Legal

INEOS wins approval for High Court challenge to National Trust over shale gas testing in historic park

clumber-park-bridge

Clumber Park, bought by the National Trust in 1946. Photo: (c) Copyright Carl Hinde. Licensed for re-use: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0

The UK’s biggest shale gas company has been given leave to take action in the High Court to enforce access to the National Trust’s Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire.

INEOS Upstream wants to carry out seismic testing in the Grade I historic park as part of its exploration for shale gas in the East Midlands.

The National Trust, which has refused access, has accused INEOS of failing to follow the “proper planning process”. It said the company had not demonstrated why the surveys were necessary. Friends of the Earth accused INEOS of “bully-boy tactics”.

INEOS said in a statement today the Oil and Gas Authority, acting for the Government, had granted permission for the case to go to the High Court.

A judge could force the National Trust’s to allow access for INEOS’s surveys.

Lynn Calder, Commercial Director of INEO Shale said:

“Legal action has been the last resort and we have used powers which prevent landowners from blocking projects which benefit the wider community and the nation as a whole. These surveys are both routine and necessary across the UK, including on National Trust land.

“The National Trust’s position is very disappointing as we have had positive relationships with a range of stakeholders and landowners during surveys. We have addressed a variety of stakeholder concerns in the past and are sorry the National Trust wouldn’t even have discussions with us in this case owing to a political objection to shale gas.”

The National Trust responded:

“Our founding principle is to protect the beautiful places in our care, and we believe Ineos has not yet followed the proper planning process, which would involve them fully considering the potential environmental impacts.

“Clumber Park is a Grade I listed park and gardens, much of which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and visited by over half a million people each year. In our view, Ineos haven’t demonstrated to the Trust why it is necessary to carry out any surveys here or addressed our other reasons for refusing to grant access.

“We have no wish for our land to play any part in extracting gas or oil. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change at many of our places, and we have launched a programme to dramatically cut our own fossil fuel usage at our properties.

“We’re disappointed by the OGA’s decision but due to the legal status of the case we can’t comment any further at this stage.”

Guy Shrubsole, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said:

“A huge fracking firm suing the National Trust to test for shale gas within the historic Sherwood Forest area will make people wonder what is sacred anymore.

“The spirit of Robin Hood will be bridling at these bully-boy tactics. INEOS’ fracking activities threaten to industrialise our green and pleasant land and people everywhere will be horrified.”

Internationally-protected species

Clumber Park covers about 3,800 acres, much of which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is home to internationally-protected species including bats, woodlark, nightjar and great crested newt.

In January, the park’s general manager, Beth Dawson, wrote to INEOS, saying:

“We cannot prevent you from taking legal action, but I do also believe that you are reasonable people who recognise how much we as a nation love our countryside and heritage.

“That’s why I’m asking you to reconsider your approach and withdraw your application to survey at Clumber Park.”

At the time, INEOS responded that it was “happy to visit” but the legal action would continue.

In a document to Nottinghamshire County Council, INEOS said it had excluded other SSSIs from the seismic survey area. That document also excluded Clumber Park.

In January, DrillOrDrop asked INEOS whether it planned to carry out seismic testing in the Clumber Park SSSI. The company did not respond. We’ve put that question to the company again today and will update this post with any response.

We also asked what would be the total survey area in Clumber Park if the SSSI were excluded. INEOS did not respond to this question either and we’ve asked it again.

“Long-term potential of shale”

INEOS repeated today that seismic surveying was regarded as “non-intrusive”.

Lynn Calder said the company’s “continued investment in shale represents the confidence that it has in its long-term potential”.

If shale proved to be successful, she said, it would provide the UK economy with “highly competitive energy” and “enormous levels of investment and jobs in the North of England where they are desperately needed.”

She said “recent figures” estimated that the shale industry was expected to bring in £33 bn of investment into England in the next two years.

