Independent Scotland Focused On Renewables, Not On Unconventionals

If the United Kingdom is believed to pave the way for shale gas in Europe, a tiny area in Scotland might be the pacemaker of production of unconventional gas in the United Kingdom and more generally, in Europe. Natural Gas Europe had the pleasure to speak with Steven Carleschi, a Scottish National Party Councillor for the Carse, Kinnaird & Tryst areas of Falkirk, Scotland. Steven’s involvement in the debate over unconventional gas exploration in the United Kingdom stems from Dart Energy’s CBM activity in Airth; a region of Falkirk which he represents. As said, the site in Falkirk could become the first commercially operational CBM site in Scotland’s central belt. The proposed development is currently the source of an enquiry by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DEPA) who are expected to reach a verdict on whether the commercial expansion of unconventional gas exploration in the area is a viable process. 

This must be an exciting time for you? 

Yes, very exciting yes. The world is watching Scotland so hopefully Scotland takes the right decision. It's interesting you mention that because a lot of people that we've been involved with locally that weren't for 'Yes' for different reasons are actually more for it now because they want to go in a different direction to what they're seeing down south.  

So you're basically saying energy policies are instrumental for the electoral campaign?  

Yes. I mean, people make their decision based on what their concerns are, and a lot of people in my areas concerns are about this. And they think because the licence is coming from Westminster that perhaps things would be different and they'll have a better say.  

We saw that you signed a community charter, you and various other members of the council. How big a precedent does that set for the future of this kind of activities (Coal Bed Methane extraction) in Falkirk? Is it going to prove important in this debate?  

Well the Charter that members of my group and some other independent councillors have signed up to, and one member of the administration of Falkirk Council has signed up to is about unconventional gas but it's also about environmental issues and the general environment we're living in. It's basically a declaration of what people in that particular area that wrote the charter along with what the community council want for the area, their aims and ambitions for the area. That's for a safe living and working environment. That's basically at the heart of it. And one where the community, as you were saying earlier is consulted on the issues that can affect that. 

One of the things that also through Dart's website is that they claim to have invested around half of 40 million pounds into the community. Have you seen that investment yourself? 

If you go into the local area where they are. You will find that there are areas of deprivation. Certainly I can't see any community development. I mean with wind farms there are community funds; there are various ways they invest in the community. The only investment they could say is in the wellheads, the drills, the road and apparatus. There's no investment per se in the community no and employment being created.  

You would say there would be no employment being created by these opportunities? 

To date, there is none. I mean if you drive around the site you find unattended well sites locked up. You don't find any hive of activity. No local people that I know are employed by that company.

In case of eventual commercial production, do you see local people to be employed or do you see international experts coming here and working here? In other words, do you see local employment or not? 

The only employment that I can see locally in this development is effectively security watchmen roles. Perhaps local people will have that job if they've not got a private company, I don't know. But there are no local jobs that I can see with this development as other manufacturing or businesses give to an area. 

Communities in West Sussex told us a few months ago what the peculiar aspects of their area were and why they didn't want shale gas exploration to start there. They pointed out, for example there is an issue with real-estate prices. So whenever you have a well the prices of the buildings, the commercial buildings but also homes, normally plunge and they normally decrease by 20%. Do you think this will be the case also with CBM in this area?  

I can't really comment on how it will affect house prices or commercial businesses in the area. I think the concern is that certainly a lot of people in this area have indicated they'll move and they don't want to live near a development like this. I don't think you can evidence house pricing until something like that happens but I can understand people's concerns but it's not a material planning concern. The main concern is people don't want to live near a development like this. 

Do you see any peculiar aspects of this area? Are there any differences and is there anything peculiarity in this area that don't exist in other areas of the UK? 

Well in this particular area, it's quite a flat area of ground so obviously any development that would happen would be very visible for miles around. It's very good agricultural land in this area and there's obviously concerns from the local farming community that will be damaged. Certainly some of it will be taken over for this development, but they are concerned about damage to their concerns from leakages from chemicals. So mainly the difference I suppose in this area is that it's in close proximity to housing on all four sides of the development area and that it's on prime agricultural land. 

One of the things that again we've read through Dart's website is that they say one of the companies they contracted was Clark Eriksson which is a Falkirk company. They say this has created around 40 jobs. Does something like a community charter or community rejection of plans to make this a commercial venture limit that investment in the community? Is it essentially stopping this business from doing their job? 

What the community's concerns are about this development is that insufficient information has been given to the planning authorities and to the community that relevant safeguards are in place. If this information were to be provided, Falkirk Council would not be objecting to this application at the public enquiry or recommending that it be refused.  

Do you know that IGas is buying Dart Energy and that the acquisition should go through in September? Are you aware? 

Yeah I'm aware of it. I'm aware it's just got to be signed off by the IGas board but that the Dart Energy board has already signed it off. I'm aware of that. 

Do you think that this acquisition will change anything? In other words, do you think that they will have more power and more financial strength to eventually appeal to any kind of decision or to go to court? 

