A moratorium on the planning permits for shale gas in Scotland has been hailed as a victory by opponents of fracking. But according to energy analyst and journalist Lorenzo Colantoni, the true intention of the Scottish government is political. The Scottish National Party, he says, wants to secure votes for the May 2015 elections. It has no intention to really stop fracking or other unconventional gas activities. This is partly confirmed by Scottish Minister of Energy Fergus Ewing who, in an email interview with Energy Post, says that “unconventional gas could potentially play a part” in supplementing renewables in Scotland.
Fracking is facing hard times in in Europe. The dream of a shale revolution in the EU looks more and more unlikely to happen. Chevron pulled out of Romania, while Exxon halted its operations in Hungary and in shale-enthusiastic Poland. With a ban in France, a moratorium in Germany and the Netherlands, only the UK still stands firm as a supporter of shale gas, pushed by its looming energy crisis which is constantly threatening a nationwide blackout.
The British position, however, now faces the opposition of Scotland, whose government, led by the Scottish National Party (SNP), established a moratorium on planning permits for all unconventional oil and gas extraction at the end of January. It thereby de facto blocked any new unconventional gas activity until further evaluation will be carried out by the Scottish Government.
The North Sea oil industry, which still plays an important role in the Scottish economy, is collapsing
The decision was possible thanks to the 2008 devolution, which allows the Scottish government to block planning activities for environmental reasons, without the need of an approval by either the Scottish or UK Parliament. The decision has led to a series of reactions across Great Britain, from the recent opposition of a Lancashire Council to grant planning permits to the Welsh government adopting the same moratorium as Scotland one week later.
Firm position
Environmentalists, who believe fracking is more suitable to central Texas than the suburbs of Liverpool, have hailed the moratorium as a significant step towards a complete ban on fracking in the country and, possibly, in the whole of the UK. Newspaper reports with enthusiastic headlines such as “Nae fracking here!” and “SNP announces indefinite fracking ban in Scotland” suggested that Scotland will outlaw fracking once it has received full powers from Westminster to do so. Full control over fracking is due to be devolved to Scotland after May’s general election, following recommendations of last November’s Smith Commission after the independence referendum.
So will Scotland move to a definitive ban after it gets the power to decide over its own gas resources? That is far from certain. It is more likely that the real target of the moratorium is not environmental but political: the May 2015 UK elections.
Up to now, the SNP, the initiator of the moratorium, has never taken a firm position on shale gas. Both the SNP and the Labour party voted against a ban on shale gas extraction proposed by the Green Party less than a year ago. The current Scottish deputy PM John Swinney gave this answer when asked about the future of shale in Scotland: “There are a whole variety of complex issues that have to be wrestled with, and that is why we take an evidence-based and considered approach to all of those issues.”
Interview Fergus Ewing
This stance is confirmed by Scottish Minister of Energy, Fergus Ewing. Asked in an email interview with Energy Post whether a definitive ban on shale gas is likely to happen, he replied: “The public consultation [we announced] will give all stakeholders an opportunity to present their views on unconventional oil and gas to the Scottish Government and will allow us to make decisions based not only on technical assessments, but with a fuller understanding of public opinion. This is a logical next step in our cautious and evidence-based approach and our commitment to community engagement. However, we cannot pre-judge the outcome of that process.” (Italics added)
Ewing himself has never showed himself to be an opponent of unconventional resources
Fewing also noted that: “In Scotland we need a diverse and balanced energy portfolio to provide us with secure and affordable heat and electricity for decades to come. However, the Scottish Government has an obligation – both moral and of economic opportunity – to lead the way to a low carbon economy. Scotland already generates 46.4% of its equivalent electricity needs from renewables and our ambition is to deliver the equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity from renewables by 2020. However, we also recognise the need for clean thermal baseload to supplement increasing renewables and unconventional gas could potentially play a part in that, particularly if used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage technologies. It is equally important to remember that gas is used for much more than just electricity generation in Scotland, with the majority of it is used for heating and other purposes.” (Italics added)
In other words: the door to unconventional gas has not been closed yet. As a matter of fact, the SNP has kept an ambiguous stance on shale gas also since its early declarations, which seemed mostly addressed towards the UK’s control of the issue, rather than the technology itself. Even after the moratorium the position of the party has not been made any clearer. Ewing himself has never showed himself to be an opponent of unconventional resources, being recently criticised by another member of the party, MSP Joan MacAlpine, for his clear support of all extraction of underground gas.
Oil industry collapsing
A moratorium on shale gas in Scotland comes at a relatively cheap price, but an outright and comprehensive ban on all unconventional resources would be much more expensive. True, the country does not have major shale gas reserves. The British Geological Survey (BGS) has estimated Scottish shale gas resources as more than sixteen times smaller than the Bowland shale reserves in central Britain where most of the British shale gas is probably located. Moreover, Scottish reserves are located in the Midland Valley area, mostly in the populated Edinburgh-Glasgow belt, increasing difficulties in extraction.
