A Scottish Government proposal to re-open a public inquiry into plans by Ineos to drill for underground coal gas in central Scotland has been greeted with dismay by campaigners.

The government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) has written to developers and objectors suggesting that an inquiry that closed six years ago should now re-convene to consider changes in policy – and Brexit.

The move follows The Ferret’s report on 18 February revealing that Ineos, which runs the Grangemouth petrochemical complex, was attempting to resurrect a plan to sink 14 gas wells around Airth, near Falkirk. The aim is to extract methane from underground coal seams, using a technology related to fracking.


Ineos still bidding to drill for underground gas in Scotland

The plan was first mooted in 2011 but because of local and national objections it went to a public inquiry in 2014. It has been delayed ever since as ministers worked out their policy on coal bed methane and fracking for shale gas, collectively known as unconventional oil and gas (UOG).

In October 2019, after prolonged consultations, the Scottish Government adopted a policy of “no support” for UOG. Objectors assumed this meant that extraction of coal bed methane at Airth would be blocked.

But the lawyer for Ineos, Sandy Telfer from law firm DLA Piper, has been writing to the DPEA arguing that the no-support policy did not mean that the coal bed methane application had to be rejected.

Now DPEA has told Telfer and objectors that government planning reporters think the inquiry needs to be re-opened. Reporters noted there had been “changes to the development plan”, said an email on 21 February, posted on the DPEA website.

“Other developments of which they are aware include the UK and Scottish Government’s declarations of a climate emergency and the Scottish Government’s expression of no support for UOG,” DPEA wrote.

“The reporters also consider ministers would wish to hear parties’ submissions on the implications (if any) of the UK’s departure from the European Union for the binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions that the UK was a signatory to. The reporters’ preliminary view is that this subject area would best be handled in a re-opened inquiry session.”

The DPEA also suggested that there was a need for further written submissions on legal changes and environmental impacts, particularly on the Firth of Forth. It asked for responses on all its procedural suggestions by 20 March, saying it would then organise deadlines and dates.

The apparent ongoing lack of clarity around whether or not fracking can go ahead in Scotland is becoming farcical. Mary Church, Friends of the Earth Scotland

The prospect of the inquiry re-opening has upset environmental and community groups. “The apparent ongoing lack of clarity around whether or not fracking can go ahead in Scotland is becoming farcical,” said Mary Church, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland.

“Despite the people of Scotland resoundingly rejecting onshore oil and gas extraction, and a lengthy government process that concluded in a position of no support for the industry, we are now faced with the reopening of the Airth coal bed methane inquiry to determine whether or not that project should be allowed to go ahead.”

Church called on the Scottish Government to reject Ineos plans. “Ministers must stand firm and reject any attempt by Ineos to push this climate-trashing development through,” she told The Ferret.

“Ineos should admit defeat and walk away, rather than wasting public money on an expensive extended inquiry, and worst of all keeping this dirty development hanging over the local community for even longer.”

Maria Montinaro, a Falkirk community councillor with 20 years experience, said: “It is past time for our elected government to consign this threat to the wellbeing of our communities to history.”

Another Falkirk community councillor, Walter Inglis, pointed out that Ineos had argued that the risk of gas leaks could be mitigated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. But the agency – as The Ferret has reported – has had it budget cut and its regulatory effectiveness questioned, he said.

He added: “Communities the length and breadth of Scotland have clearly and consistently expressed their concerns about the proposals to develop an industry based on UOG.”

Environmental inspections in Scotland down by a quarter

Carol Anderson, a founder member of action group, Concerned Communities of Falkirk, recalled that taking part in the 2014 inquiry had been costly and demanding. Despite the policy of no-support for the industry, “the inquiry looks like being opened up again,” she said.

“It is a very lop-sided situation in which communities – who would bear the brunt of any development – are hugely disadvantaged. Ineos and the Scottish Government know this.”

The Scottish Greens called on ministers to “throw out” the Ineos application. “The communities who have been living with the threat and uncertainty coming from this proposal for the last eight years will be dismayed at this latest development,” said the party’s climate spokesperson, Mark Ruskell MSP.

The Scottish Government pointed out that its no support policy “followed a comprehensive evidence-gathering and consultation process, and the necessary statutory and other assessments.”

A government spokesperson said: “Fracking could only happen if licences were issued – and we do not intend to issue any licences which would permit that.”

The government reiterated that applications required to be determined “according to the law and policy in force at the relevant time” and that “planning decisions must be determined on their individual merits”.

It added: “The reporters are required to consider these appeals, unless withdrawn by the appellants, and to report with recommendations to Scottish ministers who will make the final decisions.”

Ineos did not respond to a request to comment.

The email suggesting re-opening the inquiry from the Scottish Government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division

DPEA Suggests Reopening Airth Inquiry (Text)

Photo thanks to Kirsi Jansa.

Author

Good journalism changes things

If, like us, you understand the power of a fearless, independent media, please consider supporting The Ferret.

The Ferret is a unique media project powered by people like you. We have no ads, and we're not owned by shadowy hedge funds or off-shore oligarchs. Instead we're a cooperative with places reserved for our writers and subscribers on the board.

We're avowedly non-partisan so we can treat everyone fairly. We don't publish click bait and we don't do favours for political parties or powerful vested interests. We do help to change things.

Subscribe
£9 per month

Or see your other subscription options.

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

2comments

by Newest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

It doesn’t matter what it’s called to Ineos, fracking or coal bed methane extraction: they will seek to either frack the hell out of the entire central belt if they could get away with it, or they will seek to sue the Scottish Government (SG) for loss of earnings from the licences they bought…In truth, the SNP government were in bed with the companies early on and only after public pressure did the SG turn and support the people. Coal bed methane or fracking only take up to 20 per cent of the methane from source and the remainder leaks over geological time. That’s from the best scientists like Cornell’s Prof Anthony Ingraffea, not opinion. So if the SG ever allow Ineos to frack or drill for coal bed methane anywhere it will cause invisible leakage of methane, guaranteed, and I am sure the people will rise up again to stop it. I for one will be amongst them!

I’m completely against fracking and want all fossil fuels replaced with renewables. However I would feel hypocritical if I thought we were importing fracked gas from other countries when we could monitor our own more safely. I appreciate that other fuels, like un fracked gas for instance might have different impacts locally and globally.