Belongings remaining after the removal of structures from the West Newton Monitoring Station, 22 March 2019. Photo: West Newton Gateway to the Gasfields
A camp established to monitor operations at an oil and gas exploration site in East Yorkshire has been evicted for a second time.
About 30 bailiffs working for East Riding of Yorkshire Council cleared structures and tents from the verge outside the Rathlin Energy site at West Newton. Eyewitnesses said more than 30 police officers supported the eviction.
The West Newton Monitoring Station was established earlier this year to report on work at the site, where Rathlin Energy has permission to drill and test a second well. It has been recording operations at the site for about the past eight weeks. The council removed a previous camp last month.
During testing of the first well in 2014, observers reported concerns which resulted in the Environment Agency recording at least 14 breaches of conditions of the environmental permit.
The bailiffs arrived at about 9am this morning and began clearing the structures at about 11.30am.
One of the monitors, Ross Monaghan, said:
“After the first eviction we had a lot of support from the local community. We really thought that, rather than these snap evictions, the council officers would come and talk to us.
“We didn’t think they would want to spend thousands of pounds on another eviction.
“I am surprised and quite disappointed. It demonstrates that the local council is not listening to local people.
“We did say we would have a 24-hours a day presence and we do not intend to give up on that. We just have to figure out how to do it now.”
A spokesperson for the council said:
“East Riding of Yorkshire Council continues to have serious road safety concerns about the encampment at West Newton.
“The safety of road users and the safety of individuals at this encampment is our top priority.
“These are narrow, unclassified roads with no road markings and are used regularly by farm machinery and heavy goods vehicles. Obstructions and hazards, such as the tents and wooden structures erected, on the sides of these narrow roads can cause visibility issues for all road users and drivers, and therefore increase the risk of accidents.
“Because of these road safety concerns, the council, supported by the police, have taken appropriate action to remove all the items from this area.
“This action was taken under the emergency procedure contained in section 149(2) of the Highways Act 1980.”
Two caravans moved in the first eviction are still at a council compound. DrillOrDrop report
Categories: Opposition
DRILL OR DROP? 
Speculating again, Sherwulfe. But, not new is it? Poor old Sir Jim who owns a business that carries some debt was in financial difficulties-how many days was that prior to him being declared as UKs richest man?
Sorry to keep reminding you of reality.
Wrong answer….
Yes, reality is the wrong answer for some.
If ‘reality’ is sucking up to a ‘rich man’ and allowing others to die due to tax evasion, then enjoy your reality…..
Yes, I have an ISA Sherwulfe. So, reality is followed by millions. It is tax planning, certainly not evasion.
But not in the same category as those 100,000 individuals in UK who pay £35 BILLION in income and capital gains tax. And that’s before you start with Corporation Tax. I quite like the fact they do, as it means less tax for others.
Of course you could also have generated huge wealth that you are now sharing around the world in a similar way. Nope? Didn’t think so.
Reality is countering the fiction of some who are then very quickly shown by FACTS to have been incorrect. Fabrication is a short bike ride from speculation but is more likely to crash. Hope Team INEOS are a bit more stable.
I suspect most are in a similar situation to Sir Jim, but on a smaller scale. Quite happy to pay the tax required, possibly pay more tax than they need to, but will not want to be taxed excessively. An added complication if you own a global business operating in many tax jurisdictions, with some of them offering continuity going forward and some not.
If you feel wealth is created without planning, do the lottery.
‘But not in the same category as those 100,000 individuals in UK who pay £35 BILLION in income and capital gains tax.’ – so proof please or are you now also the Tax Inspector?
Of course, it is never about those who pay their taxes, so another dead herring from you…..
It was you who tried to pitch the poor unfortunates as an argument for more fossil fuels; and I quote
‘Not only dying from the mining, dying from exposure to the cobalt, but also dying from Chinese buyers ripping them off, so they can produce electric cars for the West.’
Perhaps part of that little nest egg may be considered as a starter for your action to save them from the mines?
Martin, the fact is you are trying to defend the indefensible. The average person doesn’t embarrass and worry the likes of PWC into having to consider resigning from a lucrative contract because their tax avoidance scheme is so “aggressive”. How many more billions does he need to be able to live well? He can afford to buy yachts and consider spending billions buying a football club but he wants to avoid paying tax, tax that pays for the NHS and other public services. He can afford to sponsor cycling but won’t find the money to upgrade an unlawfully polluting plant in the NE. A plant that is unlawfully polluting water and air, releasing pollution that his 350 workers are exposed to and the local communities.
As I’ve said before, you like to have the last word Martin but in doing so it doesn’t make you right.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sir-jim-ratcliffes-plan-to-avoid-billions-in-tax-rocks-auditor-pwc-zjbvm7ktt
http://thesaturnherald.com/pwc-thought-about-ending-relationship-with-ineos/
Kat T
I do not see that the plant is unlawfull in its emissions. It will be if it continues to operate at those levels once the law is applied at the due date.
In the meantime the employees can be exposed to 10x the amount of airborne pollutants noted, issued by the plant when shopping inMiddlesborough, making work the better place to be it would seem.
In addition, there is no mention in the letter or article of the employees or the local communities being exposed to any liquid discharged from the plant, either directly or post dilution such that they are ‘affected’
Except KatT, if you read the “plan” it is all based upon “sources” and “possibilities”, and that includes the comments attributed to PWC.
You have no idea what he would do with any gains out of tax planning. Maybe he wants to expand his non INEOS business portfolio? Now, that is always a possibility for if/when a privately run company might be moved to public ownership.
I usually have to have the last word to add the bits that were missed from anti posts who think selection will be taken as the whole story. Sorry about that, but it is in your hands to change it. If you stopped making false statements about “avoid paying tax” then it might help. You can easily find references to how much tax is paid by the wealthy, and by INEOS-although, very much estimates. How do you buy yachts or football clubs without paying tax? DOH. I can find several references to buyers of football clubs who significantly improve the tax revenue from the purchased club-see Liebherr (spelling may be off) to start.
In terms of NE INEOS have explained the problem to Government. They have many ways they can help, if they want to, or they can leak the communication, as they also did regarding Ford/Bridgend. Maybe they will now find the way to help or INEOS will have to judge without, whether the UK plant is uneconomic going forward, and it will be another sacrifice within the European chemicals industry to be replaced in China or USA, and UK can import more stuff.
‘You have no idea what he would do with any gains out of tax planning. Maybe he wants to expand his non INEOS business portfolio?’ – or buy another team/yacht/toy?