Regulation

Egdon wins appeal on extending consent at Wressle wellsite

1807 Wressle section plan

Wressle site plan. Source: Planning application to North Lincolnshire Council

Egdon Resources has won an appeal over the right to operate its Wressle wellsite for another year.

The company had challenged the refusal by North Lincolnshire Council in August 2018 to extend consent at the site.

In a decision published yesterday (24 January 2019), the planning inspector, Elizabeth Pleasant, overruled the council.

This is the latest in a series of applications, refusals and appeals involving the Wressle site near Scunthorpe. DrillOrDrop key facts page

The company is also appealing against another refusal of permission for long—term oil production at the site.

Wressle drilling 2014 Egdon

Well testing at the Wressle site in 2014.

Today Egdon welcomed the decision and said the time extension would allow it make pursue this appeal.

The planning inspector said in her decision document that restoration should be undertaken without delay and that it is not acceptable for temporary permissions to be renewed indefinitely.

But she added that government policy required “great weight to be given to the benefits of mineral extraction” in deciding planning applications.

She said this outweighed the conflict with two local planning policies which seek to ensure oil and gas sites are restored after exploration.

Ms Pleasance said, taking account of the planning history of the site, it would be “expedient to grant a further temporary consent”.

She said she appreciated concerns of people about long-term hydrocarbon production at the site, the impacts of climate change and the company’s management record. But she added this was not the concern of the appeal.

She also accepted the council’s concern that the site’s appearance had deteriorated. But she said the site did not have an adverse visual impact on the surroundings or harm the living conditions of local residents.

She allowed Egdon another 12 months of planning consent, to expire on 24 January 2020.

Mark Abbott, managing director of Egdon Resources, said

“We are pleased and encouraged that the Inspector supported our position in relation to this appeal.

“We look forward to a Planning Inspector considering at a public inquiry our appeal against the refusal in November 2018 of our revised development proposals for the Wressle oil field.

“We strongly believe that the new proposals for the development of the Wressle oil field comprehensively addressed the reasons highlighted by the Planning Inspector in his dismissal of our original appeals in January 2018.

“This position was supported by the recommendation for approval given by the Council’s Planning Officer as reinforced by an expert third party review undertaken on behalf of the Council.”

” We plan to submit the appeal documentation in relation to this in the coming week.”

Elizabeth Williams, who opposed the application, said:

“How can we possibly begin to have confidence in the safe running of an inherently hazardous operation when Egdon does not practice timeliness or thorough maintenance of the wellsite in question, which has become more and more derelict.”

31 replies »

  1. Good news.
    N. Lincs Council are possibly the most incompetent Council I’ve ever seen particularly the councilors that have been dealing with Wressle. Their arguments against are of so low calibre I’m amazed the residents still get their bins collected. This country is riddled with people out of their depths being in positions of authority.
    Next win will be to override the councils latest refusal to begin operation.

    • GottaBkidding I have to agree with your statement on incompetent people being in positions of Authority we need look no further than Westminster for some prize examples.

  2. The appeal score seems to continue going up in favour of oil and gas. Every appeal won by O & G; EOI / Greenpeas and antis zero success? More donated money down the drain. Will it ever end?

    I ask the question again – have any appeals been lost by oil and gas?

    • So many people complaining about climate change and fossil fuels, while they continue to burn gas to heat their houses and run cars and use planes. There is a word for that. Hypocrisy.

      • So many fossil fuel PR hotdeskers here complaining about anyone else using fossil fuels when nothing else is allowed the same tax breaks and all alternative energy sources are disincentivised and tax breaks are removed for renewable resources whilst fossil fuels are handed everything they want.

        Whilst only fossil fuels are given any support by government and public appeals are overturned which entirely contravenes the governments own statements that climate change must be considered in planning applications and appeals.

        Yet climate change due to overuse of fossil fuels that was warned about by Exxon and Shells own scientists 40 years ago, and is now strangling the entire planets climate and ecosystems, and that will cost countless trillions in damage and destruction of living spaces and lives and economies across the planet.

