Campaigners and councillors have said they are shocked that a government-appointed inspector has overturned the refusal of planning permission for long-term oil production in the Lincolnshire Wolds area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).
In a ruling published on Friday evening, the inspector approved the scheme even though he accepted it would harm the landscape and scenery of the area and breached planning policy.
Paul Thompson acknowledged the proposal by Egdon Resources would meet only several days of national demand over its lifetime. But he said security of supply was a “key issue” and Biscathorpe “could make a small, but important, contribution to supply from an indigenous resource”. More details and decision document
Lincolnshire County Council voted in 2021 to refuse Egdon’s application by seven votes to four with two abstentions. A petition against the proposal collected more than 1,800 signatures. Opponents include the local MP and then justice minister, Victoria Atkins.
“Against local wishes”
Cllr Ian Fleetwood, chairman of the Planning Committee at Lincolnshire County Council, said today:
“When we considered this application two years ago, we felt that further development of the Biscathorpe site would be detrimental to the Wolds AONB [area of outstanding natural beauty]. We also took into account the strength of public feeling against the plans. Those residents will be bitterly disappointed that the planning inspectorate has seen fit to overturn that decision.”
Cllr Colin Davie, executive member for environment at Lincolnshire County Council, said in a statement:
“Egdon’s application claims that the development is necessary to support the UK’s energy security. In reality, any oil extracted at Biscathorpe over the entire 15 lifespan will represent just a few days’ worth of the country’s need. And there’s no guarantee that the oil taken from the ground at Biscathorpe will even remain in the UK; it could simply be sold abroad, negating any reduction in carbon emissions from using locally-sourced oil.
“Despite acknowledging this, the Government’s Planning Inspectorate has seen fit to accept Egdon’s appeal. The development can now go ahead, against the wishes of the local community and the committee, and it’s the residents of Biscathorpe and beyond who will have to deal with the consequences, not an Inspector down in Whitehall.
“The county council will now ensure that the development at Biscathorpe will go ahead as per the conditions, and that the local community and area do not see further detrimental impacts.”
“Outrageous”
A spokesperson for SOS Biscathorpe, which campaigned against the proposal, said:
“People are genuinely shocked.
“It is outrageous that on the one hand the Inspector has acknowledged that the development will harm the AONB, that it goes against local policies and it would make only a small contribution to UK oil output and could be exported anyway. On the other hand he has claimed that it will “reduce output from other countries”, that it “provides security of supply” and “cut carbon emissions from transporting oil to the UK”.
“These oil industry claims are demonstrably untrue especially if you consider the very small quantity of oil that Egdon plan to extract – less than 3 million barrels, according to written correspondence with the Lincolnshire’s planning department.
“3 million barrels would satisfy UK consumption for barely 2 days. It does not represent “security” and it will have no impact on UK energy prices.
“This decision erases any notion of “local democracy” which has been wafted away, and with hardly a sideways glance at the urgency of the developing climate crisis.
“The people of Lincolnshire had said ‘no’ to this development at many levels of organised democracy, from parish councils to the Minerals Planning Authority at Lincolnshire County Council.
“Yet this decision to overturn those wishes comes at the end of a week in which the county has had to deal with flooding putting people out of their homes and closing businesses. Lincolnshire is a low-lying county extremely vulnerable to climate change and we face a future of increased extreme weather events caused by carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions.”
The SOS spokesperson noted that Lincolnshire County Council’s refusal of the Biscathorpe application was made on the opening day of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow.
“We are now two further years into the climate crisis. The CO2 emissions from burning the Biscathorpe oil completely dwarf, by hundreds of times over, the county council’s attempts in its carbon management plan to get its own carbon emissions in order. The development does not rule out gas flaring of methane into the local environment.
“It’s hard to accept a decision which acknowledges the damage this development will do to the local landscape, yet disregards it in favour of a false notion of “national security”.
“It feels like the government has closed ranks with the oil and gas industry to exploit our environment to the point of absolutely no return. The best way to improve energy security and reduce energy bills is to transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels, and that has to start now.
“Despite government rhetoric on tackling the climate crisis, when it comes to actually doing something that might make a dent in oil and gas profits, they seem to lack the willpower. They continue to rely on outdated planning legislation, which does not align with tackling the climate crisis. This legislation needs to be overhauled with advice from climate experts and others outside the oil & gas industry itself.”
“Completely unacceptable”
The countryside charity, CPRE, called on the planning inspectorate to reconsider the decision.
