Correspondence about permission for gas drilling and fracking in North Yorkshire has prompted concerns about the independence of the environmental regulator.

Emails, seen by DrillOrDrop, reveal what has been described as a “close working relationship” between the Environment Agency (EA) and Europa Oil & Gas, the company that wants to drill for gas at Burniston, near Scarborough.

The correspondence shows that the EA shared the draft environmental permit with Europa, which would be required to comply with its conditions.

The company suggested changes to wording, most of which were agreed by the EA, and asked for sections to be removed.

The emails were written during an important period for public comment on the Burniston permit application.

Residents and local organisations had complained about errors and inconsistencies in key documents. But they were unaware of discussions between the EA and Europa or that the company was involved in changes to the permit.

“Growing concerns”

The correspondence was released in response to a freedom of information request by DrillOrDrop.

We sent the released emails to Burniston Parish council, which said:

“The concerns around the Environment Agency’s handling of the Europa Oil and Gas application for an environmental licence grow with every new piece of information we receive.

“Our community and the wider community are struggling to understand quite why the EA appears to be so quick to assist EOG [Europa Oil & Gas] and at the same time, fail to respond to the very genuine questions and concerns raised by members of our community.”

DrillOrDrop also shared the emails with the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities. It said:

“The email chain shows the close working relationship between the regulator and the fossil fuel industry.

“We see details of the draft permit being shared with the company that will be bound by its provisions, giving them the opportunity to suggest amendments that will suit their operational interests and remove bothersome constraints.”

Regular contact

The correspondence, covering Tuesday 29 September 2026 to Tuesday 6 October 2026, shows the EA was in regular contact with Europa.

In the six working days in this period, the EA and Europa corresponded eight times. On three days, at least two emails were exchanged.

This contrasts with the experience of local people and organisations, who complained that the EA had not responded to their correspondence.

The emails also revealed

• The EA agreed (Tuesday 29 September 2026) to most of Europa’s comments on the draft permit raised in a conversation the previous week.
• The EA sent Europa the revised permit with the company’s amendments on Friday 2 October 2026. But the document was not posted online for public comment until Wednesday 7 October 2026. The EA said it wrote to people about the revised version but some said their letter arrived too late for them to comment.
• The EA told the public the changes in the amended version corrected drafting and “minor typographical errors”. But, according to the emails, amendments included changes to key permit conditions and operational issues.
• The EA promised (Tuesday 6 October 2026) to share with Europa further changes in the wording of a permit condition in the following fortnight, something not offered to the public.
• The EA also offered Europa the chance to discuss “outstanding matters” even after the public consultation closed, again not offered to the public.
• Generally, the EA responded quickly to Europa’s emails, in contrast to some residents’ experiences.

“Demonstrate equality”

Burniston Parish Council, which opposes the gas drilling proposal, said it was concerned that the EA has taken different approaches to the company and the local community.

Cllr Richard Parsons, the parish council chair, told DrillOrDrop, the community was looking for equal treatment:

“We at Burniston Parish Council would once again urge the EA to show that they are independent and understand the need to communicate, on the same footing with this community and the wider community, as they are communicating with EOG. In other words demonstrate equality in their process.”

Cllr Parsons said the council and others had asked for a public meeting with the EA about errors in an earlier version of the permit documents. He said:

“we have received no response.

“Nobody here is asking for preferential treatment, just equality.

“I would challenge the EA, ‘if you are not prepared to communicate with those who have legitimate concerns over the granting of this licence, whilst communicating with EOG, say so’.”

He added:

“There should be no need to remind the Environment Agency of their independent role, the requirement to protect our environment and to act in a manner that is fair and equal whilst acting in a manner that is open, honest and transparent. Because our concerns are growing, the time is well overdue for the EA to demonstrate understanding of their role.”

“Unwarranted influence”

Professor Chris Garforth, of Frack Free Coastal Communities, said:

“Essentially, the emails show how successive opportunities to comment on and suggest changes to the wording of the permit are giving Europa unwarranted influence on the key provisions that they would need to abide by if their proposed drilling and fracking were ever to go ahead.

“The response from the EA is to accept most of Europa’s suggestions. They do push back on one, however: Europa asked them to remove reference to specific depths for the underground waste operation (following fracking of four separate geological formations) – presumably to allow them leeway to frack at any depth they choose. The EA point out that these are specific depths at which Europa said in their application they would frack and see no reasons for changing that specification in the permit.”

Professor Garforth said the emails did not contain from the EA “any concern at all about the inconsistencies in the draft decision document”.

He also said the emails revealed a gap in the regulatory process.

At Europa’s request, the EA removed a reference to the “loading, unloading, handling and storage of crude oil”.

Professor Garforth said:

“Why is this? Europa will argue (as they do in the application) that crude oil coming up during the well testing and appraisal will not be treated as waste but as a commercial product – and so is outside the scope of the Waste Management Plan and the permitting regime.

“However, they did not mention in their planning application to NYC [North Yorkshire Council] that they expect oil to be produced. Consequently, no part of the regulatory framework has explicitly considered the procedures and facilities on site necessary to handle this oil.

“We pointed this out to NYC at the time the initial consultation on the environmental permit was launched but were ignored. It seems to us that Europa is deliberately and cynically using the different parts of the framework to hide certain parts of their intentions from regulatory and public scrutiny.”

Europa did not respond in the released emails to the EA’s question on 29 September 2026 about wildfire risk. The EA had asked the company whether it had a plan to mitigate fire risks from flaring of waste gas.

Professor Garforth said:

“The many residents who raised concerns about this in the 2025 consultation (when the devastating wildfire on the North York Moors was still raging) will be keen to know the answer.”

DrillOrDrop has sent this article to the EA for comment.