        And while the very same fossil fuel crows complain that other people even dare to actually burn gas to heat their houses and run cars and use planes that the fossil fuel industry has sold them and then insanely seeks to criticise anyone for having to do so, as if they have the tiniest remotest say over what anyone else does, which of course they haven’t.

        We see these people crowing from the rooftops as if they have a god given right to tell anyone at all what do with their money or resources in any way whatsoever.

        There is a word for that.

        Hypocrisy.

        And there is a word for the protectors of the planet using fossil fuels to protest about the fossil fuel fools polluting the entire planets climate when everything has shown how suicidal that is when if there were available alternatives given the same support and investment as fossil fuels, they would gladly use them.

        There is a word for that.

        Irony.

        If you dont like anyone else using fossil fuels, then you really didn’t ought to have sold it to them and made sure as in such appeals as this, that it is the only available resource did you?

        Hypocrisy squared.

        Cue ankle biters…..

        • PhilC – you clearly fell for the greenwash about tax breaks. Think about it. The main “tax break” claimed by the greenies is the reduction of VAT from 20% to 5% for domestic gas and electricity. However this applies to all electricity and gas including renewables. The other issue harped on about is the cancelling of fuel duty rises for the past few budgets. However duty on petrol and diesel is still 60p / litre which equates to around 50% duty. Also applies to biofuels. All a level playing field so far? Contracts for difference – these are huge low carbon subsidies for non fossil fuels, predominantly won by offshore wind. Not a level playing field. Presently onshore wind is not permitted to tender for these but then coal / gas / oil are also not – level playing field. Onshore wind can be built as long as it pays for itself.

          So your missives above are incorrect.

          There are / were some tax breaks offshore where some exploration costs could be written off against production tax. However after this the tax take on offshore oil and gas is still significantly higher than any other industry – including renewables.

          Renewables have priority into the grid. If they can produce but when the product is not needed they are paid many times the market price not to produce. Not a level playing field.

          What the greenies appear to want is even higher subsidies for renewables such as Swansea Lagoon (10 x market price) and a complete shut down of fossil fuels. But we can’t afford this and in any case it won’t work for at least 30 years.

          Unfortunately your Tesla and free energy from water etc options are not being taken up.

          Did you know that there are still only one million EVs globally. Out of 1.2 billion. The forecast is 2 billion by 2035. A lot of EVs to go and then where does the electrcity come from?

          EVs are subsidised via incentive payments and zero road tax. Another example of a non level playing field which disadvantages fossil fuels.

          • Dear me, Paul Tresto – you clearly fell for the blatant frackwash about tax breaks for fossil fuels, nice try, but not true is it:

            https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/06/04/uk-worst-g7-countries-hiding-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission

            However, I fall for nothing, particularly i don’t fall for your fossil fuel friend Ken Wilkinson’s and others frankly dictatorial anti democratic propaganda…..which no one reads by the way….. about anyone who he or you or they do not approve of, and therefore must not use the only resources available to them even when they pay for them like everyone else and pay taxes to subsidise fossil fuels in UK.

            That is Hypocisy.

            Where do you guys get the idea you have any say whatsoever over what anyone does with their hard earned money? Other than arrogant hubris that is.

            Do you want us to tell you, that you must not breathe clean air that is not polluted by fossil fuels, that you must not drink clean water that is not polluted by fossil fuels, that you must only live at or near or downwind from the most polluting fossil fuel operations on the planet, and drive the most heavily polluting gas guzzlers you can get your hands on?

            And if you don’t do that, you are a hypocrite?

            Is that what debate is reduced to by the PR hotdeskers now?

            Laughable isn’t it.

            Are there any rational Anti antis out there left at all? Because from the evidence of the last few years, there certainly does not appear to be any, and those, seem to have descended down that slippery suicidal Darwin Dumb Ass Award snake with remarkable joy and alacrity and dexterity, if not blind devil May care abandon?

