Latest UK onshore oil production – September 2021

Follow onshore oil production trends with our review of the latest official monthly data

Key figures

Daily production: 14,508.61 barrels per day (bopd)
Weight: 57,013.1 tonnes
Volume: 69,198 m3
Volume of onshore as a proportion of UK total oil production: 1.78%
Headlines of the month: Largest daily production for eight months but big fall in production at Horse Hill, Surrey, coinciding with a production facility upgrade

The data in this post was compiled by the Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) from reports by oil companies. It is published three months in arrears. All the charts are based on the OGA data.


Another rise in daily production

  • September 2021 saw the highest daily production rate since January 2021
  • There was a small increase (0.76%) over the previous month and the second consecutive monthly rise
  • But daily production was 1.33% down on September 2020 and 9.77% down on September 2019

Small falls in volume and weight

  • Volume and weight fell 2.5% in September 2021, compared with the previous month
  • This could be because September was one day shorter than August
  • But this was the first fall in total production since June 2021
  • Volume was back below 70,000m3 and weight remained below 60,000 tonnes for the eighth consecutive month

Another fall in contribution to UK total

  • The contribution of onshore to total UK oil production fell for the third consecutive month
  • At 1.78%, it was the lowest proportion of total UK oil production since March 2021

Top 20 sites

  • Horse Hill in Surrey saw the largest fall in actual production and ranking
  • Stockbridge in Hampshire, which fell to ninth place in August 2021, rose to 6th place in September 2021
  • The top five ranking sites (Wytch Farm, Welton, Singleton, Humbly Grove and Horndean) remained unchanged for a month. The top three were unchanged for the sixth consecutive month
  • Actual production rose at eight fields in the top 20 (Welton, Humbly Grove, Horndean, Stockbridge, Glentworth, Wareham, Gainsborough and Kimmeridge)
  • As well as Horse Hill, actual production fell at 10 other fields in the top 20 (Wytch Farm, Singleton, Whisby, Beckingham, Scampton North, Cold Hanworth, Bletchingley, Corringham, Long Clawson and East Glentworth)
  • Storrington remained unchanged

Horse Hill

  • Daily production at Horse Hill almost halved (45% down) in September, compared with August 2021, which itself was the lowest rate since December 2020
  • The operator reported the completion of a two-week production facility upgrade in September 2021, during which production was shutdown
  • Horse Hill fell from 11th place to 17 in the top 20 rankings,
  • Water production at Horse Hill also almost halved in September 2021, compared with August (16.7bpd compared with 32.5bpd)


  • IGas’s Welton site in Lincolnshire saw production rise nearly 3% in September 2021
  • Welton’s contribution to UK onshore production also increased from 3.07% in August 2021 to 3.24% in September
  • This was the site’s second consecutive monthly rise

Wytch Farm

  • The UK’s biggest producing onshore field saw a fall in the weight of oil it produced in September 2021 compared with August (47,556 tonnes down from 49,094 in August)
  • But daily production was up slightly on the previous month (12,181bpd, compared with 12,170bpd)
  • The site’s contribution to UK onshore oil fell slightly from 83.9% in August 2021 to 83.4% in September


  • Oil production at IGas’s Stockbridge site in Hampshire rose from 410 tonnes in August 2021 to 479 tonnes in September, an increase of nearly 17%
  • The site’s contribution to UK onshore oil also rose, from 0.7% in August 2021 to 0.84%

Scampton North

  • Monthly production at this IGas site in Lincolnshire fell more than 18% in September 2021, compared with the previous month.
  • The weight of oil fell from 418 tonnes in August 2021 to 340 tonnes in September
  • The daily rate also dropped from 99.42bpd in August 2021 to 83.66 in September

Top producers


Perenco, the operator of Wytch Farm in Dorset, saw a small drop in September 2021 in its contribution to UK onshore oil production (84.79%, down from 85.11%. The company’s total volume of oil production fell nearly 3% from 60,397m3 in August 2021 to 58,671m3 in September.

