Scottish Court of Sessions
The shale gas company, Ineos, has lost its case against the Scottish Government’s policy on fracking.
The judge at the Court of Sessions, Lord Pentland, ruled that the Scottish Government’s “preferred policy position” against fracking for shale gas in Scotland should stand.
The ‘effective ban’ on fracking announced by Scottish ministers last year does not amount to a legally enforceable prohibition, therefore Ineos’s case is “unfounded”, Lord Pentland said.
He also found that since the Scottish Government had not yet made a final decision, the claim by Ineos and Reach Coal Seam Gas for compensation on the basis of a breach of its human rights was premature.
The ruling stated:
“The petition is predicated on the proposition that the Scottish Government has introduced an unlawful prohibition against fracking in Scotland.
“Whilst acknowledging that there have been a number of ministerial statements to the effect that there is an effective ban, the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, made it clear to the court that such statements were mistaken and did not accurately reflect the legal position.
“I consider that the government’s legal position is soundly based and that there is a indeed no prohibition against fracking in force at the present time.”
Lord Pentland added that the present position was “an emerging and unfinalised planning policy”, saying there was “no basis on which the court should interfere” with an ongoing policy making process.
The lawyer for the Scottish Government, James Mure QC, had told the court the actual policy on fracking would be decided in October this year.
He said “the concept of an effective ban” was a PR “gloss”, describing it as “the language of a press statement”.
“Cause of acute concern” – Paul Wheelhouse
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said today:
“I welcome the Court of Session’s ruling on this important issue, which has been a cause of acute concern in communities across Scotland.
“This decision vindicates the extensive process of research and consultation which the Scottish Government has undertaken since 2015.
“As I set out in October, our preferred position is not to support Unconventional Oil and Gas extraction in Scotland, and that position remains unchanged.
“I have repeatedly set out to parliament that we would undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ahead of finalising that position and that approach has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament.
“The work to complete the SEA and a Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment is currently underway and the findings will be carefully considered.
“In the meantime, a moratorium is in place which means no local authority can grant planning permission and ministers would defer any decision on any planning application that did come forward until the policymaking process is completed.
“The practical effect of the current moratorium and the policymaking process which is underway to finalise our position is that no fracking can take place in Scotland at this time.”
“Scottish Government did not know what it was doing” – Ineos
In a statement, Tom Pickering, Operation Director of Ineos Shale, said:
“We are grateful to Lord Pentland for clarifying that there is no fracking ban. The Scottish Government caved in to pressure from ill-informed environmental activists. Today’s judgement makes it clear government decisions will now have to be based on facts and science, rather than prejudice and political expediency.”
“We welcome the decision announced by Lord Pentland today. We are in the extraordinary position where a senior judge has effectively concluded that the Scottish Government did not know what it was doing. He has ruled that there is no fracking ban in Scotland. We are sure that this will be a surprise to all those who heard the First Minister and others repeatedly tell Holyrood the exact opposite. It is for MSPs to decide whether Parliament was misled deliberately or simply through incompetence.
“The Scottish Government caved in to demands from ill-informed environmental activists. It ignored the evidence presented by its own scientific experts. Today’s judgement makes it clear the SNP Government will now have to make decisions based on facts and science rather than prejudice and political expediency.
“It is astonishing how the government could have got this so wrong.
“If Scotland wants to be considered as a serious place to do business then it is imperative that Government ministers can be taken at their word. We cannot have a situation where we need to go to court to find out what government policy is. Business needs a transparent environment that will encourage investment in Scotland for the long-term.”
“Huge relief” – Friends of the Earth
The ruling has been welcomed by Friends of the Earth Scotland, which submitted a public interest intervention in the case. It argued that any ban was lawful and it was required to meet Scotland’s legally binding climate change commitments.
Mary Church, Friends of the Earth Scotland head of campaigns, said:
“We are delighted that INEOS has lost its challenge against the Scottish Government’s ‘effective ban’ on fracking. Today’s ruling will come as a huge relief to the thousands of people who have fought to stop fracking in Scotland, particularly those faced with the prospect of living near this dirty, damaging industry.
“INEOS should listen to the people and parliament of Scotland who have made it clear that there is no support for fracking, and give up on its plans to trash the central belt and the climate.
“Support for a ban on fracking from communities on the frontline of this industry, people the length and breadth of Scotland, and almost all the parties at Holyrood is overwhelming. There is little doubt that a strategic environmental assessment will support a ban on fracking given the mountains of evidence about the risks of the unconventional oil and gas industry to our environment, climate and people’s health.
