Egdon to make new planning applications for Wressle


Wressle site plan from Egdon planning application

Egdon Resources announced today it was “fully committed” to its oil well at Wressle near Scunthorpe and would submit new planning applications to develop the site.

The company lost appeals earlier this month (DrillOrDrop report) against the refusal by North Lincolnshire Council of two planning applications.

The company had been seeking permission for production at the site, along with techniques to stimulate oil flow including acidisation and proppant squeeze. Councillors rejected both applications, arguing that there was not enough information to convince them there would not be an impact on people and the environment.

In a statement today, Egdon said it would submit a new application for development of the site before the current permission expired on 28 April 2018.

The company said the application would:

“address in detail all matters highlighted by the inspector in his decision notice to dismiss the appeals”.

Egdon also said it would seek to extend the current planning consent “to ensure that North Lincolnshire Council has sufficient time for consideration of the new application and to maintain consent for the current site.”

The statement said the company would be “fully prepared” to go to appeal again if the new applications were delayed or refused.

In dismissing the appeals, the planning inspector, Keri Williams, said Egdon had not shown that unacceptable adverse impacts to groundwater and water courses would not arise from the development.

His decision notice criticised the company for failing to carry out a ground condition report on the Wressle site, describing this as a “serious omission”. He also said Egdon’s evidence on the stone layers covering a geosynthetic clay liner had been “somewhat confused”.

Mark Abbott, Managing Director of Egdon Resources plc, said today:

“Egdon and its joint venture partners remain fully committed to the Wressle project and the proposed new application will address the limited reasons for refusal highlighted by the Inspector. I look forward to updating the market on Wressle in due course.”

Wressle farm-in agreement cancelled

Also today, Upland Resources terminated its conditional farm-in agreement for 10% of the Wressle project (link to statement).

Upland entered into the agreement with Europa, a partner in the Wressle site, in November 2016. One of the outstanding conditions was the award of planning permission.

Upland said it was clear that the new planning applications would not result in permissions before the agreement’s long-stop date of 28 February 2018.

Steve Staley, CEO of Upland Resources Limited, said:

“Whilst we are obviously disappointed that we will not be continuing with the Wressle opportunity, we have no shortage of good assets to pursue and develop, as recently highlighted through our farm-in to the highly prospective Wick prospect in the UK North Sea, and will be updating investors in due course as to the other active discussions we are currently in.”

The licence which includes the Wressle site, PEDL180, is shared between Egdon (25%), Europa (30%), Celtique Energie (33.3%) and Union Jack Oil plc (11.67%).

Last year, Europa predicted Wressle could be producing 500 barrels of oil per day in 2018.

DrillOrDrop report on dismissal of Egdon appeal (4 January 2018)

DrillOrDrop report on refusal of first Egdon application (11 January 2017)

DrillorDrop report on refusal of second Egdon application (3 July 2017)

8 replies »

  1. Not a surprise.
    The application was rejected without any clarity for the reasons for rejection. The planning inspector identified there were two reasons where rejection could be valid, and dismissed just about every other possibility. So, having had that defined, the council off the hook, if Egdon indicate they can easily and safely remedy those two items, onwards and downwards.

    • Having studied the decision notice, the Planning inspector was highly critical of the Environment Agency, deeming their work to be very sub standard and concluded the councillors had been correct to ignore the professional advice provided by planning officers. That is not only damning but highly significant because it shows the regulators were not up to scratch and exposed the gold standard regulations to be anything but.

  2. The previous Applications should have been correct and in order. There is a process, which has a bias towards The Applicant. Complete the process thoroughly and it is unlikely to be found unsuccessful. As it happens, Egdon Resources are having to resort to a fourth attempt.

    First Application 11 January 2017
    Second Application 3 July 2017
    Recent Application 4 January 2018

    Final attempt expected sometime before April 2018.

    Three attempts is rather generous and perhaps it should not be allowed to go any further.

  3. “Complete the process thoroughly and it is unlikely to be found unsuccessful”. That is the problem. It should not be that subjective. It took until the third date for the Inspector to actual clarify what were valid reasons for rejection. Prior to that, there had just been fudge. Egdon could have covered more bases, but now they are finally told what really needs to be improved, and what are not valid reasons for rejection. That was not done within the first and second application, so of course, it will have to be allowed to go further otherwise the lawyers would have a field day.

  4. Mr. Williams had to find something to dig the Councilors out of a hole. The two reasons he gave for refusal are almost childish but alas they will be resolved and off we go.
    This whole saga shows how pathetic our entire planning system truly is. We are a laughing stock in several countries that I have recently visited. I’m almost embarrassed to call myself British where as I used to be proud. Since when did we succumb to a poorly dressed and clueless minority mob?

  5. Many would find it embarrassing if you called yourself British GBK. 🙂

    [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

  6. Seems to be a plague of those who speak for the “many”. Almost as contagious as “everyone agrees”. I notice these things going back to my training and practise within advertising. In that situation, it could achieve little, other than a P45.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s