Further approval of waste water reinjection at Horse Hill oil well

The industry regulator has approved the use of an oil well at Horse Hill in Surrey for disposal of waste water, the site’s parent company announced today.

Horse Hill oil site, October 2021. Photo: Weald Action Group

In a statement, UK Oil & Gas plc said the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) had granted formal consent for recompletion of the Horse Hill 2z (HH2z) well for water reinjection.

Earlier this month, the Environment Agency also gave permission for the reinjection at Horse Hill of produced water that comes to the surface during oil extraction.

Reinjection can improve the flow of oil and dispose of waste liquid more cheaply.

UKOG said today:

“With both the Environment Agency and NSTA permissions in hand, UKOG can now further expedite its plans for produced saline formation water reinjection at Horse Hill during 2022, which, if implemented, would remove the need for costly transportation and disposal of produced water at distant third-party sites.”

Shares in UKOG rose 2.46% today, closing at 0.125p.

Nearly 500 members of the public, as well as parish councils and campaign groups, responded to a consultation by the Environment Agency in 2019 on proposals for reinjection and other changes at Horse Hill.

The HH2z well is a sidetrack, spudded on 19 October 2019. It is currently listed as shut-in on the NSTA database.

More time for drilling

Last week, UKOG said the NSTA had agreed a one-year extension to the agreed Retention Area programme for PEDL137, the licence which includes Horse Hill.

The company now has an extra year in which to drill a second well into the Kimmeridge formation at Horse Hill. Drilling must begin before 30 September 2023, UKOG said.

The Horse Hill site was granted planning permission in September 2019 for a four more production wells and 20 years of oil extraction. So far, none of the extra wells have been drilled.

The permission has been challenged in the courts by local campaigner, Sarah Finch. She has applied to take her case to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK.

Horse Hill currently extracts oil from the Portland formation. But it has drilled into the Kimmeridge. UKOG has said it is looking at the viability of restarting Kimmeridge production and drilling more wells into the Portland.

The most recent data from the NSTA, for February 2022, puts production at Horse Hill at 59 barrels of oil per day. This one of the lowest levels recorded in a month since formal extraction began in March 2020.

98 replies »

  1. “ If implemented “ sounds a little vague, surely not more delaying tactics and huge wages for another year or two ?

    • [Edited by moderator]

      As for reinjection of radioactive toxic waste water, the inevitable results of poisoning aquifers, polluting land and destroying the crops are only too well known. What cant be allowed to be reinjected will be sprayed onto the roads and dumped in streams and rivers to further contaminate the environment, just as they do in the US of A.

      But have a good day anyway.

        • [Edited by moderator]

          I would suggest your isolation of the words “if implemented” was your choice Jono and not to be censored, but maybe to be commented upon. Certainly not dishonest, IMHO, just a tad selective. Selective seems okay if most posts on DoD are read, including those from the “teachers.”

          Radioactive waste? Oh dear, would that be the huge quantities now going to be generated as new nuclear is built because it is now evident the unreliable renewables are still unreliable no matter how much is built? Anyone hear how there is now a solution to that radioactive waste? Surely not just plonk it within a breeze of PNR?

          (I look after my plastic, no pounding of keyboards here. Like many, looking after my pounds to pay for that expensive oil and gas.)

          Must go and make sure my locally grown veggies are all healthy after the warning yesterday from the BoE.

          Enjoy your enforced sabbatical, Jono.

          • Ha! Ha! There you have it, Jono, something out of nothing.


            Amusing, isn’t it?

            Enjoy your day.

    • Phil C ,
      [Edited by moderator]

      Thanks for giving me the opportunity to inform all who read this forum the correct information on produced formation water re -injection, so our time discussing the matter wasn’t wasted.

      Thanks for a very enjoyable discussion

      • Here is the Environment Agency explanation on this:

        They use the term “produced water” for “any water that is produced by exploring and extracting hydrocarbons from a well with oil and gas”.
        This water can be injected back into the formation without treatment provided the operator has a permit to do so. It can be transferred to other wells or other operators only if the necessary licences are in place.

        Produced water doesn’t include flowback fluid coming, for example, from fracking. Operators are encouraged to re-use this in the fracking process;

        “Surface water” run-off comes from rain on the site. This will need to be treated before it can be re-injected (for example to separate out any oil in the water)

        “Waste water” is a bit of a vague term and apologies if it has caused confusion in this article. In the oil industry though, it does appear to be used to include produced water – see for example page 1 of this document

        • .Thanks Paul for posting that information .
          But to clarify, produced water is only classed as wastewater when it is not being used for re-injection so it becomes surplus to requirements, therefore waste and then has to be sent away by tankers for treatment and disposal as hazardous waste

        • Usually any water that is not from the formation such as rain water or seawater offshore that is injected into the reservoir for pressure maintenance or disposal is required to be deoxygenated using oxygen scavengers to avoid microbe production.

        • Thank you, Paul, for your clarification. It’s good to be vindicated in my initial comment and my subsequent observations of precisely what was reported by Drill or Drop and the quote from UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson.

          Regarding the subsequent contradictory statements by Steve Horsman, I notice Steve has entirely retracted them of his own recognisance. Unfortunately, Steve appears to want to blame Drill or Drop for it, rather than his own contradictory statements. But hey. It’s still a free country, sadly it appears, not for much longer.

          • Phil C. HaHaHa , you can’t even understand, any water “NOT” from the formation needs to be deoxygenated, and “OFFSHORE” , so the only clarification is that you don’t know what you are talking about or you are very limited in your understanding.

            [Edited by moderator]

            • [Edited by moderator] Yes, I have worked with many such devices, which obviously you have not, judging by the lack of understanding. I know about different types of interceptors and partial and full retention separators and all the types in-between. None of which constitutes treatment, merely separation and interception. They merely separate out such things as oil and particle debris, and the outflow from which is no less polluted, just attenuated to allow only liquids through.

              Whereas full treatment, in a licensed and regulated centralised treatment facility, carries out such things as de-oxygenation, filtration, ph balance, bacterial and oil retention, and toxic waste removal by whatever chemical or mechanical means. After treatment, the end product waste water, is allowed to settle out in settlement ponds for a specified length of time. Only then can it be classed as treated. With limited use at a licenced facility. Just as I pointed out previously. No such licenced and regulated facilities are possible on site. Only limited interception and separation.

              [Edited by moderator]

              • Phil C , and you again fail to admit this, ( taken from the Environment Agency website ) posted above by Paul Seaman….. “Produced water” “any water that is produced from a well by EXTRACTING AND EXPLORING hydrocarbons from a well with oil and gas. ( that is from the actual well bore itself and not from any other source, any other is classed as wastewater.) This water (produced only from the wellbore) this water can be introduced back into the formation WITHOUT TREATMENT providing the operator has a permit to do can be transferred to other wells or other operators only if the necessary licences are in place.”