I can't comment on their financial relationship at all. It's been very clear for a long time that Dart Energy were not going to be able to operate this development financially so I think a lot of the concern for the community was that any promises that were made by Dart Energy, if Dart Energy weren't the ones doing the development on the ground then that wouldn't necessarily hold any water. So if it has been taken over by a company that has got more financial backing and can properly regulate themselves on this site and comply with the right regulations then that is certainly welcomed. But the main concern really is that Dart Energy have been the applicant in this public enquiry and anything that they are promising, we're not very sure how much water it will hold now that they have been taken over by another company.  

So you're basically saying 'we welcome their ability to eventually increase the commitment to environmental requirement, but we will not know exactly how the new company will deal with this issue'. Am I right?

I think it's fair to say that it's good that a company that's in charge of it now is one that certainly is registered in the UK for a start and that has done these developments in other areas and perhaps knows a bit more about the work than Dart Energy does in the UK or Europe. But I think the concerns still remain how these companies are going to comply with the relevant regulations. 

The site would here be the first in the UK for commercial production of unconventional gas. Do you think that this area is a litmus test for the rest of Scotland or the rest of the UK? Or is it just a local or marginal issue? 

I think from the interest that this is attracted, you may be aware that at the public enquiry there were two professionals from Australia that came over and gave evidence. They've come and attended and held public meetings in Falkirk and then had them in Edinburgh at the Scottish Parliament with MSP's and other groups like Friends of the Earth. Certainly it's clear that a lot of people are looking at this decision and seeing that this will certainly set a precedent for the rest of the UK if this gets the go ahead. Particularly with the conditions that are on it as well, which is why it's very important that we get this right and that if this does go ahead that the relevant conditions are in place but more importantly, firstly to check that the proper regulation is in place from the UK government and local planning authority to properly regulate this and the environmental agencies as well. 

And in case of Scottish independence, do you see an increase in legislation on this? Or would it change anything? 

I think the only evidence we can see on this at the moment is that it's very clear that the UK government, given they are offering financial incentives to local authorities down south to go ahead with unconventionals. I think it's very clear that if there is a 'No' vote that certainly then there would continue to be a push from the UK government for this. The Scottish Government has not done likewise in Scotland, there are no financial incentives from the government to local authorities to do this and from the planning legislation that the Scottish Government is bringing out to provide better safety for communities, I think it's fair to say that there will be more investigation into these developments if there is a 'Yes' vote compared to if there is a 'No' vote in Scotland.  

Eric Joyce, a Falkirk MP, made a quite interesting point. He was saying that he was essentially in favour of CBM activity and that he had heard from people in his area who are concerned over energy prices and one of his arguments was that this sort of investment would drop energy prices for the community. Would you say that he is misrepresenting his constituency or that he is giving an inaccurate view of what the local community wants? 

My view on this is when this development first came about, I had a look to see who Dart Energy's suppliers were going to be for this and that they signed the deal with one of the big UK energy companies.  I think that Eric Joyce's comments were certainly surprising because he had no information to back it up. It would be great to say there's going to be cheaper gas and gas prices but there is no evidence to back that up. In the UK at the moment, we're controlled by four or five large energy companies that effectively work together in my opinion to manage the price of energy. I can't see how that is going to change to be honest with you. I mean how do you demonstrate that one is getting a particular type of gas that they're using to heat their homes or another? He had no evidence to back that up and there's been no evidence from any of the energy companies that if they purchase that they will be selling it at a lower price than normal commercial gas. 

So, say that this new company do move in and meet the environmental requirements and you say that there is no financial incentive from the Scottish Government for local councils to accept these processes. What's in it for Falkirk? What's in it for the local area then if they do meet all these meet all these environmental requirements and they do go ahead with it. Why should Falkirk accept this? 

Well there is no benefit to the local community from this development in my opinion. You could argue that when it is up and running there may be added income from workers coming to the area, moving to area if that is what happens with the professionals you alluded to earlier. With the local company, you referred to one that there would be a benefit to and there might some very limited local employment. But there isn't any benefit that I can see other than obviously another gas supply but the main concern which is obviously a concern for all of Scotland to have. But the issue with that really is that Scotland has got excess amounts of gas that it needs, it's a net exporter of gas if you take it as Scotland alone so to certain there isn't a major benefit to the local community as there could be from over developments such as a manufacturing base or the investment of another large company in the area where there would be a lot more employment.  

In the case of Scottish Independence, do you see any push for a more active role from the government in offshore production? Speaking obviously about gas, there are quite a few experts saying that the British Government is not doing enough to use the existing resources in the North Sea and just trying to push unconventional gas and it's a bit of political manoeuvring instead of something factual. Do you agree with this position and what might be the solution to increase production from offshore fields? Does your party have a position on this?  

Our position on this is certainly that Scotland should be in charge of North Sea oil and regulate that from Edinburgh. There has been a lot of concern from oil and gas sectors about tax cash grabs from the UK Government, which has made it harder for them to get to oil and gas. To be honest with you with independence the focus won't be on unconventionals, the focus would be on renewable energy. The UK government has not pushed it a lot but there are a lot of developments such as the carbon capture plant in Peterhead that the UK Government has gone from supporting to not supporting. There's been one in fact just across the Forth at Longannet which the Scottish Government were in favour of, the UK Government were going to go for and then pulled at the last minute. So I think these are the sorts of developments; carbon capture, offshore wind and wave, these would be the priorities of a Scottish Government in an independent Scotland would be my view. Because these will help them reach renewable targets as well as their environmental targets as well as providing additional energy. 