Brtrnrg, the operator of the Whisby field in Lincolnshire, reported a production fall of more than 8%, from 577m3 in August 2021 to 527m3 in September 2021.

UKOG, the Horse Hill operator, Europa Oil & Gas plc and Onshore Oilfield Services Ltd, also recorded falls in production.


IGas production volume was up slightly (8,277m3 to 8,292m3). The company’s contribution to UK onshore production also rise from 11.66% to 11.98% in September 2021.

EP UK Investments, operator of Humbly Grove in Hampshire, saw a 25% increase in volumes (from 873m3 in August 2021 to 1097m3 in September 2021). There was also a small increase for Egdon Resources. Egdon’s figures do not include the Wressle field in Lincolnshire, which was still in test production in September 2021.


In September 2021, 12 onshore fields produced no oil. These included:

  • Angus Energy sites in Brockham in Surrey and Lidsey in West Sussex
  • Egdon Resources fields at Kirklington, Dukes Wood and Waddock Cross
  • IGas fields at Avington, Egmanton, Nettleham, Scampton and South Leverton
  • The Britnrg Limited site at Newton on Trent

9 replies »

  1. Interesting that the figure represents a decrease in the proportion of total UK oil production. That means that off shore rose also but at a greater rate.

    So, pretty evident linking that to the period, (increased demand), that oil production can, and does, easily adjust to demand.

    The arithmetic always comes out on top. It will still be denied, but the credibility of that denial is long gone.

    Shame for users that the adjustments are not sufficient to moderate prices eg. latest OPEC + output increase agreement, but then what cartel agrees to increase production above projected demand and achieve a reduced price?

  2. It’s not arithmetic that’s denied, Martin, it’s your arithmetic, the one that denies that 1 well producing plus another new domestic well producing equals two wells producing as the theory of replacement cannot be guaranteed. Two wells producing increases emissions!
    But carry on thinking there has been a massive frontal attack on arithmetic. It suits your narrative and gives us a nice perspective on your other ‘arguments’.

  3. Ahh, the trap was set, and there is the result!

    It is not my arithmetic, 1720, it is the arithmetic that is available to everyone.

    Demand sets what is produced. Production is cut back, or increased very evidently when demand requires it to do so. There is no sign that production continues when demand is reduced, quite the opposite. What are all the OPEC meetings about?

    Nope, two wells producing increases emissions is fake. If one new well starts to produce close to the source of demand, another well somewhere else will produce less, reducing the emissions from that well-that could have been producing more emissions in the first place due to local standards. Then, add transport emissions on top and you have the reality.

    If you wish to continue with your false narrative 1720, that is your choice. It is still false and that is what gives a nice perspective. Not sure that it does the cause of those antis who actually bother to research the oil and gas market any good but it is up to them to have a quiet word. I am quite happy for you to continue. As you will be aware, records of posts on the Internet do indeed add perspective.

    I used to export a lot of product. My company stopped producing for a customer when and if their business was lost. That customer bought the same from someone else. A transfer of production, not an increase, and could be easily tracked by examining suppliers volumes of selected materials that were specific to that customer. Not difficult, or somehow just a feature of the fossil fuel market. Just about everyone who lives in the real world will be aware of the reality, so I suspect your target audience is a pretty small one. Maybe not large enough to justify the consumption of fossil fuel to reach it? But, your choice.

    • Despite statements to the contrary, you are still having trouble, Martin, with grasping that the picture is a complicated one, not the simple (“or not difficult”) one you and your arithmetic – hardly ““available to everyone” – advocate.
      This from, perhaps not among the most innumerate observers, will help you – “…to reduce the ultimate amount of total emissions, burning shale gas is absolutely the last thing any government proclaiming climate concern should contemplate since this introduces to the global FF budget a whole new slab of fossil carbon to burn.”

