Balcombe residents will be at the High Court in London next month for their legal challenge to the government go-ahead for oil testing in their village.
In February 2023, the communities’ secretary, Michael Gove, overturned West Sussex County Council’s unanimous refusal of the one-year test of the Balcombe oil well.
But last month, Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association (FFBRA) was granted permission for a statutory review of the minister’s decision.
The case will be heard over two days at the Royal Courts of Justice from 19-20 July 2023.
The government’s decision, following an appeal by Angus Energy, allows the company to carry out the well test until February 2026.
The residents’ challenge is the latest stage in more than 10 years of opposition to the Balcombe well site.
There were near-daily protests when the well was drilled by Cuadrilla in 2013.
Residents are concerned that the test would:
- Detract from the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
- Be hazardous to the health of local people, animals and wildlife
- Involve flaring of gases from the well 24 hours a day, seven days a week, within 350m of homes
- See heavy lorries pass the village school
- Risk pollution to the River Ouse and Ardingly reservoir
- Increase reliance on fossil fuels at a time of a climate emergency
FFBRA has raised £22,000 of the £35,000 needed to fight the legal challenge.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Hi Ruth Thanks for your write up. But “the residents will argue in court” is wrong. You have quoted the residents concerns. The arguments that will be heard in court are the the six points at the end of the press release. Best wishes Sue
Thanks Sue. I’ll make that clear. Best wishes, Ruth
If I was a local resident I would prefer this oil exploration site than maybe having the site converted into barracks as temporary housing for the next thousand fit young males arriving from Calais fleeing good knows what .
TONY THOMPSON
As the lesser of two evils ,
YES , if I had to make a choice , I too would opt for a nodding donkey in my back yard rather than the Hpme Office converting my local fields in to an army barracks style accommodation centre to house a thousand plus young , physically fit asylsm seeking males .
Today on GB News , asylsm seekers in a luxurious part of London are protesting at the accommodation conditions at thier hotel .
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/06/02/migrants-stage-pavement-protest-outside-london-hotel/
Luckily for them , they don’t need to worry about the rising cost of Gas and Electricity.
TONY THOMPSON,
” BUT ” on this occasion, they’re NOT threatening to use the land to house asylam seekers , so what you say is none applicable.
People of Balcombe don’t want this project to go ahead for a whole host of reasons, such as noise , pollution, environmental destruction and climate change to name but a few .
Jack – the article notes that they still need another £13,000 to help them lose this case. Perhaps you can make a donation?
People of Balcombe don’t want this project to go ahead because it is in Balcombe…..
But they use gas, of which a significant amount is now fracked US shale gas. Or is Balcombe off grid?
PAUL TRESTO ,
The Russia- Ukraine WAR has has been a ” golden ticket ” for the US Fracking industry which prior to the war was on its knees , riddled with hundreds of billions of debt and bankruptcies .
What a difference a WAR makes , knock out your competition with sanctions . Then you can move in and unload your COSTLY shale oil and gas .
Give the people of Balcombe a choice and I’m sure they’d choose not to burn US shale gas , with its massive Carbon footprint . Perish the thought, they may even choose to burn Russian Gas piped in through Europe.
Sadly I’m not in a position to donate £13k to any cause and yes they may lose the case even if they had the money , as these Oil companies have very deep pockets when it comes to fighting their corner .
Still if the people of Balcombe don’t want this project in their backyard , they still have the right to make a legal challenge , win or lose .
If all the low hanging fruit , easy to get oil and gas has gone and we now have to resort to drilling in unpopular places , peoples backyards , villages and places of special interest and beauty .Then maybe it’s time to start looking at greener sources of energy as these legal challenges will only intensify with each application.
JACK
What a load of nonsense!
Why was gas peaking at $7 in USA-who then drilled some more to bring the price down-whilst in Europe it was $47??? I know at the time you were busy dishing out the one world market twaddle, but now it has been shown that was incorrect perhaps better to consider the relative differences?
Drilling in unpopular places? Oh yes, instead we could cover those places with solar farms and wind turbines!
These oil companies do NOT have very deep pockets-you need to research that one. I have seen time after time on this platform reference to legal action against companies to attempt to damage them as they do not have very deep pockets.