                The various descriptions of water are obviously there to avoid confusion (intended or otherwise) and it seems all possibilities on the environment website have been covered, *notice to readers* even paraphrased comments can be misunderstood so it is better to read the official documentation from the government agency.

                And Phil, if you have as you say “worked with many such devices” you would surely be aware of these FACTS which would render all your previous conversations un- necessary wouldn’t it?

                All wording in brackets are my additions for clarity to avoid any further confusion and are posted entirely in good faith.

                I hope this is an end to an epic journey

                • Phil C,
                  Oh sorry I forget to mention, That is why UKOG or their CEO did not mention “treatment” , they do not have to treat the production fluids as they are being returned directly to the original formation.

                  So obviously they don’t have to mention what they don’t have to do, that is why they haven’t mentioned it, those are the facts.

                • Oh what a tangled web you weave?

                  Actually. No. That is incorrect. Sorry about that. I have already proved your incorrect assumptions to be untrue and your own contradictions previously.

                  And. No. Again. Steve. I don’t need to “admit” any such thing. Since there is nothing to “admit” to on my part. My technical qualified knowledge is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Unlike yours. I haven’t contradicted myself anywhere. I only quoted the previous text on Drill or Drop in reply. And I am only too happy to return your incontinent “compliments” back to you with my best wishes. I wish you every happiness together.

                  You seem to be hanging from a thread with this latter “redefinition” of your earlier posts. Strange but true. Lets see how long it lasts.

                  Continued next post:

                • Continued from post above:

                  As Paul Seaman and Paul Tresto pointed out, the distinction between produced water and waste water, full treatment and interception/separation, are mixed and confused even in the fossil fuel industry itself. There are several such terminological inexactitudes in the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps because not being tied down to any one term, is a good excuse for sliding out from under any regulatory (such as it is) blame that results from contraventions and contradictions of the process. The difference between the USA definition of fracking, and the UK definition, is a good example of avoiding being tied down to one interpretation or the other to escape the consequences of the definition enforcing an inconvenient consequence in the UK. Rarely pointed out, but nonetheless very true.

                  UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s report does not make it any more clear either, failing to even mention treatment or separators. Not only that, there are no sufficiently staffed or funded regulatory government bodies that are capable of daily monitoring of what goes where or when and what is done with any such waste water/produced water definition that can be avoided when it becomes an issue. “Self regulation” is an old contention on Drill or Drop, and is infamous for allowing heaven knows what to occur on site when no one is monitoring or any onsite presence by anyone other than those paid to turn a blind eye.

                  Continued next post:

                • Continued from post above:

                  As for your gripe, you appear to have a disagreement with Stephen Sanderson and/or Drill or Drop, not myself, who merely reported what was written down in black and white on the first Horse Hill waste water reinjection page for everyone to see. I suggest you clarify your anxiety and confusion with them. As I also pointed out, you should do previously. Which at least Paul at Drill or Drop answered. Perhaps you could tell us all what the reply was from UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson?

                  In your original comment you clearly said:

                  “As everyone knows, the wastewater has to be “cleaned up” before it is re-injected”

                  However, apparently you did not “know” anything of the sort. I simply pointed out the omission in the original report. Hence all this nonsense. I notice you had to contradict yourself later too. But you did not mention produced water or interception/separation as you now say it is and does not require the “cleaning up” as you had stated previously.

                  So I was correct in pointing that out and that it was not only not mentioned in UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s report as detailed in Drill or Drop’s text, but you yourself used the wrong term in the first place and said it required “cleaning up” which now it doesn’t in your own latter redefinition.

                  I noticed that you attempt to excuse that omission of any separator in the UKOG report, (which is not “cleaning up” at all), as unimportant? And yet you have hung your entire latter argument upon it. Which is extreme to say the least.

                  Whereas I mentioned no such thing as “cleaned up” or “separators” at all. That was entirely a storm in a teacup of your own making, and still is. I’m entirely neutral on the matter, not that you noticed. I simply reported what is written. Unlike yourself. I have no axe to grind on the process one way or the other. You however, have tried to make a career out of it. It has been yourself who has accused myself for reporting the facts and drawn the entire issue out ad infinitum and ad nauseam. Presumably because its convenient to cover up your earlier posts.
                  The term “cleaned up” is a non-technical vague term not used in the fossil fuel industry. However, “cleaned up” was the term you used, incorrectly, as it turned out. Since now, you deny any such requirement for “cleaning up” exists. Other than attempting to “clean up” your previous contradictions of course.

                  More contradictions.

                  Continued next post:

                • Continued from post above:

                  Whereas I merely pointed out, by reference to the previous post on reinjection of waste/produced water, how that was not mentioned at all. And then was insulted by your accusation of “extremist views” for pointing that out. Bizarre. Which says a lot more about your own incontinent phraseology, than it says about my quoting the facts as written in UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s report.

                  So in effect, were you calling UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s report, “extremist views” too? I’m sure he really enjoyed that. I did.

                  Also. The produced water, or waste water or produced water extraction and reinjection, whichever it may be called, is far from being reintroduced without being “cleaned up” or without being added to however, quite the opposite, as I also pointed out and which you subsequently ignored. Separation is not “cleaned up”, it’s merely separation of density differential fluids and particulate matter, the resultant outflow bing primarily fluids, but not “cleaned up”, as I pointed out before. The outflow from which is just as polluted as it enters, just fewer solids and viscous elements. Which incidentally have to be pumped out of the separation chamber and tankered away for real centralised treatment as I described, which also discredits the no-treatment argument as well. Which also discredits the report saying:

                  “removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint. The ability to reinject makes both environmental and economic good sense”.”

                  So. No. Tankering out of suspended separated viscous and particulate toxic waste fluids will indeed be a necessity and will therefore only slightly reduce the field’s overall carbon footprint.

                  However, as for produced water being:

                  “firstly re-injection fluids are not classed as wastewater if they are reintroduced to the formation from where they originated ie:-the same all the “dangerous” elements are safely returned to their original ( not human created ) environment. If this was in any way harmful it would not be permitted, so no harm no foul.”

                  In fact, it is far from untreated, as I also pointed out previously. From UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s report, clearly states that the waste, or produced water, whichever, is to be called, is subsequently to be added to by:

                  “acid wash and solvent treatments to improve oil flows”.

                  Which are additional toxic, possibly trade secret additives (of unknown constituents and toxicity). So it is far from being reinjected pristine as it was when it was produced during extraction, is it. Not as you now say:

                  “so all the “dangerous” elements are safely returned to their original ( not human created ) environment”

                  It is therefore also not true and is also contradictory.

