EA defends permit change at East Yorkshire wellsite

The Environment Agency has defended the way it approved changes to the rules governing an oil site in East Yorkshire.

A local resident called for the suspension of the variation to the environmental permit for the West Newton B site in Holderness. Harry Clark said there should be a public review of the decision.

He alleged the Environment Agency (EA) had been inconsistent in the way it dealt with application, compared with similar changes at the West Newton A site, also run by Rathlin Energy.

One of his main concerns was that the EA had organised an information event for West Newton A, but not for West Newton B. He also complained that he had not received a leaflet about the permit changes for West Newton B, when he had for West Newton A.

An EA said today it would not be suspending the permit variation. A spokesperson said:

“We followed the correct process for both West Newton A and West Newton B permit variation applications.

“We ensured the application documents were available for viewing online through our consultation website Citizen Space, and delivered information leaflets to residents living close to each site to ensure they had the opportunity to view the applications.

“An information event which was held for the West Newton A site in 2019 attracted less interest than we anticipated so based on the low level of public interest we made the decision not to host an event for West Newton B.”

The EA said Mr Clark would not have received a leaflet about West Newton B because he lived further away from that site and was “less likely to be impacted”.

The agency also said the application documents for the permit variation were published on the Environment Agency West Newton B well site web page in November 2020. They remained there until the permit variation was issued in May 2021, the EA said. Then, they were replaced with the permit variation notice and decision document, it said.

Mr Clark also alleged the EA had been inconsistent in approving the use of carbon dioxide to lift fluids out of the well at West Newton B. But the permit for West Newton A had allowed just the use of nitrogen.

The EA said

“Rathlin Energy decided not to propose use of carbon dioxide for lifting as a technique at the West Newton A well site and for that reason it was not included in the West Newton A permit variation.

“The choice of either nitrogen or carbon dioxide for gas lifting does not lead to a significant difference in the environmental impact from well lifting operations.”

Rathlin Energy told DrillOrDrop that the permit variation was discussed at, and noted in the published notes of, the community liaison meeting on 29 October 2019.

6 replies »

  1. Hmm.

    Talk about the abuse of tax payers money.

    Perhaps Mr. Clark should focus his attention upon the environmental impact of the oil currently imported that this oil might partially replace? Could start with Nigeria. (And to save someone the effort, DYOR and reference the recent episode where the SBS had to secure a tanker load in the Solent.)

    • One plus one, Martin? Try hard now. Then dig away. The hole is getting deeper but you are not helping the industry’s cause. To get you back on track, remember:
      Fossil fuel exploration and development must stop now if we are to avoid catastrophe. Try and concentrate on that.

  2. Nope, one plus one is YOUR nonsense 1720, that does not happen in reality. If Cornwall start to produce lithium it is possible that UK will get 70% of it’s lithium supplies from Cornwall. Do you really believe that 70% will still be mined elsewhere and just plonked into a big heap? I have advised before, get a job with an exporting company and see how the reality works. You obviously have no clue and no interest in correcting that.

    No maths., no physics and no offers of what should be done, apart from something which will NOT be done. Still taking part but not making any sense.

    Meanwhile, I could also offer plenty of things the EA could be spending their time and resources upon.

  3. Didn’t quite get you back on track, did I? Nice diversionary tactic, though. You’re really quite a polymath, aren’t you, and a jack-of-all-trades to boot, and…….
    Interesting topic, Lithium. What opinion have you authoritatively attributed to me on that subject? However, back to the fossil fuels where 1 plus 1 equals – ? Or perhaps not in Collier arithmetic, sorry, maths and physics. (Can’t we pull in a few other sciences you are equally unfamiliar with? What does the fossil fuel industry recommend now?)
    Dig away, the hole is really impressive.

  4. What have we here?

    Let me look into the trapping pit and see what blundered in during the night.

    Ahh-it is a 1720, down there.

    “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.”

    No, not 1+1. 1+1 is fake news, transfer is factual. And keep posting fake news and I will keep identifying it. Nothing to do with Trump.

    Was that a Collyer (note spelling) quote? No, it was from the Inspector as he awarded costs of £400k to Egdon following previous fake maths. and physics being attempted to claim what 1720 has been claiming. Now, what does transfer mean? Even for the younger readers they will be familiar with the FACT that if Kane is TRANSFERRED this summer from Spurs to A.N.Other club, he will, next season play for A.N.Other club but not for Spurs! (Sorry, Spurs fans!)

    So, now we will see correct maths., physics, history have English added to the subject that needs trashing to take part if you can’t be bothered to do the research.

    Well, thanks 1720 for demonstrating how far you can be lead to try and take part. No, I will not help you out of that pit, you observed it being dug, you have jumped in. I have no intention of helping someone out who is so willing to try and get another local community to shell out £400k with a rinse and repeat operation, which was shown to be fake before, just so they can take part in something. Whilst you are busy trying to redefine English, perhaps check the difference between protectors and parasites. You should, because that is the “help” you have supplied to those within the anti group who have genuine and factual concerns, whilst you attempted to manufacture fake ones. Paul may not like that terminology but it is correct English for those who attempt to cost communities large resources when such arguments have already been shown to be false, and the community has footed the bill- and it also destroys the credibility of those who try and protest around the reality. And it is you who has questioned MY motivation! LOL.

    Another little energy saving tip for you. Use the benefits of daylight, you will see your energy usage tumble. Another “something” that you could do, but decide not to.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s