Rathlin posts notice of application for West Newton oil production

Rathlin Energy has given formal notice that it intends to apply for planning permission for expansion and long-term oil production at one of its sites in East Yorkshire.

Formal notice of planning application at West Newton A. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

The company posted details on the fence at its West Newton-A site in Holderness.

The application will seek to increase the size of the site, test, appraise and produce from the two existing wells and drill, test, appraise and produce from six new wells. Oil production could last for 25 years, the company has said previously.

The notice, required under planning regulations, is official notification to owners or tenants of land to which an application for mineral working relates.

Under Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, the notice must be displayed for not less than seven days in the period of 21 days immediately before the application is made to the local planning authority.

Any representations about the plans for West Newton-A must be made by Friday 9 July 2021 to East Riding of Yorkshire Council. This period does not replace any public consultation period when the application has been submitted and published.

The application must be validated by East Yorkshire planners before it is posted online and opens for public comments. That consultation usually lasts at least three weeks but can be six weeks or more.

When the application has been published, DrillOrDrop will report on the contents and reaction to it.

Rathlin Energy gave some details in a week-long online exhibition in March 2021. This showed that the six new wells would be drilled in a row, with the rig moving from one well to the next. Each well would take about 15 weeks to drill.

The exhibition said there would be 20-25 tanker visits each day during production. This raised concerns locally and nearly 30 representatives of local councils asked the communities secretary, Robert Jenrick, to require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the application.

Mr Jenrick turned down the request earlier this month and said the drilling plans were “not likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Also this month, Rathlin said it would reduce daily tanker visits to the site to 10 during oil production in response to public concerns. But it said the planning application would continue to assess what it called the worse case of 25 lorries a day on air quality, noise and road capacity.

Opponents of onshore oil and gas operations have vowed to oppose any planning application at West Newton-A.

6 replies »

  1. And, supporters of transferring oil production to a more local source have vowed to support any planning application at West Newton A as it has already been ruled that is what UK oil production achieves, helping towards net zero as long as UK continues to require more oil than it can produce.

  2. Where is this oil production being transferred from, I wonder. Who made such an extraordinary ruling, I wonder.

  3. Wonder away, 1720. Could it be Nigeria, Mid East? What would the transport emissions be from those sources, or are you unable to specify unless allowed to by your friends? There are sets of data which identify where UK imports oil from, and then you could look into oil products as well, such as diesel.

    Then there could be a risk analyses of the probability of another Torrey Canyon, but the maths. may not get you that far. Again, there are sets of data for maritime accidents, which are quite shocking, so better avoid probability and just accept it is another accident waiting to happen-and nearly did a short while ago with a cargo coming from Norway. And, yes I have already supplied that reference.

    And, then there is also the question about taxation upon UK production and the tax hole reference over the horizon, and how alternative energy sources are subsidized through taxation. And, yes, I have already given that reference.

    Who made such a ruling? Probably someone who knows that even whilst the UK is using oil it can improve the impact upon climate change, and wants to bank those benefits rather than wait until everyone’s dogma is satisfied, as that will be never.

    Even Harry Kane, before or after the transfer, knows that if you wait for the perfect solution, then you miss the goal. Even if you then allow a few people to generate a grievance.

  4. So we don’t know the answer to either question. How do we know that a transfer has taken place and that somebody made such a ruling?
    Deflection won’t work, Martin. Your game is up. I’ve not bothered with the gobbledygook. And of course we know now where you’re coming from as a result of your responses in the previous DoD report.. Conversation over.

  5. Well, yes, I know where imports of oil come from, 1720, but also know those imports are contingent upon many factors, and are not set in tablets of stone. (Fortunately really, as many sources of oil over the horizon are not as secure as some would suggest.)

    How do “we” know a transfer has taken place? Well, when I am consuming my own courgettes, 1720, none are being imported for me from anywhere else. No, I do not eat both. If and when I buy a Jag then I will not buy a BMW, so transfer of production can be seen, within UK production data and import data re. Germany. (Guess what? Over in Germany there would not be Martin’s BMW produced and sitting lonely!)

    No deflection, no gobbledygook. Perfectly straight forward relationship between supply and demand. In all these cases, UK production is replacing production from over the horizon. Sometimes it can’t and that is okay, but when it can and provide environmental improvement at the same time, who on earth would want to prevent that? Hmm, yes there are some. Nimbys, I can accept, as they have concerns about their local environment, but those who try and claim the environment as a whole is worse off are just factually, and morally, wrong.

    In the case of the ruling, then you need to read a bit more. It has featured many times within DoD. Try looking back at the outcome of the Wressle enquiry. There, I have lead you to the water, if you don’t want to drink that remains your choice. You have been to that water several times, so maybe another refusal?

    (Perhaps less late nights typing about what you are uncertain about, and a bit more time researching, would bring you to a point where you can supply answers instead of questions?)

  6. Research, don’t be silly. They just go to a like minded source and that is all the research they do.

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