Updated: IGas new Lincolnshire oil production site doesn’t need environmental survey – officials

IGas has revealed proposals for a new oil production site in Lincolnshire, which it says could extract 90,000 tonnes a year – but officials have said a detailed environmental study is not needed.

Plan for new Glentworth oil production site, Lincolnshire
Plan from IGas application

Lincolnshire County Council ruled last week that a future planning application for a new site at Glentworth would not need an environmental impact assessment (EIA), even though it met some of the criteria.

The Glentworth oil field, between Market Rasen and Gainsborough, was discovered in 1961. Records by the industry regulator show that oil has been produced at Glentworth, since 2011. In 2021, these wells, also operated by IGas, produced a total of 5,205 tonnes of oil.

The proposed site is on the eastern edge of the shale gas areas identified by the British Geological Survey.

Proposed site is blue box (eastern edge of shale area shown by red line). Map: UK Onshore Geophysical Library


IGas said its new Glentworth proposal comprised:

  • Construction of a new well site and access track
  • Drilling vertical exploration well, drilled to 3,000m, and up to seven horizontal development wells
  • Well tests and appraisal
  • 21 years of production if commercially viable
  • Pipeline to existing Glentworth site

During site construction, IGas estimated there would be 2,000 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements, at a rate of 100 per day.

Drilling of each well was estimated to take five months, generating another 100 HGV movements a day.

During production, there would be an estimated 20 HGV movements a day, the company said.

Associated gas produced along with the oil during production tests and appraisal would be flared. During production, gas would be used to generate electricity.

IGas’s planning consultant, Heatons, said:

“it is considered that the proposal does not have the potential for significant environmental impact within the meaning of the EIA Regulations and that any effects can be appropriately assessed and considered through the normal planning application process.”

Council planners said the total area of the development would be about 4.5ha. Of this, 3.1ha would be proposed well site.

EIAs can be required for any type of drilling where the area exceeds 1ha. But the planners said this doesn’t automatically trigger an EIA.

IGas has estimated that annual production would be 90,000 tonnes. This is below the 100,000 tonne threshold, which requires an EIA.

The planners said:

“The mineral planning authority does not consider the proposed development would be more than of local importance, would not significantly affect an environmentally sensitive location or result in complex or hazardous effects and that the proposed drilling of the well and associated operations are temporary in nature, albeit subject to periods of drilling throughout the 21 years of production.

“Longer term operations and structures of the production wellsite would be reversible and subject to removal with the reinstatement of the land on cessation.

“It is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location.”

  • In November 2021, Lincolnshire County Council refused planning permission for oil production at Biscathorpe. The applicant, Egdon Resources, has lodged an appeal. Refusal of another Lincolnshire application for development of Egdon’s North Kelsey site has also gone to appeal

Link to Glentwoth EIA screening request and decision, EIA/31/22

Updated 13/9/22 with map of shale gas area

17 replies »

  1. I’ll try again:
    1. Do you accept that scientists and mathematicians have between them proved that global over-heating is anthropogenic?
    Yes or No?

    Your ‘answer’ is unclear. Do you think exhaling is causative of climate over-heating? If so, this is not something over which we have control either in the short or long term – unlike FF emissions.
    Rice consumption is productive of more emissions. So, do we force a change in diet, growing something else? Or do we cull the population? Or do we advocate, perhaps enforce !!, population controls? All long-term solutions of varying moral acceptability. Might it perhaps be easier to cut emissions short term?

    Your answer – “So, the influence…..” is a non-sequitur. Ignored as valueless.

    At the moment, you are, believe it or not, right in one respect. Renewables cannot compete with FFs. This is because FFs do bedevil the production of renewables in many ways which would be beyond you, but most importantly because they divert financial resources from state and industry and send a message diametrically opposed to the message intended. To clarify, why should I, a bear of little brain, invest millions in renewables when the government subsidises FFs? They must know something I don’t. I would maybe be throwing money away when I can earn a fortune in the short term by following government’s actions (as distinct from their words.) (I apologise to reasonable readers for these statements of the obvious. It has proved essential.)

    I really can’t be bothered to check out the Chesapeake issue. Prima facie, its irrelevance to the discussion is telling. Paragraph ignored as deliberately diversionary.