You referred to targets but it looks like Scotland is already in line with the targets for 2020 whereas the rest of the UK probably is lagging behind. Do you think it could be an issue for London in case of Scottish Independence? Would it increase the pressure on the government and when we are reminded that Cameron said that he wanted to lead the greenest government. What's your understanding? 

I think that it probably would have an effect on their environmental status yes. I think if Scotland were to be independent, obviously a large proportion of their energy source wouldn't be theirs any more. So I think they would probably review all energy sources, which would be a sensible position and decide the way forward for them. To be honest, I think a lot of information the companies put out there about unconventionals; such as that it's far cleaner than other sources, is obviously not the case. So there might be more of a push on that perhaps if there is a 'No' vote. 

Do you see any possible political crisis related to energy policies? Speaking with a few people from different parties, they say that with the new licencing round local communities and also MP's might know that their own areas have been given away and there are licences really close to their local communities. Do you think that it might trigger any political problem? Would it be local or also central? 

I think it could do both. I mean at the moment to be honest with you, in the Scottish Parliament I know that there is a lot of members of the Scottish Parliament that cover other areas that are perceived, if the project goes ahead in Falkirk, their areas would be next for these licences because it's quite clear that there is a lot of Central Scotland right across the area into Lanarkshire where this sort of development could be possible. I think they're already looking into that. So I certainly there would be a concern, I mean it's obviously good that communities are involved in an earlier stage that's one of the main arguments for an upset. With all this, the licences are granted from Westminster and planning authorities in Scotland, other areas of England and local communities across are obviously not consulted on that and don't have a say on that. So I can give you evidence that it's already happening in Scotland, there's a lot of MSP's following what is happening in Falkirk and certainly be in touch with me with concerns in their own community. 

From your local constituency, talking from a local level. Have you seen from people within that this has swayed their decision on how they will vote during the referendum? Obviously this is a big issue in Falkirk, the idea of energy policies. Could that be a deciding for some people in your area? 

Yes I certainly know a lot of people that were undecided and some people that were leaning to 'No' and a lot of people that were undecided on this have moved to 'Yes' and are quite actively campaigning for a 'Yes' vote now because they feel whatever the decision goes, they would be much safer in a independent Scotland given the actions of the Scottish Government when this has happened. The fact that we're having a public enquiry on it shows that these matters are not just being brushed under the carpet but being decided on.There's a lot of anger from people that bought homes and were not aware that licences had been granted many years before at Westminster for development in their area so yes; certainly a lot of concern. A lot of people who were voting 'No' are certainly undecided about it now and are not happy with the current state of play. That, as they perceive, all of the Westminster parties in the UK Government seem to be backing unconventionals and seem to be finding this as a great solution and are not calling, as the Scottish Government has, for more regulation on these industries. 

We recently had the European elections, which showed that there are quite a few problems with Brussels. Do you think that the rise of UKIP might give you an edge in Scotland for your own campaign? Do you think that Scottish people might take a bit of distance from the rest of the UK, considering that the share of the UKIP vote in Scotland is much lower than the rest of the UK?  

Yeah I think that will only continue. I mean UKIP have obviously won a lot of seats across the UK and have won their first seat in Scotland. They didn't have a councillor or any other elected politician in Scotland before that. I think the problem with UKIP will come when the policies, I mean we're talking about energy today and I certainly don't know in great detail what their energy policies are. I think if you ask one or another of them you might get a different answer. So I think once there is more examination of their policies, I certainly think they'll be a concern yes. 

There is the idea that Scottish Government may introduce buffer zones around these unconventional sites. How guaranteed is that and how much can they guarantee that in an independent these decisions will be across the board? Will the Scottish Government be taking a cautious stance on Fracking and CBM activities? 

I think our first indication of that will be in June when it's expected that the Scottish Government's guidelines will be published and they have already asked within that to strengthen the policy on unconventionals. That a lot more of the environmental concerns need to be addressed and to be looked at in greater detail and that communities need to be consulted at all the stages in that. They've already asked for that to be in the new guidelines to come out. They've asked for a buffer zone to be considered and if that happens that will be the first direction in that. The other issue is that if independence is successful, the first stage will be to draw up a constitution for an independent Scotland and what is expected to be in that constitution is certainly demanded by a lot of people that support 'Yes' is more written assurance that local communities are consulted on issues that affect their community. There certainly would be scope to put into that the detailed concerns about energy and all sorts of developments in their area that the communities are given more consultancies on that. So that's something with independence that could be put into it, obviously there isn't a written UK constitution at present and there's not expected to be one.   

Matthew Dunne-Miles & Sergio Matalucci    This article comprises part of the series, Unconventionals for the Isles, which will examine unconventional gas developments for the viewpoint of various stakeholders