Holyrood’s approach to fracking

In January 2015, the Scottish Parliament demonstrated great political acumen, as well as its concern for the environment and for the welfare of the people of Scotland, by announcing a temporary moratorium on on-land fracking and on the extraction of coal-based methane.

Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, could have given the nation’s economy a boost by allowing fracking to proceed. Instead, by blocking companies from fracking, he won applause from environmentalist groups and from the general public. The long list of widely reported adverse impacts arising from fracking in the US may also have influenced this decision. Fergus skilfully and logically argued that it was better to fully consider all the risks associated with fracking before granting approval for the destruction of hundreds of square miles of shale beds across Scotland. There is no better example of the wisdom of discretion being the better part of valour.

Risks associated with fracking vary with geographical and geological features of the shale deposits. What is safe practice, if any, in the huge fracking plays in the US, may be unsafe in the confined countryside of Scotland.

Westminster’s approach to fracking

Westminster, on the other hand, has held to its long-term view on oil and gas extraction; if it is there get it out, burn it, spend the revenue on nuclear weapons and foreign interventions, with apparent scant regard being given to environmental impact. Fergus Ewing’s cautious approach is manifestly superior to the gung-ho stance of Cameron and Osborne.

Fracking and Underground Coal Gasification will lose parliamentary seats

The appointment of anti-fracking campaigner Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party has added another dimension to what the fracking policy in Scotland should be going forward. The will of the people of Scotland will almost certainly be to leave the fracking beds alone, to protect our water courses and our air purity, and for us to be seen to play our part in reducing worldwide climate change. Regardless of the power of the companies who are pressing for the right to frack in Scotland, agreeing to a lifting of the moratorium in the near future, if ever, could be a form of political suicide. The only hope Labour has of regaining any standing in the political sphere in the UK is by making inroads into winning back seats from the SNP. Lifting the moratorium would gift parliamentary seats back to Labour.

Some members of the SNP have either recognised this threat, or, more likely, deeply fear the consequences for the environment of fracking in Scotland. Consequently, they have started a new anti-fracking campaign called Members Against Unconventional Oil and Gas (Smaug). Despite threatening their credibility by having such a somewhat tortuous acronym, their brief outline of the dangers of allowing fracking is persuasive. Fracking is a threat to water-courses, and to land in which the contaminated water used in fracking will be buried. Methane will be released into the atmosphere during fracking and fumes and noise from convoys of lorries will annoy local communities to the point of distraction.

The problem with Underground Coal Gasification

Smaug also wish to extend the moratorium to include underground coal-seam gasification (UCG). This extension is a no-brainer.

Worldwide there has been environmental damage from UCG which involves setting underground coal seams on fire, yes, really, to garner a form of gas referred to as syngas. In order to use syngas for power generation a series of dedicated power plants would have to be built. This development alone, whilst creating jobs, conjures up a vision of environmental degradation that eclipses that of any wind turbine and will inevitably lead to air pollution; it has been estimated that as many as 3,500 Scots die early from air pollution every year. No-one needs this new form of gas that badly.

A report prepared by Biggar Economics for Cluff Natural Resources PLC (CNR) claims that if UCG activity were to explode in Scotland then 5,000 jobs will be created and £5.7 billion will be added to Scotland’s economy. On closer reading of the report these are figures that might emerge if CNR’s Firth of Forth operations were to be a success, a series of new power plants were to be built and if further UCG activity took off across Scotland. Given the largely unquantifiable environmental risks involved in setting fire to coal seams in the shallow Firth of Forth, the aforementioned success assumption cannot be guaranteed; CNR put the Firth of Forth plan on hold earlier this year. Pollution of the Forth would sound the death knell for UK UCG activity before it had begun.

Logically, if there are economic benefits that outweigh the risks from UCG ventures then how much greater would the benefits be if a way could be found to harness all of the power stored in the coal in an environmentally friendly manner rather than burn off a huge proportion of it to produce syngas? Let’s develop the requisite technology to do just that and meanwhile leave the coal beds where nature intended them to be. Surely it is far better to show our green credentials and focus on clean energy such as wind and solar power, rather than toy with the potential horror story of UCG. Smaug should be supported in advocating a moratorium on UCG.

Scottish national character

Scotland is a rich country. Its people are characterised by their concern for other people. That concern should compel Holyrood to show an example to nations across the globe that environment and people are more important than the profits that might accrue to companies that want to ravage the environment. Holyrood should focus on safeguarding the maximum number of North Sea oil jobs associated with extracting conventional oil and gas. The environmental and political costs of fracking for unconventional oil and gas and of UCG are potentially disastrous.

Alex Russell is professor of petroleum accounting at Robert Gordon University, where Peter Strachan is professor of energy policy.