On the other hand, the North Sea oil industry, which still plays an important role in the Scottish economy, is collapsing. Input has declined by 40% since 2010 and costs are rising. With an oil price below $50 a barrel, the Scottish government needs to support a crucial industry which employs almost 200,000 people in the country (out of a population of 5 million). Unconventional resources cannot solve the crisis, but they can make the transition smoother and, in particular, convince the oil companies to keep investing in the extraction and refining industry.
What the SNP seems interested in doing is, in fact, consolidating its advance over the Labour party before the UK General Elections in May
Not by chance, chemical giant Ineos threatened to close the biggest industrial complex in Scotland, the Grangemouth refinery plant, as a consequence of the moratorium: the company is deeply involved in Scottish shale gas extraction and is the biggest player in the UK, having declared its intention to invest ÂŁ640 million in the sector last November. Ineos is also trying to pressure local Scottish communities. It has promised it will pay 4% per cent of shale gas revenues to homeowners and make 2% available for community projects.
It should also be noted that the moratorium contains a major loophole, namely regarding underground coal gasification (UCG). This unconventional extraction technology consists of the ignition of underground coal seams which are too uneconomical to exploit, to extract the resulting natural gas, a dangerous technique in terms of emissions and contamination of water resources. UCG has been omitted from the moratorium on grounds that it uses different technologies than shale gas and oil extraction, and that the licensing powers for these resources will not be devolved to the Scottish government in the future. In the devolution proposal by the Smith Commission UCG has not been included, unlike coalbed methane and shale gas.
Full control
What the SNP seems interested in doing is, in fact, consolidating its advance over the Labour party before the UK General Elections in May. Even if it fell short of victory in the independence referendum last October, the defeat was marginal (55% for No and 45% for Yes) and this has contributed to shift the support from the unionist parties, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour, to the SNP.
Labour actually proposed a nation-wide moratorium on shale gas in the Westminster (UK) parliament a few days before the Scottish government introduced its moratorium, but was unsuccessful. This was partially due to the abstention of most of members of its own party, including the Scottish MP Jim Murphy, even though Murphy had taken a firm stance against shale shortly before the vote. The SNP did not miss this chance to prove itself more effective than its major political opponent. It was an easy victory in the public eye, thanks also to the positive reception of local communities.
[adrotate group=”9″]
The SNP also seems to have another target in mind: the devolution of licensing powers for conventional and unconventional oil and gas from the British to the Scottish government. Although the Smith Commission, as stated above, has recommended that control over unconventional and conventional oil and gas resources should be devolved to Scotland, the UK Parliament has still to vote on this after the elections. The stronger the SNP becomes, the more favourable the outcome of this vote will be.
So the moratorium may also well be an attempt to show Westminster that the Scottish government is prepared to use all its powers to achieve the devolution. However, if this meets with success and Scotland manages to obtain full control over its unconventional gas and oil resources, it remains to be seen what the government will do next. On the available evidence, an overall ban on fracking seems unlikely.
John Christie says
Why is all fracking tarred with the same brush? There are new technologies that eliminate the use of water and flaring while improving yield and revenue. Water use and pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated entirely, so what serious threats are there???
Better to regulate the by-products than to ban the practice. If we treated automobiles the same way, we would ban automobiles rather than regulate emissions and fuel economy.
Richard Barrett says
Name these new wonder technologies that either don’t pump water in , pump water out, or set the ground beneath us on fire , all put human heath at risk, . None of what you say sounds possible. Show even one instance where you prove your claim.
Brad says
Waterless fracking uses fluropropane to crack shale.
Human health is at risk every day, in every industry, and in society generally. In the US, where they have fracked over one million wells, I am unaware of any fatalities associated with the technology. In fact, the technology has proven safe in multiple independent studies, and is backed by a number of environmental groups and the US environmental agency. The technology has improved considerably over the years. No ground is set on fire, no water is contaminated. It is much less spectacular than that, and in fact it has been practiced for decades in the UK without ill effect. What it does do is reduce greenhouse gasses by supplanting coal use. It also creates jobs, growth, and investment.
Look, if you want to over-invest in renewables, Germany has already shown you how to do this, and what the consequences are. Now the EU is reconsidering their policy. 300k people turn off their power each year in Germany because electricity rates are so high (3x higher than in the US). Companies are shifting jobs and investment out of Germany in favor of lower cost jurisdictions. Go down this road at your peril. Pursue a balanced energy portfolio approach and you will be much better off.
Dee Edgar says
So are you saying that because “human health is at risk every day, in every industry” and the fact that we need to “persue a balanced energy portfolio approach” that these are reasons to allow fracking? Well I for one do not put these reasons above the health of my children and grandchildren and if I thought for one minute the SNP were playing games just to get into office I would vote for the Greens in the May election and I would not be alone.