Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uk Oil & Gas Plc | UKOG | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.00025 | -1.01% | 0.0245 | 11:07:15 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.02475 | 0.0245 | 0.02475 | 0.0245 | 0.02475 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| OIL & GAS PRODUCERS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 19/11/2024 10:36 by jammydodger2 Must be a muppet running the twitter account.UKOG @UKOGlistedonAIM UK ENERGY STORAGE: Further funds via Placing to secure new East Yorkshire salt basin site, giving UKEn one of largest single portfolios of salt-cavern storage sites in the UK. #hydrogen #energy #ukLabour #Ed_Miliband [...] 8:32 AM · Nov 19, 2024 · 360 Views UKOG @UKOGlistedonAIM UK ENERGY STORAGE: Further funds via Placing to secure new East Yorkshire salt basin site, giving UKEn one of largest single portfolios of salt-cavern storage sites in the UK. #hydrogen #energy #ukLabour #Ed_Miliband [...] 8:23 AM · Nov 19, 2024 · 366 Views |
Posted at 30/10/2024 21:33 by haggismchaggis UKOG will get Government funding via the UK Government entity GB Energy, alongside that it will get project funding from the private sector players that GB Energy are attracting. UKOG only needs cash for operations, the projects will be funded the same way all big projects like these are funded, based on the IRR which will be substantial for any entities providing the project finance. |
Posted at 30/10/2024 09:36 by pwhite73 They may be producing oil at a loss or no oil at all this is irrelevant. The live issue here is that UKOG invested millions into Horse Hill all based on planning permission granted by SCC. The Supreme Court ruled SCC had acted unlawfully in granted planning permission not that UKOG must stop drilling. If SCC then tries to enforce the Supreme Court ruling UKOG can seek compensation for their initial investment.This is a separate issue from any oil revenue they may or may not be lost as a result of enforcement. UKOG are not silent on this matter for no reason. |
Posted at 30/10/2024 09:20 by pwhite73 bionicdog - The situation is a little more complicated than that. Surrey County Council granted planning permission back in 2019 so since then UKOG have invested £millions in Horse Hill. In June 2024 the Supreme Court ruled SCC had granted planning permission unlawfully as it had not taken into account the environmental impact.SCC can take enforcement to stop further oil production but this is fraught with danger because in 2019 UKOG acted legally in developing Horse Hill and investing £millions in it. If SCC orders UKOG to stop oil production UKOG can then take SCC to court seeking compensation for loss of oil revenue and the money invested in Horse Hill as it was SCC that granted permission to drill. This is why there is no RNS announcement from UKOG yet. Its not about simply stating 'we've stop drilling'. What about all the millions of retail shareholders money invested in Horse Hill that has reduced the value of their investment by 99%?. |
Posted at 28/10/2024 21:00 by jammydodger2 Updated: “Unlawful̶By Ruth Hayhurst on October 28, 2024 Oil production has been suspended at Horse Hill in Surrey, the site at the centre of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. Sarah Finch, who brought the Supreme Court challenge, at the Horse Hill oil site. Photo: Weald Action Group UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) said in a statement today that it had instructed its subsidiary, Horse Hill Developments Ltd (HHDL) to “voluntarily suspend” oil production from last Friday (25 October 2024). Earlier today, a legal complaint by Friends of the Earth called for an immediate stop to what it called “brazenly unlawful” oil production at the site near Horley. Four months ago, the Supreme Court quashed the planning permission at Horse Hill. A majority judgement ruled that Surrey County Council had acted unlawfully in granting planning permission in 2019 for oil production. But DrillOrDrop revealed that the site had continued to extract oil after the Supreme Court judgement. Sarah Finch, who brought the Supreme Court challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group, said this evening: “We are very glad to hear that production has stopped at Horse Hill – but appalled that it took protests by Extinction Rebellion, news coverage by Drill or Drop, Channel 4 and BBC Surrey, and the threat of legal action by Friends of the Earth to bring them to this conclusion. “The sorry episode underscores the disturbing lack of accountability that UKOG has shown at other sites, including Markwells Wood where replanting efforts have mostly failed, and Broadford Bridge where work to plug the well and restore the site appears not to have started within the timescale given.” Niall Toru, lawyer at Friends of the Earth, said: “We are thrilled the developer of the Horse Hill project finally suspended oil drilling at the site. This is much owed to the tireless efforts of local activists who have kept up pressure against the development after many years of campaigning. The fact it went unchecked for four months raises serious questions for Surrey County Council. “Having issued our legal complaint to the council last week, Friends of the Earth is proud