Its head of policy and planning, Paul Miner, said:
“This decision is completely unacceptable at a time when the climate crisis is the biggest threat facing the countryside.
“Anyone opposed to turning our countryside into a profit-machine for oil barons will be astounded at this decision which defies common sense.
“The proposal to drill for oil would be damaging for the local community and is inconsistent with the government’s own commitments to reach its net-zero target by 2050.
“This decision has left residents and local activists in disbelief, who are rightly concerned about the adverse impact on the AONB that drilling would have, and which the inspector’s report itself acknowledges.
“We also contest the validity of the justifications. This hugely damaging development will not only result in even more harmful emissions but will have minimal bearing on the UK’s energy security, as the total pool of oil available is barely enough for half a week’s worth of oil supply in the UK.
“Worse still, the Planning Inspectorate admits there is no guarantee that this oil will not be exported.
“We’re calling on the Planning Inspectorate to put the countryside, communities and environment first and urgently re-consider this decision.”
Request to local MP
DrillOrDrop has asked for a comment from Victoria Atkins, Conservative MP for Louth and Horncastle and the financial secretary to the treasury since October 2022.
In 2021, she said the planning application was “completely at odds” with the character and natural beauty of the area and it would do “long-term damage to the Lincolnshire Wolds, its natural environment and our local communities”. At the time, she said:
“This proposal represents an industrialisation of the Lincolnshire Wolds and will serve as an inducement for the submission of further oil and gas applications which will open up the Wolds AONB for exploration and subsequent production over the coming years.”
We’ll update this report with any response from the MP.
“Minimal impact on local amenity”
The Biscathorpe site is operated by Egdon Resources, now owned by the Texas-based Heyco Energy Group. It welcomed the decision today.
A statement on the company’s website, said Egdon and its partners would “review the decision notice and associated planning conditions in detail before providing an update on our plans for progressing operations”. It added:
“As part of this Egdon will look to engage with the local community to ensure our activities have minimal impact on local amenity”.
Union Jack, which has a 45% stake in the Biscathorpe, described it as “one of our highest ranked projects”.
The company’s executive chairman, David Bramhill, said there had been hydrocarbon shows during the drilling of the Biscathorpe-2 well in 2019. He said:
“Union Jack`s technical team believe that Biscathorpe remains one of the largest unappraised conventional onshore discoveries within the UK. I thank shareholders for their patience and remain confident that both investors and the Company will be well rewarded in due course.”
Categories: Opposition, slider
DRILL OR DROP? 
Edward Tibenham, a Lincoln resident and Biscathorpe supporter, contacted DrillOrDrop with this reaction:
“I am pleased that due process has been followed, and excited to now see the project progressed. Recent events in the Middle East have bought into focus the importance of indigenous hydrocarbon sources as we transition to net zero”.
Thank you for the balanced reporting
Interesting that it’s the Middle East now used as a “reason” to extract more fossil fuels in the U.K. and not the Russia/Ukraine war. Extracting more fossil fuels and transitioning to Net Zero don’t even belong in the same sentence.
Any fossil fuels extracted in the UK belong to the extracting companies not the country and can be sold to any country/highest bidder. Indeed 80% of U.K. oil production and 60% of U.K. gas is currently exported. And let’s be serious, new oil and gas projects in the North Sea will only meet U.K. demand for a few weeks and only for a few years! There is simply insufficient reserves to ever give the country energy security/energy independence.
The CCC certainly disagree with the idea the extraction of more fossil fuels will assist the U.K. in achieving Net Zero, quite the opposite. Green energy is the only way we will achieve security, independence and Net Zero.
The Inspector appears to have based his decision on industry spin and ignorance.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/11/new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-fields-will-not-meet-uks-energy-needs
And wind power will meet no demand for no time, when the wind isn’t blowing, KatT. Neither will it make fertilizer, or plastic medical devices, etc. etc. etc and last and probably least, neither will it get your message across.
Let’s be serious-UK is currently a LARGE NET IMPORTER of gas and oil, and forecast to become more so as UK production declines. Was 4.4 mboe/day, now 1.3 mboe/day and forecast to be 200 kboe/day by 2050, without new production. That production, and maybe more if new production is achieved, will pay UK taxes that may be used for all sorts of things-such as renewable development. It will in no way prevent renewable development.
So, KatT this highest bidder. Was that when the price of gas was $47 in Europe and $7 in USA. Goodness KatT, why was Europe so willing to pay $47? This global market seems a bit uneven, doesn’t it! Where did my energy bill discount come from, KatT? You, of course turned yours down, so probably don’t have the answer to that.