“We urge the Scottish Government to move forward with its decision making process on fracking as swiftly as possible and use the powers now available to them to legislate for a full ban, and draw a line under the issue of unconventional oil and gas extraction for good.”
“Abandon dangerous scheme to frack Scotland”
Wenona Hauter, Executive Director of Food and Water Watch, said:
“In its quest to frack Scotland, Ineos has been blocked by local government officials, the courts, and the overwhelming majority of the Scottish public. The company should heed this overwhelming opposition and abandon its dangerous scheme to frack Scotland.
“Ineos’ fracking for plastics has made a significant contribution to pollution on both sides of the Atlantic. The company has most recently complained about the negative impacts of the shutdown of the Mariner East pipeline in Pennsylvania, which supplies its Grangemouth facility. It is clear that Ineos only wants to frack the UK in order to secure a cheap feedstock for its plastic production.
“The next step for the Scottish government is to clear up any remaining ambiguity and enact a once-and-for-all total ban on fracking.”
“Confirm the ban”
Leigh Day solicitor, Carol Day, said:
“We support the call on the Scottish Government to now formally confirm its ban on unconventional oil and gas exploration in line with public opinion and other jurisdictions of the UK that are on the same trajectory.”
“Lancashire residents misled”
A spokesperson for Lancashire For Shale, accused campaigners of misleading residents over the Scottish fracking ban.
“It is quite clear that opponents of shale gas extraction have used news of a supposed ban in Scotland to try and influence public opinion here.
“We’ve seen them repeatedly push the false line that the Westminster government in England has behaved somehow recklessly in supporting the industry, whilst claiming that the Scottish government has acted to protect its people and prevent harm.
“The only things that a ban on the safe and responsible extraction of Lancashire shale gas would prevent are economic opportunities, jobs, and the chance to improve energy security and cut emissions by reducing our dependency on imported foreign gas.
“Campaigners should be ashamed of the way they have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of Lancashire and its people.”
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
As expected. It brought to light how bad Sturgeon and Co. are though. She is despised by large numbers of what you would class.. more intelligent Scots. I’ve been talking with many people about the increase in SNP activity recently. A second referendum will kill the debate for good as it will be a No once more.
If Sturgeon does finally grow a pair and actually do what she preaches and ban fracking you can be sure we’ll be back at court.
Our sympathies for you and your loosing streak GBH. We’re sure you’ll bounce back in some form or other.
“loosing” hmmm think someone’s nuts and bolts are loosening.
Anyway no losing streak, I believe it is your side that has lost every court case thus far.
Once Sturgeon bans it properly instead of pretending to to appease the barmy greens you’ll see us back in court and winning.
Looks like a “lose, lose, lose, lose” situation for ineos and a “win win win win” situation for the Scottish people? The real ones that is.
Wasn’t there a 100% ineos success prediction by someone here?
Who was that now?
Sorry.
That name is just drowned out by the cheers of the Scottish people, the real ones of course?
Ah, the sun has just come out, right on cue.
All Nicola has to do now is get the team to work through the document pull out all the discursive framing and close all the legal loop holes and then boom, BAN IT !
She doesn’t want to, she left the door open for Scottish shale if it can be done in England. She just fooled everybody into thinking it was banned.
If she wanted a legal ban it would be done by now, don’t you think?
No Kish; at the time they did not have the right in law; I believe that loophole is now closed and look forward to October.
Why not make it sooner? ie before first gas from Cuadrilla ?
What’s that got to do with it?
It just kicks the ball down the road to October, when the compensation will be higher still! (That’s if they don’t appeal.)
No one has lost PhilipP until the game ends and then you can add up the score.
I of course, expect INEOS to be announcing big investment in the Scottish economy based upon their Government not even being able to produce accurate Press Releases! LOL. But then, FOE had the same problem with posters. Nothing changes.
The SNP has deliberately mislead not only the electorate but one of the biggest businesses in Scotland with it’s shambles of a gloss covered statement. This process helps nobody.
IF the SNP were serious about a ban on shale gas production in Scotland it would have been put legally in place by now. What the Scottish people now have to put up with is a bluff by Nicola at a card game and she has just been called.
She will now show her hand in October AFTER Cuadrilla South of the Border have shown their hand. If Cuadrilla produce economically viable quantities of shale gas which does seem on the cards judging by the core samples of the Lower Bowland shale I am sure Nicola will follow suit
Sir Jim Ratcliffe is partnered up with Igas in many plays ready to follow Cuadrillas progress in producing shale gas. The by product Ethane is the feedstock to which Grangemouth needs to operate. If Nicola chooses to turn her back on Sir Jim which gives massive financial and jobs security to Scotland Ineos could move its operations to Hull or Amsterdam which would leave poor old Nicola very angry at her Green Party masters. This would not bode well for future investment in Scotland by big business if this was allowed to happen…
So how will this card game end between Ineos and the SNP?