                  Continued next post:

                • Continued from post above:

                  Which, amongst all the other silly accusations and contradictions you posted. I pointed out that the comments by yourself were therefore contradictory, and they still are. In spite of you deliberately and rather strangely moving the conversation to the top of the comments section, presumably to disguise the latter comments and the inconvenient facts the lower down comments reveal.

                  I suggest anyone reading this, to skim over these topmost later dated and timed posts initially, and follow the conversations by date and time in order to establish just what comment followed what and why. Rather than just to rely on of the incorrect invective that is introduced, somewhat strangely, for whatever reason, back to the top of the comments section, rather than following on from the comments at the latter end of the comments section. Something embarrassing there, perhaps?

                  Who knows? Oh, yes. I know.

                  There. It’s always better to clarify the obfuscation and reveal the facts hidden within, isn’t it.

                  That’s the end of my epic journey, at least. As for yours? Who can tell? Stranger things have happened.

                • Surface separation is primarily to separate the gas from the oil, and both from any water and solids present. Produced water can be reinjected without any treatment. Pumps don’t like gas.

                  Any water from the surface such as rain water will be trucked off location after going through an oil trap or disposed of in soakaways. I’ve never seen surface water injected for disposal.

                  Any water injected which is not produced water will normally be treated with oxygen scavenger and possibly corrosion inhibitor – such as seawater for water injection offshore, water used for stimulation, drilling fluid water etc.

                  I hope that sorts it out, as usual not many words needed…..

                • Thanks Paul. The number of words, as I have said many times previously, are precisely what is required to clarify incorrect information. No more. No less. I actually consider this issue to be marginal to irrelevant relative to the greater problems of people in poverty due to fossil fuel energy price hikes. As I said lower down the page previously.

                  But of course, some people prefer to stretch out any issue into ad infinitum prevarication. Perhaps your comment on number of words should be directed there?

                  Have a nice evening.

        • Paul

          No worries. Waste water is an all encompassing description of water you are not using (or selling). It is not vague, just all encompassing, term, and that description encompasses every entity that has to deal with it. The headline does refer to produced water which is a subset of waste water. ”produced saline formation water reinjection at Horse Hill”

          So your headline was correct, just as saying ‘politicans fined for partying during covid’ would be true, and then (as is the need for a headline) it draws us in to find out exactly who did what) and if it was wine, beer or curry and so on. ,Aberdeen man drowns was the P&J headline which led you to read about the sinking of the titanic.

          Paul Tresto and others have described various processes for the treatment and disposal of the various ‘waste water streams’ which differ from site to site, and onshore and offshore.

          For those with a passing interest in the subject, oil and gas come out of the ground, are passed though the separation process (separating oil / gas / water / sand (you hope)) and dealing with each in the appropriate manner.

          Typically offshore produced water would be of an oil content less than the legal requirement and be discharged directly to sea, or into a caisson (if you did not have much). On platforms where for each bbl of oil produced you needed to pump 20bbl of seawater (or more) into the reservoir, you ended up with an extremely large amount of water, which (after going though the separation proceess of course) ended up back in the sea. As noted in the comments below, various chemicals were added to the seawater, which came back out and were ‘diluted’ in the sea.

          Other offshore waste water, from rain falling on the platform and washing down slightly oily surfaces and the odd spill not mopped up by diligent offshore proddies, would go into the water water caisson, where it was allowed to settle out (as oil floats) and then the top layer of oil pumped out and popped back into the separation process.

          I enjoyed catching up with this, and must now pop off to the nearest oil company to see if they are going to spray the roads with produced water, as last week thery sprayed them with bitumen and granite chips. How dare they (and they filled in a few pot holes after drying them out with propane burners). The depths they will stoop to in order to dispose of unwanted bitumen, granite chips, propane and tarmacadam.

            • Phil C

              Thanks for the link although it brings no new information to the discussion IMHO

              It is a good that we do not spray neither roads nor crops with produced water. Nor have we ever (to my knowledge) used minewater (which can aslo be somwhat leaden with salts and other non desirable elements) on roads or used it to irrigate crops.

              That roads are sprayed and crops irrigated in the good old USA was something we (as students) covered back in 1975. But its good to see it being aired again, some 47 years later.

              Besrt not to pop it on your garden either. ir

              • In the 1980s when drilling highly deviated wells with LTOBM (low toxicity oil based mud) with Amoco in Hampshire, we mixed the oily cuttings with fly ash in a concrete reserve pit and farmers took them away to metal their tracks. When the mix dried out it was very hard and lasted for ages. I expect that this process and using LTOBM is frowned upon these days….

                No doubt Hampshire is now an uninhabitable polluted waste land unable to produce any crops or raise any livestock….

          • I have been watching this exchange for a while, with a feeling of deja vu.

            Then, it all fell into place whilst watching a repeat of One Foot in the Grave!

            It was the one where the Meldrews needed to justify their concern about their mortality, and started to examine how many of their acquaintances had died at a similar age. There was the lady who had died of the measles. Nope, she had fallen off a cliff! But, she had gone on holiday to the seaside to get over the measles. Made me laugh. An age thing, where events have to be re-arranged to create a concern?

            Meanwhile, Angus have been re-injecting and for all that “Watching” it took an announcement from them for anyone to realise!

  2. “Surely” sounds equally vague, Jono!

    Life is like that. Not much that is definite-except that gas and oil prices will remain high for some time to come, making life difficult for many, and encourage those with the task to get more oil and gas to help reduce prices to help the many.

    There will still be a few who wish to delay or stop that, and ignore the many.

    Always have been those who use vagueness and detachment to forget about the many.

  3. As everyone knows the wastewater has to be “cleaned up” before it is re-injected, what else do you expect but excessive dissinformation from someone who is obviously opposed to oil/gas production.

    The UK needs energy stability in these Putin enforced uncertain times, many people seem to have been duped into this ” climate emergency “status, yes many things are being put in place to combat the situation like the massive offshore windfarm on the east coast but unfortunately it all takes time and a considerable amount of money.

    We have been paying a climate change levy on the price of domestic power for probably over 25 years or more (I can’t remember the start date, it was that long ago) and still are paying it (as a percentage)
    of our excessive energy bills at the moment… as the saying goes… careful what you wish for,

    The change in strategy IS happening, but have some patience because ordinary people can’t afford the cost of it being enforced too quickly…..I care about others…….do you?

    • From:
      Water reinjection permitted at Horse Hill

      “The changes to the permit allow:

      pumping of formation and surface water into two reinjection wells
      drilling and 90-day testing of four new boreholes and associated side-tracks
      oil production from the new wells
      burning of waste gas up to 10 tonnes per day during production
      acid wash and solvent treatments to improve oil flows

      In a statement today, UKOG said it would now go ahead with plans to convert the Horse Hill-2z well (HH-2z) into a water re-injector during 2022. The company also has permission to drill a second reinjection well.

      UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

      “[the permit] finally enables UKOG to return Horse Hill’s produced saline formation water back to the oil-bearing Portland rocks where it originated, lowering operating costs per barrel, removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint. The ability to reinject makes both environmental and economic good sense”.”

      There is nothing about toxic radioactive waste water treatment there. In fact, there are more chemicals to be added:

      “acid wash and solvent treatments to improve oil flows”

      “lowering operating costs per barrel, removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint.”

      Certainly there can be no “treatment” of highly toxic radioactive waste water on-site, so it must have to transported off-site and returned onside for reinjection later to for “treatment” to be carried out at all.

      No treatment is mentioned at all. Which would contradict the second statement anyway.

      No. What I object to is pollution from monopolistic and all pervasive fossil use, extraction and processing.

      The 1 in 5 deaths worldwide per year from fossil fuel pollution. The 6th major extinction level event in the Earths history due to fossil fuel pollution. The massive die off of all lifeforms on land, in the air and in the oceans. The pollution of the environment and the destruction of the ecologies. The choking of wildlife worldwide from macro plastic waste and the worldwide pollution from microplastics. Found in the stratosphere, down the lowest oceanic trenches. Found in newborn babies and adults worldwide. Look up Phthalates, which cause hormone destruction in all living creatures and fertility reduction in all polluted environments.

      Do you care about all those factors from fossil fuel use and production and pollution?

      Have a nice afternoon.

  4. Yes, I care Phil C, [Edited by moderator]

    I also care about those kids in the DRC suffering from handling a known carcinogen, cobalt.

    I also care that life expectancy enjoyed now is kept high and doesn’t revert to yurt life expectancy. I care that my wife was kept alive by the NHS, using extensive fossil fuel by-products recently.

    I also care about human sewage entering the oceans, but do not believe getting rid of humans is the answer. Humans are bright enough to keep items out of oceans. Those who are not, should be isolated and dealt with.

    I also care that items I do consume, or needed by my wife, are sourced as locally as possible to help the environment and to direct UK taxation to those who need assistance.

    • [Edited by moderator]

      Perhaps Steve, getting back to the subject, you could debate the apparent absence of any declared plans to treat the radioactive toxic waste water prior to reinjection at Horse Hill? And also perhaps you could debate the fossil fuel pollution deaths of humans and animals, flora and fauna worldwide? To profit off the deaths of billions, if not trillions of flora and fauna species worldwide, and 1 n 5 other humans is apparently, in some minds, justified.

      Maybe that question can only be answered by those who mourn the deaths of so many relatives due to fossil fuel pollution worldwide? Of course, for those who say that morals and ethics are merely “academic” and condemn the medical profession out of hand, there may be less condemned alternatives to be explored?

      Since another subject was raised out of the blue. You could also discuss the facts of children forced to work as slaves in the DRC in gold mines and countless other mines throughout the world. And have been for many many decades. Without being mentioned until cobalt and lithium were found to be used in batteries. Including, it may be said, mobile phones, tablets and laptops, medical equipment, technically based industries, such as banking, social and main stream media, the military, media reporters, wind and solar power, vehicular instrumentation, and, strangely enough, the fossil fuel industry. (Oops!) none of which justifies the child exploitation of course, but perhaps weaponising only one use because it suits the weaponiser, doesn’t excuse the user either.

      Children still working in gold mines in DR Congo, say human rights groups

      Mica mines in India: child labor for shine and glitter

      ‘Coal workers are orphans’: the children and slaves mining Pakistan’s coal

      That has been going on for decades, but can’t be dishonestly weaponised like the assumed cobalt and lithium mining in the DRC. Which is not accurate anyway, since modern batteries in many EV’s are lead iron gel, which are lighter and longer lasting and are easily disposed of environmentally and safely. With no child exploitation. Which was what most people with any conscience at all have already done and checked several times to ensure that was evidenced and assured to be free from child exploitation. Inconvenient to some. A matter of honesty, honour, morals and ethics to others it seems.

      But the truth was always stranger than the even stranger fiction, wasn’t it.

    • MARTIN ,

      Just picked up on your above comment, quote ” yes I care. ” Well I am surprised, ,this is a turn up for the books.

      JUST HAD TO ASK . As a caring person, I assume you are NOW firmly against Fracking , especially knowing how highly toxic , dangerous to human and animal health, environmentally damaging , climate changing , energy intensive the process is .

      OR does your caring side only stretch as far as your wife and people living outside of the UK ?

      • [Edited by moderator]

        No, Jack, I do not believe the antis are more moral, more caring, more intelligent than anyone else. Sorry, if you have signed up on that basis you have been sold a fake product.

        No, I am not against fracking. I note the huge quantities of LNG coming across the Atlantic from USA that fracking is enabling, to allow Europe to isolate Russian gas supplies and reduce their ability to invade countries, killing and raping women and children, and forcing millions to flee their own country. I care about that Jack. You obviously do not. So, Jack, is that not happening? Or, do you just not care and just want to ignore the realities having previously whinged about something that is now shown to be essential. Maybe inconvenient to you Jack, but I do not care about your convenience. Come on Jack, is it not happening and how else does the world cut off funding to Putin’s thugs when the majority of that funding is produced by their oil and gas sales? (Ironic really that Texas with a GDP already larger than Russia is now having to do more to assist the Europeans who should have done more themselves some years ago, but became mired in a confused energy strategy to placate noisy minorities. You can now see the need to limit them being so noisy!)

        That young Ukrainian woman I saw in my local GP surgery this week being introduced by her host family to the NHS, I care about that, and also how the UK will fund those costs. Perhaps taxation of UK on shore oil and gas?

        Whilst you are awaiting your diversion attempt, the US weekly rig counts, fortunately keep on rising.

        Of course, Jack, there is an argument to be made to reduce the environmentally damaging aspect of all oil and gas production by maximising the amount produced local to the consumption of that oil and gas. The current exporting companies may not be too happy about that, or those working for them or transport businesses, but I do not care about that. My courgettes are looking to follow that same principle, late frosts allowing.
        Last time we discussed local production, you diverted to some nonsense around carnivorous pigeons, so please excuse me if I do not rate your animal health comments too highly! (Herbivores, Jack, which is why arable farmers frequently operate an annual pigeon shoot to protect their crops.) By the way, Jack, animal health is essentially related to levels of nutrition. Many require cereals to be produced to feed them, those cereals rely upon quantities of fertilizer to produce them. Guess how the bulk of the world’s fertilizer supplies are made? I care about that, Jack. Perhaps when cereal prices are rocketing then E10 petrol should not be a priority, and just plonk some more fossil fuel into the tank? I care about that, too. If some of it comes from Wressle, then good for them, and shame upon those who cost the local community over £400k in costs to try and prevent it. I hope the young Ukrainian woman still gets her NHS support whilst she stays in the UK, so I care that Wressle is a success and makes a net profit and can contribute to that rather than refund the local community monies they did not cost, whilst those that did just clear off to rinse and repeat.

