People living near an oil and gas site in East Yorkshire have complained to officials about plans for small-scale fracking.

Rathlin Energy is seeking to vary the environmental permit to allow reservoir stimulation at its West Newton-A site.

All but one of the published responses to an Environment Agency (EA) consultation opposed the plans, many “objecting strongly”.

Reservoir stimulation is regarded as small-scale fracking. It is not prevented by the moratorium on high-volume fracking in England because the fluid quantity is below the statutory limit. Reservoir stimulation, also called proppant squeeze, has been criticised by opponents as a loophole in the law on fracking.

At the time of writing, responses to the consultation on West Newton-A focussed on:

• Risk of seismic activity
• Complexity and volume of information provided by Rathlin Energy
• Missing information on a proposed chemical
• Plans to store and mix chemicals at West Newton-A
• Condition of the site’s protective liner
• Rathlin’s operational record
• Climate change

The consultation closes on Friday 24 January 2025. Comments to the West Newton proposals can be made online, by email to pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk or by phone on 03708 506506.

Stimulation and seismicity

A report accompanying Rathlin’s application concluded:

“the proposed activities pose a very low risk with respect to seismic hazard. The likelihood of reaching magnitudes that could be tolerable to the local public is negligible. We do not believe that the installation of local seismicity monitoring arrays is warranted.”

Despite this, responses to the consultation have criticised the application for failing to recognise the risks.

Responses complained that the West Newton-A application did not include a hydraulic fracturing plan (HFP), which should set out how the operator would prevent or mitigate seismic activity resulting from fracturing rocks. There were also calls for seismic monitoring.

One response said:

“The application carries no recognition of the risks of high pressure fracturing and no details of seismic monitoring at even a most basic scale. I object to the poor planning of hydraulic fracturing experiment.” [response 168734744]

Another said:

“There is no hydraulic fracturing plan available for this application. Risks cannot be assessed fully without it.” [response 319918420]

One response said:

“whilst this is not fracking in the true sense of the word, it is fracking through the back door as it uses the same processes.” [response 808802622]

Another said:

“None of us trust this company, whatever their promises. There have been safety issues [at West Newton-A] – there have been noxious smells, light and noise pollution and problems regarding transport through this rural area. All issues which Rathlin promised would never happen, so why would we now trust them with fracking?” [response 797456819]

The responses also referred to problems at Preston New Road in Lancashire, where high volume hydraulic fracturing caused several hundred small earthquakes. They also mentioned a new study, which concluded that conventional oil operations in Surrey could have caused an earthquake swarm in 2018 and 2019.

Language problems

Many responses criticised the content and volume of material submitted by Rathlin Energy in its variation application, which comprised 27 separate documents.

One response said:

“the information provided in the application is extremely difficult to understand and interpret by a layperson.” [response 193268562]

Another response described the content as “voluminous and complex”, “presented in a manner which makes it difficult for the layperson to interpret and to understand the processes to be used in the stimulation of the well” [response 921522753]

A resident living to the north-east of the site said:

“This permit application is far too complicated to the lay person reading it” [response 1009945313]

Another response said:

“Information is not presented in a readily understandable form for the lay person. I object to the proposal as presented.”  [response 694908742]

Another criticised the writing style:

“the language used is clearly intended to obscure understanding by non technical readers. It is therefore hard to see how this is a “consultation” aimed at laypersons. And an excessive use of abbreviations. Again likely to confuse first time readers.” [response 505427407]

Missing information

Many responses criticised the lack of data on a chemical that Rathlin Energy proposes to use in the reservoir stimulation.

DrillOrDrop understands that the company had been asked to provide the information by 10 January 2025. But at the time of writing, it had not been published.

The chemical, MO-1V, is described as a breaker. This is used to reduce the viscosity of specialized treatment fluids such as gels and foams.

When data is not provided by a deadline, the EA can consider the application to have been withdrawn. DrillOrDrop understands that Rathlin Energy asked the EA for more time on .MO-1V. We asked the EA whether the application had been considered withdrawn but the organisation did not respond.

One response said:

“Any late submission of evidence would compromise the whole application and negate the whole consultation process. I request that the application is deemed to have been withdrawn and I object to the withholding of relevant evidence particularly concerning the public and environmental safety of the chemicals proposed.” [response 542052270].

Another said there were no guarantees of safety on MO-1V:

“To risk public health in this chemical experiment seems reckless and I object to the use of uncertificated chemicals in our environment. [response 675767713]

Liner questions

The consultation also raised concerns about the existing protective liner under West Newton-A.

They referred to a report by JBA Consulting, written in 2021 when Rathlin Energy applied for planning permission to extend West Newton-A. The report concluded:

“there is insufficient information to show that the existing liner in its current state is suitable for its new role.”

Many respondents included a call for a new liner. One of them said:

“We strongly object to any permit variation being approved without the liner being fully replaced.”  [response 319918420]

Rathlin operations

Some responses to the consultation criticised Rathlin Energy’s operation of the West Newton-A site over the past 10+ years. In 2014, the company breached at least 14 conditions of its environmental permits.

One response said:

“Myself and family live extremely close to the wellsite and have had many dealings with yourselves [the EA] in the past due to Rathlin’s activities. We have had issues with light pollution and obnoxious odour from the site in which you spent hours in our garden monitoring. This is not acceptable and I am very concerned for the risk of human health to my family and find it against my Human Rights. I therefore once again want to object strongly to the above permit application and urge you to refuse this application.” [response 1064694903]

Another said:

“Due to our close proximity to the site, we experience light, noise and odour pollution which need to be addressed in the permit.” [response 1009945313]

This response said the author’s health had previously been affected by odour, feeling sick, light-headed and faint.

If the permit variation were allowed, the response said:

“Rathlin Energy must provide monitoring equipment for such releases and also some ardent communication system with their neighbours such as ourselves to communicate any hazardous activities. Unfortunately, the lack of communication from Rathlin Energy to its neighbours is extremely poor showing arrogance and a total disregard to its neighbours.”

Climate change

Some responses also criticised the further development of oil and gas at West Newton-A.

One said:

“I do not understand why the issue of this licence is being dealt with in isolation rather than taking a holistic view of the problems of global warming, the need for clean energy.

“Clean power is front and centre of the government’s strategy. This is not clean energy. We are all being encouraged by Government to electric, but apparently it does not apply to this.” [respondent 808802622]

Other issues

The response also raised concerns about:

• plans to store and mix chemicals at West Newton-A
• the expectation that 70% of the stimulation fluid would remain underground
• the impact on local countryside

One response said:

“I object strongly to the area under my home being turned into a waste facility!” [response 1064694903

Another said:

“Rathlin have strung us along for years with their threats and promises – we are a rural farming area with huge amounts of wildlife and flora and fauna – for goodness sake let us have our countryside to enjoy instead of this abomination. This had been going on for years – stop holding our futures to ransom.” [response 868557591]

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.