Regulation

Maps show which East Yorkshire villages could be drilled under by oil and gas company

Oil and gas wells planned in East Yorkshire could be drilled under five villages, new maps have revealed.

The documents were published online yesterday, just days before the end of public consultations on two planning applications by Rathlin Energy.

The company wants to drill four new wells at the West Newton-A site in Holderness and another one at its nearby West Newton-B site. It is also seeking consent to produce oil and gas from West Newton-A for 20 years and to extend the life of West Newton-B by another three years.

The planning statements, key documents in the applications, assumed that most of the wells would be drilled directionally, away from the site, rather than vertically.

The new maps show the geographical extent of the below-ground drilling for both sites and the area of likely extraction for West Newton-A.

The villages in the drilling zones include Burton Constable and Tansterne (both sites), Flinton (West Newton-B), and Withernwick and Marton (West Newton-A).

Earlier this month, a report on predicted production levels at West Newton-A, said the Kirkham Abbey target formation could deliver substantially higher production rates from horizontal, rather than vertical, wells.

The same report said flow rates could be improved by an acid stimulation programme. Earlier plans for both sites indicated that well treatment options could include matrix acidisation and low volume hydraulic fracturing.

Rathlin Energy said in both applications that directional drilling would allow “for the most efficient production from the reservoir”.

Opposition to oil and gas drilling at West Newton. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Sarah Hockey, from the West Newton Said No campaign, said:

“I think the plan to drill horizontally under people’s property and land is a very worrying development. People are getting really scared now, especially with the fact they are now planning to use hydraulic fracturing, albeit low level, but acidisation too, which is controversial.”

The West Newton-A application is a scaled-down version of proposals refused by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in September 2021. That scheme attracted 1,121 formal objections, as well as opposition from eight parish councils and local ward councillors.

Ms Hockey said the newly-formed West Newton Said No campaign was set up to raise further awareness through publicity and a sign and poster presence in local villages. She said:

“We want to send a clear message to Rathlin that residents have said no and they meant it.”

Comments on both applications should be submitted to East Riding of Yorkshire Council by 28 January 2022.

West Newton-A

West Newton-B

25 replies »

  1. Please note that initial estimates suggests some of these wells could yield as much gas as one of the bigger North Sea wells at obviously lower cost and with a smaller carbon footprint.

    The current Ukraine situation shows the importance of energy security.

    It’s fascinating that in a previous time of crisis, the Second World War, American oilmen came to our aid by rapidly drilling oil wells in the East Midlands area to top up much needed supplies. Look it up, it’s a interesting story. We still won’t do it ourselves and are still partly dependent on imported US shale gas.

  2. Yes, shalewatcher, the comparisons are interesting.

    I notice this month UK has recorded already the highest month for liquified gas imports, with the majority coming from USA. Earlier this week in the HoC during the debate regarding the Ukraine it was admitted that this was a deliberate step to bolster not only UK energy security, but also Europe’s.

    Whilst certain quarters would try and make out shale gas in USA is such a terrible industry, I have read some rather interesting comments from parents over there who have their schools drilled under. Were they all terrified? Nope. Many welcomed the extra contributions to the PTA!

    In comparison, the UK will become hysterical, spend a load of money out of a community-perhaps £400k-and thus end up with no net benefit to the community when the project goes ahead.

    The really scared bit is interesting. Why? Wressle has been subject to what treatment was required. It has been done. Was it a problem? Nope.

    Now another £100m committed towards continued discussion re. Sizewell C. (Talk is not cheap, it appears!) Coming to a green levy on our energy bills soon? Has nuclear waste disposal now been sorted? Nope. But, the turbines require back-up.

    And a report that says $trillions/year will need to be spent over the next 30 years to meet net zero, the equivalent of half of all corporate profits! Sorry for those in East Yorkshire who are trying to make a business pay. Your hard work has already been reallocated. Were you asked? Did you agree to it? For those in East Yorkshire who do not run a business and think they will be removed-the first port of call for companies that have their profits slashed, is to slash their work force.

    Happy New Year.

    • Martin Frederick Collyer well put!! Let the drilling begin its criminal that we in the UK are being hammered on energy prices when we could have it much cheaper and more environmentally friendly in the move to NetZero!

  3. “I think the plan to drill horizontally under people’s property and land is a very worrying development. People are getting really scared now, especially with the fact they are now planning to use hydraulic fracturing, albeit low level, but acidisation too, which is controversial.”

    Why? How will a small hole, 6inch or 8-1/2inch diameter, drilled approximately 72,000 inches below peoples property have any impact on the surface above the borehole? Acid stimulation will also have zero impact and is only controversial to those that that don’t understand it and want to scare people.

    The impacts will be visual (wellsite), traffic, noise and light etc. These will be addressed in the planning process.

    Typical anti scaremongering.

    [Edited by moderator]

    • People are scared witless down here in Lincs. A solar panel desert is on its way. But local rewilders plan to increase biodiversity with panels in place. Some worry about food production, but turf and crops for fuel go unnoticed. At least there are no plans to mine the coal which is there.

  4. The US, particularly Texas, has made a trade off between oil and gas production, with pollution and earthquakes. The US is, however, more thinly populated.
    This government cares little for rules and regulations. Their acceptance of raw sewage in rivers and the surrounding ocean demonstrates that any pollution caused by oil and gas drilling will be summarily swept under the rug.

    • “West Newton said No”!

      “We Said No!”

      Hey! We did a “We”!

      And So Say all of “Us”!

      Happy New Year West Newton. You are not alone.

      Phil C

      • Curious hypocrisy when all that warmongering and fearmongering from the fossil fuel protagonists on Drill or Drop about Russia invading Ukraine. Also curious that Russia deny they have any intention of doing so. More about that later. And yet it’s all crowing from the top of chicken coop about West Newton saying “No!” to “Rathlin Energy” invading West Newton and drilling under West Newton village houses without their permission? An interesting parallel there, isn’t there?

        Perhaps Ukraine, who said “No!” to Russia, ought to stand up in solidarity with West Newton against the invasion of their villages by “Rathlin Energy”?

        This is interesting. Origin of “Rathlin”

        https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=rathlin

        ratline (n.)

        “thin rope,” especially, on sailing ships, one of a series of small ropes or lines which form the steps of ladders for going aloft, late 15c., ratling, also ratlin, a word of obscure etymology. Compare Dutch weeflijn, German Webeleine “web line.” The spelling ratline is attested from 1773, perhaps by folk etymology influence of rat (n.) + line (n.), “a seamen’s jocular name, as if forming ladders for the rats to climb by” [Century Dictionary].

        Hmmm… So, “Rathlin” means a thin rope for rats to climb up on…..a rat line in fact….

        So it looks like “Ratline Energy” it is then? Perhaps that could not have been more illustrative if it tried?

        Oops!

        Have a Nice Day.

        [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

        • Very curious that some would expect others to be unaware that control of energy supplies to the Ukraine and to Europe is not at the heart of the situation.

          So, what is then required?

          Oh yes. The USA gets their rigs mobilised (check US drilling rig count) and ship after ship brings huge quantities of gas to the EU (check January LNG shipments), adding all those transport emissions. But, that is over the horizon so no one will notice?

          Only those who are unable to, who also confuse some saying no with everyone saying no. Everyone did not say no. Accuracy is the convenient sacrificial lamb for the anti. Curious that has to be the case.

          • “Only those who are unable to, who also confuse some saying no with everyone saying no. Everyone did not say no. Accuracy is the convenient sacrificial lamb for the anti. Curious that has to be the case.”

            It looks like “inaccuracy” and “confusion” if not “conflation” is only in the eye of that particular beholder? Where did I say “everyone” anywhere?

            No I didn’t.

            But that is just another conflationist invention of the dismally desperate fossil fuel ship of fools, isn’t it. That inconvenient cracked mirror has reflected its own distorted image back to its origin once again.

            All that proves without a shadow of a doubt, is that “Accuracy” is the convenient sacrificial lamb for the fossil fuel protagonists on Drill or Drop? Whereas as truth and accuracy appears to be the sole property of the objectors to the invasion, as illustrated in Ukraine and West Newton in this case.

            Hoist by their own petard yet again. Rubbish in, Rubbish out.

            As usual, where there is no sense, there is no reason. Accuracy is visibly absent in that post and is therefore meaningless.