        • MARTIN ,

          As you have stated before on this very forum , prior to retirement , your employment status was in ” MARKETING ”

          Now I’m not sure whether your professional ” marketing ” skills were in Ping Pong Balls , Eccles Cakes or Toilet Rolls , but it’s important forum readers take note of this fact prior to reading your ” opinions ”

          I say ” opinions ” as that’s all they ever are….. Not ONCE do you ever back up anything you say with any evidence.

          Taking note of your previous employment profession, ( marketing ) will help readers that are not fully up to spec on the fracking process , make a balanced decision on the safety and environmental aspect of the process when choosing what information to believe.

          MYSELF , well I’ve never said what line of wok I’m in , BUT anything I say , I back up with credible, provable evidence from professional people that are experts in their particular field of knowledge.

          I say to you , FRACKING is a highly toxic, environmentally damaging, climate changing, dangerous to human and animal health, energy intensive process.

          NOW MARTIN , Do you dispute any of the above ?????????

          If you do, I will be more than delighted to fill this page with evidence . ( Even though I have presented this same evidence to you many times before.)

          FACT CHECK ALERT ………. In your above comment you say , that I have said , quote, ” Last time we discussed local production, you diverted to some nonsense around carnivorous pigeons, so please excuse me if I do not rate your animal health comments. ” …….. [Edited by moderator]I challenge you to show evidence as to where I made this comment .

          • MARTIN ,

            In fact I challenge you to show myself and the forum members any post I have made where the word PIGEON was said .

            Well MARTIN , I’m waiting

            • Well, Jack, you can wait.

              But, yes, someone under your name did!

              (I have just checked the details, but will not embarrass “you” further.)

              Either you have difficulty with YOUR memory, you have difficulty with accuracy, or others are posting under your name.

              Whichever, is no concern to me, but I can assure you that someone posting as Jack did.

              You are really failing with the accuracy sticker, aren’t you? Interesting tactic that others also seem to want to use, and then within their proposition fail to be accurate themselves! It rather destroys the whole tactic, Jack. That is also a “fact”. See, used before, failed before. Do try another tactic, Jack. You, or another Jack, can do better.

          • Oh dear Jack.

            Just a bit more education for you.

            Marketing is a function that is utilised in many diverse businesses in UK, including fossil fuels. Many companies will feature-guess what-a marketing department, just as they might an HR department! I am sorry to have to keep reminding you about such things, that surely most adults in UK are already aware of? You obviously have access to the Internet. Why are you unable to check such things in your neck of the woods before you comment?

            As far as your own work experience, Jack, it really doesn’t concern me, although there do seem to be a very large number of gaps that work or life experience should have filled, or a visit to a library. I have offered you the chance to earn $60k/year washing dishes (probably greater now) but you didn’t seem interested.

            You have asked exactly the same question before, Jack, and already received an answer.

            As far as the rest goes, it is nonsense. You talk about protest costs as being part of the industry responsibility. What nonsense. Protest is a choice. Those that make that choice are responsible for the costs. They do not usually pay them, and leave that up to others. I could give a more basic description, but do not wish to upset sensitive souls.

            And even more non sensical, it was seismic activity which caused the UK moratorium and that had nothing to do with protest. In reality, the seismic activity would have been observed earlier without protests, so a more accurate description would be that protest delayed the UK moratorium. You seem a long way away from that coal face, as well.

            Nice of you to follow up with your claim regarding accuracy with exactly the opposite Jack. I need to comment upon that no more, you have done the job for me. But, you did so with Chesapeake Energy, so your pattern is well established now, and all too obvious.

            • [Edited by moderator]

              We need to remember here Ladies and Gentlemen that in the USA , Fracking health , safety and environmental considerations are a complete and utter JOKE .

              In cutting back on health , safety and environmental regulations, which in turn saves a lot of money . It’s only now with a global supply squeeze on Oil and Gas that these toxic, white elephant Fracking companies can finally make a profit.

              BUT let’s face it , in these challenging times , extracting Oil from Earwax could just as easy be a viable and highly profitable business venture.

              MARTIN , what’s the matter with you ….. I showed you how Chesapeake Energy was debt ridden to the tune of BILLIONS . Why do we keep having to go over the same thing ???? I’m seriously beginning to wonder if you are just some computer BOT …… IT may be worth Drill Or Drop having a , I am not a robot tick box prior to each post .

        • MARTIN ,


          You keep banging on about the £400 k costs awarded against a community that was opposing a local oil/gas facility .

          WELL MARTIN , If the only bargaining chip left in the box is fear and scare tactics , then you really are on the ropes…..

          It may of cost one local community council £400k , but throughout the country its cost the oil/gas industry £ MILLIONS .

          Now if we talk about FRACKING alone , public/community protests and pressure have cost the industry £ MILLIONS and it has ultimately led to the demise of the industry the UK , before its even got off the ground , as councils and MP’s of all parties have backed their constituents on the matter with a resounding, no , no, NO .

          Just look at how many planning applications have been knocked back , let’s also not forget how strong community protest stopped IGAS from Fracking at Barton Moss.

          People power does work and I’m sorry to say MARTIN , your scare tactics don’t.

  5. Will the injection of water into a well nowhere near where the water came from work?
    Will the costs of converting HH-2z be greater or less than the savings made considering the decline in flow rate from HH-1 over the life of the well? Unfortunately we don’t know the transport and disposal costs of the contaminated water. Transport costs on their own would account for 36% savings.
    The projected path of HH-3 is also away from where the water is going to be re-injected in HH-2z.
    No wonder they said “if implemented”. More Q than A imo.

    • UNICEF: World Day Against Child Labour
      Child labour rises to 160 million – first increase in two decades
      The International Labour Organization and UNICEF warn nine million additional children at risk as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.–en/index.htm

      “The report warns that globally, nine million additional children are at risk of being pushed into child labour by the end of 2022 as a result of the pandemic. A simulation model shows this number could rise to 46 million if they don’t have access to critical social protection coverage.”

      It is interesting to note, that there was zero interest and indeed complete silence from those in the fossil fuel industry and those who claim to represent it, for their own implicated culpability for many decades of child exploitation in mining operations for their own industry.

      Nothing, that was, until 20% of cobalt mining and lithium mining was found that of the around 60% of cobalt and lithium mined in the DRC. Approximately 20% of which comes from corrupt regimes that exploit children labour in small mines, that also have fossil fuel resources which are exploited by the fossil fuel industry. Strangely enough, the fossil fuel industry that did nothing to save children from being exploited for mining purposes at the time for many decades.

