Unconventional oil and gas policy: SEA

12 Material assets

What are the sources of impacts of the reasonable alternative on material assets?

12.1 The potential environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas development on material assets are identified as:

• development of pads impacting on:
  • land use change:
    • mineral resources, forestry and woodland, agricultural land.
  • infrastructure:
    • roads
    • water supply, treatment of waste products and environmental pollution.

How do these effects relate to the current pressures and trends?

12.2 Development pressure impacts on existing mineral resources, forestry and woodland and agricultural land, and unconventional oil and gas development provides a further contributory factor. Between 1947 and 1988, the total area of built land increased by an estimated 46% and the land used for infrastructure increased by around 22%. Most of these changes involved agricultural land, and the remainder was largely on upland or woodland habitats^[239]. Land use change associated with unconventional oil and gas development would result in the development of approximately 24ha^[240] for the high scenario, 16ha for the central scenario and 8ha for the low scenario^[241]. All of the areas indicated are excluding any additional land area required for access roads, pipes etc. and are therefore presented as conservative estimates.^[242]

12.3 The distribution of higher quality agricultural land including land of Grade 2 and 3.1 is found particularly in the East, including coastal areas of Fife, Edinburgh, West Lothian and Falkirk^[243]. Climate change is also anticipated to result in changes to the agricultural productivity of land.

12.4 The Scottish Forestry Strategy sets out an ambition to increase Scotland’s woodland cover. At the beginning of the last century woodland cover in Scotland had declined to about 5%, and today Scotland’s woodland cover is about 17% of the land area. Expansion of woodland brings a range of benefits, and the expectation is to increase woodland cover to around 25% in the second half of the century.^[244]

12.5 Trends in traffic movements show an overall growing trend in vehicle km travelled on Scotland’s roads. 46.4 billion vehicle kilometres were travelled on Scotland’s roads in 2016– an increase of 2% over the year, 5% more than in 2006 and the highest recorded level. Long-term, the volume of car traffic on major roads (Motorways and A roads) has more than doubled, from an estimated 9,300 million vehicle kilometres in 1975 to between 28,000 and 30,000 million vehicle kilometres for the last ten years.^[245]

12.6 The Central Belt of Scotland contains a wide range of minerals including a highly productive coalfield, extensive igneous rock aggregate quarries and significant deposits of sand, gravel and clay. Unconventional oil and gas is itself a mineral resource, and these mineral resources are identified and protected through planning policies. Furthermore, the area of land that would be potentially utilised for unconventional oil and gas development is low compared to the area of land being brought forward for development within local plans^[246].

12.7 Waste water produced from unconventional oil and gas development will be stored, treated and disposed of at a suitable waste treatment facility^[247]. It is anticipated that the treatment of waste may take place using purpose built facilities and would not impact on the existing waste water infrastructure. Direct impacts on water supply, treatment of waste water and environmental pollution are addressed under the relevant SEA topics of water and soil.

What current regulatory processes control these effects?

12.8 The planning system controls planning for minerals, and minerals safeguarding is the mechanism by which mineral resources are managed to ensure supplies for the future. Shale oil and gas and CBM resources are mineral resources relevant to development plan mineral policies.

12.9 Transport Scotland is consulted on planning applications for developments affecting the trunk road network. Scottish Planning Policy states that where a new development or a change of use is likely to generate a significant increase in the number of trips, a transport assessment should be carried out. The assessment should set out how the development will affect the performance and safety of the trunk road network, including any potential cumulative effects, and what, if any, mitigation measures are required.^[248]

12.10 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017^[249] relate to the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment through the planning system.^[250] This would require consideration of impacts on mineral resources where unconventional oil and gas developments are of a size and scale to require EIA.

12.11 Furthermore, the Management of Extractive Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2010^[251] requires that extractive waste will be managed without using processes or methods which could result in the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled depositing of extractive waste.

What stages of unconventional oil and gas development result in these effects, what is the nature and significance of these effects?

Impacts on land use change

Business as usual – shale oil and gas

12.12 The development of a pad is assumed to exclude the use of land for other purposes such as agriculture, forestry and woodland or other mineral extraction. This extends over the operational period of the pad through to the completion of decommissioning, a period of approximately 30 years. This effect would be temporary, reflecting the restoration of the site following decommissioning. Although some loss or damage to soil may reduce the overall area of land suitable for agriculture or forestry and woodland, it is assumed that following restoration of the site these land uses could take place although this is considered to be a long-term process.

