Site plan for previous applications for oil production at the Wressle site
Egdon Resources says it has submitted another planning application for oil production at the Wressle site near Scunthorpe.
This is the third application for the site to go before North Lincolnshire councillors.
Last year they refused two previous applications, against the advice of planning officers (details here and here). Early this year, a planning inspector dismissed Egdon’s appeals against the refusals (details).
The company said in a statement yesterday that it believed the new application “comprehensively addresses the reasons for the refusal of the original planning applications and the subsequent appeals”.
In refusing the previous applications, councillors said there was not enough information to convince them that the scheme would not have an impact on people and the environment. The previous schemes had included options to use acidisation and proppant squeeze techniques to improve the flow of oil.
Planning inspector, Keri Williams, at the public inquiry into Egdon’s Wressle appeals. Photo: DrillOrDrop
A key concern about the previous applications had been whether groundwater was at risk from Egdon’s proposals. There was disagreement at the public inquiry into the company’s appeals about whether the aquifer was protected by impermeable rocks.
The planning inspector said the company had not shown that unacceptable adverse impacts to groundwater and water courses would not arise from the development.
He said the company had not carried out a ground condition report or provided enough evidence on the adequacy of the geosynthetic liner.
Egdon said its new application included what it called “an independent Ground Investigation Report which evaluates and confirms the underlying ground condition at the wellsite”. This used information from geotechnical site investigation boreholes drilled earlier this year, the company said.
On the site liner, Egdon said it proposed to install a new high-density polyethylene (HDPE) impermeable membrane above the existing liner.
Egdon also said it had updated its hydrogeological assessment for the new application. It said this work “conclusively demonstrates the presence of laterally continuous capping layers to the underlying aquifers”.
Egdon’s Managing Director, Mark Abbott, said:
“The submission of this new planning application is the culmination of a significant amount of detailed and thorough work by our team of specialist consultants and advisers”.
Mr Abbott added that the company intended to establish a community liaison group and a community fund to “ensure the local community were kept fully informed and share in the benefits of the Wressle development”.
He added:
“We hope that North Lincolnshire Council will recognise the positive changes made to the proposed development when determining this planning application and we remain available to address any remaining questions or concerns which may arise during the consultation and determination process.”
Application details
The application is not yet on the North Lincolnshire Council planning website. DrillOrDrop will report in more detail when the application has been published and follow it through the planning system.
Egdon also has an application with the council for retention of the site. The inspector ruled that it should be restored by 28 April 2018. But Egdon has applied to extend this for a further 12 months.
Reaction
Elizabeth Williams, of Frack Free Lincolnshire, said:
“This kind of “permission creep” is widespread in the Industry.
“It’s shocking that Egdon Resources are attempting to extend their permission which expired on the 28th April 2018. The Planning Inspectorate instructed that the Company must exit and fully restore the site by that date. They have made no attempt whatsoever to comply.
“It is also shocking that it wasn’t until we ‘citizen scientists’ as well as North Lincolnshire Council’s legal, planning and hydrology consultants gave evidence at the Public Inquiry that all the errors and oversights have been identified.
“How can we trust that the company will do what it says? In any case, there can be no failsafe system of mitigations against environmental damage and pollution.
“Oil and gas extraction is a high-risk, damage-limitation activity. And there can be no margin for error where groundwater protection is concerned.
“Above and beyond all this fossil fuel must stay in the ground if we have any chance of averting climate change disaster risks.”
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Will be interesting to see what the Councilors do this time around as all the reasons for refusal have been addressed throughly and all other factors ie climate change etc were dismissed last time. If the Councilors are true to their word they will simply pass it this time around without us having to sue them later on down the road.
GBK , what do you mean ” US ” ? are you Egdon ?
I think the “us” he is referring to, is the “US” Jono, a little Freudian slip perhaps?
I’m referring to normal people.
Not that i am aware? I object strongly to the inferred association, nothing in your posts could be anywhere near to the concept of “normal” by any definition i am aware of.
Most “normal” people care for each other and their environment and have no desire to impose an unnatural poisonous process such as fracking and its associated avoidances of the word on others just for personal profit and hegemonic gain.
