Europa Oil & Gas, the company behind plans to carry out lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, contacted DrillOrDrop today about our article which reported on a response to a public consultation.

The article looked at the detailed response by Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC) to Europa’s application to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit. Each point raised about the application was attributed to FFCC. We routinely report on responses to public consultations.

Previously, we reported separately on the content of Europa’s permit application. That article did not include any responses to the application, critical or in favour.

Europa response

The following is from Europa Oil & Gas. Some of the points made have been addressed in previous DrillOrDrop articles. We have linked to this statement from the original article.

It was disappointing to see that the below article was published on 24 September 2025 without giving Europa the opportunity to comment on its contents. The article is misleading and is arguably irresponsible journalism given the emotive subject matter which is not well understood by the general public. It is requested that you urgently update the article to clarify the following:

• Europa is not “fracking” at Burniston. The Energy Minister, Michael Shanks MP, has confirmed that “fracking” is high volume hydraulic fracturing, which is designed to commercially extract shale gas. The well that we are planning at Burniston is neither high volume hydraulic fracturing nor is it targeting shale gas, therefore to refer to our project at Burniston as fracking is not only incorrect but it spreads misinformation on a very emotive subject which we believe is irresponsible journalism.
• The proposed proppant squeeze operation is a conventional technique that has been utilised for conventional onshore wells in the UK for decades without resulting in any earthquakes. The target carboniferous formation has been successfully treated with this technique without any recorded earthquakes. This has been fully considered in the planning application
• To say that the “waste” from a proppant squeeze would be left in the formation is completely incorrect, it is scaremongering and shows a complete lack of understanding of this well-established proppant squeeze process. In addition it is not possible to pump the treatment through the Zechstein salt sequence, which is a ductile rock of over 550 meters in thickness that overlays the carboniferous gas reservoir.
• Once developed there will be no flaring on site as all the gas will be sold into the National Transmission System for domestic consumption, thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with the gas that is consumed in the UK
• An independent expert has determined that any emissions that may result from the testing of the gas field would be “largely insignificant”. This report can be found in the planning application
• This statement is not correct: “FFCC said Europa Oil & Gas had provided no information on nearby residents, businesses and sensitive sites, even though this was publicly available.” The planning application does provide information about sensitive sites and nearby residents, which includes Wayside Farm
• The noise monitoring stations have been selected following the expert opinion of a specialist independent noise consultant
• The EA permit requires monitoring of boreholes before, during and after drilling operations and the locations of these are included in the EA application so to say that the location of the proposed ground water monitoring boreholes has not been provided is incorrect.
• Air quality will be continuously monitored so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect
• As with all drilling operations there will be emergency response plans in place so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect
• The impact on the flora and fauna is fully considered in the EA permit, which will include restrictions on certain activities so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect
• The site will be returned to its original state, either after the appraisal well is drilled or after the gas field has been produced so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect
• Europa has contracted specialist advisors to ensure that the planning application and the EA permit are both completed as required. FFCC has given no examples of where the application is not “accurate, complete and consistent”
• The development of domestic gas resources is entirely consistent with achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Government data shows that as of 2023–24, about 86% of UK households use gas-fired central heating systems. The UK imports over 50% of the gas that is consumes, much of which is LNG that has +50 times more greenhouse gas emissions associated with its consumption compared to domestically produced gas, it is therefore environmental vandalism for the UK to prioritise gas imports over domestic exploration and production
• Should the Burniston well prove that the Cloughton field can be developed then the resulting development will reduce GHG emissions and air pollution by displacing LNG. The development would reduce GHG emissions by 429 thousand tonnes over the 20-year life of the field (equivalent to removing 10,000 -14,000 cars from the road for the life of the field)

Europa copied the above statement to the press regulator, IPSO.

Comments

If you wish to comment on Europa’s statement, please get in touch at https://drillordrop.com/contact/ Comments will be added in the order in which they are received.