I still await anyone on DoD, or anywhere else, to come up with a coherent plan as to how 10B people will be fed without fossil fuels being used to do so. Is someone eventually going to say 10B are not sustainable without-about the same time they actually say how many £Trillions it will cost UK and that someone else will NOT pay? Probably together with attacking 1% has not made a jot of difference, so attacking the remaining bit will not suddenly change that reality but will be a great excuse for virtue signaling. Excuse me, but I can think of better and cheaper ways to signal virtue-how about stopping wheat being used for fuel and making certain that those starving because they can not afford wheat actually can afford it by not using it for fuel and avoiding escalating the price as a result.
That looks like a positive comment added as an afterthought, to give the semblance of balance.
My feeling is that there’s going to be a lot more shock as people wake up to the real implications of a world without oil and the shortcomings of renewables. I hope we’ll survive, but our dependency seems to be beyond most people’s comprehension. “No future in fossil fuels” could simply be replaced with “no future” for a large part of the global population.
I wish journalists like yourself, Ruth, would dig a little deeper and give an actually balanced view, rather than the pretence of one. None of this is going to be easy, and people need to be prepared. There is absolutely no point in demonising oil companies, for example, when they are simply satisfying a demand. The silliness of it became obvious when supplies tightened and prices went up, and you all berated the oil companies for not investing in growth.
So how is demand going to be reduced? Why do you not campaign for that? Is it because it might involve tough choices, unpopular with most people? Fingers might have to be pointed 180 degrees from the usual targets. For those of us who actually want to see joined up thinking and real solutions, the popular nonsense that is used to rile us all up has become sickening.
So how is demand going to be reduced?
Putting some perspective onto things. No one seems to have batted an eyelid on how much covid has cost the UK.
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9309/
Now look at the cost of totally secure renewable energy we could have.
THE Morecambe Bay tidal bridge has now been estimated at costing £10 billion, which has increased from the last estimation of £8 billion.
The Northern Tidal Power Gateways (NTPG) project is providing evidence to the Government on plans to build tidal range power barrages across Morecambe Bay and the Duddon estuaries that could generate emission free power for 100 years and protect fragile ecologies from the threat of rising sea levels.
The £10 billion Morecambe Bay and Duddon project will deliver eight million megawatt hours of predictable, emission-free power annually, enough for 2 million homes, and create more than 12,000 new jobs.
I propose we don’t bat an eyelid at the cost of 40 tidal bridges or their emission free equivalent and get them up and running and reach net zero ASAP.
https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/18762071.morecambe-bay-bridge-plan-ready-take-next-step-get-government-backing/
That way we may well be helping to ease the death and destruction in the Middle East by reducing demand, reach net zero and protect against climate change.
We found the money for the covid crisis. Let’s find it for the climate crisis.
We could look a little deeper at the recent Israel proposals to export oil and gas to Europe, the massive reserves in the Golan Heights and the plans by Genie Energy however I would prefer to very quickly maximise our huge renewable energy potential and try to not fuel Middle East proposals.
My comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek!
That’s it John. There still seem to be some objections to tidal, but I agree in principle. Not just tidal, but nuclear and geothermal as well. What you may need to look into more though, I think, is the demand for materials and the energy inputs required to bring these projects to life. All while going on a fossil fuel diet!?
Also, I think it’s important to put your numbers in some context. It is a common “sleight of hand” in the renewables industry to calculate “number of households served” in terms of electricity consumption only. It excludes the energy required for heating, which according to ofgem, is 4x higher. And it also excludes the household’s vehicles, and transport in general, and also the energy used in industry. According to wikipedia, the UK used 1651 TWh of energy in 2021. 11% of that was “primary” ie renewable or non-CO2 producing, leaving just under 89% CO2 emitting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
So I calculate the target for net zero is not 40 tidal stations but more like 180. And going by past experience with renewables projects I fear there are probably a few things overlooked in the costings. I suspect intermittency of tidal systems is much better than wind and solar, but you will still need some hours of storage backup. Which can be horrendously expensive and imply a huge demand on materials.
There are studies around that estimate the quantity of materials we will need to get to net zero. It’s truly staggering. And then you realise all these materials themselves require copious amounts of energy to produce.
According to wikipedia, the UK used 1651 TWh of energy in 2021.
