Biscathorpe oil carbon intensity below UK onshore average– Union Jack

One of the backers of plans for long-term production in the Lincolnshire Wolds has said the carbon intensity of oil from the site would be below the UK onshore average.

Union Jack Oil said oil production from Biscathorpe would release an estimated 3.06 grams of CO2 per megajoule of energy created. But this figure could be reduced further to just 1.49 gCO2eq./MJ, Union Jack said.

The Biscathorpe project was criticised last week by the local MP and junior minister, Victoria Atkins, who called on Lincolnshire County Council to refuse a planning application by Egdon Resources.

She said:

“As the UK strives to achieve net zero by 2050 and in the year that we host the COP26 summit, we must be cautious to ensure that we do not allow an application to go ahead which will do long term damage to the Lincolnshire Wolds, its natural environment and our local communities.”

The Bishop of Grimsby, academics and business leaders said extracting new sources of oil in Lincolnshire was “utterly incompatible with keeping within the internationally agreed goal of limiting global overheating to 1.5 degrees”.

A petition signed by more than 1,000 people said the proposed development was not sustainable development and should be refused.

In a statement to investors today, Union Jack, which has a 45% interest in the Biscathorpe project, said its focus was:

“to minimise emissions and the carbon footprint generated by its hydrocarbon developments in the most efficient way possible , whilst continuing to contribute positively to the growing demand for energy and hydrocarbon products in the supply chain.”

Union jack said hydrocarbons would continue to play an ongoing part in ensuring the energy security of the UK. It said “locally-produced hydrocarbons may provide the benefit of displacing, to some extent, imported hydrocarbons”.

The carbon intensity for Biscathorpe was estimated by the energy consultancy Gaffney, Cline & Associates Limited. It rated Biscathorpe as AA for energy intensity.

David Bramhill, Executive Chairman of Union Jack, said: “

“This study is an excellent overview of the green credentials for any potential future development decision at Biscathorpe. The AA rating achieved indicates the efforts made by the Operator, Egdon, to ensure that projects under its stewardship comply with best practice.”

The Union Jack statement did not give details of the average carbon intensity for UK onshore oil or link to the GaffneyCline report.

The Climate Change Committee had no information on UK onshore oil’s carbon intensity in its 2016 report on UK onshore petroleum.

The Oil & Gas Authority reported last year that the average emission intensity for the UK fields in the North Sea was 22 kgCO2e/boe ( a different measure from GaffneyCline. But the OGA had no details of the average carbon intensity for onshore oil.A study by GaffneyCline for Rathlin Energy’s West Newton sites came to similar conclusions.

8 replies »

  1. For An MP to be opposing this Begs the Question as to why the Government sold the company an Exploration Licence in the first place ?

    • Because that’s what they do , same as giving the go ahead for another new coal mine in Cumbria, this government are a clusterfrack. Less carbon, yeah right , it’s like the Monty Python spam sketch, spam egg , chips and spam , not much spam init 🤣🤣

  2. Strange contradiction there!

    I believe it is Jono who frequently refers to on shore oil exploration being a waste of investors money. Now it “is” tax payers money?

    Hmm. UK oil production, privately funded, produces taxation into the system which can help fund the NHS. Imported oil? Nope. However, the antis want to do all they can do to delay, allowing the companies to gain tax allowances in the process, and costing local communities £400k with spurious objections. Tax payers money.

    Less carbon? Yes. Reduced transport emissions. Do the maths.

    Then, there is the carbon intensity of some sources of imported oil. Probably not measured as would be off the scale.

    • The grave, serious voice of reason again: you can tell by the first syllable: “Hmm. UK oil production, privately funded, produces taxation into the system which can help fund the NHS. Imported oil? “. Nice bit of emotive argumentation: remember Brexit and the £350m a week for the NHS if we leave the EU. Remember what else our taxation helps fund – some good, many bad. Remember, with apologies to the Greeks, the old adage “I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts.” Martin will deny that the UK subsidises oil and fossil fuel production, indeed implicitly he does so. The government makes a similar claim which, given a government working for justice and equality, ought to settle the matter, but doesn’t. Have a look at this and make up your own mind:
      See also:

      For a more accurate understanding of taxation applicable to fossil fuel imports, click on this link to see a report from the OECD

      In so far as oil production is directly or indirectly subsidised, it is indeed a waste both of tax-payers’ and investors’ money.
      Remember that the ‘antis’ ‘ referred to are those who are indeed anti – anti-planetary catastrophe caused by anthropogenic climate change*; anti-misinformation and other attempts to deflect public attention from the real issue; anti-all efforts to bolster up the polluters’ non-arguments in order that they may continue to exploit fossil fuels long beyond the point at which this can be countenanced. The ‘antis’ referred to do not seek to delay, but to completely block all further attempts to develop new sources of fossil fuels, here or wherever. If the polluters jump at the chance to make a further buck at the tax-payers’ expense, that is because that’s what polluters’ ethics encourage them to do, not because antis encourage this immoral behaviour. [Edited by moderator]
      “Less carbon” as part of the writer’s argument is irrational. In so far as we are not tapping this indigenous resource, then indeed there will be less carbon than if it were tapped. But what the writer is trying to do is to get us to accept that were we to tap immediately, which we cannot in general do, we would be producing less carbon by dint of our superior technology than existing sources in, say, Norway. No evidence is adduced either for lower emissions or for superior UK technology. To this doubtful gain we are asked to consider the environmental cost of polluting transport emissions. More could be said on this latter point but suffice it to assert once again that the sum we are asked to do is based upon two terms, neither of which is known and the first of which is spurious. Not my kind of arithmetic: is it anyone’s kind of arithmetic? The call to “do the maths” is an attempt to deflect by appeal to our supposed respect for a science which is beyond us.
      The last clinching argument of Martin’s post could perhaps be rephrased as ‘I don’t really know but maybe some foreign oil is unimaginably more carbon intense.” To finish where I started: “Hmm!”

      *I think the views on indigenous fossil fuel development of one whose opinions do not reflect a belief in anthropogenic climate change – (see DoD. July 13 Isle of Wight MP opposes UKOG’s permit.., Comments) – need close examination. Remember (again) Churchill’s dictum “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

      • [Edited by moderator]

        How much extra has been put into the NHS since Brexit, 1720?

        Hmm. Now, take £350m and multiply by 52. And then it is obvious that…….1720 has a problem with maths.!

        First, taxation, then decisions on where to spend it. Wonder where some taxation can be raised? Oh yes, fuel duty. So, no, not subsidized anything like renewables.

        But, as you believed in taxation without (effective) representation what good came of that? Oh yes, a tampon tax!

        That one has gone and yet money into the NHS. No need for me to throw the tea into any water, other than in my kitchen.

        [Edited by moderator]

        And if you are going to post on behalf of all antis, then I fear you are also mistaken, as I have seen some alternative objectives mentioned.

      • Or, let’s say Nigeria.

        Could “we”? Yes.

        Would Nigeria then continue to produce oil for UK that would not be purchased? No.

        So, double improvements from transfer.

        Not 1720 type of arithmetic? No, because it is so straight forward and compelling that it requires a smoke screen of us. Maybe there are a few who can’t do the maths. but not too many more willing to admit it.

Leave a Reply to Iaith1720 Cancel reply

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