The Fracking Queen’s Speech

The Queen’s Speech contained extraordinary new powers to fast-track fracking across the whole of Britain. The controversial Infrastructure Bill will allow fracking companies to drill under homes without owner’s permission. 

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said announcing the measure in the Speech only days after launching the consultation made “a mockery of public participation”. He said: “Ministers are losing the argument on fracking and are now steamrolling over people’s rights in order to sacrifice our countryside and climate.”

This Monday (9th June) the debate comes to Glasgow: We Need To Talk About Fracking is a series of debates on Unconventional Gas – with both pro and anti UG speakers.

Unconventional gas companies are apparently finding it hard to convince communities that theirs is a benign presence that will only bring prosperity, cheap gas and energy security. Australia has seen scores of sites closed down by local communities, a scene that is being repeated in Poland. And in the UK residents of Balcombe have blockaded Cudrilla’s drill site that has routinely broken planning regulations, ‘community defenders’ in Salford have set up camp at iGas’s site and community groups are mobilising against developments across England, Wales and Ireland.

Resident’s in Scotland are fighting their own battle near Falkirk where Australian energy firm Dart Energy hope to open the UK’s first unconventional gas production facility.

Unconventional gas (UG) is a term used to describe the hard to get gas reserves that are only now profitable due the current high global energy prices. Conventional gas deposits are usually understood as reservoirs of natural gas trapped under an impermeable layer often under pressure, this contrasts with UG which is natural gas trapped in layers of rock, typically shale or coal, which then need to be stimulated in some way in order to release the gas. The fields are stimulated, and the gas extracted, by drilling multiple wells into the seams.

In the US ‘Fracking’ has been used to extract gas from shale deposits with devastating environmental and public health consequences across the country, concerns that are highlighted in the Oscar nominated film Gaslands. In Australia Coal Bed Methane (CBM) has had a similar worrying effect. The industry there is on the back foot with legal challenges, environmental breaches and community blockades stopping work at a vast number of sites across the country.

With significant shale and coal seams across central Scotland the UK government has licensed vast swaths of Scotland for UG development – with more licenses due to be issued this year. Energy firms are planning on using these techniques, along with underground coal gasification – an new untested technique when coal seams are burnt underground in the hope that the gas released can then be captures – to extract ever last drop of fossil fuels.

The Scottish Government have stated that the unconventional gas industry (described as ‘unregulatorable’ by Australian government adviser Dr Mariann Lloyd, ) is subject to a “robust regime” of regulation. Many local residence dispute this, and Freedom of Information requests have revealed fundamental flaws in the regulation process. Responsibility for regulation currently falls between local council, the Scottish Government and Whitehall departments. For example Frack Off Scotland have unearthed documents that show Dart Energy currently have licenses from DECC to vent up to 4 tonnes of methane per day yet neither the local authorities nor the Scottish Government is responsible for monitoring and regulating these emissions. If fugitive emissions on this scale are allowed from only 14 test wells then the gases that are released from a field that stretches from Stirling to Anstruther will blow a hole in Scotland’s climate change commitments.

With the UK Government due to start issuing further licenses for unconventional gas extraction over the summer, this could be an issue where the Scottish Government could demonstrate a commitment to a greener, cleaner Scotland. Whilst energy policy isn’t devolved planning is and there was hope that the new planning framework would include ‘buffer zones’ between UG developments and settlements – a condition that would effectively kill off UG extraction in the central belt. However Planning Minister Derek Mackay has indicated that it will be up to the UG developers to determine the size of buffer zones. Self regulation by the oil and gas industry – what can possibly go wrong?

The principle arguments against the development of UG is man made climate change. 97% of climate scientists and all government across the world agree that we have to reduce our carbon emissions to avert catastrophic climate change. However there is often a contradiction, the Scottish Government may state that it wishes to reduce carbon emissions whilst it continues to encourage fossil fuel extraction – and the Scottish Government is by no means the worst. If we are to reduce our fossil fuel consumption we need to leave some of the fossil fuel reserves under ground. UG extraction is costly and has large energy inputs – it is a difficult to extract fossil fuel reserve. Out of all the reserves we are extracting it makes sense to leave these difficult to extract reserves in the ground.

Investment in UG diverts money from investment in other, renewable, forms of energy. If money was invested in renewable infrastructure projects, such as the western isles inter-connector (which would allow renewable energy from the western isles to be transmitted to the grid – a project that has been in the pipeline since the turn of the millennium) rather than extracting the last drops of fossil fuels Scotland could be set up with a carbon free energy infrastructure.

It has been suggested that Natural Gas is a ‘cleaner’ fossil fuel than other fossil fuels – when it is burnt it produces more energy per emissions, say coal. However if the UG tha is extracted is burnt, it will not result is less, say, coal being extracted – it will just be burnt elsewhere. The only way to reduce carbon emission is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. The analysis that claims that UG is a clean transition fuel also fails to take into account the natural gas that escapes during the extraction process. Estimates of the amount of gas that escapes vary widely, the industry is understandably reluctant to fund research into this but we do know, thanks to freedom of information requests submitted to DECC, that the 22 wells that Dart Energy hope to drill near Falkirk to extract unconventional gas could expect to ‘release’ 5 tonnes of methane per day. (Methane is a greenhouse gas that is far more damaging to the atmosphere that CO2).