The US fracking industry was not on it’s knees before the war in Ukraine. The price of oil was very similar to what it is today, whilst gas did peak and has subsequently levelled back. As is usual in USA, some companies do very well in an industry, others don’t. Those that do, make a lot of money, those that don’t lose money. It is the same in all sectors, just look at American Pharma as another example. You tried to make your point with Chesapeake Energy. You could have not chosen a worse example, and if you had done some basic research you would have found the reason for their difficulty in 2020. But, as usual you didn’t. You have played that hand Jack. You have shown it is a busted flush. Waffling on about the team that scored one goal without even mentioning the other team scored six is hardly the way to review the game. Going on about the chaff doesn’t remove the corn, Jack.
The low hanging fruit is indeed the case on shore UK. It is not elsewhere in the world. However, environmentally it still makes sense to gather the high fruit in UK as the low hanging fruit from elsewhere often have issues-that you are keen to point out when it suits.
Still see you are more supportive of Putin! Not going to happen, Jack, however much you keep on about it. Perhaps if you don’t like the reaction you might start to consider what caused the reaction? The reaction could have been easily avoided. Next you will be trying to claim Pearl Harbour benefited the American ship building industry, so they should be criticized.
Back to Balcombe. Wasn’t it yourself who recently stated that people shouldn’t be allowed to spend money just because that had it? (Or not, in this case.) Not a lot of consistency to your posts. I suspect it won’t be long before it emerges there are also exceptions to your population control bit. Then “we” will have ended up with your Utopia, except it would look remarkably like N. Korea.
I don’t want projects in my backyard to go ahead, Jack, but they will as someone decides that UDI is not an option, and same applies to West Sussex. Their money (perhaps) to lose but if they are no more accurate with presenting the facts than with presenting their organization title, it is a real waste of money to all but the legal profession.
I seem to remember another post of yours today Jack where you were pontificating that people should not be allowed to waste money simply because they had money to waste! Mind you, your other offerings about controlling population growth may sort out the school “issue” in Balcombe.
Does appear to be a bit of reluctance to put money where the mouths are in Balcombe.
Maybe the FF bit of misrepresentation is putting a few off?
The fact that a rural village has raised £22,000 during a cost of living crisis shows exactly the opposite…. that people do care. It may be peanuts to you and your oil&gas profiteering friends but it’s a massive commitment from local people. Of course, communities shouldn’t have to struggle to finance justice – they should be allowed to say “no” through their democratically elected bodies, and that be the end of it. Instead those with deep pockets just keep forcing themselves on communities where they are not wanted. And, PLEASE, don’t pretend they do it for some notion of energy security and lower UK energy prices – nobody’s buying that myth! They do it for PROFIT.
OMG, they do it for PROFIT! Just like OPEC+ have just CUT output to make a profit.
Just like the landowners who wouldn’t have wind turbines on their land until they were guaranteed £100k+ per year PROFIT per turbine, whether the electricity was required or not. Cash for Ash-the clue is within the name Alex. Home owners who signed up to solar panels, then found they couldn’t sell their homes as they had leased their roofs away. They didn’t profit, but someone did. What about all those wood burners sold to city dwellers-for profit! How about cereals being grown to convert to biofuel, where the motorist pays more so someone profits, and then finds the visit to the Supermarket is more expensive as the first profit causes a shortage for other uses. Then, the £200B required in UK for new nuclear, that will not be built unless the companies make a PROFIT out of the pockets of the energy bill payers. Then, the kids in DRC handling a known carcinogen so someone can make a PROFIT. Who has just been re-elected as the world’s richest person-Elon Musk!
I note the way this subject attracts the lefties, however the default of PROFIT is hardly a strong argument as renewables are littered with obscene deals to manufacture profit. The long overdue revue into Drax may be another one-maybe if it had been converted to gas then £6B taxpayer support would not have been required in “green” subsidy to allow a profit, as it reports an 84% earnings hike.
Communities do not enjoy UDI, especially where mineral resources are concerned. That has never been the case in the UK.
From “local people”? Maybe, maybe not. There are indeed some rich people in West Sussex, there is also the “crowd” elsewhere.