The UK's High Court will soon be hearing a new case brought by Ineos Shale (www.ineos.com), UK gas exploration subsidiary of the Rolle / Switzerland-based chemical group, against opponents of its drive to explore and possibly exploit mooted shale reserves across the country. Ineos had applied to the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA; www.ogauthority.co.uk) under the Working Facilities and Support Act of 1966, colloquially known as the Mines Act, for permission to sue the charity National Trust (www.nationaltrust.org.uk) for refusing to grant it access to its Clumber Park property in Nottinghamshire – see Plasteurope.com of 18.01.2018.

In allowing the challenge to proceed, the OGA stressed that the UK government supports the shale industry and that the survey is required before the company can explore for resources. Separately, Ineos last year won a temporary injunction from the High Court, since extended twice, restricting protests at its shale gas sites – see Plasteurope.com of 16.08.2017. It said the new case “will be heard by a judge who has the power to grant it access to the Trust’s land in Nottinghamshire,” where “similar” surveys were carried out between 1959 and 1989.

Ineos Shale said losing the case could cost the charity, which up to now has steadfastly refused to engage with the company, hundreds of thousands of pounds. “Legal action has been the last resort, and we have used powers which prevent landowners from blocking projects which benefit the wider community and the nation as a whole,” the company’s commercial director Lynn Calder said in a statement. She called the Trust’s position “very disappointing, especially as we have had positive relationships with a range of stakeholders and landowners during surveys.” As before, Ineos labelled the objections” overly and overtly political,” a charge the conservation charity has repeatedly denied.

Commenting on the OGA’s decision, the Trust said Ineos has “not demonstrated why it is necessary to carry out any surveys here or address our other reasons for refusing to grant access. We have no wish for our land to play any part in extracting gas or oil. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change at many of our places, and we have launched a programme to dramatically cut our own fossil fuel usage at our properties.” A spokesman also told the London newspaper the Times it believes Ineos “has not yet followed the proper planning process, which would involve fully considering the potential environmental impacts.”

Both Ineos Shale and the OGA maintain that the seismic surveys are non-intrusive and represent no threat to the landscape. In addition, all data gathered about the status of shale reserves would be donated to the UK for future research. In the past, the chemical producer’s exploration arm had said it would pay for access to the park and “fully restore the land” if any damage were caused by the testing. Should tests show there is sufficient gas in Clumber Park, Calder noted that the company could call on the court to allow to drill. Alternatively, it could drill sideways under the estate from a site just outside it – a practice seen as legally controversial. Ineos claims that the shale industry could trigger investment worth GBP 33 bn (EUR 37.5 bn) of investment in the UK alone over the next two decades.

While receiving consistent support nationally, the industry’s efforts to begin exploration have recently run into opposition from councils in the UK. In October 2017, the Rotherham Borough Council banned fracking and seismic testing on its land, and in January 2018 voted unanimously to oppose Ineos’ plans for exploration at Harthill. In early February, the planning committee of the Derbyshire County Council denied its shale arm permission for pre-fracking tests in the village of Marsh Lane, near Eckington. In all the cases, Ineos has applied to or said it intends to apply to the UK’s national Planning Inspectorate to override the local decisions, as the law permits. It argues that the councils exceeded their deliberation time.

As regards Scotland, where the devolved government last October made its fracking moratorium permanent – see Plasteurope.com of 02.11.2017 – Ineos now says that as part of its legal challenge to the ban – see Plasteurope.com of 15.01.2018 – it will seek damages for an alleged violation of an article of the European Convention on Human Rights. Claiming the Scottish government acted unlawfully, the chemical and plastics giant, in conjunction with Reach CSG (Aberdeen; www.reachcsg.co.uk/index.html_), is seeking a judicial review of the decision. A judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last week allowed the case to proceed but said the companies must specify their claims, as they are “undeveloped.”