Onshore unconventional oil and gas in Scotland: analysis of responses to consultations

Executive summary

Introduction (Chapter 1)

1. In accordance with statutory requirements under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 (hereafter, 'the 2005 Act'), the Scottish Government was required to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) on its preferred policy position of not supporting onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. The SEA also assessed the likely environmental effects of any 'reasonable alternatives' to the preferred policy position.

2. In Autumn / Winter 2018, the Scottish Government undertook a public consultation on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and on a partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) relating to the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland. The consultation also invited views on the Scottish Government's preferred policy position on this issue.

3. The consultation was carried out between 23 October and 18 December 2018 and included six open questions. The first four questions invited views on aspects of the SEA Environmental Report; the fifth related to the statement of the Scottish Government's preferred policy position; and the sixth related to the partial BRIA.

4. The Scottish Government subsequently published (in April 2019) an addendum to the 2018 consultation. The addendum provided further clarification on points raised in responses to the 2018 consultation, specifically regarding the preferred policy position and its objectives. The addendum also updated the Scottish Government's position on the reasonable alternatives to the preferred policy position, in light of the comments received. Further views were invited on the contents of the addendum, and the latter consultation closed on 25 June 2019.

About the responses and respondents (Chapter 2)

5. The analysis was based on 2,572 responses. These comprised 329 substantive (i.e. personalised) responses and 2,243 standard campaign responses, submitted by supporters of Friends of the Earth Scotland.

6. Most of the substantive responses (87%) were submitted by individuals; the remainder (13%) were submitted by organisations. The two largest groups of organisational respondents were community councils (29%) and other community groups (also 29%). Responses were also received from public bodies (including local authorities and regulatory bodies) (21%); third sector organisations / non-governmental organisations (7%); and oil and gas business / industry respondents (7%). Note that three of the public body respondents –Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – are statutory consultees for SEAs.

Main perspectives and views on methodology (Chapter 3)

7. A substantial number of the responses to individual questions were driven by two underlying – and very different – perspectives on the future of the unconventional oil and gas industry in Scotland and / or the approach to the SEA as follows:

• Community councils and other community groups, third sector organisations, and most individual respondents believed that a full legislative ban on the development of the unconventional oil and gas industry should be introduced. These respondents generally accepted (or at least, did not comment on) the SEA methodology, but thought that the negative impacts of an unconventional oil and gas industry had been underestimated in the SEA Environmental Report.
• Business / industry respondents and a small number of individuals contested the methodological approach which underpinned the SEA. These respondents argued that (i) the SEA did not comply with the provisions of the 2005 Act, (ii) the SEA had not properly taken account of the regulatory environment in which unconventional oil and gas development would take place, and (iii) the definition and assessment of possible options was 'erroneous'. Moreover, they argued that these perceived flaws in the methodology undermined the findings and conclusions of the SEA. In particular, they thought the adverse environmental effects had been overstated / exaggerated.

8. Some organisational respondents – particularly oil and gas business / industry respondents and regulatory bodies (SNH, SEPA and HES) – and a few individuals provided detailed comments about how the SEA had been undertaken. Regulatory bodies generally requested clarification about certain aspects of the methodology, while business / industry respondents were more critical, arguing that the methodology used in the preparation of the Environmental Report did not comply with the 2005 Act.

Accuracy and scope of the SEA information (Chapter 4)

9. The consultation sought views on the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline information set out in the Environmental Report. A substantial group of respondents (mainly individuals but also a range of organisations) endorsed the information provided in the SEA. This group included all but one of the public sector and regulatory bodies.

10. However, a second substantial group of respondents expressed concerns about the SEA baseline information, although the extent and nature of the concerns varied.

11. Among this group, the predominant view expressed was that the SEA information was accurate, but that its scope was not fully comprehensive.

12. The alternative view, expressed by oil and gas business and industry respondents and a handful of individuals, was that the SEA information exhibited 'serious errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies'.

Predicted environmental effects (Chapter 5)

13. The consultation invited views on the predicted environmental effects of the Scottish Government's preferred policy position and those of the two 'reasonable alternatives'.

14. The predominant view was that the environmental effects set out in the Environmental Report represented, if anything, a rather optimistic view of the likely environmental impacts of the development of the unconventional oil and gas industry. This view was offered by community councils and other community groups, third sector organisations, one local authority and most individuals.

15. The alternative view, expressed by oil and gas business and industry and by a handful of individuals, was that the predicted environmental effects were unsubstantiated and / or exaggerated and did not take into account the tight regulatory environment in which development of the industry would take place.

The reasonable alternatives to the preferred policy position (Chapter 6)

16. As noted above, the 2005 Act requires the SEA to assess the likely significant environmental effects of its preferred policy position. In addition, it also requires an assessment of the likely significant effects of any 'reasonable alternatives' to the preferred policy position, taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan or programme.

17. The Environmental Report recognised that some may regard the development of an onshore unconventional oil and gas industry – which it described as the 'business as usual' option – or a pilot project, as alternatives to the preferred policy position, and assessed both of these alternatives. Respondents were asked for their views about these two 'reasonable alternatives' as outlined in the Environmental Report, and were also asked if any other 'reasonable alternatives' should be considered.