We could produce a huge percentage of energy from the ocean. We already know wind and solar contributes substantial amounts with more projects predicted. The UK is ideal for tidal and wind power yet we choose not to maximise it’s potential.
Taken from my previous link
That will in turn support a broader vision of tidal power installations on the West Coast from the Solway Firth to Somerset, harnessing a rolling tidal flow with the time difference in the tides of these estuaries generating power for up to 24 hours a day. That could increase the output of predictable emission-free electricity towards 120TWh p.a. – delivering 20 per cent of the UK requirement for electricity by 2050.
No need for new nuclear. No need for new fossil fuel extraction. If you are worried about costs of maximising renewables please state the costs from the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels, the cost of nuclear production, running costs and waste storage and also have a look at the Fukushima spill updates and good luck with working out the total cost of the damage it has, is, and continues to do to the ocean.
John, I’m trying to be constructive. But somehow these discussions always seem to turn into a battle!
Yes, of course we must look seriously at the oceans, and wind. But have you seen the news recently? Offshore wind in particular seems to be proving much more expensive than we had been led to believe, and companies like Orsted say they are are struggling, asking for large increases in subsidies/prices to stay in business. This is the sort of thing I fear will plague renewables in the years to come. I am not suggesting abandoning them, just asking for a realistic discussion. That means working transparently towards a proper plan.
Part of a realistic discussion, I feel, should allow for the fact that we still run 89% on CO2 producing fuel, despite decades of great efforts to wean ourselves away. This is the engine that we must use to do whatever we have to do towards net zero. And we know that is going to require huge amounts of energy and materials, and we have to do it in a hurry, which means running that engine hard. And many of us seem to think we can do that while starving it of fuel! That doesn’t make any sense to me. What do you think?
So while I advocate cutting down on personal consumption of energy, I want the energy saved to be redirected to the industries that are eventually going to turn the situation around. Because we have no alternative but to carry on trying. There is no way back and every year we delay is another year of wasted emissions.
Talking of the real world, opinions seem to be changing about nuclear. Please look into it. I know it is very hard to change people’s minds once they are made up, but it is always wise to look at both sides of any story. The world is full of intrigue, particularly where energy is concerned, as it is so vital to governments and powerful interests. I think the nuclear industry has been under attack for many decades now. Anyway, in the interests of balance, here is the world nuclear council’s page on Fukushima: https://world-nuclear.org/focus/fukushima-daiichi-accident/fukushima-daiichi-accident-faq.aspx
Hopefully, I’ll get this reply in the right place! 🙂
The other thing I wanted to mention was this article:
Seems heartening doesn’t it that electricity consumption is down so much this year?! Then you read that it’s all down to increased prices 🙂 So this is one of the other, less palatable, ways forward I was hinting at. I wonder how much of a price increase will be needed for another 10%?
Oh, and another thing I should have mentioned in my other reply: We, in the West, have done a very good job of exporting our manufacturing (and associated emissions) to places like India and China over recent decades. At some point, we need to factor this into our total energy consumption, along with the shipping emissions. I haven’t done the sums – it may or may not be significant.
What too many people tend to forget is that Energy is at the core of everything we do. All of or business and industry depend on it. If it’s expensive it means less disposable income for everyone. It can mean the difference between heating and eating for some. If our energy is more expensive than other countries, then our businesses can’t compete and people lose their jobs. (Our last remaining steel producer, British Steel, is about to stop production because of high energy prices.) It’s therefore vital that we look after the best interests of the people by providing the cheapest energy possible. That’s the key to prosperity. We need to remember this when we’re making strategic decisions. It appears that wind energy is not going to be our saviour. After all our investment in wind energy, our electricity prices have not come down and the wind industry has recently asked government to increase subsidies by 70 percent. Turbine manufacturers are failing. So much for becoming the Saudi Arabia of wind. Unfortunately Net Zero has been weaponised against the interests of the British people but there are signs that people are starting to realise this. The government are about to announce a yearly round of North Sea Licensing.
The key to prosperity is providing the cheapest energy. If the cheapest sources of energy are currently fossil fuels then we should use these until we have even cheaper sources. Personally I’d like to see increased use of geothermal district heating, while we get SMRs up and running. Meanwhile we should also be ensuring that our houses are insulated to the maximum.
If anyone believes that Net Zero in the UK is worth destroying the UK economy can I suggest they would be better employed focussing on China.
‘The key to prosperity is providing the cheapest energy’
You best start campaigning for more coal. Cheapest by far at 2.21 pence per kwh. Brilliant idea.