      You’ve obviously grasped the essential point that supply in general will rise to meet demand – (heaven knows you’ve been rehearsing this for long enough) – but appear incapable of comprehending that supply can also stimulate demand. The progress of shale wells in Pennsylvania looks to me like a good example of this. Perhaps also the ipad or civilian/ tourist trips into space. And, to keep my examples simple, what about (Easter) Chocolate Creme Eggs? Was it demand that caused their appearance at Christmas, or supply in order to create demand. Not at all simple, as you might be grasping. Your fascinating experience of the obvious demand creating supply does not, ipso facto, exclude other possibilities to be seized upon by those eager to enrich themselves. And yet we are still subjected to the crass “Just about everyone who lives in the real world will be aware of (this) reality, so I suspect your target audience is a pretty small one. Maybe not large enough to justify the consumption of fossil fuel to reach it? But, your choice.”
      You really must fight this tendency to condescend to those who disagree with you.

      Your innumeracy, furthermore, gives the FF companies free rein to greenwash, – more of the same under the guise of tiding the planet over during that decarbonisation, the necessity for which their actions have assured.

      It is of course often difficult to show that a particular case is an example of demand creating supply or vice versa, but in the absence of any proof that any new oil/gas supply will be at the expense of existing supplies and not simply a device to continue profitably with more-of-the-same, using over-supply to stockpile to ensure future profits, I will stick to that arithmetical one plus one equals two. We no longer have any reason, by twisting the arithmetic, to accord the benefit of the doubt to the FF companies which have fought tooth and nail to discredit the actuality of anthropogenic climate change, (which, by the way, you still have not accepted), over the past decades.

  4. Nonsense.

    Shale wells in Pennsylvania creating demand?

    What it looks like to you perhaps, but nonsense to others. Have a look at the history of USA having been the worlds largest importer (more demand than supply) moving to self sufficiency, via Pennsylvania and elsewhere. There is plenty of information around that eg. a series of articles by James Dean, and the actions of the exporting countries to try and stop it happening, except it did not work-although it did supply the world with some reduced cost of living for some while. Meanwhile, the USA were also able to reduce the size and cost of their Strategic Reserve which could have made frozen funds available to give all sorts of benefits for the citizens, maybe even renewables.

    If you want to find supply creating demand then N. Korea is one of the few remaining areas. Western world and oil and gas? Nope-ceased in the 1950s.

    It is not your disagreeing that is an issue, it is that you continue to try and argue a case which is nonsense. That is your choice and it presents a pretty picture for those who may view this site who have yet to view any sign of BOGOFF special offers for oil and gas in the UK recently, attempting to increase demand! Any promotions for oil/gas products relate to market share, not demand. Indeed, those struggling with cost of energy currently will find your comment on this subject not only nonsense but insulting to their situation. But, keep it going, you are doing a great service-to the fossil fuel companies!

    Over-supply to ensure future profits?? You are aware the oil/gas markets are the most obvious and admitted cartel in the world, and how supply is managed so over-supply does not DECREASE price and profit? Sorry, that really is a pretty small grouping you belong to that believes the arithmetic that is the direct opposite to what is so obvious in the real world. I am also sorry you find it an issue I will point out what is real and what is fake, but I would not need to do so if fake was not served up. You can change that by becoming more informed on the subject.