            Also we see the recent and suspiciously timely, considering Cuadrillas failure to work with their own agreed TLS conditions without causing increasing magnitude earthquakes, to change the limits. The press conference announcement by Dr Brian Baptie and Dr Ben Edwards is clearly evidence of the long awaited (by the fossil fuel four, not anyone else) attempt to give the government an excuse to overturn the earthquake TLS limits.

            Curious and convenient timing that isnt it? How much did that little exercise cost?

            No, the answer is to fully fund and invest and support renewable resources and give the same, if not better tax breaks and incentives and real support from government, not the lip service we see so far, and actually listen to the public and local authorities for once.
            You say it yourself that appeals are so far overturned in favour of fossil fuels, in order to demonstrate a real level playing field, that must be reviewed and reversed where appropriate, especially considering the climate change considerations claimed by the government, but clearly do not operate in practice.

            Gold standards are not in operation at all are they, mere lip service and smokescreens.

            Then and only then, there may be just a chance of a level playing field, but given the decision to extend Egdon Resources right to operate its Wressle wells, when it clearly has overturned its own declared policy on considering climate change:

            “The planning inspector said in her decision document that restoration should be undertaken without delay and that it is not acceptable for temporary permissions to be renewed indefinitely.
            But she added that government policy required “great weight to be given to the benefits of mineral extraction” in deciding planning applications.
            She said this outweighed the conflict with two local planning policies which seek to ensure oil and gas sites are restored after exploration.
            Ms Pleasance said, taking account of the planning history of the site, it would be “expedient to grant a further temporary consent”.
            She said she appreciated concerns of people about long-term hydrocarbon production at the site, the impacts of climate change and the company’s management record. But she added this was not the concern of the appeal.”

            in other words, everything fossil fuel outweighs any objection, there you have it, pure bias and outrageous favouritism towards fossil fuels, and all the pretty words are as nothing are they.

            This is a clear contravention of the governments own policy on considering climate change in these negotiations and is an anti democratic insult to the public and the local authorities who quite rightly see Egdon application for an extension as a permanent permission, and not as is trotted out all the time, a temporary permission as was highlighted in Drill or Drop in an earlier post.

            • The Guardian link is where the VAT info comes from. Supply and demand, cut demand ans no need for supply. But demand is going up every year for the forseeable future. The rest of your note is nothing to do with the tax / subsidy issue. What I wrote is true. What I missed is the support for overseas fossil fuel activities. But they can always refuse this support?

            • Still logic chopping Paul, my reply was to Ken Wilkinson, on the ridiculous attempts to dictate to protectors whether they use fossil fuels or not, you answered on your own volition only on the isolated the tax subsidies of the fossil fuel industry, i just expanded into my original comment, i reserve the right to continue with that, as it seems to be a PR mantra and is quite illogical arrogant and dictatorial, i didnt expect you to reply on that, since it is unarguable.

              The problem is more to do with the fact that continuing subsidies only perpetuate the draw to continue with fossil fuel extraction and use. I agree that we must cut down, but with the continuing subsidies for fossil fuels that are excluded from renewables, the 800% increase on tax for solar panels are a case in point and so is the refusal of the Swansea tidal pool, that should have been encouraged and modified to prevent further extraction of materials, but instead it was just squashed without any attempt to redesign it.

              Solar panels are evolving quickly and we in UK should be major investors and researchers into perfecting the technology, instead it is thwarted by starving investment and research, that is clearly contravening our responsibility to tackle the only rational way forward, which is to generate truly renewable resources and not non renewable fossil fuels.

              As you must be aware tidal is the most efficient way of generating energy, it is not intermittent and it is at least twice a day guarunteed. But presumably as it did not support the fossil fuel industry it was unceremoniously squashed and prevented rather than allowed to be evolved into a workable solution.

              That and amongst other things such as this extension of permission for Egdon is clear a measure of the permanence of the intention, and simply illustrates how fossil fuel subsidies and favouritism is promoted and preserved, but any renewable resource is prevented, presumably to stop competition from renewables.

