Oil extraction is to resume at the Avington field in the South Downs National Park after a break of more than five years.
The announcement was made today in a statement by UK Oil & Gas (UKOG), which has a 5% stake in the field.
The South Downs National Park Authority refused planning permission in June 2020 for five more years of operation at Avington.
Planners said the field, north east of Winchester, in Hampshire, would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development. They also said the operator, IGas, had failed to adequately assess the impact on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities.
But a planning inspector overturned the decision in December 2021 after an appeal. He ruled that the extension would not compromise the reasons for the designation of the national park. He also said the proposal would have an acceptable environmental impact.
The Avington field last reported oil production volumes in December 2017. The first official monthly production figure was recorded in January 2009.
Between those dates, total oil production was reported to be 36,378m3 or 30,691 tonnes, nearly 229,000 barrels. The average extraction rate when the field was producing was 336 barrels a day.
Previous oil extraction at Avington was often accompanied by large volumes of produced or formation water. At times, the water cut (the proportion of water in total liquid produced) was more than 90%.
UKOG’s website said the field has a total of five wells and sidetracks. Oil and produced water was previously taken by tanker to the nearby Stockbridge field, also in Hampshire.
UKOG said today there was an estimated 59 million barrels of oil in place at Avington.
It said the operator, recently renamed Star Energy, would carry out a workover of the Avington-3z well. This was the field’s best performer, accounting for 81% of the produced oil, UKOG said. It added:
“Given the 5-year shut-in period, which potentially has permitted reservoir pressure around the well to build up, some element of “flush” production (i.e., higher than the flow rate prior to shut-in) is expected upon production restart.”
Analysis of Avington’s production data shows that the volume of oil was below 500m3 for all but seven of the 172 months. In July 2015, the field more than trebled the average daily production rate before returning to normal levels in the following month.
DRILL OR DROP? 
“An acceptable environmental impact”, acceptable to whom?
Precisely Paula C, ‘acceptable to whom’. Examine claims of similar ‘planning inspectors’ announcements where they contravene the majority council planners and public vote as if they have some ‘special authority’ and then the same vague non-specific language emerges.
Whereas ‘The South Downs National Park Authority refused planning permission in June 2020 for five more years of operation at Avington.’
‘Planners [plural, not singular] said the field, north east of Winchester, in Hampshire, would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development. They also said the operator, IGas, had failed to adequately assess the impact on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities.’
‘But ‘a’ planning inspector overturned the decision in December 2021 after an appeal. He ruled that the extension would not compromise the reasons for the designation of the national park. He also said the proposal would have an acceptable environmental impact.’
Whereas the facts prove that the proposals referred to by UK Oil & Gas (UKOG), regarding Star Energy Group plc’ proposals, ‘would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development
Whereas the facts prove that the proposals of UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) ‘would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development.’There ought to be a public consultation to establish the facts of the situation, since the evident contravention between the two statements cannot both be true.
A fully available public consultation would therefore be necessary to settle the issues involved regarding the impact upon the National Park, one way or the other. Then the apparently ‘singular announcement’ by one ‘planner’, would therefore be examined by everyone involved in close detail for all to see. Rather than throw all the protections of our National Parks to the gathering wolves.
[Text edited at poster’s request]
Far less than the solar farms in the same area, Paula, so acceptable to me.
This is an existing facility. The only extra impact is that it might actually start working again. Things do actually have to “work” even in National Parks. Perhaps no farms with their grain driers, which usually use what fuel?? Only horses to cultivate the fields?? There is a nice Sustainability Centre in the South Downs National Park near to Winchester, and I note they do actually integrate visits to local farms for the school children who visit, to see what is required to produce the food they eat.
Last time I spoke with my friends who live in Winchester, I would suggest that getting excited about local planners making the best decisions for the locals is not always shown on the ground! They report they attended a two day Appeal hearing about a planning matter, where the local planning officer was heard whispering to the local legal officer, after 30minutes, “this one will be overturned” as they were immediately shown not to have given enough weight to one critical aspect. (It was overturned.) Local “democracy” can be great, it can also be the opposite. There are thousands of local planning decisions overturned every year. There are usually pretty good reasons why they are. There are a lot more that are not, and some of those should be which could stop houses being built upon flood plains. Perhaps more decisions should actually be referred to Appeal? Except, that is expensive to the taxpayer, and some Councils eventually get a push back from locals who note how much money is being spent locally on paying costs from Appeals!