12.13 For each of the KPMG scenarios the scale of effect on land use change from each scenario is likely to be greatest under the high production scenario, where the largest number of pads would be developed. However, there is uncertainty over the likely location of pads under all three scenarios and impacts on land with greatest suitability for agriculture or forestry and woodland production, or with high carbon content.

12.14 The impacts on land use change from all of the KPMG scenarios are therefore identified as minor negative.

Business as usual - CBM

12.15 The nature of the effects described above is similar for both shale oil and gas extraction and CBM. The scale of development of CBM is anticipated to involve two pads and is therefore lower in terms of impacts on land use change, a minor negative effect is identified for CBM, because there remains uncertainty about the likely locations of these developments and impacts on land with greatest suitability for agriculture, forestry or with a high carbon content.

Pilot project

12.16 The development of a pilot project is assumed to involve the development of a single pad and an unknown number of wells. The location of a pilot is unknown, however it is assumed that a rural pilot would be on an area of high carbon soil and the location of a semi-urban and peri-urban pilot would be on soils of moderate carbon content. The overall scale of impact on land use change is therefore identified as minor negative.

Preferred policy position

12.17 The preferred policy position means that adverse impacts associated with land use change to accommodate shale oil and gas production (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

12.18 This is considered to be a minor positive effect.

Impacts on infrastructure

Business as usual – shale oil and gas

12.19 Unconventional oil and gas development results in increased traffic movements which would contribute to the growing trend in vehicle kilometres travelled on Scotland’s roads. The use of pipelines to transport water or gas would reduce the overall number of vehicle movements generated. However the extent or likelihood of the use of pipelines across all three development scenarios is uncertain. Assuming that no pipelines are used, and that wastewater is not reused, the KPMG high scenario would generate the greatest number of traffic movements, with lower levels generated for the central and low scenarios. The overall impact of the increased traffic movements is likely to depend on the nature of the local road network, and local congestions issues or if there are settlements which the vehicles would travel through. A minor negative uncertain effect on road infrastructure is identified for all three of the KPMG scenarios.

12.20 In relation to water supply, it is assumed that the regulation of water abstraction by SEPA would ensure the avoidance of locally significant negative effects on the water environment, with negligible effects for the three KPMG scenarios.

12.21 The three KPMG scenarios for shale oil and gas extraction generate waste water which requires treatment. It is assumed that the waste water is either treated on the site of the pad, or is transported by vehicle or pipeline to a purpose built waste water treatment plant. The KPMG high scenario is estimated to produce twice as much shale gas as the central scenario and will potentially generate the greatest volume of waste water for treatment reflecting the higher number of pads and wells. Minor negative effects on waste water generation and disposal are identified for the KPMG scenarios for shale oil and gas.

12.22 The specific impacts of environmental pollution are covered under the relevant topic areas of air, water and soil. The issue of environmental pollution in relation to material assets is the overall degradation of the quality of the environment. A high quality environment contributes to a high quality of life, and degraded environmental surroundings could have negative effects on health and wellbeing. The high KPMG scenario has the potential for greater impacts in terms of environmental pollution and impacts on environmental quality from the greater number of pads and wells, and overall impacts on environmental quality are judged to be minor negative. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.

Business as usual - CBM

12.23 Ricardo Energy and Environment (2016) found that the range of unconventional oil and gas development scenarios considered could give rise to between 210 and 1,670 traffic movements per week on average across the country as a whole, with a further 99 movements associated with the coal bed methane scenario^[252]. However reflecting the scale of CBM development, and the potential for lower water requirements and vehicle movements, negligible effects are identified for impacts on road infrastructure.

12.24 In relation to the use of water, normal CBM extraction methods do not require significant volumes of water during drilling or extraction. In contrast, hydraulic fracturing requires large volumes of water. CBM extraction can require use of hydraulic fracturing, depending on local geological conditions, though currently it is usually extracted without the use of hydraulic fracturing. Should hydraulic fracturing be required water requirements for CBM may increase, along with potential vehicle movements, however based on the overall low scale of development, and lower water requirements negligible effects are identified in relation to water supply.