  5. Try to stick to, sorry, get to the point, Martin. Your simplistic view of the economics of supply and demand serve only to demonstrate that you and much of the planet are in thrall to a system the industrially developed nations have devised to protect their profits. Your occasional references to the social costs of such activities are akin to the greenwashing the FF industry has devised to mislead those for whom reality might just mean the continuing inequality and worse underlying your desire to develop well 1 at home. This you seek to justify with the blithe assurances, concealed behind a mass of half-understood ‘economic’ mumbo jumbo, that this will have no overall effect on supply and on emissions as it will entail the closure of a well somewhere else. Proliferation to ensure future profits and keep the wheels of profit turning sine die, you tell us, authorised by that mumbo jumbo you unquestioningly accept as a God-given law, is impossible, those cartels set up to protect the industry’s profits won’t allow it. A leaf out of your dismissive book at this point – “Nonsense!”
    Well Martin, I’m glad there is someone to hold your hand. It’s the least they can do to protect such an apologist of their greed.
    You must forget arithmetic, Martin, if you continue to try and argue in this vein. For you the sum has no second term: 1 + ?. Your Martinian (Martian?) arithmetic does not exist. The more normal arithmetic resulting from proliferation, 1 plus the hundreds resulting in the U.K. and elsewhere thanks to England’s pernicious example and (admittedly waning) influence is the reality. The sum, of course, is disaster. Our market is consciously structured to accommodate human greed.
    A lot of words for you, Martin, so sorry. Some things cannot be simplified and, it is dangerous to continue to try and do so. You are arguing for the status quo, and all of us who are awake can see and deplore this. We cannot wait for the X per cent to line their pockets before we jettison FFs to the dustbin of history, thankful for some benefits – at least to some of us – whilst contrite concerning our greed in over- exploitation and its effects on the vast majority of humanity and the richness of our planet. Our greed certainly: no self – exculpation allowed!
    As I said at the beginning, get to the point.

  6. Facts are facts. Fake is fake.

    Demand sets the production rate for oil and gas. Not the other way around. That is not being in thrall at all. It is accurately reflecting reality.

    But, if you want to demonstrate that this site has a contingent of those who admit they know little about the industry (on record) and then attempt to try and create a fantasy industry for exploration (oops!) based upon a fantasy economic model, including childish references to other posters who try to supply accurate and correct information, what is the point?

    Is the taking part worth discrediting others against FF who may have a more informed grasp of the realities? Tarring and brushing comes to mind. You may be convinced the “we” are happy to have that done to them. I somehow doubt it.

    And no, I am not arguing for the status quo. Never have 1720. Just another of your fantasies, alongside your continuing claim for a greater level of knowledge whilst you admit, and demonstrate the opposite.

  7. Which part of the status quo relevant to the development of fossil fuels are you not in favour of, Martin? Do tell.
    Glad, by the way, that you concede your understanding of arithmetic is defective. However, main question above, don’t use the second statement to throw up your smoke screen.

  8. I have told, 1720. You have not been observing.

    I am still awaiting your propositions relevant to the alternatives to the development of fossil fuels. There are some, and some good ideas and projects have been referenced by myself and others. So far, you appear to be within the cancel culture grouping and also reverting to “something must be done” rather than define a something that is coherent. Perhaps start with some study on arithmetic and then economics, and then you can tell?

    I can give you the answer if you are not willing to get there yourself. It is additional to, not alternative, for decades to come, and the UK net zero plan makes that very clear. And, that being the case, then during those decades then looking at minimising the issues around fossil fuel will be the area to focus upon, including transport emissions to supply to where the demand is.

    But, to help you out further-not that a student should need to do so for his tutor-you could look back at a recent post of mine referencing the cost and need for new nuclear, probably Sizewell C.

    Yesterday evening, cross party support was provided in the HoC to enable the means of accelerating that project. If you listened to the debate, apart from the Lib Dem lady, you would have not only heard about the project but also the reason it was needed, and how the cost of such projects should be added to obtain the true cost of renewables. Shock/horror, there are some in the HoC who can do arithmetic!

    If you want further help, then look at hydrogen, including turquoise, fusion, and Rolls Royce SMRs. All being funded currently. Outcomes yet to be confirmed. But, somewhat against the views of some who have not done the research, they are being funded. A good job too, because if they were not, then the Lib. Dem lady would find her proposition fell flat on it’s face.

    (And, for Peter, the Fylde MP was promoting the merits of his constituency regarding nuclear! Trust your insurance is that inclusive.)

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