What might interest YYLee, is the Winchester hospital! One of those due to be replaced. Winchester run by the Lib Dems, MP a Tory who is also I recall a member of the Health Select Committee, then the local planners. Where will the new hospital end up, I wonder? Last I heard, likely to be on the same site, although most locals would state the site is not suitable for a rebuild. Whatever the final outcome, I would suggest it will please very few-apart from the builders who will consume considerable quantities of oil to do so!
And to be factually correct.
‘’ Whereas the facts prove that the proposals of IGAS ‘would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development’’
UKOG are not the operator, so it would not be there proposal submitted to the planners
To be factually correct, perhaps it would have been more educational to have read the text above, which clearly states – ‘It said the operator, recently renamed to Star Energy, would carry out a workover of the Avington-3z well.’
At the time of the quoted 2020 statement, therefore, it was perfectly correct at the time in referring to ‘IGas’ as the operator. ‘IGas’ only renamed itself ‘Star Energy’ on Tuesday 27 June 2023. As was explained in Drill or Drop previous heading – *’ – https://drillordrop.com/2023/06/26/igas-becomes-star-energy/ -‘*
‘IGas becomes Star Energy’
‘By Ruth Hayhurst on June 26, 2023’
‘IGas Energy plc confirmed today its name has changed to Star Energy Group plc.’
‘The change was approved by shareholders at the annual meeting earlier this month.’
‘The company will trade under its new name from tomorrow morning (Tuesday 27 June 2023).’
The recent statement originated from ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’. They did not claim they were the operator.
Your original quote was:
Whereas the facts prove that the proposals of UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) ‘would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development.’
I changed UKOG to igas to be factually correct.
I didn’t need to read and be educated. Knew about the name change already
Thank you Andy Butt. I changed ‘IGas’ to ‘Star Energy Group plc’, which was more up to date since the 26th of June 2023, which is also factually correct.
Whereas I have been accused of writing something I didnt write, by a certain ‘source’, that ‘Neither were they (UKOG) responsible for the proposal! UKOG are not IGAS, as was, or Star as now is.’ Which I didn’t write at all.
Hence, the excessively over prolonged accusations of ‘you said, I said’ which rapidly fragmented into a ‘weird and wonderful’ ‘moth to the flame’ nonsense. Rather than the facts of the matter as stated originally by Paula C’s first post, who pointed out that the ‘planner’ didn’t actually clarify how or why it was “An acceptable environmental impact”, acceptable to whom?’ Which I subsequently agreed with. That was what it was about. Though that still requires clarification, don’t you agree?
[Comments removed by moderator]
[Comments removed by moderator]
Neither were they (UKOG) responsible for the proposal! UKOG are not IGAS, as was, or Star as now is.
So, the suggested “facts” were incorrect. The proposals were made by IGAS, and they were referred to by the Inspector.
(UKOG hold a minor interest in this site, and they have been exciting their supporters something may come of Star restarting production. As Star are the operators of the Stockbridge site, there are some sensible economies that may accrue, if this site re-opens successfully.)
Maybe one reason why so many planning applications end up being Appealed?! Doesn’t take long, does it, to observe the reality and why such processes are required. Human error is just human.
On the contrary. The facts speak for themselves.
Neither Drill or Drop, nor I had written that ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ were responsible for the proposal. Neither was it stated by anyone anywhere that ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ were ‘IGas’ or as they now call themselves Star Energy Group plc’.
Merely that the above announcement referred to, and as reported by Drill or Drop in the subject heading above perfectly clearly and honestly, clearly shows that the referred to announcement did indeed originate from ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’. That is perfectly clear for everyone to read. Except some, apparently.
