Industry

Wressle update: images reveal new equipment

Images of Egdon Resources’ Wressle site in North Lincolnshire revealed the mobilisation of additional equipment today.

The pictures, by Pi in the Sky, were taken at 11.16am (top image) and 7.40am (bottom image).

Wressle oil site, 19 March 2021. Photo: Pi in the Sky
Wressle oil site, 19 March 2021. Photo: Pi in the Sky

Egdon announced in February 2021 that oil had begun to flow at Wressle after the successful reperforation of the section of the well through the Ashover Grift formation.

The company has planning permission for a proppant squeeze, a form of small-scale fracking, which aims to improve oil flow rates.

Before this operation can go ahead, the Environment Agency (EA) and Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) must approve a hydraulic fracturing plan (HFP).

On 3 March 2021, Egdon told a meeting of the Wressle community liaison group there was not a firm timescale for the proppant squeeze and, at that time, the plans were still being considered by the regulators.

The company said it would take a couple of weeks to set up the proppant squeeze after approval. The operation itself would take place on two days, 1-2 hours on one day and 2 hours the next. No rig would be involved, the company told the meeting. Representatives from the EA and OGA would be on site when the proppant squeeze was carried out.

If the proppant squeeze was unsuccessful, Egdon said it would drill a sidetrack well. If that were necessary, the rig must be approved by North Lincolnshire Council for noise and lighting. The operation would also have to be approved by the EA and OGA.

5 replies »

  1. Amazing – oil company moves equipment on site – must be a really slow news day? If I was working for Egdon I would shoot that drone down. A .22 rifle should do it? Or a trained raptor…..

  2. That was really worth a 2.15am post, Robin!

    But, good for Egdon though that they are doing their bit to help those who wish to utilise energy 24/7. Maybe if more utilised the benefit of daylight, there would be a smaller need for energy?

    Just a thought. (My wife and I have for a long time gone to bed earlier in the winter. Does wonders for our……..energy bills!)

    Drones.

    How come they are not covered by legislation to protect individuals freedoms? Currently, it seems, no one is free from their prying eyes. Courting couples in corn fields? Suspect, without control, the situation will move on to killer drones. Once again, just goes to show how legislation is required to keep up with modern methods to protect freedoms of the community as a whole.

    Talking of which, since the protests around last weekend, anyone else notice that this week has seen a very significant backward step in adherence to lock down conformance? Very noticeable in my area. Just hope it is an exception.

    Back to the picture. What a nice, neat, site! No more of a “blight on the countryside” than the surrounding agricultural buildings. One lot there to provide the population with food, one lot there to provide the population with energy-including those who supply the population with food. All, together, in a small space in UK. Of course both could be supplied from thousands of miles away and security of supply thrown out the window with UK tax generation, whilst transport emissions came flying in together with poorer environmental standards and animal welfare standards in the countries the imports came from. Yet, some are against this, claiming it will benefit humanity? Utter tosh.

  3. They might describe it as small scale fracking, but only thing small scale about the fracking is the amount of water required. They will still pressurise the formation until the rock cracks open, still inject a proppant to keep the cracks open. Whether they use water or gel, silica sand or ceramic beads, it’s still fracking, with the same risks.

    By our government’s definition of fracking, 85% of fracked wells in the USA wouldn’t be considered fracking in this country. That’s because the UK legal definition of fracking sets a threshold of 10,000 cubic meters of water to define fracking, whereas on average a fracked gas well actually uses 2,500 cubic meters of water and a fracked oil well 2,000 cubic meters. Rationally it should be based on a definition of the process itself, not on the quantity of water used anyway.

    Which leaves a large loophole and shows what a misconception it is that there is a meaningful moratorium on fracking, or that the protections against fracking under the depths under 1000m mean anything.

    • What rocks are they fracking then?? [Edited by moderator] What we find amusing is the “monitors” at Wressle missed the a truck and a crane going onto the site. Considering they are squatting just across the road was quite funny. They had to post pics of them leaving the site and pretend they didn’t miss a thing.

Add a comment

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