Extracting new oil from Lincolnshire is “utterly incompatible” with climate goals – open letter

The Bishop of Grimsby, academics and business leaders have objected to plans for long-term oil production at Biscathorpe in the Lincolnshire Wolds.

Biscathorpe oil site. Photo: Egdon Resources planning application

In an open letter published today, 25 signatories from Lincoln Climate Commission have urged the county council to refuse planning permission for the site in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The application by Egdon Resources seeks to extract oil at Biscathorpe for 15 years. Local people have raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on a rare chalk stream, the landscape of the AONB and climate change.

Lincoln Climate Commission’s letter said:

“We respectfully ask that County Councillors consider the concerns of the local community, the serious issues of potential threat to biodiversity and amenity, and the over-riding concern due to the existential threat of climate change. We urge that you turn down the application.”

The signatories include: Dr David Court, the bishop of Grimsby; Edward Hanna, professor of climate science and meteorology at University of Lincoln; Geoff Stratford, founder member of Lincoln Climate Commission; local academics; and executives from companies such as Gusto Group, BE Design, OpenPlan and Greenlite Building Physics.

The letter said it was “hard to see” how allowing oil extraction in the AONB was consistent with the county council’s Green Masterplan. This was developed to meet the challenges of climate change and achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The signatories said:

“as fast as possible, we must wean ourselves off dependence on fossil fuels.

“to explore for and to extract new sources of oil from Lincolnshire is utterly incompatible with keeping within the internationally agreed goal of limiting global overheating to 1.5 degrees.

“There is no shortage of fuel to supply our needs while we make the necessary rapid transition towards a zero carbon economy. We do not need fossil fuels from the rocks under Lincolnshire.”

The letter added:

“It is hard to see how ‘new oil’ is consistent with the government’s recent announcement to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035. Instead, we should invest our efforts and resources into renewables and into mitigating and adapting to the effects of warming.”

It urged Lincolnshire County Council to respect local concerns about the proposal, expressed by Donington-on-Bain parish council and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. The Lincolnshire Wolds AONB partnership has also objected to the application.

25 replies »

  1. So, imported oil is compatible with net zero but domestically produced is not??

    Nope, absolute opposite, as recently confirmed by Government and less recently by the UN, and for decades by common sense.

    DEMAND for oil is NOT reduced or increased by where it comes from, but the impact upon climate change IS-and, in favor of local production.

    So, please fill your boots with any Nimby arguments that come to mind, but this one is just nonsense, and because of that, undermines the credibility of any Nimby arguments. Just a friendly piece of advice knowing it will not be followed and neither will any coherent argument be provided to the contrary.

    • The argument is not about whether ‘local’ or ‘imported’ oil has a bigger footprint. It’s about whether we should be looking for more oil at all. We shouldn’t.

      • Local production of oil DOES not increase consumption of oil, rf. So, your wording of “more” is incorrect. Transfer of production to a more local source, is the correct terminology.

        So, if you actually use the correct words-we should.

  2. Friends, Please pass on to the Grimsby tory graph Apologies should be telegraph Yours Rob Redford Well known west end drunkard in Lincoln

    Sent from Mail for Windows 10

  3. When did coherence become important to you, Martin? I missed that bit. Again, your arithmetic lets you down. Oil produced elsewhere plus oil produced at home equals more oil. Go on, waffle your way out of it again: it’s great fun.

  4. You missed the bit about DEMAND, 1720. That may indeed be incoherent to you, but let me repeat, DEMAND in UK is not increased by production in UK, so if UK produces MORE those exporting countries, who had been exporting to UK, produce a little less.

    So, apart from the fun, your arithmetic is on par with Ms. Abbott! And the only coherent explanation for such is wanting to support the countries that are currently exporting to UK. A common occupation, lobbying takes all forms, but dangerous to the good local folk. And, if you read David King, a whole lot worse for the planet.

    For the locals, who might have the same issue:

    “There is NO suggestion that this proposal would increase the use of hydrocarbons, and the EVIDENCE demonstrates that the effect would be simply to TRANSFER production to a more local source.”

    Just like the merit of the local Farm Shop.

    Who is responsible for the quote? The Inspector when he authorized that Wressle should be allowed for Egdon-just before he attributed costs of over £400k to Egdon!

    So, local folks, (some are friends of mine), for those like 1720 it is “fun” to post fake news to encourage a false path. It is you who pay the cost for their “fun”. Is it something that may not happen? Well, if you pin your hopes on nonsense arithmetic it will, as it already has. I offered advice, based upon recent historical fact. Others, who have an issue with recent historical fact, seem to want to have fun at your expense-literally. I will repeat, the net zero route is not a strong argument in this situation. I am sure there are better arguments that have not already been rejected (recently)-with clear reasons why, (above)- within the planning process for UK on shore oil extraction. Whether they are strong enough to prevent development, is another matter, but adding those that are certainly not will weaken rather than strengthen the case. Your choice.

    Off to see whether my French Beans have survived the frost. Hope so. Local production so much better for net zero than flying them in from Kenya. I find that coherent. Others, may suggest otherwise but unable to show why, which is why they do.