So the facts of the case, as reported by Drill or Drop, and as I quoted in clarification, were perfectly correct, which is contrary to the confusion apparent in your subsequent comment.
Therefore, yet once again, I challenge you to provide evidence of anything Drill or Drop has reported above, or anything I had written in support of that very clear report, as being even remotely containing any such a text, insinuated or otherwise.
However, what can be reported, with my usual total honesty, is that the long list of unanswered challenges applied to that source in the past, does not historically evidence any remotely plausible reply to be forthcoming.
Paragraph 5 of your fist post YYLee!!!
Apologies are acceptable. Andy will be waiting. Smoke screens are just smoke screens.
There is no confusion. IGAS made the proposals not UKOG, not the milkman, not even a wandering minstrel. That is what is known as a fact-see OED “something that is true”. Even by DoD posters standards, the other part of the OED definition comes into play “something shown to have occurred.” (I have shortened their text.)
“To err is but human”, etc. etc. To try and contradict your own written record, is something else.
Non, ce n’est pas vrai du tout, apparemment, vous essayez à nouveau d’isoler un mot hors contexte afin de tenter d’éluder les faits. Encore une fois, cela aurait été instructif si vous aviez lu le texte du rapport Drill or Drop. Ignorant ainsi tout le texte du rapport entièrement factuel de Drill or Drop.
Anglais
No, that’s not true at all, apparently you are again attempting to isolate one word out of context in order to attempt to evade the facts. Again, it would have been educational had you read the text of the Drill or Drop report. Thereby skipping entire text of Drill or Drop’ entirely factual report. Oh dear. Oh dear God. You really should read the full text before jumping so recklessly into the bottomless pit of your own making.
Donc, non. Il n’y a aucune excuse requise de ma part, cependant, de manière plutôt appropriée, il y a plusieurs excuses requises à ce sujet et sur plusieurs messages antérieurs précédemment de la source habituelle.
So. No. There are no apologies are required from me at all, however, rather appropriately, there are several apologies required on this subject and on several earlier posts previously from the usual source[s]. Oh, mon Dieu. Oh mon Dieu. Vous devriez vraiment lire le texte complet avant de sauter si imprudemment dans le puits sans fond que vous avez vous-même créé.
Anglais
I wrote – ‘Whereas the facts prove that the proposals of UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) ‘would fail to conserve the National Park and would create an unwelcome precedent for further oil and gas development.’
That was a direct quote by ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ website that –
‘The Avington field last reported oil production volumes in December 2017. The first official monthly production figure was recorded in January 2009.’
‘Between those dates, total oil production was reported to be 36,378m3 or 30,691 tonnes, nearly 229,000 barrels. The average extraction rate when the field was producing was 336 barrels a day.’
‘Previous oil extraction at Avington was often accompanied by large volumes of produced or formation water. At times, the water cut (the proportion of water in total liquid produced) was more than 90%.’
Which is a direct quote, from ‘UKOG’s website’ as reported.
Is that a direct quote from ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) website or not? Please provide evidence that it was not the proposal as given in ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’s report or not.
Again, that was a quote, both from Drill or Drop, and subsequently from myself. Strangely, it is a fact, that neither I nor Drill or Drop are responsible for educating you what ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ state in their own text, is it.
Perhaps you should appeal to ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ for writing something that you do not agree with? As ‘Education’ in such matters, it is neither mine nor Drill or Drop’s responsibility to correct or inform your evident confusion of the facts. No matter how desperate you are to evade the truth.
Apologies are acceptable from you for your confusion. No doubt the ‘Andy butt’ comment, which I proved to be incorrect previously without a shadow of a doubt, will be prompted to do the same.
To some, apparently ‘Smoke screens are just smoke screens’, however, just as I pointed out previously on another occasion, regarding real smokescreens, that the embarrassing ‘smokescreens’ are all yours. I prefer to report the facts and the truth.
*’ – https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/08/canada-wildfire-smoke-satellite-images/ – ‘*
Touche mon petit poulet du fond sans fond de trou de l’embarras.