to have again stood alongside communities facing off the threat of damaging fossil fuel developments where they live. We hope this signals the end of the Horse Hill development once and for all.” UKOG said in its statement today: “Given the uniqueness of the situation following the Supreme Court’s decision to render SCC’s grant of planning permission unlawful, and far from ignoring the ruling’s implications, HHDL first contacted SCC on 20th June 2024 regarding the site’s status and to find the most pragmatic way forward to achieve the required planning redetermination. “The ongoing dialogue with SCC has included multiple interactions and a site visit by SCC as recently as Wednesday 16th October. Other regulators have also been kept up to date.” The company added: “It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s decision was not the result of any action, error or omission by the Company or its subsidiary, HHDL, and that HHDL has acted as a responsible operator in full regulatory compliance during the 6 years of production planning consent.” UKOG said: “A detailed plan for a safe full suspension of related operations and activities, including the necessary safe emptying and cleaning of storage tanks, flow lines and other process equipment, will be implemented following SCC’s concurrence. In the interim period HHDL will work with SCC to provide all necessary additional information to facilitate a successful planning redetermination.R Today’s announcement changes the position held by UKOG last week. On oil production at Horse Hill, a UKOG spokesperson told Channel 4 News on 24 October 2024: “It’s not unlawful. We would not be doing it if it was unlawful.” The spokesperson also said: “We are of the understanding, certainly from Surrey, that we are doing what we should be doing and we are complying with everything they tell us to do.” Surrey County Council confirmed last week that there was no planning permission for oil production at the site. It said: “The Council’s position is that such oil production is therefore unlawful. Any development carried out in the absence of planning permission is vulnerable to formal enforcement action. “The County Council is continuing its enforcement investigation and will determine whether formal enforcement action is expedient. While the investigation is continuing it is not possible to comment further.” UKOG has not made a public announcement to shareholders about the production suspension. |
Posted at 28/10/2024 16:39 by jammydodger2 Call for immediate stop to “brazenly unlawful” oil production at Horse HillBy Ruth Hayhurst on October 28, 2024 Environmental lawyers have called for immediate enforcement action to stop “unauthorised& Campaigners gathering outside Surrey County Council in advance of decision meeting on oil production at Horse Hill, 11 September 2019. Photo: DrillOrDrop Friends of the Earth has given Surrey County Council until tomorrow (29 October 2024) to respond to its legal complaint over continued extraction at the site near Horley. Planning permission for the site was quashed by the Supreme Court in a judgement in June 2024. But earlier this month, DrillOrDrop reported on official data that showed Horse Hill continued to produce oil in the month after the judgement. According to the figures (the most recent publicly-available), Horse Hill extracted 138 tonnes of oil in July 2024, at a rate of 33 barrels a day. Friends of the Earth’s lawyer, Katie de Kauwe, described oil production at Horse Hill as “brazenly unlawful”. She accused the site operator, of UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) of “gaming the system” and a “blatant disregard for the judgement of the Supreme Court”. She also criticised Surrey County Council for not taking enforcement action against UKOG. In a statement today, Ms de Kauwe said: “It’s jaw-dropping that oil production has continued at Horse Hill for four months after our highest court quashed the planning permission. It’s hard to view this as anything other than a developer gaming the planning system and being allowed to get away with it. “It’s deeply concerning this has been allowed to go unchecked for so long – it threatens not just the integrity of our planning system, but also local democracy and our ailing climate.” The Supreme Court case, brought by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, centred on whether the planning permission, granted by Surrey County Council in 2019 for oil production, was unlawful. A majority judgement by the court found that the council had acted unlawfully and the planning permission for Horse Hill should be quashed. Ms de Kauwe said today: “Having been told by the Supreme Court it got the law wrong in granting planning permission for this oil project, the council’s lack of action to uphold the ruling and to stop this unauthorised activity occurring on its watch is staggering. “We urge Surrey County Council to take immediate and decisive enforcement action against this brazenly unlawful activity. We look forward to its response.” Asked what would happen if the council did not respond satisfactorily or on time, Friends of the Earth said: “Following any response that is provided, we will consider our legal options if it appears the council itself is acting unlawfully. One such