Estelle Dehon KC

I note from your story on Europa Oil & Gas’s complaints about your reporting that Europa’s first point was: “Europa is not “fracking” at Burniston. The Energy Minister, Michael Shanks MP, has confirmed that “fracking” is high volume hydraulic fracturing, which is designed to commercially extract shale gas. The well that we are planning at Burniston is neither high volume hydraulic fracturing nor is it targeting shale gas, therefore to refer to our project at Burniston as fracking is not only incorrect but it spreads misinformation on a very emotive subject which we believe is irresponsible journalism.”

Europa is incorrect, as is the MP’s “confirmation” of what “fracking” means.

The term “fracking” can cover a number of different processes, encompassing both high and low volume hydraulic fracturing. While the fracking moratorium in s50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 only involves high volume hydraulic fracturing in shale strata, the definition of hydraulic fracturing for planning and permitting purposes includes low volume hydraulic fracturing and is not limited to shale strata. Accordingly, Europa’s proposed proppant squeeze does fall within the common meaning of the term “fracking” and it is not misleading to say so. In fact, it would be misleading to limit the term “fracking” to cover only high volume hydraulic fracturing of shale strata.

Dennis May, Frack Free Misson

In a July 2024 letter to DESNZ, Europa Oil & Gas itself described its proposed ‘proppant squeeze’ as fracking, claiming it should not be included in any proposed ban as it would be ‘orders of magnitude’ smaller than shale gas operations.

Ironically, the proposed stage volumes are greater than any used at Preston New Road, and are themselves an order of magnitude greater than that used for the ‘proppant squeeze’ at Wressle, to which Europa’s Burniston propaganda keenly draws a comparison.

It is also significant that in common with shale operations, the Cloughton prospect will require fracking to initiate, as opposed enhance, the appraisal and production phases of development. Its classification as a ‘conventional’ operation is therefore clearly open to question.

It is this need to frack that will necessitate the additional sites and wells proposed by Europa in order to fully exploit the Cloughton prospect. Resulting cumulative impacts will be far more comparable with shale developments than e.g. Wressle, while still being classified as ‘lower volume’ operations by DESNZ.

Chris Garforth, for Frack Free Coastal Communities

The Drill or Drop article accurately reports on FFCC’s response to the Environment Agency consultation on Europa Oil and Gas’s application for Environmental Permits. We comment briefly below on each of Europa’s bullet points. The full consultation response can be seen on FFCC’s website at https://www.frackfreecoastalcommunities.co.uk/_files/ugd/cba4c2_674f517f28334b7db3351efb08b809d8.pdf

