scheme is “an essential plank” and a “pre-requisite” of the government strategy to reduce carbon emissions. The absurdity of this position is striking: the government’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions will fail unless it allows drilling for gas at Dunsfold. Presumably the same argument will apply wherever the government can be persuaded that gas can be recovered at risks it considers acceptable, those that appear to be non-seismic. What price the moratorium? And this government continues to try and persuade us that it has “got it”. The absurdity of the position lies of course in its arguing that we should continue to do that which has got us into the position we are in. And why? To get us out of that position!
As John Kerry intimated recently – this is the very definition of insanity.
A counter position is not nullified by the behaviour of other states. On the contrary it is justified and reinforced. If the UK seeks to be a world leader it cannot derive its moral stance, its strategy to contribute towards rescuing the planet, from the actions of other countries which reject the scientific consensus in their actions whilst accepting it only in theory. Nor can it be sourced in the to some extent understandable behaviour of those countries the developed world has neglected, be they one-time colonies or not.
Perhaps we do need to follow those looking again at the sustainability of those ethical and economic systems driving this problem, and the assumptions, sometimes tacit, that man’s main driver is his own material well-being even at the expense of others, his own greed. Evidence exists for this as it does for the contrary but the contrary is not supported by current systems which maintain that the primary purpose of an industry is profit for shareholders.
Let us use the current crises for the benefit of all of us and of the planet.
Back to reality, where millions in this country are protesting-about the price, and security of the supply of gas this winter.
UK has just been declared “almost sufficient” within the Climate Transparency Report. The only country within the G20 with a domestic target aligned with a 1.5 degree model.
So, any further movement towards getting rid of the almost should be welcomed by anyone with any real concern. IMO that includes local sourcing of oil and gas and lithium. Those who greedily want to benefit from transport links over the horizon need to think of the planet.
Transport emissions within the UK are also rightly under scrutiny and further use of trains at the expense of motorway expansion and the reduction in internal flights is a no brainer-yet, some want to stop that (HS2) and try and claim they are protecting the environment. More likely they are protecting the airlines-and regional airports continue their expansion, so that is indeed the result. Whilst France is placing restrictions upon internal flights as it has already invested in the TGV.
A country who is laughed at for not addressing the low hanging fruit itself, is never going to be thought of as a leader. Other than a leader in silly protest.
“Primary purpose of an industry is profit for shareholders”.
Well, for those who understand Corporation Tax, it is not. And, many businesses do not have shareholders eg. Ineos.
Corporation Tax is indeed based upon profit, and fortunately contributes over £50 billion tax per year in the UK. It really is quite simple. If industry is not profitable then no Corporation Tax and more direct tax upon the individual. Bit like Fuel Duty, that currently raises over £20 billion every year. Yet to see any sensible suggestion how either would be replaced without a huge impact upon every individual and/or the uses that tax is currently put to.
Just borrow? Well, from latest comments out of BoE that looks as if it is about to become rather more expensive, and that requires taxation to fund.
And, that would be the Ineos who has just announced a £1.7 billion investment into Green Hydrogen for Europe!
Interesting how one man’s greed, is many other’s progress. As crowd funding could not even replace £400k lost to the good people of Wressle, then I suspect it will not come anywhere near £1.7 billion. In which case, the “answer” will be to call it green washing and trust no one can do arithmetic, just to manufacture an excuse for protest.