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

6. The reasonable alternatives to the preferred policy position (Q3)

6.1 The 2005 Act requires that the Scottish Government 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. The Environmental Report set out two 'reasonable alternatives' – 'business as usual' (which would relate to the development of an unconventional oil and gas industry) and a 'pilot project' (subject to the relevant licensing and permitting regimes). These two 'reasonable alternatives' are described fully in Chapter 3.

6.2 Respondents were asked for their views about these two 'reasonable alternatives', and were also asked if any other reasonable alternatives should be considered.

Question 3: What are your views on the 'reasonable alternatives' outlined in the Environmental Report? Please provide any other 'reasonable alternatives' which you think should be considered.

6.3 Altogether, 164 respondents (35 organisations and 129 individuals) commented at Question 3.

Key messages

6.4 There were two main perspectives in the comments offered at Question 3.

• 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.
• A second 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.

6.5 In addition, regulatory bodies (SEPA, SNH and HES) highlighted a lack of clarity in relation to the terminology used to describe the 'reasonable alternatives' in the Environmental Report.

6.6 Each of these perspectives is discussed further below, followed by a summary of any additional 'reasonable alternatives' suggested by respondents.

6.7 Note that, in their comments at Question 3, business / industry respondents made a range of critical comments regarding the methodology used in the SEA for describing and assessing the 'reasonable alternatives'. In addition, regulatory bodies queried certain aspects of the way in which the 'reasonable alternatives' were defined, and they requested clarity about whether the 'business as usual' alternative was intended to represent the 'do nothing' scenario. These, and other issues related to the methodology, have been discussed in Chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.5 to 3.9) and are not repeated here.

Views on the 'reasonable alternatives'

The predominant view on the 'reasonable alternatives'

6.8 Community councils and other community groups, third sector organisations and most individual respondents generally expressed concern about both the 'business as usual' and 'pilot project' scenarios discussed in the Environmental Report. This group believed that the adverse impacts of either of these alternatives were likely to be far greater than those stated in the report.

6.9 A recurring view within this group was that the KPMG report (which provides the basis for the assessment of impact for both alternatives) substantially underestimates the number of wells that would be needed to develop an unconventional oil and gas industry.^[11]

6.10 In relation to the 'pilot project' scenario, this group argued that (i) the risks of such a project are likely to far outweigh any perceived benefits, (ii) any learning acquired from the project (particularly in relation to public health impacts) were unlikely be sufficient to enable a wider public health assessment of the technology since it would take considerable time for such impacts to appear, and (iii) the only possible reason for conducting such a project would be to prepare for the wider development of an unconventional oil and gas industry, which they considered to be unacceptable. Less often, respondents in this group commented that:

• The Environmental Report had insufficiently differentiated between the risks that may arise in undertaking a pilot project in the three different types of settlement (rural, semi-rural, urban fringe).
• The Environmental Report should have also considered the impacts of a pilot project on small rural roads, and not merely on the trunk road network. Thus, these respondents challenged the report's assessment that the impact of a pilot project on transport infrastructure would be 'negligible'.

6.11 Respondents in this group frequently emphasised the 'climate imperative' which, in their view, made it clear that unconventional oil and gas extraction could not be permitted to proceed. They considered that only the Scottish Government's preferred policy position was consistent with the Scottish Government's commitments to tackling climate change.

Other views on the 'reasonable alternatives'

6.12 The two other perspectives voiced in relation to Question 3 came from business / industry respondents and regulatory bodies as follows:

• Business / industry respondents argued that neither the 'business as usual' scenario nor the 'pilot project' scenario were treated as serious proposals, since there was insufficient specification of these options and explanation how they might be applied in practice. (These respondents thought this was required by the 2005 Act.) They also noted that the Environmental Report had not discussed what changes in legislation would be required to allow either of the options to proceed. These respondents suggested that existing and historical data from oil and gas drilling and production activity in Scotland should have informed the development of the 'pilot project' option. They also argued that the 'business as usual' designation should be associated – not with a development of an onshore oil and gas industry – but rather with the continuation of the Scottish Government's current position on onshore oil and gas.
• Regulatory bodies (SEPA, SNH and HES) highlighted a lack of clarity about the terminology in the Environmental Report relating to the 'reasonable alternatives'. This group suggested that the statement in the report that 'the Scottish Government is not minded to view these [i.e. the two 'reasonable alternatives'] as reasonable alternatives' was confusing, since they were then referred to throughout the report as 'reasonable alternatives'.

Other possible 'reasonable alternatives'

6.13 There were few specific suggestions about other 'reasonable alternatives' that could be considered as part of the SEA process.

6.14 The main suggestion was that other 'reasonable alternatives' could have included a legislative ban on the development of an onshore unconventional oil and gas industry. This view was expressed by community councils and other community bodies, third sector organisations and most individuals. Respondents saw a legislative ban as necessary to reduce the risk of a future government overturning a non-statutory ban.

6.15 Other 'reasonable alternatives' suggested by this group included: (i) greater investment in renewable energy (hydro, wind, etc.) and (ii) ceasing all oil and gas extraction. One local authority – although not calling explicitly for a ban on the development of an onshore unconventional oil and gas industry – also suggested that a 'reasonable alternative' could have included enhancing efforts to make a 'fundamental transition to a lower carbon future'. Those who suggested these options argued that any 'reasonable alternative' to the Scottish Government's preferred policy position must reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and methane production.

6.16 Business / industry respondents suggested that the SEA should assess a scenario which involves supplying natural gas and feedstock exclusively and directly to the petrochemical industry in Scotland. In their view, this proposal would require a bespoke planning policy statement.