1. Europa is not “fracking” at Burniston. Europa themselves referred to their proposed operation at Burniston as ‘fracking’ in correspondence with the NSTA in July 2025 – https://drillordrop.com/2025/03/26/new-twists-in-the-f-word-debate/ The statement by Minister Michael Shanks, cited by Europa, is now widely regarded as mistaken. A legal opinion from Ms Estelle Dehon KC concluded (June 2025) that Europa’s planned ‘proppant squeeze’ qualifies as fracking under relevant planning legislation https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate/legal-expert-yorks-project-should-be-considered-fracking
2. Proppant squeeze is a conventional technique. There is no literature about the use of ‘proppant squeeze’ in the UK. The term itself was not used before 2021. The use of proppants may be well established for various purposes but there is no evidence presented in Europa’s planning application nor in its Environment Permit application to show that the proposed ‘proppant squeeze’ is commonly used or safe.
3. To say that the “waste” from a proppant squeeze would be left in the formation is completely incorrect. In their EP application, that is exactly what Europa say will happen: less than half the fluid used to fracture the rocks will flow back to the well site for disposal, the rest is to remain in an underground ‘mining waste facility’ on the edge of Scalby. This ‘mining waste’ is simply the bulk of the materials used in the proppant squeeze process that will not be recovered.
4. Once developed there will be no flaring on site. FFCC comments were about the EP application for an appraisal well, not the operation of a developed gasfield. That application says clearly that gas coming out of the well during the proposed appraisal will be burnt in a shrouded flare; this will burn 24/7 for as long as the appraisal and testing continue.
5. An independent expert has determined that any emissions that may result from the testing of the gas field would be “largely insignificant”. The independent emissions report submitted with the planning application does not conclude that the emissions would be “largely insignificant”: that phrase does not appear in the report; nor does it appear in the Environmental Risk Assessment submitted with the EP application.
6. The planning application does provide information about sensitive sites and nearby residents, which includes Wayside Farm. FFCC comments were about the EP application not the planning application. Our response to the latter says that Europa’s listing of sensitive receptors, nearby residents and businesses ignores, among others, Burniston Garden Centre and the Green Farming Ltd grain store next to the site access.
7. The noise monitoring stations have been selected following the expert opinion of a specialist independent noise consultant . FFCC point out that the two 24/7 monitoring stations were both south of the site, near the main road and did not reflect the reality of baseline noise affecting local residents in Burniston e.g. Bridge Close.
8. [T]o say that the location of the proposed ground water monitoring boreholes has not been provided is incorrect. The three monitoring boreholes are supposed to be shown on a map in the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment submitted with the EP application; but Appendix 3729/HIA/A1 ‘Monitoring Boreholes Location’ shows instead the Site Layout.
9. Air quality will be continuously monitored so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect The Air Quality Monitoring Plan submitted with the EP application does not envisage any monitoring stations beyond the perimeter of the project site; and ‘continuous’ seems to refer to periodic sampling rather than ‘all the time’.
10. As with all drilling operations there will be emergency response plans in place so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect. FFCC have not claimed (nor inferred or even implied!) that there will be no emergency response plan. Our response to the EA consultation asks that if the project goes ahead, emergency response plans for spillages, well failure and groundwater contamination should be in place and strictly enforced.
11. The impact on the flora and fauna is fully considered in the EA permit, which will include restrictions on certain activities so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect. We have pointed out, in our responses to both the Planning Application and the Environmental Permit application, that Europa’s ecological appraisal is inadequate; it fails to identify the full ecological and habitat significance of the land surrounding the project site, including the presence of protected species. If the baseline analysis is inadequate, then mitigation plans based on that analysis are unlikely to be persuasive.
12. The site will be returned to its original state, either after the appraisal well is drilled or after the gas field has been produced so to infer that this is not planned is incorrect. FFCC have not said (nor inferred nor implied) that site restoration is not planned. We are, however, aware of other oil and gas sites around the country where operators have failed to meet deadlines for site restoration and, in some cases, lack the finance to carry out site restoration. So we stand by the statement in our EA response that ‘long term site remediation obligations’ must be in place and enforced if the project goes ahead.
13. Europa has contracted specialist advisors to ensure that the planning application and the EA permit are both completed as required. FFCC has given no examples of where the application is not “accurate, complete and consistent”. FFCC has given several examples in our responses to the planning application and to the EP application. These can both be read on our website. FFCC look forward to Europa’s clarification of these inaccuracies and inconsistencies to North Yorkshire’s planners and to the Environment Agency.
14. The development of domestic gas resources is entirely consistent with achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Many scientists and international bodies (including the IEA) have concluded that developing new gasfields is incompatible with achieving net zero by 2025. Europa cannot guarantee that any gas produced from the Burniston site would be used in the UK rather than exported; and Europa’s current investment plans are to increase the amount of LNG produced and traded around the world from deposits beneath the coastal waters of Equatorial Guinea.
15. The development [of the Cloughton gasfield] would reduce GHG emissions by 429 thousand tonnes over the 20-year life of the field (equivalent to removing 10,000 -14,000 cars from the road for the life of the field). FFCC would be interested to see the assumptions and calculations behind this claim so that we can respond appropriately.

Europa Oil & Gas Limited

Thank you for adding our response to your article. However, it is disappointing that you have also added a statement from Estelle Dehon KC which continues to spread misinformation.

As you can see from the below extract from a letter from Michael Shanks MP to Alison Hume MP sent on 9 Sept 2024, Ms Dehon is NOT correct when she states that, quote:

“Europa is incorrect, as the MP’s “confirmation” of what “fracking” means.”