New onshore oil and gas developments are planned at 15 sites in England, a new map reveals, as leading scientists insist additional fossil fuel operations are incompatible with fighting climate change.
A new interactive map, published today by Friends of the Earth, comes as the government prepares to grant 100 new licences in the North Sea.
The map identifies:
- Two new oil and gas sites at Dunsfold/Loxley in Surrey (SCC ref 2019/0072) and Glentworth in Lincolnshire (
- PL/0135/22)
- Seven active oil and gas sites where new developments are planned
- Six currently inactive oil and gas sites where new developments are planned
The map also includes proposed coal mines, including the controversial plans at Whitehaven in Cumbria.
Friends of the Earth says the full climate impact of new fossil fuel projects is often ignored.
Details
Data on onshore oil and gas sites used in the map is based on reports by DrillOrDrop. Keep up-to-date on new proposals through our planning page.
At active onshore oil and gas sites, several schemes involve drilling new wells. These include Saltfleetby and Whisby in Lincolnshire, Horse Hill in Surrey, and Wytch Farm in Dorset. The Wressle site in North Lincolnshire is also looking to drill further wells. At Lidsey in West Sussex, permission has been granted for 10 years of oil production and at Brockham in Surrey, there is consent for 15 more years of extraction.
At the currently inactive onshore sites, new wells are planned at West Newton A and B in East Yorkshire and Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire.
Two inactive sites, at Waddock Cross in Dorset and Avington in Hampshire, involve extended permissions, bringing suspended wells back into use or new boreholes. Another, at Balcombe, in West Sussex, seeks consent for an extended well test.
Of the sites identified by Friends of the Earth, nine have received planning permission. These are at Avington, Brockham, Glentworth, Lidsey, Rufford, West Newton A and B, Whisby and Wytch Farm.
A further four are subject to legal or planning challenges: Balcombe, Biscathorpe, Dunsfold/Loxley and Horse Hill.
Two more – Saltfleetby and Wressle – have yet to submit new planning applications.
A decision is awaited on the application for Waddock Cross.
Friends of the Earth also included proposals for a new borehole at Rufford in Nottinghamshire to extract mine methane from a former colliery. Any gas produced would be used to generate electricity.
Analysis of the latest data from the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, found there were 92 onshore oil and gas sites in England with at least one operating well, Friends of the Earth said.
The organisation said:
“Astonishingly, despite the deepening climate crisis and the UK’s commitment to net zero, the full climate impacts of proposed new or extended fossil fuel projects are not routinely considered when planning permission is sought.
“Instead, planning authorities frequently just consider the climate impact caused by the process of getting the fossil fuels out of the ground – and not the emissions that are created when the gas, oil or coal is eventually – and inevitably – burnt. Yet that is when the vast majority of the emissions are produced.”
Climate impact
The failure to account for emissions from burning oil and gas, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions, is at the centre of a landmark legal challenge being considered by the Supreme Court.
The campaigner, Sarah Finch, argued in court in June 2023 that Surrey County Council acted unlawfully when it granted planning permission for oil production at Horse Hill without taking account of downstream emissions.
A decision in the case is expected later this year. If Ms Finch wins her case, it could have major implications for new oil and gas developments onshore and offshore, as well as a new coal mine in Cumbria.
Ms Finch said today:
“The biggest climate impact from gas, coal and oil production occurs when the fuel is eventually burned. It’s outrageous that this is ignored when decisions are made over whether to allow new and expanded fossil fuel projects.
“That’s what my appeal over oil production at Horse Hill is about – and I hope the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel production – on or offshore – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.”
Friends of the Earth intervened in the case, in support of Ms Finch. Its campaigner, Danny Gross, said today:
“We know that Rishi Sunak wants to ‘max out’ oil and gas extraction from the North Sea, but there are numerous onshore fossil fuel projects in the pipeline too. The UK is pursuing a dangerous addiction to dirty energy that’s incompatible with our national and global climate goals.
“The impacts of the climate crisis are gathering pace with unprecedented heat waves, and other extreme weather events already battering the planet.
“With scientists warning that fossil fuel investments must be avoided if we’re to tackle climate breakdown, we must pull the plug on new fossil fuel developments and instead focus on homegrown renewables and energy efficiency. This would boost our economy, create new jobs and lower energy bills.”
Updated 5/9/23 to clarify that proposals for a new site at Dunsfold are plans first refused by Surrey County Council in 2020 and to make clear that the Rufford scheme is to extract coal mine gas.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Great map by Friends of the Earth. Beside soil and gas it also shows some coal license areas.
