Regulation

Egdon lodges Biscathorpe appeal

Egdon Resources has submitted an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for oil production at Bscathorpe in Lincolnshire.

Opponents after the refusal of planning permission for the Biscathorpe site on 1 November 2021. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The county council voted by 7 to 4 in November 2021 to refuse permission for long-term production and a sidetrack oil well.

The decision was against the recommendation of planning officers but followed 200 local objections to the scheme and a petition with more than 1,800 signatures.

Opponents included the local MP and justice minister, Victoria Atkins, as well as Lincolnshire Climate Commission, the countryside charity CPRE, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and five parish councils closest to the site. 

Egdon has estimated the Biscathorpe site could generate almost four million barrels of oil.

A report by Friends of the Earth and the New Economics Foundation concluded that Biscathorpe oil would generate 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Opponents have said the carbon emissions in one year would be nearly ten times the council’s entire carbon saving target for 2023.

6 replies »

  1. But less emissions if compared to the same volume of imported oil!

    And, UK tax to support those struggling with their current energy bills, and support to the local community who may find that more local help is needed to fund items that may be otherwise limited due to money going overseas instead of being available for such things. See-balance of payments if that is difficult to comprehend.

    The alternative?

    Throw another £400k on the fire and wave goodbye to it.

    Council elections coming up. Should the vote be for those who help with cost of living or those who make it worse? Simple choice, make the wrong one if desired, but do not then complain about cost of living-and heating.

  2. So, Martin, the emissions resulting from importing 4m barrels of oil would be greater than 1.7m tonnes of CO2. We’ll of course take your word for this, o omniscient one!!
    As these imports are likely to take place anyway, if not to us then to some other country, then it’s just as well we’re not adding our own contribution of emissions. Arithmetic, Martin. Do turn your attention to it.
    Would the tax lost in importing exceed the cost of developing and producing, given the time available before irreversible. climate breakdown, assisted by the U.K. home-grown FF industry?
    Council elections coming up. Vote for more of the same, or vote for those with a vision and a hope for the future in contrast with the economy of greed which has brought the planet to such a calamitous point. Vote!
    Vote! Even if you use the word ‘we’ and related forms. Vote, even if you think that local politics can be conducted in a vacuum, uninfluenced by the utter shambles created by the activities of the charlatans at the helm.

  3. Well, 1720, if you vote as “we” your vote will be rejected, trashed, no value, waste of time! So, when you have managed to do all your other learning then understanding how to make your vote count in UK could be a follow up.

    What world do you come from, 1720? You seem to have a unique misconception of most of what goes on in the UK, and always choosing an irrational rather than rational path.

    Starting at your first sentence, yes, your arithmetic is still failing. Try finding a local farm shop and what locals buy from them and why. You may find that they buy things others would prefer they didn’t, but when produced locally they know they are producing less transport emissions than if they bought the same goods from overseas, that are then transported to UK. Who would argue with that? Oh yes, 1720, international hauliers and foreign exporters. The last two groups have a financial motive, the first one either does or is just being irrational.

    Your second sentence just gets worse. “Likely”??? Why? Some other country will import what it likes and that is nothing to do with UK demand or supply. “We” can help with one, not the other. 1720 would suggest “we” should not help where “we” are able to do so, yet quotes man made climate change. Well, with 1720s around it can be seen there are those who have no interest in helping where help can be provided, living up to the irrational exuberance tag of the 1720 South Sea Bubble.

    Your third sentence seems to have suffered some sort of translation glitch, and is so irrational it fails to make sense.

    What happened in the 1720 South Sea Bubble? Well, “we” followed with irrational exuberance and those same “we’s” found reality caught up with them. Another poster, who also seems to feel DoD is the opportunity to play a game of Fantasy Football, quoted “we can be who we like on this site”. It would appear it is the fantasy world for some, so “we” might be an appropriate form of address to that, but I will stick with my rational thought, thank you.

    For those interested in making their vote count, then you vote as an individual, if you have been registered as an individual with a right to vote. Quite simple really-and my local Green candidate has been informed that his, or maybe “our” “poetic license” is my misleading information, and will not gain my vote. Interestingly, the rest of the literature was full of stuff advising buying from local sources to help the planet! Buyer beware, and voter beware. But, avoid voting as “we,” as that is illegal.

  4. There’s no ‘likely’ in the second sentence.
    Third sentence and indeed third paragraph make perfect sense to any one whose English has advanced beyond ‘Topsy and Tim’
    Counting is quite an important skill in your search for numeracy.
    Perhaps your ‘ rational ‘ thought can explain your gobbledygook on the South Sea Bubble, to which you seem to have an (entirely rational, of course) attachment.
    I’m not given the opportunity to vote other than as I, but I’ll continue to use ‘we’ as the plural of ‘I’ in any other contexts I, and the English language, see fit. Hope we’re happy with that.
    ‘Poetic licence’ is just that, not ‘poetic license’ save to a writer of American English. Are you? If so, I can point out a few other inconsistencies in your ‘oeuvre’ – (a French loan word).
    I’ll leave you to puzzle over the rest of the meaning of my post in your quest for English skills and basic comprehension. I don’t feel your other irrelevant observations call for any comment.

  5. A load of nonsense. No puzzle

    I do use American English when I feel so inclined. The world is a big place, 1720. Are you anti foreigners too? Strange if you are, as you are so keen to promote their export of oil and gas to the UK.

    I have discussed the South Sea Bubble several times with yourself, 1720. Your memory is either really shocking, or a very poor attempt at deflection.
    1720, the year where a group of “we’s” followed a fantasy only to find the reality. All very appropriate, and very rational, to those who are not, or were not inclined towards fantasy.

    If you need any further information the history is easily sourced.

    Reference the “we” as much as you like. It is a great indicator of insecurity or royalty. I have a strong feeling which one it is.

  6. Your “discussion”, if you wish to elevate your offerings to this level although I don’t think I’ve contributed, of 1720 is of as little interest to me as the rest of your musings. Why on earth should I seek to deflect? Have you tried reading Balzac: his work is full of single-minded individuals who waffle on or busy themselves incessantly with irrelevancies?
    American English when you feel so inclined! – come on now. You’re besotted.
    Do let me know how you intend to replace ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’ etc. Have the Americans found an alternative?
    I see you are still puzzling over meanings. Do you need help?
    And ’tis I who produce the ‘load of nonsense’?

Leave a Reply to Iaith1720 Cancel reply

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