Any commercial gas production at West Newton in East Yorkshire is about four years away, companies behind the plans revealed this morning.
Shares in Union Jack Oil and Reabold Resources fell on the news.
Formal statements from the companies and the operator, Rathlin Energy, follow an article by DrillOrDrop five days ago.
We reported that Rathlin Energy had told residents it was switching the target hydrocarbon at West Newton back to gas, after pursuing oil for three years. The company reportedly said that any new drilling would not start for some time.
The move from oil to gas would mean fewer tanker visits to the sites, Rathlin said.
Today’s statements confirmed:
“Commercial production from West Newton could start as early as 2026, provided regulatory approvals are expedited and supply chain delays con be managed.”
The statements also said future drilling at West Newton would use oil-based muds.
Previous drilling with water-based muds had caused wellbore damage, the statements said. Problems were later compounded by the use of dilute acid during the completion programme.
DrillOrDrop reported in August 2021 on formation damage on the West Newton-B well.
The statements said an application had been made to the Environment Agency for the use of oil-based muds.
It also said the “anticipated recoverable gas resource at West Newton will have the potential to meet the daily gas demands of over 380,000 homes in the UK for many years to come.”
The statements did not define what was meant by “many years to come”.
The partners are looking at the best orientation for a horizontal well that may be drilled from West Newton-B or nearby West Newton-A, the statements also said.
Modelling had been carried out on 1.5km wells running horizontally through the Kirkham Abbey formation. Horizontal wells were more likely to encounter “significant sections of the reservoir with open natural fractures”, which would increase production, the statements said.
The partner companies are also looking at the availability of drilling rigs that can drill a 1.5km horizontal well, the statements added. Items such as steel casing for the well had been ordered.
A report on West Newton and other prospects in licence area PEDL183 is expected next week.
The Union Jack Oil share price dropped more than 15% to 26.25p, while Reabold Resources fell more than 20% to 0.25p. At the time of writing, Union Jack Oil was down 6.4% and Reabold Resources down more than 14%.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Another bodge onshore job 😂
Work in Progress, Rome wasn’t built in a day!
So Rathlin started their interest in East Yorkshire over 10 years ago and we might see commercial production of gas ( or will it be oil – they keep dithering) in 4 years time.
Has anyone told Rees-Mogg or the rest of the delusional team who believe that their dash of gas will address the energy crisis in the context of accelerating climate change?
Yes, Jon, they have. Which is why Moggy and his team have been talking about speeding up the whole process. Goodness, politicians who want progress not to be held up by process. Now, there’s a novelty.
Rees Mogg is, predictably, talking about speeding up the whole planning process. That would mean making fracking an NSIP as the fracking industry has been calling for all along.. That means any public opposition would be overridden by the Secretary of State, in this case, Rees Mogg himself. There we have it. An admission that Liz Truss’s very definite assurance that fracking would only go ahead with community consent was a barefaced lie. In other words, she has gained the leadership by false pretences.
Not sure your train of thought is the actual train of events that will happen, Pauline. It may, or equally it may not. So, I don’t believe we have anything except a proposal that planning processes should be speeded up. There are many ways of doing that. Cutting out all the comfort breaks in the meetings may concentrate minds to get things done!
If you believe Truss gained the leadership on anything she had to say about fracking, you may believe that Starmer gained it by the pledges he made. Whatever happened to them?
The fracking industry have already got their way with the lifting of the moratorium despite the BGS Report, commissioned by the government themselves, failing to provide the compelling scientific evidence that seismic events caused by fracking and their strength could be reliably predicted, The Tory 2019 manifesto, on which they won the election, pledged that the moratorium would stay in place unless and until these conditions were met. Truss, confessed climate change sceptic Rees Mogg and their backers in the ERG have blatantly breached this manifesto pledge. It’s been widely reported that the industry say they cannot operate in this country unless the TLS level is raised and the planning system is speeded up . I cannot see why Truss and her colleagues would stir up all the anger, not only in the public but also many of her own MPS unless she intended to allow the frackers their other demands without which they have no hope of returning.
The Tories won the 2019 election on getting Brexit Done, Pauline. Whether you like it or not that is what they won on. Since then, there has been a pandemic and a war in Ukraine not foreseen in anyone’s manifesto in 2019. I know it is common for opposition politicians to quote what was in a manifesto as set in stone, but it is an ambition, other things being equal.
Seismic events cannot be predicted with geothermal, yet geothermal is okay. The same standard should apply to all, maybe with some tweaks for local building density.
The planning system does need speeding up. It is too slow and not fit for purpose. I just happen to believe that should be across the board rather than selective.
The Tories may well have won the 2019 election on getting Brexit done but why include the moratorium in the manifesto on fracking at all if they had no intention of delivering on their promise? They could have imposed the moratorium after the 2.9ML event at PNR without including it in the manifesto. The government are well aware that fracking will have no beneficial effect on energy bills or energy security, Numerous scientists, academics and even the founder of Cuadrilla have confirmed that. Indeed even Kwasi Kwarteng himself said just that recently, which renders the war in Ukraine and the pandemic irrelevant.