This figure is from a 2014 report by EY, itself based on a 2013 study by the Institute of Directors using US data and assuming 4,000 wells. More recently, a 2016 report for the cabinet office suggested only 155 shale gas wells were likely in the UK by 2025 (DrillOrDrop).

  • INEOS is already involved in two public inquiries over planning permissions, due to start in May and June, as well as possible case in the Court of Appeal over its injunction against anti-fracking protests. It is also seeking a judicial review against the Scottish Government over its ban on fracking.

29 replies »

  1. ALOT of other landowners are also now saying NO to INEOS. People across the North are wising up to the bully boy tactics, coming in person in twos to isolated farmers and telling them they have no choice. Oh yes they have a choice: no to the blood money whose amounts are trifling compared to the environmental damage threatened to their farmland. We also have alot of big landowners in Ryedale who are turning their back on INEOS.

    • Well this is fun isn’t it?
      Here is todays tribute from Ian R Crane on the subject of Bineos self immolation over the National Trusts refusal to allow them to invade their property.

      (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=em-lbcastemail&v=oEhbmo6Ovp4)

      It is worth listening to the report of the judges recent attempts to remove two lock on protectors driving licences to prevent them being able to move freely, outrageous, and Ben Devoys selfless support of them which triggered a mass declaration that the judge must remove Bens and their driving licences. The judge, then realising it would be appeals and a case law matter withdrew the attempt and hence Ben Devoy saved the day for those two protectors.
      Well done Ben Devoy.

  2. Ian-of course they can say no to INEOS in terms of development on their land, if they wish to, but there will be plenty who say yes. But, in terms of the sort of testing INEOS wish to conduct with respect of the NT site it is whether you can say no to the courts. That is a whole different matter and those who conflate the two may end up with a very large bill. I suspect farmers are canny about the difference.

    • I have direct contact with someone who has been contacted to have a site on his property. He is not anti shale. He is however a land owner and shrewd business man. What the company was offering was a pathetic sum of money with no long term guarantees.
      Generations of Lancashire family farmers do not intend to have their assets and family history put at risk for possible short term gain.

  3. As, I stated John, that is their choice. INEOS will offer what they think will get the job done, and will be able to calculate quite easily if they need to offer more.
    I suspect in Lancashire the financials may be a little different, as the “players” are quite different.

    Long term guarantees are interesting. Firstly, during exploration phase that is quite difficult in terms of rewards. Secondly, there is always the opportunity further forward for any of these companies to offer a shareholding within their business to investors and to those who work with them. It is not difficult to restructure to allow this to operate, and I suspect this may be seen over coming years.

    But, remember, the NT are not being asked to have a site on their land. There are being requested to allow access for seismic testing, which has been conducted several times before on this site, and also on surrounding land. My direct contacts with landowners in that area, where this has been conducted, state it was an interesting experience, with no hassle, damage or inconvenience-and no burst water pipes.

  4. Just to clarify, once the surveys are completed, then it will known what is underneath NT property, and if it is profitable to exploit. Access to mineral rights are licensed & granted by the crown , and as such once it is known, then with such licenses, exploitation can go ahead. So even if afterwards, the fracking sites can be prevented from construction on the surface, then it entirely plausible that many sites will be constructed at the edges of NT property, and lateral underground mining will take place, and the NT will be unable to prevent this.

    • Malcolm
      They will not know fully if drilling and fracking will be profitable until they drill a few wells, and then after a frack or two. The Sismic helps them work out where to drill, and in particular how to avoid faults.
      You are correct in that drilling could take place around NT land, and the wells could run under it. Just as there is no old coal mine in clumber Park, but it is well undermined.

  5. hewes62
    My point is that if they cannot do the survey, then they are less likely to want to take the risk by drilling wells into the unknown. And I was also pointing out about the Crown owning all rights to mineral resources under every property in the UK, and so the NT has no say to counter such eventual exploitation. Not knowing what lies under the ground is effectively their last line of defence.

    • Malcolm
      Ah…I got the wrong end of the stick.
      Re fracking under Clumber, it probably means less likelihood, but not an absence of gas extraction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.