      Whereas 80% of cobalt and lithium, imported into the west and under more responsible less corrupt regimes in the east, is already sourced using modern mechanised mining techniques, not from child exploitation corruption. However, countries like China, India, North Korea, and several others, have no qualms about exploiting child labour. Which should influence those who clearly want to demonstrate and protest in public, should check all their own devices and convenient travel facilities, for the use of cobalt and lithium from such countries. Or would that be far too inconvenient to be contemplated?

      The problem is corruption worldwide, that is exploited by many industries, including the fossil fuel industry, and is profited from, by banking cartels and CEO’s thousands of miles away, just to make another buck or a pound, whilst ignoring the inconvenient truth of their exploitation.

      Child exploitation is being condemned and (slowly) banned by the very fossil fuel industry influenced corrupt regimes that ignored the child exploitation facts and profited from such inconvenient evidence for many decades in absolute silence of the facts. But of course the facts are simply too inconvenient to be mentioned, so dishonest debate strategy techniques and weaponised speculation is preferred by some. Whilst ignoring the inconvenient facts of culpability.

      However, the inconvenient facts of worldwide child exploitation for profit and greed and gain, are always better than the convenient selective memory, isn’t it. Perhaps the west should disinvest from exploitative technology, no matter from what source or reason? Then it would be quiet on the Internet, wouldn’t it? Or would that be another inconvenient fact too inconvenient to be mentioned? What that demonstrates, is that all child exploitation, and adult exploitation, must be stopped worldwide, even when its the most profitable industry on the entire planet.

      Money, it is said, is the root of all evil. Just who is innocent of that on the pages of Drill or Drop? No one?

      Let those, who are without sin, cast the first stone. Now that really would be inconvenient for just about everyone, wouldn’t it?

      T’will ever be thus.

      • Phil C . It appears most of your [edited by moderator] has nothing at all to do with the subject in question ie:- water re-injection at horse hill, i am led to believe that the environment agency have strict guidelines on the subject that have to be strictly adhered to,

        Are you telling us that you use absolutely nothing in your life that has nothing remotely connected to fossil fuels…….gas, electric, petrol, diesel, coal, wood, oil, plastic, medical equipment(plastic), medicines, dentistry,
        CLOTHING:- polyester, nylon, poly/cotton.and many other fibrous mixtures, nearly all clothing is made using fossil fuel power.
        All metal objects are produced by heat,
        FOOD :- processed and cooked by any heat source.

        So i would gratefully ask how do you live your life without using any of these things.

        Child labour was banned in this country over 100 years ago and i agree is despicable but we in this country cannot stop it happening in the very poor countries of the world where their own parents send them out to do this work in order to survive.

        Reality hurts

        • Hi Steve Horsman, on the contrary, I not only answered your question regarding radioactive toxic waste water reinjection, I showed you that there is no “treatment” planned for reinjected radioactive toxic waste water at Horse Hill at all, quite the opposite in fact, as evidenced by UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson. I’ll show the link I provided above again for you, in case you missed it. (See above: May 17, 2022 at 11:36 am)

          Water reinjection permitted at Horse Hill
          By Ruth Hayhurst on May 5, 2022

          “UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

          “[the permit] finally enables UKOG to return Horse Hill’s produced saline formation water back to the oil-bearing Portland rocks where it originated, lowering operating costs per barrel, removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint. The ability to reinject makes both environmental and economic good sense”.”

          There is nothing about toxic radioactive waste water treatment is there. In fact, the implication, is that “lowering operating costs per barrel, removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint.” So, there are no planned HGV tankers planned for movement off-site for whatever treatment is even possible for radioactive toxic waste water at all. No treatment is possible on site, since there are no facilities to do so. Not without a very strict licence and permission from all sorts of regulators, even if it’s possible to do so.
          In fact, as I noted previously, the quote indicates that there are even more potentially toxic chemicals to be added: “acid wash and solvent treatments to improve oil flows”

          Certainly there can be no sufficiently licenced permitted “treatment” of highly toxic radioactive waste water on-site, so it must have to transported off-site and returned onside for reinjection later too, for “treatment” to be carried out at all.

          So it appears that:

          That everyone does not know that the wastewater has to be “cleaned up” before it is re-injected, not even UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson? Certainly that would contradict UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s assurance that “lowering operating costs per barrel, removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint.” would therefore not be true at all would it.

          [Edited by moderator]

          • As for fossil fuel extraction, use and products, including macro and microplastics, pollution and the effects of climate destruction, the 1 in 5 deaths per year worldwide from fossil fuel pollution, the 36,000 recorded deaths from fossil fuel pollution in the UK alone, and poisoning of the environment, the destruction of ecologies with toxic fossil fuel pollution and macro and microplastics. There are some benefits from the monopolistic toxic fossil fuel industry, of course, but at what cost to the rest of humanity and the planet?

            For example, wars and conflicts are highly profitable to some. But the destructive consequences of war to humanity, locally and worldwide, as demonstrated only too recently. Is far too high a price to pay for the victims and the future of all life on the Earth. As the threats of nuclear war prove only too clearly.

            Do you then blame the people in Ukraine for being subject to a war in their own country and forced to defend themselves with weaponry whether they want it or not? Of course not. So nor should you attempt to blame people for using fossil fuel products when no other alternatives are allowed to become available for those who don’t want to participate should you.

            Perhaps the fossil fuel industry profiteering from war by hiking up their energy prices should be equally condemned as exploiting a situation that the victims have no choice in, and are already forced into very real poverty as a consequence? Not just waiting for August to impose a windfall tax on the fossil fuel industry and any other profiteering industry.

            The monopolistic all pervasive fossil fuel plastic industry has pushed all the viable alternatives out of the public availability by means of their monopolistic practices and financial influence. To blame people for being unable to avoid their consumption and use, is Freddily bizarre.

            However, the monopoly of fossil fuel extraction, use and production doesn’t excuse the deaths from fossil fuel pollution it creates, does it. Just because the fossil fuel industry poisons and pollutes the very air that everyone breathes, doesn’t mean those same people can be blamed for being unable to avoid breathing it, whether they like it or not. The same logic tenet applies to all the other poisonous and toxic effects and products created by the fossil fuel industry.

            If I were so disposed, I could equally blame you for promoting an industry that causes the deaths of 1 in 5 people worldwide per year, destroys the climate and has created the 6th major extinction level event of all flora and fauna in the Earths’ history if you wish. Which is the same weaponised logic you think is permissible to accuse others with, isn’t it.

            So nice try, but no cigar.

  6. I would suggest, that as similar is often suggested by those anti fossil fuel lot, that whilst child labour is being exploited to “drive” the renewable “revolution” then any part (a big part) of that revolution making use of such should stop immediately. However, I have posted about the subject for a long time on DoD and have yet to observe any real empathy in that respect.

    Those having problems finding the money to pay for their fuel currently must be blessed, as they appear to be avoiding evil. Nope. Not stated by one of those wicked Tories, either!