If you know of any that do and call themselves “normal”, then they are not in any way in any remote description of “normal”, unless the prefix “ab” has been omitted.
i suggest you run a mile from such ab”normalities”.
Whats fracking got to do with Wressle?
Wressle is conventional oil…
No it isn’t, see below.
They will try to delay it GBK, but it will go through.
If only these councils could address the pot-holes with such “enthusiasm”-oh, sorry, that needs Tarmac.
And this industry intends to make more “pot holes”? Perhaps due to an attributable herbal origin origin too?
Good question Kisheny.
But you will not get any sensible answer because the sensible antis are as fed up as everyone else with the fog generated in place of sense. They can see the damage it is doing to their cause, but the cause has been hijacked by those who have their own agendas, and they let it happen.
At the moment that agenda seems to be to demonstrate to the wider public they have some issues, apart from knowing little about the subject! (I could be more precise, but it would be moderated.)
Apparently i know more about it than you two do?
http://www.oilfieldwiki.com/wiki/Acid_stimulation
http://petrowiki.org/Acid_fracturing
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWKj10eEPhw )
Click to access Wressle-ex.pdf
Matrix acid stimulation is pumped into the formation at or below the fracturing pressure……
At or below fracturing pressure……in other words fracturing, dont try to pull the word wool over our eyes with terminological inexactitudes.
Fracturing is fracking, no matter how you try to avoid the word. it is interesting that the term “proppant squeeze” is not mentioned in any litterature, so it is either not an official process or Egdon are using inaccurate or wrong terminology to disguise the process.
But essentially it is fracking, sorry to burst your transparently inaccurate bubble guys, but you just cant escape that word can you?
“At the moment that agenda seems to be to demonstrate to the wider public they have some issues, apart from knowing little about the subject! (I could be more precise, but it would be moderated.)”
That is returned to you both with acid on.
Phil C – if you are executing a matrix acid stimulation the last thing you want to do is fracture the rock you are acidising. The clue is in the word “matrix”. If you inadvertently fracture the rock then all your acid goes down the induced fracture which is not want you want. You want the acid to contact as much as of the rock matrix along the welbore as possible. If you frack the rock the job has failed. It is not “fracking”.
Acid fracture stimulation is a completely different operation. With this you have very limited perforations (matrix you have lots to cover a wide area of the matrix) to channel your acid into the rock to make one large fracture, the acid needs to go into this fracture to etch it out so that when the pressure is removed the fracture cannot close. This works with carbonates only for obvious reasons. Same as with shale / sandstone but sand proppant is used to hold the fracture open when the pressure is removed.
Generally matix jobs are much smaller in volume and are often performed with a CTU.
Any “squeeze” stimulation should also be conducted below the fracture pressure.
By the way you may be interested to know that some companies fracture the formation at each casing point when starting to drill the next hole section. These tests are known as LOTs Leak off Tests and provide well control information for the shoe integrity and drilling the next hole. Some companies conduct a limited test which is to a predetermined pressure below the fracture pressure – these are FITs Formation Integrity Tests. These tests also test the cement integrity behind the casing and are far better than cement bond logs for none reservoir casings.
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]
Last para first sentence “acsing” should read “casing”. [corrected]
Thanks Paul, better to get an informed view than silly remarks.
Does this description from the oilfield wiki site on Acid Stimulation
“Matrix acid stimulation is pumped into the formation at or below the fracturing pressure”
Not hold true then? Also is the ladies comments regarding the process also not correct? Who’s fault is that? Surely Egdon, and all the operators should declare the precise and incontrovertible process and have truly independent observers and recorders on site to monitor what is actually occurring on site at any juncture? The trust situation is dire and has frankly led to this whole sorry mess, time to come completely clean before the public image of the operators is irrevocably damaged beyond it’s all ready dire state. That should have been done 8 years ago.
It seems to me, that at some stage in the process, fracturing occurs, be that for the reasons you state above, or because pressures are used at or near fracturing point or beyond? Operators want to get the job done, and will cut corners to do that, I have seen that often enough myself.