option would be a claim for judicial review, though we hope this would not be necessary. “Whatever the legal situation, we will continue to reach out to politicians to ensure they are aware of this live issue, if no satisfactory action is taken.” DrillOrDrop invited the council and UKOG to comment . UKOG did not respond but in a comment last week, it said it remained “in constant dialogue with Surrey County Council and other regulators regarding the retroactive reinstatement of planning permission at Horse Hill.” The company said the Supreme Court judgement did not tell it to stop producing. Last week, the council said in a statement : “It is the case that there is no planning permission for extraction at the Horse Hill site. The planning service have discussed the planning application with UKOG and await necessary information. This does not impede enforcement action, should it be considered expedient.” The council added that it was “continuing its enforcement investigation and will determine whether formal enforcement action is expedient. While the investigation is continuing it is not possible to comment further”. |
Posted at 15/10/2024 07:46 by jammydodger2 Someone should have told them most of the tankers going there are for water."Campaigners block Surrey oil site over “flouting̶ By Ruth Hayhurst on October 14, 2024 Nine Extinction Rebellion campaigners blocked the entrance to the Horse Hill oil production site in Surrey this morning in a protest over its continued operation despite the quashing of planning permission by the Supreme Court. Protest outside Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, 14 October 2024. Photo: Extinction Rebellion The campaigners said they would stop vehicles from entering the site, which was the focus of a landmark judgement in June 2024. The Supreme Court quashed planning permission for oil production and four new wells at Horse Hill following a lengthy legal challenge by Sarah Finch, representing Weald Action Group, against Surrey County Council. We reported earlier this month that the site, near Horley, was continuing to operate. Official figures from the parent company, UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), showed it produced 165m3 of oil in July 2024, the month after the judgement. The protesters held placards which read: “Surrey County Council, stop UKOG flouting Supreme Court Horse Hill ruling”, “CEO Stephen Sanderson Stop Pumping Oil Unlawfully At Horse Hill” and “No More Planet Killing Emissions – Time To Restore Horse Hill To Nature”. One of the protesters, Deborah Elliott, from Reigate, said: “It’s shocking that UKOG had no plan to cease production if they lost their planning permission, which was the inevitable consequence of the Weald Action Group’s win. I believe this shows UKOG’s contempt for the Supreme Court and its decision.” Another protester, James Knapp, from Dorking, said UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, was making Surrey County Council look “weak and ineffective in the face of blatantly unlawful oil extraction”. Jackie Macey, a retired teacher, who was also protesting this morning, said Extinction Rebellion was calling for the site to be restored: “It’s really quite simple. Surrey County Council need to tell Mr Sanderson to stop all activity at Horse Hill until UKOG have planning permission. They will be enforcing a Supreme Court judgement and no reasonable person could possibly criticise them for that, so I urge them now to do what they should have done as soon as the Supreme Court decision was handed down; instruct them to stop the works now.” Reverend Helen Burnett, who lives five miles from Horse Hill, said: “I urge Surrey’s Officers and Councillors to respect the Supreme Court decision, and order UKOG to stop work at Horse Hill immediately.” The Sarah Finch case argued that Surrey County Council should have taken into account the carbon emissions from burning Horse Hill oil when it considered UKOG’s planning application in 2019. The council and the company said only the emissions from operating the site must be considered. But a majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed and ruled that the planning permission was unlawful. The judgement has had wide implications for fossil fuel developments. It has already led to the quashing of planning permission for the UK’s first deep coal mine for 30 years, onshore oil production at Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire and has threatened development of two North Sea oil fields. Earlier this month, a UKOG spokesperson told us the company was working on a retrospective planning application and was “in constant communication” with Surrey County Council." |