12.25 With regard to the generation of waste, the water produced during CBM extraction was originally present in fractures and pores prior to drilling. There are typically much more saline than fracking fluids^[253]. Similar to the processing of waste for shale oil and gas the waste water requires treatment and disposal. Reflecting the scale of CBM development, negligible effects are identified.

12.26 Overall impacts on environmental quality are lower for CBM extraction reflecting the more limited impacts of the development of two pads of 15 wells, and negligible effects are identified.

Pilot project

12.27 The development of a pilot project is assumed to involve the development of a single pad and an unknown number of wells. The location of a pilot is unknown, however the development of any of the three theoretical pilot locations on infrastructure is judged to be negligible.

Preferred policy position

12.28 The preferred policy position means that adverse impacts on infrastructure resulting from shale oil and gas production (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

12.29 This is considered to be a minor positive effect.

Cumulative, synergistic and secondary effects

Business as usual - Shale oil and gas extraction

12.30 Cumulatively the impacts on land use change as a result of development and infrastructure, including increased traffic levels could result in urbanisation of the countryside, with overall minor negative effects on environmental quality. Secondary effects could also arise as a result of the construction of waste treatment facilities. No synergistic effects are identified.

Business as usual - CBM

12.31 The environmental effects of the development of CBM will contribute to combined effects on land use change, roads, water abstraction and waste treatment, however the scale of these effects is judged to be negligible reflecting the scale of CBM development.

Pilot project

12.32 The environmental effects of the development of a pilot project will contribute to combined effects on land use change, roads, water abstraction and waste treatment. However the scale of these effects is judged to be negligible.

Preferred policy position

The preferred policy position means that adverse cumulative impacts on material assets (land use change and infrastructure) resulting from shale oil and gas production (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

12.33 In conclusion, although the material assets within the Central Belt of Scotland will continue to face existing pressures, the preferred policy position ensures that additional pressures on material assets, which would result from unconventional oil and gas development will not take place. This is considered to be a minor positive effect.

Scope for further mitigation

12.34 The assessment results are based on the application of existing regulatory controls. The evidence base includes information on a number of processes which could be implemented to reduce the scale of impact on material assets. These could reduce the overall potential scale of effect from unconventional oil and gas development, and therefore the associated scale of effect avoided as a consequence of the preferred policy position.

12.35 The applicability and practicality of many of these additional measures will be determined at a site specific level so it is not possible to draw firm conclusions as to the extent to which they would mitigate predicted effects successfully. Potential measures include:

12.36 Land use change – potential impacts in relation to land use change could be reduced if brownfield sites are promoted for re-development, rather than greenfield land. This would ensure the prudent use of resources.

12.37 Impacts on infrastructure – many of the water, soil and air mitigation measures could help to reduce impacts on infrastructure and the wider environment. These include careful soil stripping and restoration, the use of advanced monitoring technologies (e.g. DTS and DAS), annual inspections and repair, the use of supply chain management and ICT resources, and the re-use of wastewater.

Table 12.1: Summary of effects on material assets

Environmental impact	Alternative	Potential scale of development	Timescale when effect may occur	Duration of effect	Predicted effect taking account of existing regulation	Key areas of uncertainty
Land use change	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified as the scale of effect on land use change from each scenario is likely to be greatest under the high production scenario, where the largest number of pads would be developed.	The likely location of pads and impacts on land with greatest suitability for agriculture or forestry and woodland production.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the scale of development of two pads.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified due to the potential location of the pilot on high carbon soils.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of minor negative effects associated with land use change.
Impacts on infrastructure	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting impacts on road infrastructure, wastewater generation and disposal, and is identified for all three of the KPMG scenarios. A negligible effect is identified in relation to water supply reflecting the effect of regulation.	The use of pipelines to transport water or gas would reduce the overall number of vehicle movements generated, however this is uncertain.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified in relation to infrastructure reflecting the scale of development of two pads.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified in relation to infrastructure reflecting the scale of development of a single pad.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of minor negative effects.
Cumulative	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified on environmental quality resulting from land use change as a result of development and infrastructure, including increased traffic levels and resulting urbanisation.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the scale of development of two pads.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A negligible effect is identified reflecting the scale of development of a single pad.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of minor negative cumulative effects.