    • Phil C, firstly re-injection fluids are not classed as wastewater if they are reintroduced to the formation from where they originated ie:-the same all the “dangerous” elements are safely returned to their original ( not human created ) environment. If this was in any way harmful it would not be permitted, so no harm no foul.

      [Edited by moderator]

      • [Edited by moderator]

        All that fake nonsense, in order to attempt to cover up the fact that there is no treatment for waste water reinjections. Which was your incorrect statement in the first place. Just another of the diminishing list of fossil fuel extremists, perhaps. Your words:

        “firstly re-injection fluids are not classed as wastewater if they are reintroduced to the formation from where they originated ie:-the same all the “dangerous” elements are safely returned to their original ( not human created ) environment. If this was in any way harmful it would not be permitted, so no harm no foul.”

        Which directly contradicts your previous statement:

        “As everyone knows the wastewater has to be “cleaned up” before it is re-injected, what else do you expect but excessive disinformation from someone who is obviously opposed to oil/gas production.”

        Now you don’t want to call it “waste water” any more, and deny it requires unspecified “treatment”? Which was, again, your own statement on the matter. So now you attempt to redefine the term to avoid the contradictions in your own contradictory statements. And that there was never any unspecified “treatment” planned to be carried out at Horse Hill. As I proved to be the case. Bizarre. I can see why you should want to conceal that behind all that diversionary, empty rhetoric.

        [Edited by moderator]

        I was more interested in defending the people who are forced to endure the use of plastics and fossil fuel monopolistic pollution and products because there is nothing else available to them. That is not their fault. For you to attempt to blame them for it is bizarre to say the least.

        I also find it bizarre, that the fossil fuel protagonists, who attempt to defend the use and products of the fossil fuel industry outrageously, but seek to blame anyone who actually has no choice but to use the monopolistic products. [edited by moderator]

    • I see that you also declare your comments to be “extremist views”? But Hey. Confession is good for the soul.

      I don’t do as you say, I do as I do. The cigar was never yours anyway, Steve, you “blew” that as well. Though perhaps another polluting habit would only suit one who supports so very many more polluting habits, wouldn’t it. The irony of that is not without humour.

      The more inconvenient the facts, the more reality really hurts, doesn’t it.

      That’s your lot. You knew it. You blew it.

    • Viable alternatives have not been pushed out of (the) public availability.

      They are available. Perhaps many have more limitations than some would admit to, and be less viable than promoted, even when the limitations are very obvious? The same fake argument could be aimed at antibiotics and state they cause damage-which they do in certain situations-and therefore should be done away with, and it is someone else’s fault that alternatives have not been brought forward. Perhaps it is the job for the alternative sector to do that and convince people to use them? The fact that they have not, and it needs the antis to whinge about it, demonstrates the weakness of their case, especially when the large, monopolistic oil and gas companies are putting so much of the money they generate into alternatives, whilst the antis crowd fund to stop them!

      Yurts and leeches are available, but life expectancy will suffer dramatically.

      Monopolistic fossil fuel? So, why against a little bit of independence then-UKOG??

      (As an aside, I note the BBC have been censured for quoting inaccuracies as well, when they tried to imply that damage to life and limb from natural disasters was increasing. Nope, it is not-thanks to better planning, much of which involves the extensive use of fossil fuel to deal with such issues. Just ask those in the N.East of England who had to deal with such issues recently, and it will be seen how reality overcomes mantra. The BBC reported extensively on that, shame they didn’t remember what they had learned.)

    • Phil C,
      Wastewater from a site HAS to be cleaned up, I was responding to the drill or drop headline, which was inaccurate. it isn’t wastewater.
      This is where your rhetoric has failed. If fluids from the wellbore are re-injected back into the same formation from where they came from it is definitely not classed as wastewater and does not need cleaning up.
      this information is from the government website on the subject so it would be very helpful if drill or drop and yourself got the facts right in the first instant so as to avoid any disagreements from the start.
      Also noeone is “forced” to use any products that they do not want to, we still have freedom of choice in this country but if the ” greens ” were in charge that would be removed instantly.

      The post saying ” extreme views” was a correction of missing dia!ogue from my previous post and was referring to you, as you well know

      There is nothing in the slightest ” fake ” in my posts, take a look on the government website on the subject of re-injection and you will see for yourself… fluids are not wastewater they are re-injection fluids and do not need cleaning up if they are returned to their original location ie:- 1000’s of feet below ground, but they do if they are disposed of elsewhere and that dear chap is the reason UKOG didn’t mention it……they didn’t have to

      • No Steve Horsman. That is completely wrong. So now it’s my fault for exposing your contradictory statements? Or its Drill or Drop’s fault? Or, perish the thought, maybe it’s UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s fault for not being so contradictory as yourself? Is there anyone else you would like to blame for your own mistakes? Yourself maybe? Oh, but of course….. that could never be allowed….. could it?

        Meanwhile, back in the Real World, with inflation up to 9% and ordinary everyday people are unable to pay excessively hiked up energy prices and cannot afford to heat and light their homes and feed themselves and their children at the same time. While your “hero to zero” fossil fuel industry wallows in vast excessive collective $2trillion unearned profits and refuse to accept the inevitability of a windfall tax to even slightly level up the poverty causing damage to ordinary working people.

        And all you can do, is to whinge and moan about your own private irrelevant contradictory statements that are of no import whatsoever to anyone but yourself. Typical.

        This is the last time I will waste my time on this boring, desperate nonsense to redeem whichever one or other of your contradictory statements you deem to be the real one. If indeed either one is even correct.

        I will explain the inconvenient facts for you here yet again, but this is the last time:

        Water reinjection permitted at Horse Hill

        “The changes to the permit allow:

        pumping of formation and surface water into two reinjection wells
        drilling and 90-day testing of four new boreholes and associated side-tracks
        oil production from the new wells
        burning of waste gas up to 10 tonnes per day during production
        acid wash and solvent treatments to improve oil flows

        In a statement today, UKOG said it would now go ahead with plans to convert the Horse Hill-2z well (HH-2z) into a water re-injector during 2022. The company also has permission to drill a second reinjection well.

        UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

        “[the permit] finally enables UKOG to return Horse Hill’s produced saline formation water back to the oil-bearing Portland rocks where it originated, lowering operating costs per barrel, removing HGV tankers from congested roads and reducing the field’s overall carbon footprint. The ability to reinject makes both environmental and economic good sense”.”

        No mention of reinjected radioactive toxic wastewater treatment is indicated at all in any of that reported statement.

        Continued next post:

        • Continued from previous post:

          You attempt to excuse yourself from your own contradictory statements, yet again. So perhaps it would be better to admit, that one, or the other, or both of your own contradictory statements are incorrect, and move on, rather than attempting to redeem your own comments with extraneous excuses when your own statements say nothing of the sort.

