<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Oil &#8211; to drill or not to</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bearegreen.com/2009/09/05/drilling-for-oil/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bearegreen.com/2009/09/05/drilling-for-oil/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 22:20:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon Lea</title>
		<link>http://bearegreen.com/2009/09/05/drilling-for-oil/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Lea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearegreen.wordpress.com/?p=57#comment-15</guid>
		<description>Thanks to Beare Green for linking to the Coldharbour  Oilwell site. 17 referrals (people who followed link) in September.

To be clear, we don&#039;t know (from the website) how many people have registered and have also formally objected. Best guess (from enquiries to SCC and recent activity) is that there are about 1,100 formal objections in total.

I am webmaster for the site (which was created before the Leith Hill Action Group) and whilst I retain a degree of independence I am aligned with their thinking. The LHAG position is not &quot;oil should not be extracted under any circumstances&quot; - this would be a waste of breath within the planning framework. It is (and planning law dictates this) &quot;that the proposed application (i.e. site) is unsuitable&quot;.

My major personal concern is the permanent damage that HGVs would cause to Coldharbour Lane. There would be a &quot;nodding donkey&quot; if oil was extracted at the exploration site (production would be the subject of a separate application). If gas was discovered, it&#039;s possible that this would be used in situ to produce electricity - but I accept that the gas power station image (the only royalty-free one I could find within the 5 days I had to set up the site - we officially had 28 days to object) is perhaps a little over the top ;-)

That aside, I think the campaign website is fair. The UK planning process (i.e. English law) is adverserial and the applicant (Europa Oil &amp; Gas) has of course presented its application as &quot;not a problem&quot;. Most residents in Coldharbour (and many visitors - there are more objections than residents) think otherwise!

Debate is good!

Simon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to Beare Green for linking to the Coldharbour  Oilwell site. 17 referrals (people who followed link) in September.</p>
<p>To be clear, we don&#8217;t know (from the website) how many people have registered and have also formally objected. Best guess (from enquiries to SCC and recent activity) is that there are about 1,100 formal objections in total.</p>
<p>I am webmaster for the site (which was created before the Leith Hill Action Group) and whilst I retain a degree of independence I am aligned with their thinking. The LHAG position is not &#8220;oil should not be extracted under any circumstances&#8221; &#8211; this would be a waste of breath within the planning framework. It is (and planning law dictates this) &#8220;that the proposed application (i.e. site) is unsuitable&#8221;.</p>
<p>My major personal concern is the permanent damage that HGVs would cause to Coldharbour Lane. There would be a &#8220;nodding donkey&#8221; if oil was extracted at the exploration site (production would be the subject of a separate application). If gas was discovered, it&#8217;s possible that this would be used in situ to produce electricity &#8211; but I accept that the gas power station image (the only royalty-free one I could find within the 5 days I had to set up the site &#8211; we officially had 28 days to object) is perhaps a little over the top <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>That aside, I think the campaign website is fair. The UK planning process (i.e. English law) is adverserial and the applicant (Europa Oil &amp; Gas) has of course presented its application as &#8220;not a problem&#8221;. Most residents in Coldharbour (and many visitors &#8211; there are more objections than residents) think otherwise!</p>
<p>Debate is good!</p>
<p>Simon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