Ahh, as expected. No intention of posting correct information, even when identified. I thought French might be brought into play. Afraid I don’t have time for such, but with a free app. I could manage over 100 different languages!
Thank you YYLee for detailing your methodology. It does help, but the detail shouldn’t really be required.
Anyone in doubt, just read paragraph 5 from the initial post, and remember for future occasions. What followed was not what paragraph 5 stated, but readers were not expected to be sufficiently in charge of your faculties to observe that. If you want reality, beware. If fantasy is your desire, lap it up. Either are fine, but better to know the difference.
Au contraire, puisque, comme d’habitude, il n’y a pas de tentative fournie d’ ‘information » pour soutenir les arguments habituels des sources. À sa place, tout ce qui est fourni est une tentative déguisée de descente derrière le sophisme et l’obscurcissement habituels dans une tentative de ‘plus d’information’ [rappelez-vous cette tentative de confondre le mot anglais ‘information’?
Pourquoi avez-vous besoin d’une application gratuite pour écrire en anglais? Vous n’êtes pas votre langue maternelle? Je me tiendrais à l’écart des traducteurs libres vers l’anglais, si j’étais vous, ils finissent avec plus d’erreurs que je dois corriger.
Anglais
On the contrary, since, as usual, there is no provided attempt at ‘information’ to support the usual source arguments. In its stead, all that is provided is a disguised climb down attempt behind the usual sophistry and obfuscation in an attempt at further ‘information’ [remember that attempt at confusing the English language word ‘information’?
Let alone the French language? Not your native tongue?
Why do you need a free app to write in English? Not your native tongue? I would keep away from free translators into English, if I were you, they end up making more mistakes that I keep having to correct.
So. No, ‘thank you, Martin Frederick Colère’ for detailing your own ineffable methodology. Though it does help to identify the methodology from that source. However, the detail shouldn’t really be required for anyone who can see that there is no answer there to refute anything I have written at any time whatsoever.
Perhaps strangely, maybe ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ will assist you in their reporting of the proposals on behalf of their announcement which was made on July 13, 2023, which was a statement of the proposal by ‘Star Energy Group plc’ from UK Oil & Gas (UKOG), as they have a 5% stake in the field.
Which is precisely what I had said in my original post for everyone to read, as you so very kindly point out, and remember for future occasions. They may also be interested in the comments of your own posts, which appear to be solely for the purpose of sophistry and evasion from the real issue, which is that the public should be given all the facts and the precise reasons [which are not mentioned at all] for the ‘singular planner’ to allow ‘Star Energy Group plc’ to proceed in contravention to the previous multiple planners decision and which is contrary to the public wishes that it should be refused permission.
Il est étrange de voir comment cela s’est rapidement déguisé en un seul mot isolé, comme c’est si souvent le cas où aucun contenu factuel dur ne peut être mentionné pour une raison qu’il connaît le mieux.
Strange how that so quickly became disguised under a single isolated word, as is so often the case where no hard factual content can be mentioned for whatever reason best known to itself.
No doubt, anyone in any doubt, one way or the other, can just read all my posts on this subject to show that at least Drill or Drop and my quotes of the text above, is keeping to the issue at hand. By quoting the precise words in precise manners at each occasion with proof of the statement from ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ precisely as written.
Apparently, the source attempts to use the same degree of disguise in order to obscure the facts from those readers and even attempts to discredit those who, in its own words, ‘who were not expected to be sufficiently in charge of your faculties to observe that.’ Not very complementary of the readers, is it? Such a low opinion. Perhaps the real intelligent readers should note precisely whose opinion that is. Whereas, I would be happy for any reader to make up their own mind as to who considers such a comment to be appropriate, to any reader, since it clearly does not know or perhaps care who it refers to. Not very complementary at all.
‘Si vous voulez la réalité, méfiez-vous. Si la fantaisie est votre désir, laissez-la tomber. L’un ou l’autre sont très bien, mais mieux vaut connaître la différence.’ Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec cette déclaration ‘sauvage et merveilleuse’ compte tenu de ses origines ‘écran de fumée’, mais plus que probablement, pas de la manière dont cette source serait entièrement satisfaite.
