# Surrey oil project sold for £1m after £25m investment

> The company behind a failed oilfield blocked by a landmark climate ruling has rebranded as a clean energy firm, while new owners try again.
- Title: Surrey oil project sold for £1m after £25m investment
- Summary: The company behind a failed oilfield blocked by a landmark climate ruling has rebranded as a clean energy firm, while new owners try again. Climate…
- Keywords: horse hill, surrey, uk oil and gas, ukog, uk energy group, finch ruling, supreme court, sarah finch, energy b, climate litigation, oil extraction, surrey county council
- Source: the Guardian — https://theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/16/company-behind-failed-surrey-oilfield-project-sells-massive-loss
- Published: 2026-09-16T09:00:15+00:00
- Read time: 2 min
- Topics: horse hill, surrey, uk oil and gas, ukog, uk energy group, finch ruling, supreme court, sarah finch, energy b, climate litigation, oil extraction, surrey county council
## Massive loss on Surrey oilfield
UK Oil and Gas sold the Horse Hill site for £1m after investing over £25m. The company has rebranded as UK Energy Group to focus on clean energy.
## Supreme court blocked expansion
In 2024, the supreme court's Finch Ruling required planning authorities to assess downstream greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas projects.
## From £46m valuation to £55k
The Horse Hill licence area peaked at £46m in 2018 based on estimates of 9.24bn barrels of oil. UKOG later wrote it down to just £55,360.
## Regulatory stranding in action
Carbon Tracker called Horse Hill an example of regulatory stranding, where climate litigation destroys fossil fuel asset values.

> For a small company concentrated on one project like this, it just transformed the entire business.
## New owners apply again
Energy B bought the site for £1m and submitted a new planning application to extract nearly 700,000 tonnes of oil over 20 years.
## Serious flaws in new application
Sarah Finch, who won the 2024 supreme court case, says the new environmental assessment has serious shortcomings and ignores government guidance.

> They didn't make any attempt to do that, although the data is readily available out there.
## Developer claims impact insignificant
The application estimates 2.3m tonnes of lifetime emissions but calls this insignificant, representing just 0.05% of the UK carbon budget.
## Any emissions are significant
Finch argues the developer's logic is false. The IEA says we can't afford any new oil or gas to stay within the 1.5C target.

> Any greenhouse gas emissions are significant.
## Energy security argument disputed
Energy B claims domestic production improves energy security. Finch counters that UK oil is typically traded internationally, not reserved for British consumers.
## A test case for climate law
Surrey council's decision will test whether climate risks are properly assessed after the supreme court ruling. Another judicial review is possible if approved.

> We're fairly confident that the environmental statement that's been submitted isn't compliant with the law and the new guidance.
## Key takeaway

Climate litigation can destroy fossil fuel asset values, forcing companies to pivot or sell at massive losses.