            That thin rat line will only serve to hang the unwary and the delusionally inaccurate..(!)..that attempts to climb it. Left dangling by a thread once again. No change there.

            Twas ever thus.

            Still….. Have a Nice Day!

            • “West Newton said no”. 2.44pm , 31/1/2022.

              So, what you really meant to say was that some in West Newton said no? Therefore an inaccurate statement, in respect of proportion. Also an inaccurate statement in terms of a hamlet being able to say anything. A hamlet is a collection of dwellings. They do not talk.

              Some in West Newton said no, may be accurate. But, inaccuracy is your preferred choice. Twas ever thus.

              Some in every hamlet say no to just about any local development. Twas ever thus, yet wind turbines and solar farms are constructed.

              • Careful, that thin rat line is getting more and more inaccurate to the point of absurdum. The delusional unwary might find themselves hanging from a thread once again. Desperate to avoid implied consensus of opinion again? Fixations with single words like “we” or “us” too.

                [Edited by moderator]

                To repeat the obvious yet again. Nowhere did I, or the West Newton Said No campaign, say “everyone”. That word is spuriously attempted to be inserted out of thin air on a thin rope, and fantasized about, and is all in the originators’ imagination. Nowhere else.

                Not in the Real World.

                Nothing more than Reductio ad absurdum in those posts.

                • Oh, the single word nonsense! Yes or no?

                  [Edited by moderator]

                  So, at last, an admission that not everyone in West Newton said no. Many thanks for that apology, which wouldn’t have been required if an accurate statement had been made in the first place.

                  Somewhat undermines the narrative that is being attempted, but ever thus. Thanks Phil C. It is now clarified by yourself:

                  “Some in West Newton said no.”

                  Perhaps some wider placards will now follow?

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  To bring you back down to Earth and back to the Real World, “West Newton Said No” is the name of the campaign against RatLine’s attempt to invade West Newton and drill under their houses without their agreement or permission.

                  That’s all there is to be said, at least, to any reasonable person that is…..

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  Phil C.

                  Who stated:

                  “Engineering requires precise unambiguous language that cannot be misinterpreted or hidden in vague terminology.”

                  Where did it all go wrong?

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  Unlike Russia, “RatLine” Energy, have expressed their intent to invade West Newton and drill under people’s homes without their permission or agreement.

                  Russia, on the other hand, in spite of what the fearmongering warmongers would like to say, and as Putin has stated quite clearly in the mainstream press. Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine. It’s like a godawful chess game as far as these power mad nations go. All bluster with real guns and weapons. People die, but do they care? Not a chance. Just so as they play the scary monster and appear to be right all the time.

                  Hmmm, now where have I seen that before? Something just now, wasn’t it? Always wanting to appear to be right? Must have been something I read just now? Never mind, I’m sure it will come to me………

                  The west attempts to scaremonger and warmonger is just the usual banksters and fossil fuel corporations attempts to vastly inflate the price of money and of fossil fuels even more than they have already.

                  It’s that tired old attempt to circumnavigate the government’s declared but painfully inoperative promises to move away from fossil fuels, as said in COP26.

                  Jumping on the Russia/Ukraine issue and attempting to foment World War 3 (or is that World War 4 now? I lose track?) with Russia, just goes to show how reckless and suicidally insane the fossil fuel corporations are to increase their profits at everyone’s, and at the entire planetary population’s expense.

                  That is sheer suicidal insanity. In fact, the Ukraine government have themselves told the west to stop stirring it up with Russia, as it’s not constructive, and it exacerbates a situation that they don’t want messed with.

                  Just as the fossil fuel corporations cause 20 million deaths per year through fossil fuel pollution. The fact that the same fossil fuel corporations disregard for all life has caused the sixth major extinction event in the Earths history. The fact that the entire planet’s ambient temperature will increase by 2.0 to 2.4 degrees, causing massive climate change.

                  [Edited by moderator]

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  What you should have stated is Russia has no intention of invading the remainder of Ukraine that it has not already invaded, in your opinion, based upon what has been fed to the mainstream press. Except, that does suffer comparison with previous situations within Europe, such as 1939, so use language that is ambiguous and imprecise to avoid such comparison. Or, that Salisbury Cathedral is on every Russian’s bucket list, as that was also fed to mainstream press. It may still be a good idea to keep that opinion away from the remaining residents of Salisbury, as they experienced the precise and unambiguous reality!

