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

3. Main perspectives and views on methodology

3.1 As discussed in Chapter 1, the consultation included six questions about (i) specific aspects of the SEA; (ii) the partial BRIA, and (iii) the preferred policy position. The analysis of respondents' views in relation to each of these questions are set out in Chapters 4 to 9 below.

3.2 This chapter provides an overview of the two main perspectives expressed in the consultation. In general, these two perspectives provided the framework through which respondents offered (in some cases) more specific views in response to individual consultation questions. Where concerns were raised – by regulatory bodies, industry / business respondents and a small number of individuals – in relation to the methodology used to conduct the SEA, these are also discussed in this chapter.

Two main perspectives

3.3 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 process.
• 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.

3.4 A substantial proportion of the respondents (especially individuals), whose views aligned with the first of the two perspectives set out above, did not engage with the consultation questions; instead they simply repeated their overall opposition to the development of an unconventional oil and gas industry and their support for a legislative ban in response to each of the questions without elaborating further.

Views on the SEA methodology

3.5 As noted in Chapter 1, the requirements for conducting an SEA are set out in the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. This Act requires that environmental considerations are fully integrated into the preparation of certain plans and programmes prior to their final adoption. In this case, this required consulting on (i) the likely significant environmental effects of the Scottish Government's preferred policy position of not supporting the development of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland, and (ii) any 'reasonable alternatives'. The Environmental Report recognised that some may regard the development of an onshore unconventional oil and gas industry – described in the report as the 'business as usual' option – or a pilot project, as alternatives to the preferred policy position and assessed both these alternatives.

3.6 Some organisational respondents – particularly business / industry respondents and regulatory bodies (SNH, SEPA and HES) – and a few individuals provided detailed comments about how the SEA had been undertaken. These comments were relevant to all consultation questions.

3.7 Both regulatory bodies and business / industry respondents noted that the predicted effects of the preferred policy position were derived (or 'extrapolated') from the findings in relation to the 'reasonable alternatives'. They queried this approach and the conclusions drawn about the effects of the preferred policy position. In particular, they noted that the Environmental Report concluded that the preferred policy position would have significant positive effects; however, as the effects of the preferred policy position were discussed in terms of 'negative effects avoided' rather than as positive effects, respondents argued that it would be more appropriate for them to be assessed as 'neutral'. Furthermore, some respondents commented that the SEA had not assessed a 'do nothing' scenario – i.e. what would happen in the absence of the preferred policy position – and there was a request for clarity about whether the 'business as usual' alternative was intended to represent the 'do nothing' scenario.

3.8 In addition, business / industry respondents highlighted a range of concerns and criticisms in relation to the approach to the SEA as follows:

• The SEA does not treat 'business as usual' and a 'pilot project' as 'serious alternatives'. By not setting out draft alternative planning policy positions, it does not specify the alternatives in sufficient detail, does not fully explore their application or implications, and has not sufficiently assessed the likely effects of the practical implementation of the alternatives.
• The SEA has not assessed Scotland's current and predicted requirements for natural gas and petrochemical feedstock over the next 30 years, and has not explored the impact of meeting those requirements from different domestic and imported sources.
• The SEA has applied the regulatory measures currently in force in Scotland rather than arrangements in force in England, the latter of which were believed to represent best practice in relation to unconventional oil and gas. Moreover, the SEA did not take into account up-to-date best practice regarding operational procedures within the unconventional oil and gas industry.
• The Environmental Report focuses solely on the predicted environmental effects of the preferred policy position in Scotland; it ignores effects (positive and negative) which are likely to be produced elsewhere as a result of the preferred policy position or the 'reasonable alternatives' considered.

3.9 Given these different issues, industry / business respondents considered that the methodology used in the preparation of the Environmental Report did not comply with section 14 and schedule 3 of the 2005 Act.