<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress.com" -->
<urlset xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
	xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd"
	xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"
	xmlns:news="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-news/0.9"
	xmlns:image="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-image/1.1"
	>
<url><loc>https://drillordrop.com/2026/08/04/questions-over-technical-competence-of-horse-hill-climate-assessment/</loc><news:news><news:publication><news:name>DRILL OR DROP?</news:name><news:language>en</news:language></news:publication><news:publication_date>2026-08-04T21:26:44+00:00</news:publication_date><news:title>Questions over technical competence of Horse Hill climate assessment</news:title><news:keywords>planning, permission, impact, assessment, evidence, campaigners, climate, policy, information, emissions, risk, question, earthquake, greenhouse gas emissions, questions, misleading, Horse Hill, Surrey County Council, guidance, seismicity, response, carbon budget, technical, global, fossil fuel, conclusion, document, Weald Action Group, false, material, four, competence, errors, claims, qualified, demand, Kirsty Clough, failed, flawed, scope 3, incorrect, multiple, WAG, substitution, irrelevant, consideration, not significant, two million tonnes, spurious, disregarded, production wells, 600000 tonnes of oil, fundamentally flawed, highly significant, deficient, air quality consultant, appropriately qualified, state of the climate, false picture, space</news:keywords></news:news><image:image><image:loc>https://drillordrop.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/211004-horse-hill-2-weald-action-group.jpg?w=150</image:loc></image:image></url></urlset>