Except Pauline you have just quoted others, that is now incorrect information! So, yes, you are consistent that you feel as situations change all other things stay the same, but it really is a silly notion and you do yourself no favours joining that club. Indeed, your attempt just demolishes the other notion that scientists and academics are so correct all of the time.
Energy bills would be reduced for those directly impacted by fracking. That is being proposed. If some are unaware of that they need some education-and the fracking players are willing to provide that too. I can quote a figure of £811 off an annual bill, per household, for starters, but that is already out of date.
Then there is a share of total revenues and £100k for local communities to spend as they like. And probably a contribution into a windfall tax if prices are such that continues, to spread the benefit wider.
Yes, all dependent upon producing gas from the sites, but for those who wish to campaign against that I would suggest they do need to be a bit more aware that as there will be financial benefit offered then denying that is happening may not be the best approach to convert those who have been offered that financial benefit.
MARTIN ,
25% of your Gas bill for those effected by Fracking.
Will those same people be FAST TRACKED when it comes to getting treatment for CANCER and other deadly Fracking related health issues ???????.
Will those same people be compensated for the sharp drop in the value of their homes ??????
Will the sane people be compensated for the increase in premiums for buildings insurance and the difficulty in obtaining best rate mortgages for their homes in Fracking areas.
Will the same people be able to look their children in the eyes as they knowingly allow the climate to be destroyed with dangerous Fracking related methane emissions ???????
AND MARTIN , PLEASE DON’T FORGET
We’d all like to hear your thoughts on this.
Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
Just take a look at the people putting their names to this letter .
Ahh, the logarithm pedlar is bought into life!
Well, Jack, it would appear that 53% when asked, who may have something to do with the decision-unlike you or me- were quite inclined towards the concept of having money knocked off their energy bills. Perhaps, Jack, they are a bit more astute at looking at all aspects, have been educated about the dangers of being indoctrinated by a logarithm which may just continue to feed them more and more of a one- trick pony stream, or maybe they are just stupid as you would like to suggest. However, whichever, if there are indeed 53% of them even before the full package of financial benefits/inducements/bribes have been clarified, then it would appear your one trick pony has already fallen at the first hurdle. Perhaps that pony with its rather limited diet just doesn’t have the legs?
Wave money around Jack on the other side of a busy road, and many will find a way to get across to get some. More if they desperately need the money. Maybe 53%, maybe more.
SORRY MARTIN , let JACK correct you on that one .
73 % are AGAINST Fracking in the UK
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/poll-fracking-in-the-uk-yes-or-no/
OH AND MARTIN ,
Here is a September 2022 , YouGov opinion Poll on Fracking.
TAKE NOTE ..
Support for Fracking 28%
Opposition to Fracking 47%
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/uk-fracking-public-support-opinion-polls-explained-government-lifts-ban-3852999
Oh, and Jack, how many more straws?
How many more times will you contradict Ruth?
Here, Jack, in the UK, you may be unfamiliar with the fact that a survey has been conducted with those who may be the decision makers, local to potential sites, taking on board a potential package of financial support/bribe/whatever.
Now, I do understand that puts you at a disadvantage Jack, but I am not concerned about that. Or it may be you are aware of it and just cannot get off your one trick pony. Either way Jack, it simply demonstrates your inability to keep up with reality. You are really showing those other 47% yet to be persuaded, the awareness and knowledge of those against the proposition! LOL. A one trick pony or a Trojan Horse.
Maybe not a good idea to plonk out there 73% AND 47%! Did you run out of darts?
OH YEAH , SURE MARTIN ,
People in close proximity to Fracking sites are choosing to greatly increase their risk of Cancer and other serious Fracking related illnesses.
They are choosing to see their homes plumit in value
They are choosing to destroy the environment for their children and grandchildren .
All for 25% of their GAS BILLS , don’t make me laugh .
Sure MARTIN Sure .
MARTIN , my evidence clearly shows that Fracking is as popular as a HOLE IN THE HEAD .
MARTIN are you pretending you can’t see this ????????
We’d all like to hear your thoughts and OPINIONS.
Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
Just take a look at the people putting their names to this letter .
No evidence from you at all Jack regarding individual’s opinions since they have been offered potential help with their energy bills, to take that into account within their decision. You simply deny they exist, although Ruth has also referenced them. Yet, you previously tried to suggest you were happy for locals to take the decision! Then the 53%, then your denial.
So, it does not show anything of the sort, Jack. You obviously have no clue that within any polling then the basis of the actual proposition being presented is rather key! “Should foxes be culled?” -“Nope” state the large numbers. “Mr. Chicken Farmers, should foxes in your patch that have made your enterprises hard to maintain, be culled?”-” Course they bl***well should” comes the answer. Someone would really need to be “a lad with little education”, (as referenced on the Internet, so it must be true!), to mix up the two.