Oil is generally the most expensive fossil fuel bought by major power producers in the United Kingdom, peaking at 5.75 pence per kilowatt-hour in the first quarter of 2022. This represent roughly a 29 percent increase compared to the same quarter a year prior. Average price of natural gas peaked in the fourth quarter of 2021, at 5.78 pence per kilowatt-hour, almost a threefold increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2020. Nonetheless, figures slightly decreased to 4.98 pence per kilowatt-hour in the first quarter of 2022. By comparison, at that same time, coal was the cheapest fuel, at 2.21 pence per kilowatt-hour.
John, not sure where you get those numbers. UK nat gas was much more expensive than that. It was up well over 300p per therm for a while in March 22, which is 10p per kWh, and over 500p in August. I seem to remember european electricity prices were over 500 euros per MWh, which is 50c per kWh.
“The key to prosperity is providing the cheapest energy” Pish! First you need to define “prosperity”. Does it include living in a stable climate in which you can feel safe in your home, reliably grow food, access clean water and fresh air, and not have to fight over these, most basic requirements? If it does, then it does not rely on fossil fuels – cheap or otherwise.
I’ll settle for an ‘absence of poverty’ as a definition of prosperity. Poverty is much easier to recognise. When people lose their jobs and can no longer afford the basics ie shelter, warmth and food. When they have to make a decision between feeding their kids and heating. When they’re forced to resort to shoplifting. When even the foodbanks are running out of stocks. When the councils are closing libraries and not filling in pot-holes in the roads. At least people can look outside and notice absolutely no change in the environment as we’re only 1% of the problem and absolutely nothing we do can make the slightest difference.
I have never lived in a stable climate, yet feel safe in my home. I have reliably grown food and had many farmer friends who have done just the same, and adjusting to what climate, diseases and many other factors have thrown our way. TRUSTING SOME WILL SEE THE BENEFIT IN BUYING LOCALLY. Clean water no problem, but I would like some money spent on keeping our waters clean rather than be spent on foolish things. I am a bit old to be angry about not being able to skate on the Thames anymore, or too worried about the wine harvest from the north of England being a little suspect, as the wine harvest from the south of England does seem to be a little more reliable. I have given up on why Greenland was called Greenland, although my friends in Norway did give me their version!
Meanwhile, I do note how life expectancy has risen dramatically around the world as fossil fuels have been widely utilized. I also note that when natural disasters do strike and energy infrastructure is trashed what is expected to ride to the rescue? Fossil fuels, so that recorded mortality from natural disasters has decline dramatically. I also see no decent assessment of how that will not be reversed without such use. Virtue signaling is a comfort blanket, not a solution.
Sorry alex, but without food worldwide there will be fighting to come, to secure that. There is a lot of blinkered attitude to that which is making that more likely, not less.
Hmm, looks interesting when posters are happy to use energy into the night posting about whether others should have cheap energy!
I also noted the poster picture waffling on about drill for crops not for oil-wading well into oxymoron mire. Please explain how you drill crops without red diesel, grow them without fertilizer and then dry them when required without oil. Then start to explain how this planet can feed 10B without all of that. Strangely, most living in this area of the Wo(r)ld are familiar with how the rural economy works around them, yet a few are not. That is par for most courses. I really don’t find it that shocking. Ignorance has long been a factor in such debates.
Whilst I agree with the concept of tidal energy, I have noted that no-one has yet decided it is worthwhile to stump up the huge amounts of money to build such. Seems to be a demand that others should pay and the others say nope. I also remember that environmentalists are not too keen and Cornwall (St Keverne) voted not to have the Lizard blown to bits to get the granite blocks for Swansea.
It is easy to see where the £4.5T estimate for UK costs of Net Zero come from, it is not so easy to identify value for that money, or where it is supposed to be found between now and 2050. I also recall Wressle where the flawed decision was reversed and produced a bill for costs over £400k. With such waste, is it a surprise that money is hard to find? In reply to the Covid point, well I am aware of the impact on debt and the cost of funding that. Probably means I can’t have a money tree in my garden, but such is life.
Meanwhile, the Utopia of wind not looking too cheap currently, with huge increases offered to off shore wind generating electricity companies, and a 15 B Euro bale-out for the world’s largest turbine manufacturer-even following mass redundancies and more forecast to be needed. It would appear that the gravy train has to be “renewed” pretty frequently and expensively. Not to worry about it-someone else will pay!! NO THEY WILL NOT.