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 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.
Details
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
DRILL OR DROP? 
Very strange!
A landowner signs a lease.
There I was being told that landowners would not be so inclined. Shock/horror. Some people speculate, and then the speculation is overtaken by reality. Lot’s of people speculated in 1720, and then lost. Still doing it. Interesting how threads connect across time, but still is speculation.
Very strange, IGas has estimated that annual production would be 90,000 tonnes. This is below the 100,000 tonne threshold, which requires an EIA. or maybe just pick any figure below 100,000 . I wonder if the gas to electric will go the same way as Horse Hill ?
Ahh, some more speculation there, Jono.
Perhaps it may just depend on whether the gas to electric will be economical? Maybe at HH if they were not continually having persons crowd funding to attempt to delay them, they would produce enough gas to also make that economic?
I suggest that rather than anyone trying to delay them that UKOG are doing a fine job of delaying themselves. They can’t do one thing with any success, farming out their jewel in the crown because they know it will fail just like Broadford Bridge , Holmwood , Markwells Wood and Turkey. UKOG are serial failures and the mug punters know it.
There’s more gas coming out of Steve Sanderson than out of the ground to be fair and more oil on my chips 🍟.
Power to the people hahaha ✊✊✊
So speculation exists! Good Lord.
Who would have known that some people are willing to speculate, others not, and that this has been so for ages, even in 1720? Who would have thought that the existence of the word implied some previous knowledge of speculation?
Thank heavens for a perceptive contribution to DorD which is able to confirm this.
Pity however that the current trend in both industry and politics is for speculation to take place at the expense of humanity and the planet.
Perhaps also the case in Martin’s favourite year but then perhaps we were not so aware of the deleterious effects of our speculative actions on others.
Even Newton wasn’t, 7102. (Sorry, I have problems with “names”.)
He used the excuse afterwards that it was just irrational exuberance. Well, I can see the connection. However, his excuse was just that, after he had been caught out. Someone who didn’t know about the subject but wanted to take part.
You chose the tag, 1720.
Not much has changed. Here “we” are again, with suggestion that speculation only applies to politicians and industry, yet DoD is full of it, media is full of it. And, 1720, is full of it. And, at the expense of humanity. See energy bills for confirmation.
Meanwhile, Tesla speculated for many years, asking for mug punters to support their speculation, and then started to make a profit. So mug punters speculated and became smug punters. Mug to smug is a small step, but not guaranteed. But, those mugs over at IGAS and Egdon may be amongst the smug ones now.
As far as Jono’s suggestion, that would seem to ignore his previous comments about his crowd funding contributions. Creates a narrative, but not a very coherent one, which is often signaled by the use of an emoji or two. Looks to be another mug punter, supporting something that is not required according to their own opinion, and then losing!
Trust you are finding the gradual cooling more comfortable, Jono. Another couple of days and even fresher weather should be with us.
I must move on. Tip visit booked. The one good thing to come out of the pandemic, a booking system, that allows much easier access and helps out the local businesses by avoiding queues blocking them in, or out.
Seem smug punters at Angus, today, as well Jono!
I have noted an interesting connection, Jono, between you posting the mug punter line and suddenly the share price shooting UP for one of the on-shore players. Could you let me have your numbers for this weeks Euro Lottery? I can exclude them, and my chances of winning from the remaining numbers will be significantly increased.
“ Here “we” are again, with suggestion that speculation only applies to politicians and industry….” (Martin)
Did we so suggest?
I’ll leave it to any interested readers to decide whether such a ‘speculative’ interpretation of my (or any other contributor’s) words might not be taken as an example of my interlocutor’s approach to factual accuracy and truthful interpretation.
And in the meantime, the planet burns because some are unable to face up to the facts of continuing anthropogenic climate change and the lemming-like dash for extinction accompanying the denial.
Give it up, Martin.
Why should I give it up, 1720? You seem determined to make a fool of the “we’s”. It is really rather helpful from myself to give you the opportunity. I note none supported you when called upon, but they still will have the “joy” of association.
Meanwhile, I note another little environmental nonsense, as rare earth mining rights are bought up in Greenland to secure supplies for??? Green technology!
So, Donald, was unable to buy Greenland, that he wanted for the same reason, and now it will be down to commercial companies to turn it into a wasteland. First DRC, now Greenland, next oceans with ocean mining already underway.
[Edited by moderator]
Posting of which, I also note Chesapeake Energy are just about to auction off one of their surplus assets, with $billions expected to be achieved, and a chunk expected to be returned to shareholders. Yes, the very same one! No toenails sacrificed to achieve it.
[Edited by moderator]
July 30th
Me: “Here comes the question again, rephrased to preempt intentional evasion. Do you accept that scientists and mathematicians have between them proved that global over-heating is anthropogenic? 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. And, the life expectancy that has facilitated that is in a large part due to the use of fossil fuels. So, maybe the life expectancy achieved is the largest part? Fossil fuels are not a problem-if they are decarbonized.”
Let’s try again, using simple English:
1. Do you accept that scientists and mathematicians have between them proved that global over-heating is anthropogenic?
Yes or No?
2. Do you accept that fossil fuels have played by far the largest part in this process?
Yes or No?
Let’s keep it simple.
I knew this slavish admiration, nay adulation, for all things American would lead you astray.
Forget diversionary tactics like Chesapeake Energy, Greenland. Just try and concentrate on the issue ‘how to reconcile the manic production of A with the knowledge that A is killing us’. A tactic which I’ll risk comparing with offering a massive dose of heroin to a man dying before our eyes of drug overuse.
Your constant references to the statistics of increasing FF production, to the shenanigans which undoubtedly bedevil the production of renewables (as well as FFs), to the putative very short benefits of local FF production, etc. etc., do not help readers, and no doubt others in your personal sphere, to come to grips with the enormity of the problem. They also mislead as to viable solutions, which emphatically do not include more of the same.
In short Martin, you do not help.
And meanwhile, the planet………
Oh dear, 1720.
I have already discussed climate change with you. I have NEVER denied man’s PART in it. Sorry that you have difficulty grasping such things, but then it is obvious you do not. (Although, perhaps not that obvious when reading some of your previous posts.)
Man, and women, exhale, 1720. The more of them that do, and consume, the more impact upon climate change. Those that consume rice have a greater impact upon climate change than those that do not. So, the influence of the world population upon climate change is much greater than the use of fossil fuels. So, what were you posting about coming to grips with the enormity of the problem? You certainly do not when you try your one trick pony attempt. Neither does the use of fossil fuels bedevil renewables. What are you suggesting? Renewables are unable to compete with fossil fuel? OMG-that is years and years of anti attempt and scientist remuneration down the pan.
As for poor old Jack, Chesapeake Energy was a diversion! There you go Jack, someone who admits they know nothing about the subject has ruled against you. You know even less. A is killing us, yet the absence/affordability of A was reported today as likely to kill us this winter.
If you feel you are helping, 1720, just fill your boots. Within one post, you have managed to discredit one of the “we’s”, suggested renewables are not as cost efficient as fossil fuels, and encouraged penalization of certain parts of the world population, because of their diet. Even now, you have failed to address the point I made about decarbonizing fossil fuel and have come up with no viable alternatives that do more than part of the job, and some, such as events in Greenland, may make it a whole lot worse.