    It does annoy me ( mildly, as it’s Martin) that I should be accused of “encouraging penalization ” of certain parts of the world’s population because of their diet. How precisely am I so doing? In the short term, maybe in the long term, rice eating will still permit us to live on this planet if we adopt a realistic solution and cut emissions from FFs, rather than any of the other (mostly completely unacceptable ) solutions mentioned above which are the only alternatives. For heaven’s sake, Martin, do us a favour and think for yourself. You don’t even need to leave the box!

    I am also accused of discrediting a “we”. I’m not sure what you are referring to. Perhaps it has to do with Chesapeake.

    ‘ Decarbonizing’ ? Nothing wrong with it that I can immediately see if viable in the very short term, provided the GHG emissions, residual and production-linked, can be eradicated, again in the very short term, and if all other effects detrimental to the environment and to humanity can also be removed. Is this a realistic prospect within the timeframe available to us before irreversible FF-engendered climate tipping points are passed? I don’t know, but I, for the sake of humanity, would not bet on it.

    So,on balance, would you answer question 1 with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’

    2. Do you accept that fossil fuels have played by far the largest part in this process?
    Yes or No?

    It looks from the contexts as though this was the part of the question you chose to answer negatively. In which case, you are, as you know, out of kilter with the majority scientific opinion in this respect. You have your own culprits, I know, – (FF-enabled) population growth, rice consumption, resources (in your opinion wasted) on renewables development, etc.
    I think it unwise to go against scientific opinion in this respect, there is too much at stake, and so will stick with the scientists and mathematicians, if you don’t mind, recognising of course that history has repeatedly shown that majority opinion is not necessarily accurate.

    So, are you still answering question 2 with a ‘no’, sticking to your majority unscientific belief that the major culprits are population growth and rice production?
    If so, and if I am correct that these are insuperable problems in the short term, then I can understand your ‘pollute and be damned” call, all the while condemning it morally,

  2. Well, 1720, you have a lot of questions! But, then you will have if you can not find the answers. You will just wear out, what? Plastic!

    One correction of fact. No money or resource is being diverted from renewables by UK government or industry. Indeed, money and resource is being applied to renewables from taxation, for instant subsidies for EVs, and green levies upon energy bills. [Edited by moderator] Where do you think the UK £160B will come from to fund new nuclear to support unreliable renewables? On energy bills, 1720. From the tax payer.

    And, another. Population growth influencing climate change is not unscientific belief, it is scientific fact. Just ask the people who are having their forests felled in the Amazon. Then, more room to grow sugar cane-and process it for motor vehicles! Or, DYOR on what 10 billion population on earth will mean. Conflict for water resource to enable food security will be one issue, I can promise you. There may be a bit of concern also, if there is a shortage of fertilizer.

    Your valiant attempt above proves one thing. You really don’t know much about the subject and have even fewer answers-apart from protest. Please make your own efforts to become more educated on the subject and you may then find you believe in facts a bit more, if you have discovered them for yourself, rather than just protest about facts provided for you.

  3. Two questions. One answer. But to which question? Full circle. We still do not know.
    Martin incapable of answering straight, even simplified, but absolutely crucial questions.

  4. To come back on this one: Your para 2; third sentence. Quite right. I have not claimed otherwise, (but don’t let that put you off your stride.)
    Second sentence – if money is invested in FFs, which is the case, then that money is ipso facto not available to, therefore deliberately not applied to, therefore is diverted from the real weapon against climate change – renewables.
    [Edited by moderator]
    Para 3; to suggest that I have claimed that population growth is not a factor in climate change or is an “unscientific belief” is also mendacious. My words were – (you are) “sticking to your majority unscientific belief that the major culprits are population growth and rice production?” The “major culprits”, Martin. Do you understand? Of course you do, I was courteously giving you credit for integrity in your posting. You know, like the rest of us, that the major culprit is the FF industry.

    [Edited by moderator]

  5. No, 1720. I made no assertion that population growth and rice production are the major culprits. I used them as two other examples away from your one trick pony approach. There are many others. You may add swamps/natural wetlands, volcanoes, cattle, solar activity (which has the potential to be larger than all the rest put together), reduction in forestation and many, many more. But, I stopped at two as you had an issue with anything more than one.

    [Edited by moderator]

    • What can I say? Why does anyone bother?
      Once again, here is the exchange of July 30th.,shortened to spare any chance reader the tedium of reading the whole thing again:
“……Do you accept that fossil fuels have played by far the largest part in this process? I’m guessing, only guessing of course, that your answer is ‘No’.”
      Martin’s answer:
“ Yes, my answer is no. The numbers of people now on the planet have played the largest part……….”
      QED [Edited by moderator]

Add a comment

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