But keep on with the fake news. It may convince some, but too few to make a difference and for the majority of the 47% the likelihood is that it will just double down on the previous fake news you have already delivered that anyone who can work their search engine for themselves can identify. Yours seems to under the control of an algorithm. Most are not.
MARTIN ,
Is that the very best you can do offer , an ” OPINION ” backed up with usual zero evidence ???????
On both September 2022 Fracking Polls that JACK has shown you evidence off , you’ve ignored both results…. The fact of the matter is , the majority do NOT want Fracking and for any undecided , well let’s face it old chap , ALL of them will be STRONGLY against it when they learn about the dangers.
It’s quite revealing , your lack of compassion and concern for the health and safety UK residents MARTIN , but be rest assured the readers now will be fully aware of that fact .
OH MARTIN , WHAT ABOUT THIS ???????
Will you still be pretending you’ve not seen it ??????
Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
Just take a look at the people putting their names to this letter .
Your thoughts please, We ALL need to see your response.
Just your opinion backed up by no facts, Jack, that are relevant to the proposition being proposed.
53% not my opinion, but a poll conducted and the results declared and confirmed by DoD.
So, once more Jack you post a nonsense that is totally inaccurate. Well done. Readers are certainly aware of that Jack, yet you wish, or have to, continue with it. So be it, but don’t expect any sympathy when you whinge about being ignored. You only lose it once Jack, and it doesn’t come back.
My thoughts?
Some people put their names to nonsense, others still write nonsense and are unwilling to be associated with it. Can’t say I have any preference for either version. Same in many areas. Is it any different that a named ex footballer, an “expert”, quotes some club will sign someone they never will, or an unnamed “source”? It still remains nonsense, and none of them are held to account.
Equally, not sure whether I prefer the scientists who stated growing cereal to supplement vehicle fuel would reduce carbon footprints, or those that said that is incorrect. I just saw the consequences to the cost of food globally that such silliness produced and decided for myself it was a very stupid move. Now, with cereal production hampered by a war within a major production area for cereals to go for export, the obvious is becoming obvious to more people, but the reality could have been observed long before that.
MARTIN
HERE ARE THE FACTS
73 % are AGAINST Fracking in the UK
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/poll-fracking-in-the-uk-yes-or-no/
Here is a September 2022 , ” YouGov “opinion Poll on Fracking.
TAKE NOTE ..
Support for Fracking 28%
Opposition to Fracking 47%
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/uk-fracking-public-support-opinion-polls-explained-government-lifts-ban-3852999
Is that simple enough for you to understand ????????
NOBODY wants to increase their risks of getting CANCER or other serious Fracking related health issues,. WHY WOULD THEY ???????
NOBODY wants to see their homes plumit in value
NOBODY with a conscience would want to destroy the environment/climate for their children
Why don’t you understand these basic things MARTIN ??????
I see your still pretending you’ve not seen this MARTIN 🤣🤣
Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
Just take a look at the people putting their names to this letter .
The above is what you call evidence , unlike you MARTIN who only ever gives an ” OPINION ” backed up with zero evidence…… JACK always provides credible, trustworthy ” links ” from reputable people/organizations
So, the algorithm just repeats the already debunked nonsense. That is the nature of the technique. Needs some work, but it is obviously a cheap version, even though it appears to be operating 24/7. Also claiming I had not seen something that I had only just replied to, after much begging for me to do so and previous whinging about being ignored! A very cheap version. It would seem unable to update to external information and just automatically churns out some Emojis to compensate.
Meanwhile, DoD remains not being a credible source, according to “Jack”. Sorry Ruth. But, in the past, neither was the Times, so consistent in approach, but in reality, just formulaic nonsense.
Therefor there seems to be more than a bit of Trojan Horse entered into the workings.
And I still recall a past comment about the “sophisticated” use of the Internet by the antis! Still waiting.
MARTIN
You have ” DEBUNKED ” nothing.
ALL THE READERS can see that.
What’s the matter with you old chap ???????? How come you can’t grasp that simple thing , ALL THE READERS can see my comments are supported with evidence.
Do you know what the word ” evidence ” means ???????
They can also see that ALL of what you say is ONLY ever your ” OPINION ” Anything that you ever say is NEVER backed up with any evidence.
My advice to you is to quit whilst your not to far behind …. People will be laughing 🤣🤣 at your comments . Again I must remind you , ALL the readers can clearly see with their OWN EYES the truth of the matter .
TAKE NOTE……The majority of people in the UK do NOT want Fracking…………FACT
Readers of the forum, shall we see how many times it takes MARTIN to acknowledge this serious warning about the dangers of Fracking.
What do you think forum members , will I have to ” cut and paste ” the same thing 15 , 20 , 25 , 30 times before MARTIN acknowledges the serious warnings made within the supplied LINK ?????????????
Fracking DANGERS , a letter from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL ( BMJ )
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr