Long-term oil production and more drilling have been approved for a site in rural East Yorkshire.
The county council’s planning committee voted by 10 to 1 this morning to allow 20 years of extraction at Rathlin Energy’s West Newton-A site.
They also backed four more wells, an expansion of the well pad and further testing of the existing wells.
The scheme is a scaled-back version of an application that was refused in September 2021.
The approved version will increase the total number of wells at the site from two to six and the site area from 0.9ha to 2.52ha.
The new wells would target the Kirkham Abbey formation and oil would be taken by up to 10 tankers a day to South Killingholme refinery.
The current application was opposed by eight parish councils and three environmental groups. There were more than 400 objections from members of the public.
Opponents said approval of the plans would turn the area of mid-Holderness into an industrial “sacrifice zone” and mean “at least 25 years of misery for residents”.
The local county councillor, Jason Birch, told the committee the application would have a devastating effect on his ward. The previous application had been refused because it was not an appropriate scale for the location, he said.
The revised scheme was not that different, he said. It should be treated in the same way and be refused.
It is not fair that the lives people of Mid-Holderness should be ruined by visual intrusion, flaring, drilling and heavy traffic on narrow roads, Cllr Birch said. By allowing this to go ahead, it would turn the area into a sacrifice zone.
The opponents’ planning consultant, Katie Atkinson, said Rathlin had not assessed the entire lorry route: it was neither safe or suitable.
The two proposed lorry routes to the site were too narrow for heavy lorries and would put pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders at risk.
High-volume fracking for shale gas was not sought by the application but Ms Atkinson said other forms of hydraulic fracturing and unconventional well treatments could be allowed under the planning permission.
Cllr John Holtby, another local councillor, said it was disappointing that little had changed in the application. It did not address the concerns of residents, who felt they were being encroached on from all sides, he said. It was excessive development in a rural area without the infrastructure to support it.
Many objections also said the scheme would contribute to climate change and was incompatible with East Yorkshire’s declaration of a climate emergency.
Speaking for them, Cllr Andy Walker said:
“we need new energy supplies and bringing renewables onstream is quicker and cheaper than fossil fuels – we should leave the oil in the ground.” He added that the safety of vulnerable road users was not negotiable.
Cllr Tim Norman said the industrialisation of the countryside would deter visitors to the area. He said Rathlin Energy had not addressed the worst-case impact on the area. As well as the 55m drill rig, there would be other tall equipment, including a flare, crane, workover rig and coiled tubing unit, he said. Much of the proposed landscaping was outside the application site and outside of the company’s control or would not screen the equipment.
Planning officers had backed the application with 21 conditions. East Yorkshire’s strategic planning manager, Andy Wainwright, said the new scheme addressed the concerns that councillors had with the previous application.
In a report to the committee, officers had said there was still a need for a “secure and reliable supply of energy sources” during the transition to a low carbon economy.
They said government policy supported the use of traditional sources of energy in this period. “Emissions to air need to be viewed in this context, however unwelcome”, they said.
John Hodgins, for Rathlin Energy, said the company had revised the scheme and reduced the impact of the proposals.
Fewer wells would mean less traffic and shorter drilling times, down from 24 months to 17.5. the company said.
Mr Hodgins offered to install a pipeline to the refinery to avoid tanker journeys, if justified by production volumes. But the committee heard there was no guarantee that a pipeline would be viable or approved.
New planting proposals would help to screen the site from a footpath and nearby village, Mr Hodgins said. The company also planned to construct passing places on part of the lorry route on Pasture Lane.
Gas would be flared from the wells for up to 180 days during the testing phase, the meeting heard. During production, gas would be used to generate electricity for the site.
Rathlin has argued that the proposals would close the gap between UK oil demand and supply. They were compatible with the government’s carbon budget, advice from the Climate Change Committee and the Oil & Gas Authority’s projections on domestic production, it said.
Mr Hodgins estimated in its application that the scheme would raise £50m in government taxes. The company had previously estimated £95m in inward investment and a community benefit fund of £50,000.
Cllr Nigel Wilkinson said there was not enough room on the lorry route for a heavy goods vehicle and a horse rider or cyclists, now needed under the highway code. But he supported the application because he said domestic oil would be “better for the environment”. It would not increase consumption, he said.
Cllr John Whittle said Rathlin Energy had listened to councillors’ concerns and he was concerned that a refusal would lead to an appeal with the risk of costs. He supported the application.
Cllr Geraldine Mathieson, who supported the application last time, said she was pleased Rathlin had reduced the scale of the scheme. She moved to grant permission.