  5. Good Lord, Martin. You don’t think those who export to the UK might find a customer elsewhere? Is this your best argument.
    Read again, Martin. The “fun” lies in the easy – if time-consuming – dismantling of your increasingly desperate arguments. Again, your manipulation of the fact is clear.
    Your attempts to rally the ‘folks’ are Johnson- and Trumpesque. If you can’t make sense, shout it louder, definitely with capital letters, and get them, if you can, to look elsewhere.
    You seem to be arguing in favour of climate change action, but I wonder. Is this green washing to render your arguments more palatable? It’s a bit like Patel trying to enlist support for her Bill by concentrating on the (admittedly disgusting) smugglers in order that we might not look too closely at the extent and causes of migration, which might just elicit too much compassion.
    Where do you stand on anthropogenic climate change, Martin? Is this a fact as usually presented? Is it partly fact, partly a hoax? Is it a hoax? As someone said recently, “I’ll make it easy for you. A multiple choice question.

  6. Well, that fired off in so many directions!

    Except, the correct one.

    I believe the subject was about whether climate goals will be helped by excluding local production, compared to continuing imported production.

    Where do I stand on climate change? Well, I believe certain things that we can do can help. This is one of them, HS2 is another. You don’t believe in either. So, you should ask yourself that question. When you can answer that without the “something must be done” kop out, or the deflection, then progress will have been made.

    Meanwhile, the subject of local production has already been dealt with by the Inspector at the Wressle Appeal. Fact. Costs awarded were over £400k. Fact. I was offering advice to avoid a repeat, you seem to be okay with that. That is not greenwashing, it is offering sound advice which can be taken or ignored. If ignored, and costs are high for those who ignored, I have no responsibility for that. Those who encourage them to ignore and costs are high do have responsibility-but will have just cleared off, having had their “fun”.

    Perhaps you could find a job in a company that exports goods? You would find, when they lose a customer they stop producing for that customer, otherwise the warehouse manager becomes very upset! It does not mean they stop producing for other customers. If you want the other customers to stop ordering, or not to increase their orders you are in the wrong place. Again.

    The someone who said recently, “I’ll make it easy for you. A multiple choice question”, will be busy working out his answers for this time next week, and “glossing over it”, or a “flat” denial, will not work. Another one who will have difficulty with arithmetic, but he also will probably find solace in denial of the facts. (Also another one who tried to deny what he himself had put on record. Figures.) I’m quite happy that I have had my two vaccinations against Covid. I suspect the someone will find out I am not alone by this time next week, and that answers are more tricky than questions. Perhaps a purchase of a ferret, and a “flat” cap could be an answer?

  7. Thanks, Martin. I rest my case, although were I the prosecuting barrister I might try and elicit an answer to the question. Please don’t bother however.

  8. You have had many more answers than your texts justify, 1720. You just don’t like them.

    However, it has been useful as you have shown you have to deny the laws of physics AND arithmetic in order to justify your position-and then blame others for being incoherent!

    So, thanks for validating the statement from the late Professor Sir David McKay in 2016.

    “Humanity really does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics”.

    There must be a section in the anti handbook, because you are not the first, and will not be the last, who jump into that so willingly, with the “defense” of something must be done, when caught out. Try putting them together, ie. something must be done which does NOT deny arithmetic and the laws of physics, and that might be coherent.

    Meanwhile, I note 1000 more ventilators to India from UK-good job artificial rubber production was increased down at Fawley a while ago-and local production of PPE has now passed 80% compared with the 2-3% at the start of the pandemic. Wonder what is needed to manufacture much of that PPE? Real arithmetic and physics in action. And, on that subject, good job Dyson is investing so much money into new agricultural technology now he is such a large landowner in UK. Many farmers will not appreciate his ability to mop up large areas of prime agricultural land but the sort of work he is conducting will filter down to them and they will reap the reward-and so will the environment. (See-the laws of physics and arithmetic, when respected, can do something!)

    The answer to your contrived question-nothing to do with the subject-I volunteered. We only have to wait another week to see if my (admitted) speculation was somewhere close. I based my speculation on recognizing parties have internal polls that dictate their actions. Unless that pattern has suddenly changed, I am expecting attempted deflection equals a certain outcome, but I am also admitting that is speculative. Come the day, everyone will spin they have done well, so nothing to get too excited about!

  9. As I said, my case rests. Most people when they’ve dug themselves into a hole, stop digging; Trump, somebody commented, keeps digging. So do you, Martin. Keep digging, I think I have my answer, so there really is nothing else to say.
    By the way,(I know this is irrelevant, but I know you’re a stickler for facts), just a helpful piece of advice – “defense” above = British English ‘defence’ /; “favor” in British English is ‘favour’; and “Kop-out”, (your favourite, surely!) , is ‘cop-out’.
    Over to you: I’ll grant you the last word. Keep digging.

  10. Ah, but some of us have American spelling in built into our machines, 1720, and have more interest in placing correct content rather than always adjusting to UK spelling. You could try that. Maybe there are American readers who would disagree with you? Or Liverpool FC supporters? Spread your Net wide! (You would also have noted I have commented upon US/UK spelling before, and that sometimes I bother to correct, other times I do not.)

    You do have a very interesting, and almost identical, methodology-and choice of phrase-to someone else who posts on this site. Must be coincidence, or the same handbook! But, thanks for putting the word into my mind.


    As, already ruled, “to transfer production to a more local source.”

    Whichever way you phrase it, you can Giggle away and find many climate change reports that advocate just that. And, as with all such recommendations you will find those who claim to have an interest in controlling climate change decide that is not their preferred method and try and claim it doesn’t assist (having to destroy arithmetic within that process) rather than just admit it is not convenient within their wider agenda.

    Sorry, if you have some connections with those making money out of exports to the UK, but I prefer if money is to be made it is within the UK and benefits locals rather than costs them to try and exclude it. I get my fun in other ways.

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 )

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