Posted at 03/10/2024 08:47 by jammydodger2 Supreme Court oil site operates without permissionBy Ruth Hayhurst on October 2, 2024 The onshore well site at the centre of a recent landmark legal judgement has continued to produce oil, according to official data, even though it has no planning permission. Source data: North Sea Transition Authority The Supreme Court quashed the planning consent for the Horse Hill site on 20 June 2024, following a lengthy challenge by campaigner Sarah Finch against Surrey County Council. Despite this, figures published by the industry regulator today show that Horse Hill produced 163m3 (138 tonnes) of oil during July 2024, at a rate of 33 barrels/day. These latest Horse Hill production figures, submitted by the site’s parent company, UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), are slightly higher than the previous two months before the court judgement. Supreme Court oil site operates without planning permission Sarah Finch, who represented the Weald Action Group, said today: “It’s not clear why UKOG are still producing oil at Horse Hill despite having no planning permission to do so. “I trust that Surrey County Council’s enforcement officers will take this up and work with UKOG to get the site restored to a condition suitable for agricultural use, as required by the previous planning permissions, as quickly as possible.” We asked UKOG why production was continuing without planning permission. A company spokesperson said: “We are in constant communication with Surrey County Council and are working with them about submitting a retrospective planning permission. “There is precedent for this, as per your article.” The spokesperson referred to a DrillOrDrop article written more than seven years ago about equipment and offices, rather than site operation, at the Brockham oil field, also in Surrey. The now quashed planning permission for Horse Hill, granted in 2019, had allowed the operator to run the site, drill four more wells, and produce oil for 25 years and restore it. UKOG must reapply for permission if it wants to continue at Horse Hill, planners confirmed last week. “Council acted unlawfully” The Horse Hill legal challenge centred on whether Surrey County Council should have taken into account the climate emissions from combustion of the oil when it granted planning permission. The council had argued that it needed to consider only the emissions from operating the site. But the Supreme Court ruled that the council had acted unlawfully by not considering greenhouse gases from oil combustion, known as indirect or downstream emissions. The court said there were established methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas emissions. It said there was no technical reason why the indirect emissions could not have been taken into account when deciding planning permission. “Complicated picture” A meeting of Surrey County Council’s planning committee last week discussed the implications of the Supreme Court judgement. Sian Saadeh, the planning development manager, said the council was “very conscious” that Horse Hill was operating without planning permission. “There isn’t anything I can say to the committee by way of an update per se. “Clearly the [planning permission] decision has been quashed. The application … we need to determine it at some point. “There is no permission. It is a complicated picture. Yes, I am very conscious of the fact that things have happened with the site so that is something that the planning team that I manage are mindful of. I am sure at some point we will have a more concrete update on … where the next steps go.” Previous planning permissions, granted for Horse Hill in 2012 and 2017, have expired. Caroline Smith, the council’s planning group manager, told the meeting the 2019 planning application would need to be “redetermined in due course”. She said according to legal advice, the Horse Hill operator would need to update its environmental impact assessment (EIA) to include new information and details of indirect greenhouse gas emissions. She said: “Once this information has been submitted to the satisfaction of the minerals planning authority, there will need to be further consultation and neighbour notification.” Ms Smith said the operator had implemented the 2019 planning permission and discharged some of the conditions. “This was at their own risk whilst the legal process was ongoing. Had they not implemented, however, their planning permission may have lapsed. The planning application will need to be amended to take the works undertaken in account and to make it part retrospective.” “Difficult position for planning authorities” Ms Smith said the council had asked the government for more guidance on the implications of the Supreme Court judgement. She said: “It puts planning authorities in a difficult position, frankly”. Ms Smith said the “broader effect” of the judgement meant that planning authorities would need to take a “precautionary approach to indirect effects” for future EIA developments. She said: “Where there is an inevitability of consequence and the ability to make a meaningful assessment [of indirect emissions] it must be included in the EIA. And any separation from the project, which in our case the oil had to be refined, does not negate this requirement.” She said it was unclear how the ruling would affect other types of development. But she added: “It is conceivable that it will have implications for other types of mineral development and potentially highway schemes which require environmental impact assessments.” These could include proposals for concrete and aggregates developments, Ms Smith said. Costs Surrey County Council must pay the legal costs of Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group. The level of costs is not yet known, Ms Smith told councillors. But it could be up to a maximum of £70,000. She said: “No order has yet been made in relation to costs which have been the subject of separate submissions. As the losing party, the county council will be required to pay some or all of the appellant’s costs.” The committee’s chair, Edward Hawkins (Conservative), told the meeting: “I feel quite annoyed that the county has to pay costs for something that we felt we did in good faith in accordance with the law.” A member of the committee, Ernest Mallett (Residents’ Association and Independents), had supported UKOG’s planning application in 2019. He accused the Supreme Court of “making law on the hoof”. He said: “The council behaved in a perfectly satisfactory and straightforward way according to the law.” Another member of the committee, Jeffrey Gray (Lib Dem), said the council’s “culpability should be mitigated by the absence of case law and therefore it was quite difficult for us”. He said the issues raised by the case had “deserved serious consideration” and he did not resent that the Supreme Court had reached its decision. Key Horse Hill planning permissions Number: RE10/2089, SCC ref 2010/0197 Approved: January 2012 Permitted: Construction of an exploratory well site, use of the site for drilling one exploratory borehole and short-term testing for hydrocarbons Duration: 3 years Status: Expired Number: RE 16/02556/CON SCC ref 2016/0189 Approved: October 2017 Permitted: Retention of well site and vehicle access, appraisal and further flow testing of Horse Hill-1 borehole, further flow testing of HH-1, drilling a deviated sidetrack and flow testing, drilling a second deviated borehole and flow testing Duration: 3 years Status: Expired Number: RE18/02667/CON, SCC Ref 2018/0152 Approved September 2019 Permitted: Retention and extension of the existing well site, HH1 and HH2 wells, drilling four new hydrocarbon wells, one water reinjection well, process and storage area, loading facility, production of hydrocarbons from six wells for 25 years. Status: Quashed by Supreme Court |
Posted at 25/8/2024 12:43 by noirua As of August 24, 2024, UK Oil & Gas Plc (UKOG) has a market capitalization of £3.55 million and a share price of 0.04p. Over the past year, UKOG shares have traded between 0.0135p and 4.65p. In February 2024, UKOG shareholders approved a ten-to-one share consolidation and the company announced plans to raise money for the Loxley gas site through a share plan. In June 2024, UKOG announced that it would be preparing to construct a site for drilling Loxley-1z, but that it would first try to reduce commercial risk in the project. |
Posted at 05/8/2024 07:00 by nasarsaddique RNS Number : 0760ZUK Oil & Gas PLC05 August 2024 UK Oil & Gas PLC("UKOG" or the "Company") Placing and Retail Offer to fund hydrogen storage UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that it has conditionally raised gross proceeds of £1.0 million by means of a placing (the "Placing") of new Ordinary Shares (the "Placing Shares") at a price of 0.05 pence per share (the "Issue Price"). The Issue Price represents a discount of approximately 37% per cent to the Closing Price of 0.08 pence per Ordinary Share on 2nd August 2024, being the latest practicable business day prior to the publication of this Announcement.In addition to the Placing, as the Company values its existing retail shareholder base, the Company also intends to offer its existing retail shareholders a "Retail Offer" of new Ordinary Shares at the same Issue Price as the Placing (the "Retail Offer Shares" and together with the Placing Shares the "Fundraising Shares").The Company will release a separate announcement regarding the Retail Offer and its terms. For the avoidance of doubt, the Placing is separate from and does not form part of the Retail Offer.The Placing and Retail Offer are conditional, inter alia, upon the passing of resolutions to be put to the Company's shareholders at a General Meeting, expected to be held via a virtual platform on or around 21st August 2024 and the Fundraising Shares being admitted to trading ("Admission") on the AIM market ("AIM") of London Stock Exchange plc ("LSE").Use of Proceeds: The Placing's proceeds will be directly employed to further specific activities required to materially advance the Company's hydrogen storage projects. Specifically, it will permit the Company to initiate essential new studies, including but not limited to environmental surveys, engineering studies and other works necessary to submit applications for: (i) government Revenue Support in the first hydrogen storage allocation round (see RNS 29th May 2024, 27th June 2024 and 2nd August 2024), and (ii) Development Consent Orders under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project planning regime. The funds will also permit the Company to further negotiations with identified prospective strategic joint venture partners and conclude a land option agreement for a further hydrogen storage site. The Company will also seek further Letters of Support for its Revenue Support application similar to those recently furnished by major energy and UK hydrogen infrastructure players RWE, Sumitomo and SGN. Placing Summary · The Placing raised £1,000,000 (before expenses) through the issue of 2,000,000,000 Pla |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