The private meeting between Sir Jim and Nicola probably started off with hearts and diamonds but if not careful will end with a club and a spade…
Stop playing games Nicola wear your heart on your sleeve, show your colours now, put Scotland first just like that Aberdeenshire golf club owner does with America…
Scottish Shale gas will enable a financially sure footing for indyref 2… You know it…
Shale gas, besides being environmentally suicidal, is economically illiterate – it costs more in energy to get out of the ground than it produces:
http://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2018/06/11/frackings-fundamental-flaw/
CO2 Emissions in the US have been significantly reduced due to rise in production of shale gas…
CO2 Emissions in Germany are significantly high due to wind turbines being backed up by the burning of mountains of coal…
Don’t blame the Germans too much, they tried to produce shale gas but with a high clay content after Fracking the clay squeezed in around the sand left in the cracks stopping the flow of gas. Let’s be honest if they succeeded I don’t think there would be that many wind turbines there or sweetheart deals with Putin for cheaper gas. Nord stream 2 wouldn’t be happening either and the Ukraine would feel safer. But here we are…
As for your statement about the financial implications…
Extraction costs v gas recovered, we’ll soon find out in a matter of weeks now…
Front page news will probably beat DOD to that headline…
Renewables replace coal in UK; good job people, now just need to work on that gas; slowly does it or the pension funds will collapse – not; stop talking about it and get on with it!
Ex-Nasa scientist: 30 years on, world is failing ‘miserably’ to address climate change:
‘“The solution isn’t complicated, it’s not rocket science,” Hansen said. “Emissions aren’t going to go down if the cost of fossil fuels isn’t honest. Economists are very clear on this. We need a steadily increasing fee that is then distributed to the public.”
:
“The dawdling global response to warming temperatures means runaway climate change now looms. The aspirational 1.5C (2.7F) warming target set in Paris will be surpassed by 2040. Huge amounts of ice from western Antarctica are crashing into the ocean, redrawing forecasts for sea level rise. Some low-lying islands fear extinction.
“It’s not too late,” Hansen stressed. “There is a rate of reduction that’s feasible to stay well below 2C. But you just need that price on carbon.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning
I think you’ll find gas is kicking coal into the long grass…
Windless weeks we have just had will not sustain the U.K
Anyway Sher you still haven’t elaborated how you were running on free 100% renewable energy the other week
Now’s your chance…
Jealousy won’t get you anywhere; now if I thought you genuinely interested…nope just another diverter, cough, cough…..
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
Course it does Mark. That’s why it is expanding in the only place where it is being done to any extent.
No idea of how to operate a business in the USA-oh, sorry getting confused with Mr. Musk!
Common sense test needs to be a re-sit.
Mark Bevis try explaining that in Oman.
Do you mean Oman where they are rapidly transitioning to renewables John? http://timesofoman.com/article/135869
No, this one Phil
http://www.cityam.com/283617/bp-develop-second-phase-its-giant-fracking-project-oman/amp
It’s sandstone, not shale, in Oman. But it is very low permeability.
Philip P
Lucky those countries who have small populations and are rich in Hydrocarbon resource and renewable sources ( sun, wind or hydro ). It may soon be like Norway, as such their wish to produce hydrocarbons is not linked to their ability utilise renewables ( other than paying for it I guess ).
I do note that of a poulation of 5 million, they have 1 million more men than women, so quite a few are visiting workers.
Well. SNP will have no ground or scientific evidence to ban fracking on the basis of ground water contamination now . The anti frackers and Josh Fox scaremongering myth is now debunked by 2 latest publications.
https://apnews.com/b3cecd15c46d4feb88974b17a033f892
Please read against other studies – including the first one recommended at the bottom of the page – before making such a sweeping (and typical) attack about ‘scaremongering’ etc TW. Consider also how a more faulted geology and other factors will alter results.
Wrong BTW!
This is a partial repeat post Paul, sorry about that but some people just do not read, so i am posting this again.
http://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-water-texas-and-pennsylvania-study-finds-270735
https://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/29/world/study-fracking-contaminated-water-supply
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062015/fracking-has-contaminated-drinking-water-epa-now-concludes
http://www.sunherald.com/living/article36566985.html
https://www.environews.tv/040116-new-stanford-study-links-fracking-to-drinking-water-contamination-in-pavilion-wyoming/
That’s the five link limit, but there are many more if you want to go and do some of your own research.