This question only came up because i dared to refer to fracking, I said “such as fracking” in fact, it was your “colleagues” who took exception to the phrase so I looked a little deeper into it, and my post was part of what I found. I never did actually say that Wressle was intended to be fracked.
However from what you say, and subsequent research, I see little reason to distinguish between high pressure unconventional hydraulic fracturing and acid stimulation, or the illusive unspecified proppant squeeze of which I still can’t find a definitive description. Perhaps you can.
With self monitoring and no independent on site monitoring, I see no reason why any such procedure cant happen on site without anyone ever recording or notifying the details. We have to trust the operators, which, from past experience is somewhat unreliable, if not downright naive.
Fracking has become a cover all word, but it has such a bad press, it is not hard to see why it is continually attempted to be avoided. That is why i normally write fracking and associated avoidances of the word.
I will put that in mind, but the question does then arise, are these other procedures any safer or more reliable?
The answer to that appears to be no.
Thanks for replying anyway, but I think I will continue to see the entire range of processes as dangerous unless and until it can be proved otherwise, and of course by then, it may be too late to stop the process and repair the damage.
That is my main concern, you may, or may not understand that, but this country has better ways of achieving the objective, and they are not being allowed equal investment, or promotion, or support, and that in itself is highly suspicious in these record breaking temperatures and fires all across Europe and USA.
Phil C – matrix stimulation should be below fracture pressure – not at or above fracture pressure. You can see when you are pumping when you get to fracture pressure as the volume will increase rapidly at the same pump pressure. I don’t recall ever having done a proppant squeeze so probably not very common. However I have done plenty of cement squeezes which are always done below fracture pressure otherwise you are wasting your time and money (also has particles in it).
But if you want to get proppant into a fracture you will have to open communication to the natural fractures. So the proppant squeeze you are talking about at Egdon should be above the fracture pressure of the near wellbore damage as it is targetting existing fractures in the matrix.
In my experience all of the stimulations I have managed / executed, acid fracks, proppant fracks, matrix acid jobs, mud acid washes have been conducted safely and successfully (from an operational standpoint). One or two did not increase productivity but this was formation related. The only issue of concern for onshore UK is the additional traffic that comes with a large volume job.
It has been stated on many many occasions that Wressle will never involve fracking.
Even though I am in the Offshore oil, gas and intermittent renewables industry I have followed the developments at Wressle for a number of years and I can’t help just giving a bullet point to someone who clearly has not read all the articles on here DOD at least, or have background research into Wressle or a firm understanding of the industry. I thank Paul T who is very much more informed than myself with regards to Onshore Ops
If we do not develop Onshore U.K oil we as a Country will find ourselves ever more at the mercy of foreign imports. I have seen a major drop in investment over the past few years in the Offshore oil industry which will raise prices now during increasing demand. I never thought I’d see it again but $100 a barrel is on the horizon…($77 today)…
Thank you Paul.
Such factual information will not stop the desire to excite into fiction, but will be appreciated by the majority who still want to be informed. And yes, they do show themselves on this site, asking perfectly sensible questions hoping for perfectly sensible information.
And you contribution is…..?
[Edited by moderator]
Phil C this BB is a great format for the man/woman in the street to ask questions or make statements and receive true facts about the industry from professionals working in these specific fields and not from somebody down the pub who’s read something on google…
And no concrete contribution here either.when you actually say something relevant to the question, rather than hiding behind anothers post,i shall still be here, waiting as usual, i am sure you will be pleased to know?
My contribution?
Well, to start with only to post what I know about. Even the simple facts like the reason for red diesel may be of interest to those who are unaware, when it comes within discussion. To recommend to someone who has a concern about UK earth quakes where to check (BGS) for independent and expert information. To counter some of the absolute fictional “economics” which are so obviously speculation leading into fabrication. A brief summary but others can read for themselves.
No “poetry”. I shall leave that also to others.
No contribution then.
Someone not happy when they are challenged!!
However, that’s the way the facts are verified and will persist, even on the Internet. Seeing the wood for the trees is what most are after and fog precludes that.
Still that mirror?
There you are Kisheny. Three posts with absolutely no content other than sneering at others.
As Sherwulfe would say “Absolutely brilliant.”
Two mirrors!