          The question is very simple. Which one, or neither, of your own contradictory statements are the real one(s)? One, the other, or neither? The rest is irrelevant.

          Your words are contradictory:

          “As everyone knows the wastewater has to be “cleaned up” before it is re-injected, what else do you expect but excessive disinformation from someone who is obviously opposed to oil/gas production.”


          “firstly re-injection fluids are not classed as wastewater if they are reintroduced to the formation from where they originated ie:-the same all the “dangerous” elements are safely returned to their original ( not human created ) environment. If this was in any way harmful it would not be permitted, so no harm no foul.”

          There is nothing about reinjected toxic radioactive waste water “treatment”, if even such a “treatment” is possible, there. In fact, there are more toxic chemicals to be added, so the result is far from :

          “acid wash and solvent treatments to improve oil flows”

          Quod erat demonstrandum in your own and UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson’s words.

          Sorry to have to keep correcting you, Steve Horsman. But when you deny your own words, it tends to discredit anything else you say. You knew it. You blew it.

          If you want to blame UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson or Drill or Drop to attempt to explain your own contradictory statements to them. Then please do so. Whichever contradictory statement you choose to be imposed, however, is down to you.

          But don’t come running to me to attempt to wriggle out of your own contradictory statements. When real people are suffering very real poverty right now. Not to be delayed until next month. Not until August. Not until next year. Right here and right now. Try to concern yourself with that truth.

          Best of luck with all of that. I’m sure your own contradictory “excessive disinformation” and “extremist views” statements (your own words) will be received with precisely the same exposure of your own contradictory statements and dispensed with as being irrelevant to the Real World poverty.

          This is the last time I will expose your contradictory statements with the inconvenient truth. You can take it as read from now on.

          You know it. You blow it.

          Have a nice day.

      • Steve

        I see that you are being accused of contradictory statements. I wouldn’t worry. There are those that post contradictory statements and then have their own hidden away. You may be elevated to that position one day.

        If yours were contradictory, that is okay, because they were also in the past so should not be considered, or so I have been informed.

        I know it would not be the way Courts work, but anti Courts have different rules. Perhaps difficult to understand when it has been insisted that facts can only be facts if they happened in the past, but understanding has never been that vital within the comment section.

        Confused? Don’t be, it is what it takes to make things add up. And, that is even before the arithmetic starts! Which, is quite a rare event, so don’t worry about that either.

        Must leave you to work it all out, now, as I have to prepare for an afternoon of grandson. Supposed to keep me young, but my body will tell me different tomorrow, I can assure you.

    • Phil C.
      Now you can explain which of my views have proven to be extremist, you are the one who has constantly gone on about all the worlds problems in our conversations making accusations [edited by moderator]on things that have nothing at all to do with the subject in question ie:-returning produced formation fluids back to the source [edited by moderator]

      As for me being wrong, consider this:- I responded to the headline from drill or drop which was “Further approval of wastewater re-injection at Horse hill”, And your heavy criticism of UKOG for not mentioning anything about it being treated, my reply was “everyone knows wastewater has to be cleaned up” (which it has to be by law). I unfortunately believed both the headline and your complaint to be true.
      On visiting the government website i found both to be untrue ( my fault for believing both of you) as i read that if the fluids are returned to the source after passing through a seperator they are not classed as wastewater at all as they are piped immediately back to the formation layers and have no contact with the outside world at all.

      So no sir, none of my comments are fake, or wrong and I am not contradicting myself….I am contradicting Drill or Drop for their incorrect headline and you for your incorrect attack on UNIT’s statement.

      Not the right room for an argument,
      But the right room for a balanced accurate discussion.

      Unfortunately you seem to be in the wrong room.

      By the way the Parrot is dead, deceased, gone to meet it’s maker……much like your argument,
      You also have a good evening.

  7. Hi Paul:

    Upholding a complaint is not censuring (disapproving)??? I would suggest it is self censuring, but still censuring. Just like when the BBC reported that Dyson had some connection to the Tories, and then (quietly) apologized later, only after complaints had been made, because he didn’t.

    You may wish to play semantics about appearance, I try and post about the reality.

    An incorrect statement that was factually incorrect was made. Complaints were received. The complaints were upheld. To me, that is reality.

    So, where are my facts incorrect or inaccurate? Are you suggesting that the BBC complaints unit does not disapprove incorrect statements? Maybe they are guilty of not doing so often, but not in this case, and as a funder of the BBC I would hope they do disapprove of incorrect statements, even on their own platform.

    For those interested in reality, there are references to life and limb impacts from natural disasters over recorded time, which appeared to evade Wild Weather. Common sense should also have directed some research towards that to avoid complaints. After all, the media are often showing such events to the public which feature lots of journalists who arrive very quickly, (how?)but also more practical assistance which arrives very quickly (how?) and somehow is expected to make a difference, and does, whilst electricity supplies are usually trashed, as in the N.East of England a while ago (how?).
    A lot of fossil fuel, saving a lot of lives and limbs, and providing comfort and then rebuilding is the answer. Now, that may be inconvenient to some Paul who need to distort reality, but I do not care about them, I care about the ones who need the help and usually get it. Well done those who provide the help, and no need to feel guilty about doing so.

    • Martin, as all i have posted is factual the accusations are irrelevant to me but thanks for your concerns, i have read many of your posts and always find them to be your honest and fair view with no agenda.

      [Edited by moderator]

  8. Phil C
    I don’t care if you don’t reply as it only gives you an opportunity for your extremist views to be excercised.

    Have you had a look on the government website on the subject of re-injection, no you haven’t, why? Because it proves you are wrong and you would hate that wouldn’t you.
    You seem to be more concerned about narrative than the subject in question?

    If you are so concerned about absolute correctness look on the government website, then you will be enlightened by the true facts of the matter, repeating the RNS from UKOG only goes to show how wrong you are on re-injection.

    Once more for you from the government agency who oversee the oil and gas industry….re-injection fluids are not wastewater if they are returned to the formation from where they were originally extracted.
    The “Horse hill produced saline formation water” Imentioned in the UKOG statement is the very same water that you say isn’t mentioned at all for ” treatment “, once again it isn’t mentioned “for treatment” because it doesn’t have to be treated. FACT.

    So in conclusion, if you have no desire to continue with your Monty Pythonesque replies with similarities to the ” Spanish Inquisition ” sketch that’s fine by me.

    Don’t forget to read the governing bodies directive on re-injection, it will help you with your anxiety.

    • I’m sure you are welcome to your opinion Steve, if that is what you want to exercise your extremist views, that is.

      As for Monty Python, watch this:

      Argument Clinic – Monty Python – The Secret Policeman’s Balls

      Do you want the abuse? Or the argument? The five-minute argument? Or the full half hour?

      Have a nice afternoon.

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