              Considering the UK promises to reduce fossil fuel exploration and consumption, clearly we are heading in the wrong direction, but perhaps this is a short term governmental and industry inertia rather than a permanent reversal of the climate change promises.

            • “I agree that we must cut down, but with the continuing subsidies for fossil fuels that are excluded from renewables, the 800% increase on tax for solar panels are a case in point !

              Please advise which subsidies for fossil fuels are excluded from renewables in the UK? Do you mean the 60p liter duty on petrol / diesel? Do you mean the CFDs which don’t apply to fossil fuels – These are negative subsidies….

              And 800% increase on tax for solar panels – please explain as this does not make sense. I am actually interested in this. Do you mean the reduction in the FIT? Or do the big farms now have to pay corporation tax like everything else?

            • Getting a bit demanding Paul arent you, why so upset? Never mind? The information is freely available if you would rather do your own research?

              This is the link to the report on solar panel tax increase of 800%, i think this came up on Drill or Drop at the time.

              https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-industry-budget-2017-800-per-cent-tax-increase-green-renewable-energy-a7618191.html

              Is there an equivilent 800% increase on taxes for say gas fired or oil fired heating that i wasnt previously aware of?

              https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

              http://news.rasthaa.com/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission/

              “The UK leads the European Union in giving subsidies to fossil fuels, according to a report from the European commission. It found €12bn (£10.5bn) a year in support for fossil fuels in the UK, significantly more than the €8.3bn spent on renewable energy.

              A significant part of the UK fossil fuel subsidies identified by the commission is the 5% rate of VAT on domestic gas and electricity, cut from the standard 20%. The UK government did not dispute the data but denied that it provided any subsidies for fossil fuels under its own definition and that of the International Energy Agency.

              “We do not subsidise fossil fuels,” a government spokeswoman said. “We’re firmly committed to tackling climate change by using renewables, storage, interconnectors, new nuclear and more to deliver a secure and dynamic energy market at the least possible cost for consumers.”

              Shelagh Whitley, also at ODI, was dismissive of the UK government’s claim to provide no fossil fuel subsidies. “They are lying,” she said. “It’s absurd. They are playing games and continuing to prop up a centuries old energy system.””

              Considering the UK climate change promises, the figures should be at least reversed, if not favouring renewable resources investment and research, shouldn’t they?

            • Thanks for the solar link PhilC. This says business rates may go up in some scenarios but go down in others. A quick search shows many items which predicted the same a couple of years ago but I can’t find anything that says these forecasts actually came about? Appears to be closing a rateable value loophole and nothing to do with tax / subsidy.

            • Yes, i couldnt find an update, so who knows where that led, i did find it interesting that private schools were exempt though, i would have thought all schools should be exempt, then schools could learn about solar panels as part of their curriculum.

              Perhaps Leonie Greene, of the Solar Trade Association will have an update, she might be able to advise on the latest siyuation, i looked it up, since you are interested you might want to contact her:

              https://www.solar-trade.org.uk/author/leoniegreene/

      • Of course you do not run a car, use a bus or a train, or ever go on holiday by air, you do not eat food from fields that have been ploughed by tractor, or have electricity installed in your house, you never watch television or use your computer ( sorry you just have). A typical response from somebody who knows what other people should do ………..!

        • No Vernon, you dont have the right to dictate to anyone what they use, when they use it and how they use it and you never have and you never will, any such insanity is simply discrediting your entire industry.

          That is a broken empty and meaningless rejected meme and it borders on totalitarian dictatorial paranoid insanity to even suggest such a thing.

          Show me the law that gives anyone the right to dictate to anyone what they use, when they use or how they use it?

          That is some sort of 1984 nightmare fantasy and belongs in the Stalinist graveyard where it will remain.

          Unlike you I dont sink so low as to attempt to dictate to others what type of energy they should use , where and how they should use it. but if you push it.

          The reverse must also be true if you pursue that same insane illogic and that is precisely what I say above, that if you seek to dictate to others, then you must not use anything that is not polluted by fossil fuels or be called a hypocrite for using anything not so polluted.