The reason that these unconventional gas reserves haven’t been extracted earlier is due to the high cost of extraction, and are only now viable thanks to the high global gas prices and tax breaks that are being offered to the industry – there is concern that investing in UG infrastructure will lock Scotland into long term high energy prices. It is nonsense to suggest that UG extraction in the UK will reduce domestic energy prices, a claim described as ‘baseless’ by economists – the small amounts of gas produced in Scotland will have no effect on the international markets that set the price UK consumers pay. It’s noticeable that whilst the industries cheerleaders seem to play up this supposed benefit the companies themselves make very little mention of it, possible because they are aware that their business model relies on high gas prices as unconventional gas extraction is much more expensive than extracting conventional gas.

As well as these global problems there are concerns about regional and localised environmental pollution. The ‘stimulation’ of the wells poses a threat to local water supplies, for example ‘Fracking’ involves pumping millions of gallons of a mixture of water and chemicals underground at high pressure to force the gas, and water, back out of the rock seams; “de-watering” involve pumping polluted water out of underground coal seams to release the gas. This polluted water then needs to be disposed of, this has resulted in whole aquifers being polluted in the USA and Australia where the industry is more developed. The sheer number of wells that are drilled results in the industrialisation of the country side, along with the resultant air, ground, noise and visual pollution.

Dart Energy (a subsidiary of an Australian firm) have a series of test wells drilled near Falkirk and have applied for planning permission to drill a further 20 wells and being produce gas for the mains supply. Residents in Flakirk are hoping to stop Dart’s development, without recourse to blockades, by drawing up a community charter. Drawing inspiration from Community Bills of Rights in the USA – often a community response to unwelcome UG developments there – the Charter refers to the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which recognises the importance of ‘cultural heritage’ in a broad sense. This ground-breaking document is a direct expression of community opposition to Dart Energy and any future unwanted, risky developments.

Due to this local opposition Dart attempted to bypass the local councillors and take their planning application directly to Scottish Ministers. This has resulted in a public planning hearings which has just concluded (full commentary and analysis are available on the Friends of the Earth Scotland blog) and will make a decision over the summer.

What’s the alternative?

One thing’s for sure – there’s no one answer. Personally I see the problems with the extraction of UG as symptomatic of the problems of an energy intensive economic system that calls for continuous “growth” on a finite planet – at some point we will run out of resources. However much we reduce our consumption we need to supply our energy needs from somewhere, we should be dramatically shifting our energy generation to lower carbon sustainable sources, this obviously included wind, tide and solar and maybe even nuclear.

But there is certainly no consensus – even amongst the anti -fracking community. Some people come to the campaign from an deep ecology perspective, some from a NIMBY (or Not Under My Back Yard in this case), some have a concern for local conservation, some set the threat that climate change poses and some have a concern social and community justice. The interesting thing about this campaign is that people from many different backgrounds are sharing these views which can give everyone involved a broader prospective of the issues, and the solutions.




Falkirk Against Unconventional Gas are still raising money to fund the legal costs that they have accrued due to their decision to participate in the Public Enquiry.

Friends of the Earth Scotland have organised a series of training events for effected communities – they can provide support and advice forcommunities threatened by unconventional gas developments.

Frack Off Scotland along with a whole host of local and
international groups, campaign against Unconventional Gas
developments. and



Comments (0)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Illy says:

    I’m going to disagree on some common assumptions here, but I think you’ll like the alternative argument.

    I don’t believe that humanity is making much of an effect on global temparature. We’re still coming out of the medieval cold period, and if you look at longer-term trends like the Greenland Ice Cores, then the changes over the last few decades are well within normal variation. Global temperature changes a lot, and very quickly, all the time.

    The hype has been encouraged as a get-rich-quick scheme for the friends of government who run the “carbon credit” trading markets, more than anything else, as far as I can see.

    Of course, I’m not going to contest the fact that the oil is going to run out, which is why I fully support using it to bootstrap us onto a *renewable* energy source. (I don’t give a toss about “green”, that word is far too loaded – we’ve been adjusting the environment ever since we crawled out of our caves. Yes, we should pay more attention to *how* we’re adjusting the environment, but there *never* was a “green age” where we lived in harmony with nature, so we can’t get back to it, anyone who claims otherwise is selling something)

    Given that, I’d much rather see Scotland concentrate on the easily accessable oil & gas reserves, and use the wealth generated from them to get us away from being dependant on them as quickly as possible. We’re one of the best countries in Europe for renewable energy generation, so why are we fucking about with hard-to-extract stuff when we literally have energy floating past us on the breeze?

    1. Ed Pybus says:

      I’m not a climate scientist, but since 97% of Climate Scientist, and all the worlds government via the IPCC, seems to be of the opinion that the climate change we are experiencing is due to manmade activity I’m inclined to agree with them. Even if they are wrong would it not seems a wise precaution to attempt to stop burning fossil fuels at such a rate? I’d be interested to see the links of corruption surrounding carbon credit trading, Frack off have documented the quite extensive links between the Unconventional Gas industry and the UK government.