New studies prove that “noble gasses” adhere to natural gas unchanged, natural ground present sources long since decay into more complex elements, it is therefore now possible to distinguish between fracked gas water contamination and natural ground present gas products.
Studies prove that fracked gas has contaminated well water that was previously free from any contaminants.
The researchers found eight clusters of contaminated drinking water wells—seven in Pennsylvania and one in Texas—where integrity problems at nearby fracking wells were the source of the problem.
Clearly AP have not done any homework, or indeed work work.
I have looked at the links Phil, they are all about American industry. What has this got to do with the U.K?
Jonathan Bartley the new green party leader was at the Cuadrilla site the other day and I believe he had a tour of the site. I am sure he was shown the four bore holes which are independently monitored for water contamination.
Looking forward to his report…
What is your excitement – about fracking being productive in the the UK – based on Kishenny? the USA I expect. Where do you think the independently monitored borehole suggestions come from, and many of the cited references in the UK’s official risk assessment guidelines for fracking come from. Guess what – the USA. Do you think shale is a different species of rock altogether here? Do you think they’re going to re-invent the wheel here – for fracking shale? So what has all that got to do with the UK? A lot. Furthermore the shale formations are more convoluted and faulted here – risks of the disturbing/releasing of pre-stressed faults and of methane migration will be higher here (that’s if most of the old methane hasn’t seeped away already due to the faulting).
http://uk.businessinsider.com/ap-studies-show-groundwater-holding-own-against-drilling-boom-2018-6
The latest report looks good…
It’s not a suggestion Phil, Cuadrilla have 4 independently monitored bore holes at the PNR site; this is common knowledge
Sigh … do keep up Kisheny. That’s exactly the link posted by TW yesterday. Here was my reply …
“That’s one for the gullible TW. ‘Business Insider’– a business investment site makes statements about a yet to be published research paper and with no links to the actual studies.”
TW posted again today – a biased summary but with the study link included – it’s all there above (on this page).
This is all so circular!
Look at TW link, the answer is to that, as you guys are so fond of saying, there is no fracking here yet, and then quite erroneously, you say in USA there is no evidence of water contamination from fracking,
The evidence that fracking does indeed cause water contamination is right here posted above, and it is now proven.
The result of water contamination from fracking will be the same here, contaminated water, and the operators won’t even have to keep to the “regulations”such as they are, or keep “records” at all even until July, so god alone knows what has gone on so far.
TW is wrong, and so is anyone else who jas stated this repetitive “untruth”.
The links above are hard evidence of water contamination from fracking, and these attempts to repeat the same…..untruth….. in new post subjects that have all ready been proven wrong on previous posts is simply a strategy and has been seen often from the anti antis on Drill Or Drop.
So I returned the complement.
Do you agree now?
You keep going on about the American industry. The U.K cannot regulate the American industry. You make assumptions about the U.K industry with no evidence.
Please understand that the Cuadrilla PNR site which is a couple of miles away from me has four bore holes which are independently monitored for contamination in the water table…
Accept cold hard facts not assumptions.
Yes it is annoying going round in circles, please investigate for yourself. I have physically seen the bore holes. You are just a keyboard warrior using copy and paste research…
[Image removed over possible copyright issues]
Can you explain why having physically seen the tops of the boreholes makes you any more qualified to comment here than anyone else here?
Replying to Refracktion, not for one second do I think I a, qualified to make an informed judgement on seeing the bore holes for myself. I can keep up to date with all the data at the site by visiting
https://www.cuadrillaresourceseportal.com
All the information you want is there…
“not for one second do I think I a, qualified to make an informed judgement on seeing the bore holes for myself. ”
Really – then perhaps you can explain your patronising comment
“I have physically seen the bore holes. You are just a keyboard warrior using copy and paste research…”
It doesn’t really make much sense unless you were suggesting that seeing the boreholes somehow gave you greater insight than doing desk research, does it?
No, wrong kish, TW was talking about the USA report from AP which is completely and utterly wrong and clearly just an industry front to try and fool the uninformed repeating non facts as if they were true.
So i told him the truth and gave him links, there are more if you want to DYOR?
Water supplies have indeed been contaminated by fracking activities, and the truth is in the links above, clearly you did not “look” close enough?
The USA experience will be the UK experience, if we were so insane as to allow it to proceed that is.
Simply repeating industry lies does not make them true.
Sorry if you find that indigestible?