Anglais [for those with a free app]
‘If you want reality, beware. If fantasy is your desire, lap it up. Either are fine, but better to know the difference.’
I thoroughly agree with that ‘wild and wonderful’ statement considering its ‘smokescreen’ origins, but more than likely, not in the way in which that source would be entirely happy with.
Touche mon petit poulet de fantaisie ‘sauvage et merveilleux’ est votre désir, lapez-le. Les deux sont bien, mais pour le reste d’entre nous, il est préférable de connaître la différence entre le fantasme et les faits.
Then the next sequence!
Just increased volume, but not changing the fantasy to reality.
The methodology is now so established. Also, so obvious.
Just read the first para 5 for the erring-and the rest to show it was a deliberate attempt. Those wonderful webs!
Intriguing how many moths are drawn to this flame, and willingly sacrifice themselves. Illuminating! (oops)
(Thanks Andy, for plonking out the bait! Much cheaper than at Stockbridge where it can cost £1500/day.)
Au contraire, mon petit poulet de l’étrange et merveilleuse obsession des mots?
Cependant, encore une fois, par souci de clarté et de vérité [une marchandise si rare si elle n’est pas entièrement brûlée en cendres à cause de ce papillon de nuit]. Encore une fois, la source n’a fourni aucun fait auquel se référer. Juste des mots sans fin qui ne signifient rien du tout pour le titre ou les problèmes. Étrange pour quelqu’un qui est si obsédé par des mots individuels hors contexte, plutôt que d’aborder quelque chose d’apparemment trop embarrassant à traiter. Que la source n’est pas si chaude elle-même avec ses propres mots, sauf peut-être ses ailes brûlées. Il peut continuer à flotter trop près de la flamme s’il le souhaite, mais il ne sera brûlé que de manière incontrôlée.
Anglais [for those without a free app to translate from their own native language]
Once again, for the sake of clarity and truth [such a rare commodity when not entirely burnt to ashes of that poor fluttering moth?]. The source has yet again not provided any facts to present any factual arguments. Just more endless words that mean nothing at all to anyone.
Strange for one so obsessed with individual words out of context. That the source is not so hot itself, [except maybe its own scorched wings]. It can keep fluttering too close to the welcoming flame if it wants, but it will only get burnt in an uncontrolled manner. Why does that phrase ‘burnt in an uncontrolled manner’ seem so familiar?
This is the sentence that the source accuses myself of writing, isnt it?
‘Neither were they (UKOG) responsible for the proposal! UKOG are not IGAS, as was, or Star as now is.’
Another challenge for you. Plese provide proof of where anyone has written that precise sentence?
Neither myself, or Drill or Drop, and not even ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ or ‘Star Energy Group plc’. Who are strangely absent?
Leaving it to ‘UK Oil & Gas (UKOG)’ to ‘propose’ ‘Star Energy Group plc’ proposal it appears? Judging by the ‘weird and wonderful’ posts from that source, I can hardly blame ‘Star Energy Group plc’ for avoiding ‘proposing’ ‘Star Energy Group plc’ propsals themselves. They must be extremely embarrassed by those words from that source above and would no doubt, want nothing to do with it.
There is the ‘inconvenient’ proof that it was the source’ own fabrication attempt to put incorrect and misleading words onto myself, while ‘inventing’ an entire series of false narratives to attempt to obscure and cover up the real issues.
Therefore I will accept the apology for that incorrect statements from the ‘source’s own incorrect posts any time.
Touchez une fois de plus mon petit poulet des fantasmes « sauvages et merveilleux » comme votre désir, lapez-le. Pour le reste d’entre nous, il est préférable de connaître la différence entre le fantasme et les faits.
[Moderator] I think this discussion has run its course [/Moderator]
I find it strange tht the operators (whatever their names) state there will be 16 HGV movements a day. If, as previously stated, 90% of what comes out of the ground is produced water which has to be transported elsewhere, that sounds to me like a lot more movements than 16 per day if their quoted volumes of oil are realistic.
And in a National Park.
Can someone please reassure me?