Unconventional oil and gas

Unconventional oil and gas differs from conventional oil and gas not in the nature of the oil or gas itself, but in the type of rock from which such oil and gas has been extracted and the method by which such extraction takes place.

Historically, oil and natural gas has been found in underground reservoirs trapped between geological strata. Vertical wells are drilled into these reservoirs to allow the oil and/or gas to flow out under pressure (or with the use of pumps or compression tools as the pressure within the reservoir declines). Unconventional oil and gas derives from tiny connected pore spaces that contain oil or gas within the rock strata themselves. The oil and gas is essentially trapped within these pore spaces and is unable to flow naturally and requires

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Energy News

Commission confirms climate adaptation legislation in progress

The European Commission has announced development of the first-ever EU-level climate resilience legislation as part of a new European Plan for Climate Resilience. Speaking at the Climate Summit 2025 in New York on 22 September, Commissioner Hoekstra outlined how the legislation aims to protect assets and markets in an increasingly volatile climate environment. The Commission emphasised the economic case for adaptation, stating that €1 invested in prevention could save up to €14 in repairs. The plan includes measures to increase both public and private sector climate finance, with specific focus on debt-for-climate resilience operations following a 2024 pilot programme in Barbados targeting climate-resilient water management.

DESNZ confirms contracts signed for two carbon capture projects

DESNZ has confirmed that two carbon capture projects in North Wales and North West England have signed final contracts with the Low Carbon Contracts Company and can now begin construction. The projects comprise: (1) the UK's first carbon capture-enabled cement plant at Padeswood, North Wales, developed by Heidelberg Materials UK; and (2) a carbon capture-enabled waste-to-energy facility at Protos, Ellesmere Port, developed by Encyclis. Together, these projects are expected to capture 1.2 million tonnes of CO₂ annually, with 800,000 tonnes at Padeswood and 400,000 tonnes at Protos. These are the first two anchor projects to connect to Eni's Liverpool Bay Transportation & Storage network and form part of the HyNet carbon capture cluster, which received government approval in April 2025.

Energy weekly highlights—25 September 2025

This week's edition of Energy weekly highlights includes: a Case Analysis on the recent decision in Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste S.à.r.l. highlighting the importance of jurisdiction and service clauses in cross-border energy investment disputes, reinforcing predictability for third-party enforcement under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. In addition, Ofgem has issued guidance on the multi-criteria assessment framework for evaluating eligible Long Duration Electricity Storage (LDES) projects under the first application window of the cap and floor regime, alongside announcing the projects from the first application window that have successfully passed the eligibility assessment phase. Further, this week, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published an open letter as part of its annual consultation under Rule 2.4 of the Capacity Market Rules, seeking stakeholder input on emerging generating technologies with potential to enhance UK energy security, and Ofgem has launched a consultation on extending ‘ongoing fit and proper person’ requirements to all licence holders.

The construction of jurisdiction clauses in the context of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and the mechanisms of service(Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste S.À.R.L)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers a jurisdictional clause in the context of service under CPR 6.33(2B)(b), which allows service out of the jurisdiction where the defendant is party to a jurisdiction clause. There is no corresponding requirement for the claimant to be a party to that jurisdiction clause. The starting point is that jurisdiction clauses are not generally intended to concern disputes with third parties. However, that is no more than a starting point and one which can be departed from in appropriate cases. This was one such appropriate case whereby the circumstances and construction of the clause led to the finding that it did include the third party claimant’s (Mr Campeau) claim. While not strictly necessary given the judge’s findings in relation to the construction of the clause, Mr Justice Butcher considered that, where a jurisdictional clause was wide enough to encompass disputes from third parties, then it will likely also amount to a ‘relevant term’ for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999). That meant that the third party, in seeking to enforce their rights under the SPA, was statutorily obliged to do so in England and so could rely upon CPR 6.33 (2B) (b) in that respect also. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction) at Capita.