                  [Edited by moderator]

                • There’s a lengthy report by the Daily Mail on the reality of the situation. There are other reports to choose from.

                  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457509/Russia-rubbishes-claims-ready-invade-Ukraine-completely-ridiculous.html

                  Winston Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, speaking of this quote, noted that Churchill actually said, ‘Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.’ Four years later, during a visit to Australia, Harold Macmillan said the words usually—and wrongly—attributed to Churchill: “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” Credit: Harold Macmillan.

                  https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/quotes-falsely-attributed/

                  But that would be inconvenient to quote, as it contravenes the inevitable warmongering narrative, doesn’t it. Don’t forget, all wars are bankers wars. Dont forget peace is the only sane concept. Don’t forget those who profit from war: USA for example spend more on the weaponry of war than the entire rest of the world spends on weaponry combined. That is just what happened before the first and second world wars, and has continued since to the present day. Russia, USA, UK, EU and all governments are no different in that disrepect at all.

                  https://wri-irg.org/en/programme/war-profiteers

                  No one wins a war, thousands perhaps millions or maybe even billions would lose their lives in this new insanity.

                  Meeting Jaw to Jaw is better than war. Or Jaw Jaw not War War. Whichever quote floats your boat.

                  As an opposite opinion to the Daily Mail, just for balance, this is from The Morning Star, I must admit that is the first time I have looked at it, but it seems at least relatively sane compared to the usual mainstream press fare.
                  Somewhere between these two usually diametrically opposed points of view there may be some sort of sanity worth considering.

                  None of this, incidentally, addresses the Rathlin Energy (RatLine) plans to drill beneath the houses and villages of West Newton, and the West Newton Said No campaign. Which is probably the reason for this rabid warmongering by the fossil fuel protagonists in the first place. But of course that is a situation that is patently avoided by the usual fossil fuel protagonists from, and I paraphrase the quote:

                  “running dog lickspittle hot deskers pounding their plastic keys to the tune of their fossil fuel coal and gas producer masters and other such conspiracy theories”.

                  Don’t forget, Jaw to Jaw is better than War. Or Jaw Jaw is better than War War, whichever quote floats your boat.

                  Monday, January 31, 2022
                  Stop the war posturing – Ukraine is a tinderbox

                  https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/stop-war-posturing-ukraine-tinderbox

                  [Edited by moderator] It says something very interesting about the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which appears to indicate that the fossil fuel corporate interests are very much involved in the potentiality of conflict in Ukraine.

                  Talks with Russia and Ukraine on reviving the Minsk peace process are fortunately under way, and Kiev too clearly now backs reducing tensions. Time for London and Washington to pull back from the brink.

                • Apart from all of that, Nord Stream 2 was added into the mix. Should never have been under consideration in the first place. Even Trump could see that and took action, then reversed by Biden. No wonder all the regimes that wish to cause mischief are now testing him further. Nothing to do with fossil fuel interests driving the agenda. The mischief makers are doing so taking advantage of lack of security built into energy supplies, particularly Europe’s. Strangely (lol) I have been hearing for years on DoD there is no insecurity that needs to be considered regarding energy supplies in respect of the UK.

                  Siren voices. Rocks ahoy.

                  UK energy policy has been a nonsense for decades. It still is, but is starting to look more sane except in respect of cost. The only up-side is that Germany has overtaken the UK with even greater nonsense. Who would have thought it would be the French who could make a better job of it? Well, apart from the French, that is.

                  And, just to correct the error, USA spent a pitiful amount before WW2 on defence. It was WW2 that caused a huge increase in their spending that they have since continued. Other sources than the Daily Mail and Morning Star will confirm that. Maybe more pounding of plastic keys required?

                  Just a piece of extra joy. Had my gas boiler serviced this am. Checked if it will be compatible with hydrogen mix. Nope, new boiler required. What about heat pumps? Oh yes, local care home (60 residents) wants to go that way, have just received their quote: £1.5m!!!! That NI hike is not going to go very far.