      There are of course many other reasons why Unconventional Gas developments are a bad idea….

      1. Illy says:

        Take a look at these links for man-made climite change and make up your own mind:

        And remember that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong on revolutionary issues pretty much every time (that’s why they’re called “revolutionary”) Remember how many people agreed with Galilaeo in his lifetime?

        Personally, I don’t care how fast we’re burning fossil fuels, as long as we’re making the fastest progress possible to being completely renewable, and always burning the easiest to extract (Like the stuff off the west coast, which hasn’t been touched, and is far cheaper and safer to get at than the stuff you have to frack)

      2. Ed Pybus says:

        Galileo is a bit of a red herring – he was up against a theocracy before the development of the scientific method to analyse and assess competing scientific (rather than religious) theories.

      3. Illy says:

        The scientific method is a lot older than christianity, there’s evidence dating back to the ancient Babalonians and Egyptians, and that’s only what we can prove.

        Like I said: Any “controversial in it’s day” science is an example of the majority of scientists being wrong about something that was later proved right. It happens, and it happens a *lot* when the political authority has an interest in the “current wisdom” which is exactly what the church was in Galileo’s time.

  2. Clootie says:

    If a well goes wrong, and there are several things that can go wrong, it will be a disaster for any community impacted.

    We have an oil & gas industry that can fund the transfer of this nation to 100percent renewables.

    Whatever your views on global warming renewables is the correct choice for the future.

    Fracking will make a short term significant profit for these companies. The are not interested in Scotland and it’s long term future.

    It is a dangerous option that we do not need to consider.

    1. Illy says:

      That’s pretty much my point.

  3. MBC says:

    I’m not a lawyer, but I’m sure I read in a legal book about Scots law, that in Scots law when you own land, for instance, as a home owner, you own the land the house and curtilage it is sitting on, you own it both underneath the ground to the centre of the earth, and above the ground into the sky (aerial rights). So I can’t think this would be legal in Scotland, to burrow underneath people’s houses.

    1. barneythomson says:

      This is known in Scots Law as “A coelo usque ad centrum”. From a glossary of Scots Law terms –

      “The grant of a disposition confers ownership of the land on the new owner not only of the whole grounds described in the disposition, but also buildings, woods, waters and fishing (not salmon) rights and any other property in or under the surface (such as mineral rights) or above it (eg the air space occupied by the building). This means that the owner in theory owns everything a coelo (from the sky) usque ad centrum (right down to the centre of the earth). However, in practice there are many exceptions to this principle. Planning law often restricts the use of the land; the mineral rights have often been reserved to a former superior, and the use of the air space above by aircraft is covered by other legislation.”

      Any legislation generally overturning this concept would be a momentous historical change and I’d love to see how the proposed Bill approaches it.

    2. Colin says:

      In Scotland, it’s true you own the land your property is on, but unfortunately if it’s a residential property then 99.99% of the time the house builder / developer kept title to the mineral rights.

      1. Ed Pybus says:

        I’m not sure of the details by The Crown/UK Government retain petroleum rights. Legally I’m not sure if you ‘own’ the oil/gas, but you can’t extracted it without a government license. The Department for Energy and Climate Change issue PEDL licenses to allow firm to extract “petroleum” – which included natural gas. The map above shows the the areas of Scotland that have been licensed so far, with more areas due to be licensed later this year. The license are given, for free, to the company that DECC believes will extract the most oil/gas. The company then pays the UK government a fee based on the amount of oil/gas extracted.
        Beyond that I don’t think it’s that clear – which is I assume the reason for the Queens Speech’s mention of plans to make it clear that firms can drill under others land.
        In Scotland once you have the PEDL license from DECC you still need planning permission – but only to allow you to build the physical infrastructure. You need permission of the landowner to build the infrastructure on their land – with the ultimate threat of compulsory purchase if the owners refuse permission. Again in Scotland you require a license from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency – but this only really related to the extraction and disposal of water used during the process.
        It is unclear what would happen if a local authority/Scottish Government refused planning permission, or passed legislation that would hinder the firms obligations under the PEDL license that the UK Government has issued.
        Incidentally at the point of application to DECC for a PEDL the firms supply a Field Development Plan – which indicated how they intend to maximise the output from the field. I’ve spent two years try to get hold of these plans and two FOI cases are currently pending…

  4. yerkitbreeks says:

    Up here we have a splendid opportunity with all our renewable options, and in the long term we should consider oil and gas as too valuable to be burnt – in view of all the synthetics that can be manufactured from them.

  5. The greater the chance of a Yes vote allowing Scotland to repossess its oil fields, the greater the jettising of land rights in England in a desparate search for alternative sources of oil

  6. Cando says:

    Should any profit from fracking in Scotland not belong to Scotland? M.Carney mumbled “Scottish assets are over£1trillion “is that why the panic when they were losing ? Are Scotland’s assets the reason UK gov is allowed to be over £1trillion in debt & if we were to be independent the debt would not be covered & UK would be bankrupt? Is anything extracted from fracking not a Scottish asset ?

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.