On the downside, it does not show the more than twenty Petroleum Exploration & Development (PEDL) licenses still held by investors in NW England, some with such licenses valid way beyond rational decades. Robin Grayson MSc, geologist adviser to the Liberal Democrats.
Let us continue to hope that before too long energy policy will rest in less incompetent, more humane hands, less in thrall to the extreme Tory principle that business should pay no attention to human welfare.
You mean 1720, those who advised a switch to diesel cars and forgot the wind doesn’t always blow so gave up on nuclear-then allowed the banks to crash?? Meanwhile, sending UK forces to fight a war in the Middle East with the consequential loss of UK lives, to protect Middle Eastern oil and gas supplies. Very humane.
Jobs are a good way of helping human welfare, so perhaps hands that do not leave unemployment higher than they inherited may be a way to go?
Hmm, strange definitions, but that is the activist for you-forgets that people have memories and can do arithmetic. After rewriting the OED and manufacturing post death conversions just more of the same fantasy.
(Graeme spoke on behalf of the “we’s” so must be right.)
Whoop whoop common sense at last.
Neither does it show all the drilling underway and planned over the horizon to supply UK with oil and gas, with a much greater carbon footprint than would be produced from local exploration.
So, for anyone interested in reducing the global carbon footprint such local activity should be applauded. Shame those who protest against local production show their true colours. They can shake their collection tins as much as they like but no pennies from me for such incoherence.
For those who like their foreign holidays and buying imported stuff, you also know who to blame when your £ doesn’t exchange very well against foreign currencies. That should help discussion when they block your activity to have a “dialogue”.
This is excellent news for the hard pressed consumer. Fewer pensioners will face the choice between heating and eating and fewer businesses will go bust. Our future prosperity as a nation depends on having copious quantities of affordable, reliable energy. It doesn’t make sense to buy it from other countries when we have it here under our feet. Use the profits to go all out for nuclear.
I can’t understand why so many people are against oil, and for it to be banned !!!!
Do they not realise without oil, it would kill off at least two thirds of the whole worlds population !,
Is that what they want, or are they saying, ” we want oil but not from our back yard !!!”.
There is not a car, aircraft or ship that can run without oil, also, no wind turbines, no solar, or water generators, they ALL need oil to run, there would be NO communications, no electricity, 80% less clothing, which is presently made from Poly this or that, which is oil based, we would have no hospitals, roads, the list is endless, so sorry guys, but oil is here to stay, and if your still apposed to it, then I ask you look around your home and see all the things made from oil, anything plastic, waterproof paints, all you’re wiring in your home has to have insulation around it, and thats made from oil.
You might also say, ” its not nice for oil companies to put acid into their wells to extract the oil, and I agree its not nice, but that acid is no longer a danger after 48 hours, and does not effect water supplies, so if this is still one of your arguments, then ask you look closer to home, and you will see the detergents you use in washing clothes, is same sort of acid, and flushed down your drain, so like most of us we have accepted these items in ever day use as being safe.
Whats the alternative if we were not to produce clothing from oil, then we would have to use natural materials like cotton, and wool etc, but have you ever considered how much water it takes just to produce just a single pair of jeans !
its a staggering 7000 gallons.
So I ask you open your eyes, don’t just go along with the crowd, THINK for yourself, yes there are like all things if you think long enough about anything a reason for not using it, but the reasons for oil and using it far outweigh the reason for not using it, that is, until we have found an alternative, that can run our cars, ships, aircraft, hydrogen is for the future as I see it but presently far to expensive to produce, even that wont do away with oil, but it will make this planet of ours cleaner.
It is not a co-incidence that world life expectancy has doubled since oil and gas first became widely used. When I see any sensible plan to stop this being reversed if it ceased I make take note. Until then I note most activists are even unable to make do without a plastic keyboard.
Martin, yo u may be getting somewhat confused.
Take a peek at the New York Times:
HOW DID THIS GREAT DOUBLING Of THE HUMAN LIFESPAN HAPPEN?
When the history textbooks do touch on the subject of improving health, they often nod to three critical breakthroughs, all of them presented as triumphs of the scientific method: VACCINES, GERM THEORY and ANTIBIOTICS.
But the real story is far more complicated. Those breakthroughs might have been initiated by scientists, but it took the work of activists and public intellectuals and legal reformers to bring their benefits to everyday people.
