Egdon Resources announced this morning it has lodged an appeal against the refusal of its planning application for oil production at Biscathorpe in the Lincolnshire Wolds.
Photo: DrillOrDrop
Lincolnshire County Council refused permission for 15 years of oil extraction on 1 November 2021, the day that climate talks got underway in Glasgow.
As world leaders gathered to discuss reducing carbon emissions, the council’s planning committee voted by 7 to 4 with two abstentions to block Egdon’s plans.
The decision went against the recommendation of planning officers. It was the fourth consecutive refusal of UK onshore oil and gas planning applications and the fifth refusal in 2021.
The company had estimated the well at Biscathorpe in the Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would produce almost 4 million barrels of oil.
A report by Friends of the Earth and the New Economics Foundation concluded this would generate 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The application included drilling a sidetrack well to target the Westphalian sandstone and deeper Dinantian Carbonate. Egdon has estimated there could be up to 30 million barrels of oil in the formations.
In statement today, Egdon said it had taken advice from advisors and partners in the Biscathorpe project. It said:
“The appeal documentation is currently in preparation and is expected to be submitted during Q1 2022.”
The Planning Inspectorate will decide how the appeal should be decided – by public inquiry, a hearing or written representations.
There were more than 200 local objections to the original planning application. A petition against the scheme had more than 1,800 signatures. Opponents included the local MP and justice minister, Victoria Atkins, Lincolnshire Climate Commission, the countryside charity CPRE, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and five parish councils closest to the site.
Categories: Regulation, slider
DRILL OR DROP? 
So, as determined at Wressle, that 1.7m would be a transfer of accounting over the horizon to accounting locally, via a transfer of production. Nothing to do with demand. That is what even Greta has been moaning about in respect of UK-exporting our carbon footprint and then being self righteous about it.
The cost to Wressle locals to have that determined? £400k.
Looks as if the locals here might also find out, to their cost, that the Community support offered by Egdon will be more than gobbled up by the costs imposed upon them by their “representatives”.
Around the same sum of money an MP can get from a foreign agent to fund their office. There does seem to be a pretty cavalier approach to £400k sums at local and national government level.
And while Moscow looks in to invading the Ukraine, the UK turns a blind eye to what this’ll do to energy prices…..
The UK and Western Europe is completely exposed to energy hikes and the impact a war could do against climate change!!
Misrepresentation calls for a fact check. No such thing was determined at Wressle. It was the Inspector’s opinion, I repeat opinion, that such a “transfer” would take place. Some beg to differ, a fact acknowledged by the Inspector, who pointed out that “urgent climate change issues….. are well outside the remit of the appeal.” The £400k, referred to ad nauseam by your contributor, were costs which, ipso facto’ , had nothing to do with this non-existent determination.
Costs? Yes. Who created the costs? Those who had no concern for the locals, rejecting the advice of the professionals employed to provide advice, and producing the inevitable outcome.
The Inspector was responsible for the decision-he determined it! It exists.
Some beg to differ. Okay, then do so with your own money and refund the £400k to the local community.
Come on 1720, please give “us” the benefit of the anti arithmetic you support to try and force the jigsaw piece that doesn’t fit. Wressle production does NOT increase UK demand. UK is a net importer of oil. So, the outcome is that there is more local supply to meet local demand, that will then enable a small reduction in UK oil imports. Now wait for it. “We” are expected to believe that if Wressle did not produce then demand would drop! Or, if Wressle produced demand would go up! Neither. Demand stays the same, just a little more produced locally.
[Edited by moderator]
Come on Martin, I’ve only written four lines, especially ‘simple’. Do try and understand.
You mean I should try and understand, 1720? Okay-here I go:
The repeated factual errors within the content provide the context.
Just like the South Sea Bubble of 1720. Nothing to understand, just irrational exuberance.
Quite easy really. Put your chosen number into the frame, and that is what is produced, and then is reinforced over time.
(I do have more difficulty understanding what a Lib. Dem. Geologist represents though. Then I look at the price of Brent Crude and then it becomes clear.)
Obviously a Company engaged in Oil Exploration has no interest in reducing demand for the product which it is seeking to extract.
But reducing demand is exactly what this Government is trying to achieve. To this end, the Council should be congratulated for taking a broader view of climate necessity.
You are absolutely right, Martyn. Wressle production is reliant that current levels of demand remain unaltered. Local production of oil does not make its burning of any less injurious.
Anyway, I thought you were giddy about the prospect of converting to Hydrogen. Or is that another of your temporary enthusiasms that has disappeared into the ether ?
Philip, local production at Wressle and Biscathorpe has a big impact on the carbon footprint of products produced at the two nearby refineries in Immingham. The council isn’t taking a very broad view of climate necessity or the steps required along the pathway to net zero.
Philip.
Your comments are at least based upon an understanding-apart from my name! Observation Philip!
Yes, indeed, as and when demand drops then your point starts to become relevant. The timescale? Based upon even the most ambitious time scale, beyond the life of this site-during which time other UK on shore sites will have also reduced output (Wytch Farm now not much above 10k barrels per day, was above 100k barrels per day.) There are no proposed UK on shore oil sites that would, even together, replace the volume that used to be produced at Wytch Farm.
Your second to last sentence started to suffer the anti deviation into fantasy. UK is a net importer of oil. Demand in UK needs to drop a lot to even correct that imbalance. Local production remains less injurious than imported oil. Someone else has kindly provided data regarding maritime transport of oil and what that takes. Other data can be found by just plonking maritime transport emissions into a search engine. You will find they add up to a total greater than the emissions produced by Germany. Don’t get carried away and research maritime collisions and sinkings, that reality might be be too much to contemplate. Perhaps just remember Torrey Canyon? I also seem to recall there was a very close call with a tanker off Norway a short while ago, that was shipping a cargo to UK.
Indeed I am enthusiastic about hydrogen and like the amount of money being invested to make it happen, ignoring some who claim nothing is being done. When, and, if that all comes to fruition, then the situation changes. Would that be during the lifetime of this site? Don’t think so. Transition takes some time. I am also somewhat enthusiastic about fusion but if I wait for that I may wait a longer time.
I still have difficulty understanding why there are some who claim to be environmentalists, yet appear happy to see more environmental damage done during transition than is necessary. As I have stated before, Nimbys are honest about their approach. The anti dogma, dressed up as concern for the planet does not add up in respect of UK on shore oil, and in my opinion, is not honest.