          That is exactly the same flawed illogical totalitarian paranoid propaganda you spout here, and it is no more true than that.

          What this outrageous attempted dictatorial madness reveals is that this meme is nothing more than an overbearing arrogant bullying dictatorial insanity and it must be a valuable propaganda meme to the anti antis to keep trotting out, because it is so often repeated ad nauseam at every available opportunity and the anti anti PR hotdeskers are desperate to hold onto it. Probably because it attempts to enable them to feel superior even for a second.

          Sorry Vernon, it wont work and never has, it is totally and utterly discredited, rejected, empty and meaningless and won’t be considered even remotely sane but merely laughed at.

  3. It’s like the veggie who can’t stop talking about their commitment at the dinner party, whilst they are fitted out with a new pair of leather boots, Ken. Or the guy who tells others about the evils of PNR, which he visits in his 3 litre diesel BMW. Or, those who travel vast mileage to attend the recent Igas Appeal and then concentrate upon the “issue” of air quality, for a site next to a car manufacturing plant!

    I thought the UN report indicated that individuals could take the lead and get on and do their own bit. Seems many people want others to do their bit for them, yet are unwilling to do it themselves. Yep, hypocrisy seems to sum it up.

    • Martin your ignorance is showing again, but no change there!

      Vegetarians don’t eat meat it’s Vegans that eschew all animal products so why would a vegetarian be a hypocrite for wearing leather? That said why let accuracy get in the way of a Collyerwibble?

      • What a pathetic load of nonsense. Most vegetarians claim their reason for being a vegetarian is so they do not have animals killed to provide food for them. Not all, but the vast majority.

        How does leather get produced? Just arrives from Amazon?

        The real world is not that frightening. Do join it. It has a lot to offer.

  4. Ken Wilkinson, you seam to be pretty clueless. The whole point is all the time o&g companies are allowed to keep exploring for oil and gas, people will continue to use it and think that it’s acceptable to keep burning these fossil fuels.
    Continuing to perpetuate this industry will not help with climate change. How do you not see that?? Maybe you just need to learn to be a bit more insiteful and think about the long term effects. We have twelve years to fight climate change and eradicating the need for fossil fuels is a priority. There needs to be much more investment put into renewable technologies. It’s about the responsibility for future generations, as what we inevatably do now WILL have an effect on them. Very sadly The attitudes of this government towards climate change are shameful and irresponsible and should be held accountable.

    • A bit of an admission there One!

      If renewables are so great, why do they need the competition to be removed?

      You aren’t related to Mr. Musk are you, bemoaning the fact that electric cars are more expensive to manufacture and people are reluctant to pay the premium?

      Meanwhile, upon my TV every time I see a disaster and people needing help then I see helicopters, bulldozers, portable generators, chain saws etc.as part of the rescue, with specialist teams being flown in from far and wide. Any solar panels, wind turbines and most electric wires destroyed within the disaster.

      If that is all to be ignored with claims of being insightful, I will take the reality.

  5. If their are any concerns of people about long-term hydrocarbon production at sites,the impact of climate change…

    sell your car, don´t use your central heating or whatever.

  6. The Green Energy Con That Robs the Poor & gives to the Rich. Don,t belive me take them eye sore wind mills you see every where you Know why that is I will tell you if your a land owner you can get a Loan to put up a wind turbine The government will guarentee a payment for 25yrs that covers the repayment of your loan on top of this the utilties will buy any surplus power from you at a generous rate to what they sell at you how can they afford to do that ? well everybody’s electric bill includes a green tax which is used to pay that generous payment to the wind mill owners. Now from a land owners point of view its a no brainer free electric & they get paid, but from the point of view of your little old granny living on her meagre pension she is indirectly paying the land owner his subsidy talk about robbing the poor

  7. The overriding hypocrisy is that of the British government signing and not implementing the Paris Agreement. No wonder the EU doesn’t trust them.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.