                • Sorry to burst yet another balloon. Once again I didn’t say it was USA who had more war weaponry before WW1 and WW2. I said for example it is USA who has spent more on war weaponry than any other country since the Second World War., I didn’t say who it was that spent more on war weaponry before WW1 and WW2. Though I can see why you misinterpreted it as being so. What I did say was:

                  “Don’t forget those who profit from war: USA for example spend more on the weaponry of war than the entire rest of the world spends on weaponry combined. That is just what happened before the first and second world wars, (meaning countries spend more on war weaponry than others) and has continued since to the present day. Russia, USA, UK, EU and all governments are no different in that disrespect at all.”

                  However, the truth was, that, It was the banks in the USA and the UK that funded Germany weaponry before in both WW1 and WW2, both times Germany became intensely militaristic. Contrary to The Treaty of Versailles military restrictions (1919) after WW1, it was the banks and Standard Oil of the USA in various guises around the world that serviced both sides during WW2. In particular, with I.G. Farben in Germany before and during WW2.

                  https://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2012/02/treason-of-standard-oil-exxon-during.html

                  https://johndclare.net/EII1.htm

                  “The first way Hitler broke the Treaty was over Germany’s armed forces. In 1934, he destroyed the League of Nations Disarmament Conference by demanding equality of arms with France and Britain – this broke the Treaty because it had set up the League with the stated aim of achieving disarmament. At first, Hitler broke the Treaty’s terms by building up his army in secret, drilling volunteers with spades instead of rifles.
                  Then, in 1935, he openly held a huge rearmament rally. The other nations let him get away with it – Britain even made a naval agreement with Germany, accepting that Germany had a right to have a navy of 35% of the British navy (i.e. this broke the Treaty, which said that Germany could only have 6 battleships).
                  After 1936, Hitler reintroduced conscription, and began to pump huge sums into Germany’s armed forces. Germans were told ‘guns not butter’. By 1939, Germany had 95 warships, 8,250 aeroplanes and an army of nearly 1 million men (many more than the 0 planes and 100,000 men stated in the Treaty of Versailles). Hitler even war-tested his armed forces in the Spanish Civil War; in 1936 he told his generals to get ready for war in 4 years’ time.”

                  It seems that if any government that spends enormous amounts on war weaponry in peacetime, then eventually, war will find its destructive way to perpetrate itself by those same agencies.

                  Always happy to correct any errors in, or misinterpretation of what I actually did say and of history.

                  Maybe more pounding of plastic keys is required? My keyboard and keys however, are aluminium as I have pointed out previously.

                  Oops!

                • Nope.

                  The words were:

                  “USA, for example, spend more on the weaponry of war than the entire rest of the world spends on weaponry combined.”

                  That is a correct statement.

                  “That is just what happened BEFORE the first and second world wars.”

                  That is an incorrect statement. USA certainly didn’t, and neither did the UK-hence Dunkirk. Germany and Japan increased spending, but certainly not more than the rest of the world combined. Russia continued to spend quite a lot also, but they had culled most of their officers so a bit of a waste really, as was shown in Finland. Perhaps if UK and USA had spent more on defence in the 1930s there would not have been a WW2? It is an unfortunate but real lesson of history that bullies are wary of attempting to bully others of equal, or greater, ability. Yes, I would like to live in a world where that was not the case, but it is.

                  Not trying to be difficult, but recent history is quite important. If lessons are to be learned from mistakes made in recent times then the history should not be modified, otherwise the same mistakes will just happen again.

                • [Comment removed by moderator]

                  [moderator]

                  I think the discussion on armaments in the 1930s has run its course

                  [/moderator]

    • Except, Merry, the reality is that UK applies far more stringent environmental standards with regard to on shore oil and gas sites, yet, is currently importing gas from USA! Over 50 ships projected this month from USA to Europe with LNG. That represents a whole lot of transport emissions.

      So, that means excluding UK on shore production simply increases USA imports, with less stringent environmental controls. That is the anti reality. Accept the greater environmental damage as long as it is over the horizon, but carry on with the local demand.

      Not sure your point about population density is correct regarding the site of this particular project, either.

      • Martin

        No trade off here, oil and gas, but no earthquakes, no pollution (but some sewage stuff I expect).

        Happy days

  5. If someone wants to stop sewage being dumped in the ocean, which I agree needs control, then, so called environmentalists should fly across the Atlantic and stop travelling by yacht and dumping their sewage into the sea!

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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