From this perspective, the doubling of human life span is an achievement that is closer to something like universal suffrage or the abolition of slavery: progress that required new social movements, new forms of persuasion and new kinds of public institutions to take root. And it required lifestyle changes that ran throughout all echelons of society: WASHING HANDS, QUITTING SMOKING, GETTING VACCINATED, WEARING MASKS DURING A PANDEMIC.
It is not always easy to perceive the cumulative impact of all that work, all that cultural transformation. The end result is not one of those visible icons of modernity: a skyscraper, a moon landing, a fighter jet, a smartphone. Instead, it manifests in countless achievements, often quickly forgotten, sometimes literally invisible: the drinking water that’s free of microorganisms, or the vaccine received in early childhood and never thought about again. The fact that these achievements are so myriad and subtle — and thus underrepresented in the stories we tell ourselves about modern progress — should not be an excuse to keep our focus on the astronauts and fighter pilots. Instead, it should inspire us to correct our vision.
‘Whats the alternative if we were not to produce clothing from oil, then we would have to use natural materials like cotton, and wool etc’
Excellent documentary available on sky documentaries and NOW tv.
Short trailer
Oh yes, the hides-that require animals to produce them-and the woad to colour. Thought fur coats were taboo now? Then there are the yurts and the leeches. Then there is a life expectancy of around 30!
Plenty of money to be made out of this eco stuff, but why hasn’t it all been the norm? Because most consumers are not willing/able to pay the premium. Those that are able and wish to revert to the yurt, good luck and enjoy. I have to remain unfashionable, as my disposable income is going towards expensive bread and other foods, thanks to E10 petrol, and expensive energy thanks to idiots who were only recently talking about energy security as a given.
Much more reduction in swimming pool temperatures and should be a big requirement for some more wet suits. I do recall wool bikinis-that was a real fashion triumph!(I spoke with an estate agent this week who was waxing lyrical about a property with a swimming pool, except it wasn’t the sort of property that would appeal to wealthy individuals, so seemed more of a poison chalice than a sales plus point, but hey ho the approach seems to be spreading, so it must work for some.)
Going well, isn’t it?!
Well, Robin, your Lib Dems may have an answer to how 7B moving to 10B will be fed by activism rather than intensive agriculture using artificial fertilizers but then arithmetic has never been a strong point for the Lib. Dems.
Smoking is still followed almost religiously in much of the world, especially Asia as their disposable income has increased, yet life expectancy has increased dramatically there as well. Starvation is still a curse in parts of the world-and made worse by activism plonking wheat into petrol so a few in the West could pontificate over their imported dinners, that those starving from lack of bread could only dream about.
I think you would also find vaccines and antibiotics and syringes and ventilators and much more just happen to come with the assistance of oil and gas.
Then, when it all goes pear shaped and there is a natural disaster look at the current survival rates from natural disasters compared to previous. Thanks to oil and gas much improved but as well as all that oil and gas used to achieve that it also allows all the activist reporters to speed to the area and report “we” are all doomed-as and when they can find any electricity to help their report being filed! (The New York Times completely ignored the first triumph, which was supplying enough food to support life, and allow more children to grow to adults. So, maybe they are the ones confused in their New York Democrat bubble?)
So, Robin please do not patronize me with who is confused. You may mistake me for a certain politician who suffered confusion regarding student finance, until arithmetic was required to clarify the confusion. As with another one who instead of becoming PM lost her seat.
If activism can not manage without their plastic keyboards when they produce such a load of nonsense, why on earth should the rest do without what they can not do without in their offer to mankind of “something should be done”? Whatever happened to VSO to do something?
I do not focus on fighter pilots or astronauts, I focus upon those that deliver modern medicine, help feed the world with a rapidly growing population and manufacture and build. I prefer some of them see the UK as a place to thrive rather than protest. Not for me to offer advice, but my arithmetic shows there is ONE UK Green MP in House of Commons, so maybe not a very rewarding furrow to plough.
Meanwhile, if a new N.Sea licence suddenly produced a large oil/gas deposit the activists would drive their plastic to destruction, but the majority of the UK population would rejoice in increased energy security. They just might be a more productive furrow. More electricity required in UK, including for EVs, will require more gas until/if new nuclear comes on stream, so for the next 30 years when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, anyone who is an activist ignoring that arithmetic should be ready to take the blame. If it involves body bags to protect/achieve oil and gas from overseas, then they should think about those consequence before they act to promote.
Activism that results in jobs being exported so less energy is required in UK was the Labour policy, I thought?
For those who thought they were onto a good thing, ONTO, an electric car leasing company just collapsed into administration! Trust that was not an alternative into anyone’s pension pot.
Going well, isn’t it?