Cllr David Rudd said he was “very happy to support” the scheme. Cllr Gary McMaster said it was better to use domestic fossil fuels. There was nowhere in the UK that did not have to put up with something for the wider community.
Cllr Mike Stathers said he was satisfied Rathlin Energy had taken enough action to support the application. Cllr Phil Davison said he agreed with most of the grounds for objection, particularly traffic concerns and the need to move away from oil. Cllr David Winter said.
Cllr Anne Handley said she would support the application because Rathlin had worked with the council and residents.
Committee chair, Cllr Leo Hammond, said he also supported the application.
Categories: Regulation, slider
Meanwhile UK oil is exported to China, UK gas goes to Holland…then we drag it back around the planet when there’s money to be made…
DM: your point is?,
It’s called imports and exports, when we as a Brexit island requiring to import avocados from Chile and exports of manufactured cars globally. It’s just another mechanism to generate growth, value and employment!
Dennis do you not work in an industry which exports and imports, Do you buy off Amazon for instance??
Be aware as a Brexit entity we’ll need to trade a lot more.
Just this, no more words needed:
Richard, the exploration and production at West Newton is targeting hydrocarbons in the Kirkham Abbey formation and not in the Bowland Hodder shale formation. No more words needed.
That will be a narrow defeat for some, but a validation that there is more common sense around than some may suggest.
Putting up with something for the wider community. What a sensible comment.
There were repeated arguments that we should be producing our own hydrocarbons and NOT importing it, as a means of mitigating climate change. Your argument falls apart at that point. And Brexit, its going so well, with GB’s (excluding NI, still in the SM and CU) post covid recovery lagging behind the rest of the world.
You and common sense are polar opposites Martin.
Oh, I do believe we should be using more of our own oil and gas, Dennis. I think there is a plan to be announced next week where that may be part of the jigsaw. But, even so, oil will still be traded, as not all oil is equal, and demand for some oil can be seasonal.
Where you get your post Covid recovery stuff from, I do not know, but it is incorrect. I do wonder why some make a valid point and then ruin it by adding one which is just factually incorrect.
As for Jono, well, nothing to say, but must erode some plastic. However, the last time I saw a statement on DoD regarding poles, there were penguins at the North Pole, so what should I expect?
There is no argument! Whether you sugar coat it, dip it in chocolate and top it with a glace cherry! We need hydrocarbons in to the transition and reach Net Zero, which is an equilibrium between the use of hydrocarbons and alternatives. Currently there are very few alternatives from every component of which we use derived from hydrocarbons and then transfer to alternatives use, this is CALLED a transition to 2050, 28 years time!
Certainly mitigating climate change is a red herring. In 2050 the global population is set to exceed 9.7 billion people the demand for everything we use will require change, just because you don’t want your neighborhood in Nottinghamshire to be affected by home-sourced energy, does that mean you will be asking the oil / gas supplier where ours comes from? During a Brexit which is ultimately a Russian strategy plan: https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit
It makes sense when you want to destabilize Europe.
Home-sourced energy for security, to then tax, to create jobs, to heat home and businesses in times of need. When the wind does not blow, as we cannot store wind power (yet).
Just this, no more words needed:
“ there is more common sense around than some may suggest.”
Tap into it then, Martin.
Oh, I have, 1720.
Perhaps the 10 reflect my idea of common sense, and the 1 reflects yours?
According to Sir Isaac Newton, 1720 was the year of irrational exuberance, after he lost big. There’s a link for you!
Non hysterical take:
1. The UK now has greater access to lower carbon intensity oil and gas, right on the doorstep of the largest end user industrial hub in the UK.
2. The UK government will receive MORE tax revenue, and the country will export less money in exchange for hydrocarbons. This will leave more national wealth to fund the transition away from hydrocarbons for energy in the future.
3. Hydrocarbons will increasingly be reserved for non-combustion applications like petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics and fertiliser. They are NEEDED for modern life, not just electricity and running cars.
4. The visual impact of this development will be lessened the more successful it is – i.e a pipeline become economically the obvious thing to do.
5. The Humber hydrogen hub now has a major component in place possibly. The importance of this going forward for both climate change AND the UK economy cannot be understated.
6. The project WILL have a tangible effect on both UK energy security AND energy poverty in the UK.
Dennis May – do you understand the concept of a ‘market’?
The UK, thanks to successive Governments not investing in long term infrastructure’ has NOT ENOUGH GAS STORAGE capacity. Therefore, we export in the summer but import in the Winter. NET we import a LOT.
The other European countries have lots of gas storage so they can buy cheaper summer gas and lower their average cost.
West Newton will help reduce the NET importation of gas.
Just this! No more words needed:
Oh Dear How Sad, never mind.