18. The predominant view (expressed by community councils and other community groups, third sector organisations, and most individual respondents) was that both the reasonable alternatives discussed in the Environmental Report had the potential for significant negative environmental impacts. This group of respondents thought neither of the 'reasonable alternatives' would be acceptable to local communities. Some in this group stated that the only reasonable alternative, as far as they were concerned, was a legislative ban on the development of an onshore unconventional oil and gas industry.

19. A different perspective was expressed by business / industry respondents and a small number of individuals. This group thought that neither the 'business as usual' nor the 'pilot project' scenarios were treated in the Environmental Report as serious alternatives. They also queried the 'business as usual' designation used in the report.

Proposals for mitigation and monitoring (Chapter 7)

20. The Environmental Report discussed the range of measures that could be put in place to avoid, reduce or manage the environmental effects of the two 'reasonable alternatives' to the preferred policy position. (The assessment concluded that the preferred policy position would not result in significant negative effects on the environment, and therefore no mitigation procedures were necessary in relation to this.) The report also set out the proposals for monitoring the implementation of the preferred policy position, and for addressing any unforeseen environmental effects. Respondents were asked for their views on the proposals for mitigation and monitoring.

21. The predominant view (expressed by community councils and other community groups, third sector organisations, and most individual respondents) was that the mitigation and / or monitoring measures suggested would not be sufficient to reduce the environmental effects to acceptable levels. These respondents thought the only acceptable way forward was to adopt the Scottish Government's preferred policy position and to not support any (further) development of the unconventional oil and gas industry.

22. Business / industry respondents and a handful of individuals believed that the mitigation and / or monitoring arrangements which were already in place and being adopted as standard practice elsewhere in the UK (and more specifically in England) were adequate to deal with any potential hazards caused by unconventional oil and gas extraction.

23. Regulatory bodies were generally content with the mitigation and monitoring arrangements proposed. However, they requested more details of how these arrangements would be applied in practice.

Scottish Government's preferred policy position (Chapter 8)

24. The Scottish Government set out its preferred policy position (PPP) on unconventional oil and gas in a statement issued in December 2017. The statement summarised Scotland's approach to delivering a low carbon economy and described the evidence gathering in relation to unconventional oil and gas which had been undertaken from 2013 onwards. It also made clear that the Scottish Government's preferred policy position did not support the development of unconventional oil and gas. In February 2018, onshore oil and gas licensing powers previously reserved to the UK Government were devolved to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government position statement was updated in October 2018 to reflect this change, and to confirm that Scottish Ministers would discharge the newly devolved licensing powers in line with their preferred policy position (as stated in December 2017) if that preferred policy position were to be adopted.

25. The consultation invited views on the proposals contained in the Scottish Government's preferred policy position statement.

26. The predominant view expressed by both organisations and individuals was in favour of the Scottish Government's preferred policy position (PPP). The alternative view, expressed by a small number of organisations and individuals, was against. It was common for those who supported the PPP to ask that the Scottish Government go further and implement a full legislative ban on fracking.

Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (Chapter 9)

27. The partial BRIA set out the policy background relating to onshore unconventional oil and gas in Scotland and the Scottish Government's preferred policy position. It then presented an assessment of the benefits and costs – in terms of businesses, other organisations and the wider economy – of the preferred policy position (referred to as option 1) and the two alternative policy options: that is, 'business as usual' (option 2) and 'pilot project' (option 3).

28. The consultation invited views on the opportunities and challenges that each of the three options offered for businesses.

29. The predominant view was that option 1 (preferred policy position) provided the best basis for certainty and opportunity for investment for the business sector, while also being in line with a commitment to a low carbon economy. This group of respondents also thought that any minimal economic benefits offered by option 2 (business as usual) and option 3 (pilot project) would be outweighed by negative impacts.

30. The alternative view, expressed by business / industry respondents and a few individuals, was that option 2 (business as usual) offered the best opportunities for the business sector. These respondents thought the partial BRIA had understated the potential positive benefits of option 2, and they queried the assumptions made regarding costs and challenges related to operational practice, regulation and monitoring.

Addendum to the 2018 consultation (Chapter 10)

31. The consultation on the addendum received 98 responses – 15 from organisations and 83 from individuals. Just over half of the organisational responses (8 out of 15) were submitted by community councils and other community groups. Other organisational respondents comprised (i) regulatory bodies (Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); (ii) industry bodies; (iii) a local authority and (iv) a non-governmental organisation (NGO).

32. As in previous consultations on this topic, there was a clear difference in the views expressed by community councils, other community groups, campaign organisations, and most individuals on the one hand, and industry bodies and a small group of individuals on the other.

33. The main concern of both individuals and organisations in the former group was in relation to the Scottish Government's view that new legislation is not necessary to control unconventional oil and gas development.

34. Industry bodies and a small number of individuals who expressed support for the development of an unconventional oil and gas industry in Scotland commented on (what they saw as) inconsistencies in the Scottish Government's discussion of the preferred policy position, the approach used to assess the environmental impacts of the 'reasonable alternatives', and the extent to which mitigation could be used to reduce the impact of unconventional oil and gas development.

35. Regulatory bodies / statutory consultees (SNH, SEPA and HES) made general comments acknowledging the contents of the addendum. These respondents (i) welcomed the clarification provided in the addendum with regard to the consideration of the reasonable alternatives, and (ii) said that they were content that advice provided previously (in response to the 2018 consultation) will be addressed in the Post Adoption Statement, which will be published once the policy has been finalised.