As yesterday’s hearing drew to a close Gerry Moynihan QC for INEOS paraphrased Germany’s Bono in asking ‘when is a ban a ban’? This morning he described the arguments put forward by counsel for the Scottish Government as to whether fracking had or had not in effect been banned as ‘dancing around handbags’. A ‘dark cloud’ was hanging over the matter he said, and there was a need for the air to be cleared.

Mr Moynihan then sought to demonstrate that a decision to ban fracking had indeed been made by Scottish Ministers on 3 October last year, and brought into effect by extending indefinitely the moratorium in place since January 2015. He said it was utterly wrong to characterise the ban as ‘a gloss’, and there was never any suggestion it was such until yesterday.

It was put that the Minister’s actions had highly pertinent and practical implications for the petitioners in that there was now no point in their proceeding with applications for planning and environmental permissions so as to develop their licenses. Further, no consideration had been given to the financial impacts on INEOS or Reach CSG in coming to this decision. Had Ministers followed the correct route, it was argued, by considering primary legislation to ban fracking, they would have had to address the impact not just on future licenses but also existing licenses. Whether under onshore oil and gas licensing powers, devolved as of February 2018, Ministers could actually revoke existing licenses was an academic question in this case. However, any course of action impacting on existing licenses to the extent that the decision of 3 October did would require two financial questions to be addressed: who should bear the costs of decommissioning, and would the petitioners be due any compensation for the value of their licenses.

While the total amount the petitioners consider may be due in compensation was not made clear today, a sum of £30million was noted in relation to decommissioning costs for existing licenses.

Today’s hearing drew to a close with parties and Lord Pentland hopeful that all the remaining relevant points would be dealt with tomorrow, drawing the case to a close one day early.


We are making a public interest intervention in the case arguing that the Scottish Government was obliged to ban fracking in order to meet its own legally binding climate change commitments. You can read more about why we decided to get involved in the case on our blog, and download our intervention in full here.

Read about what happened on Day 1 and Day 3

Tagged with:


Mary Church

Mary Church is Head of Campaigns at FoES.

View Profile


Have Your Say

Your email address wil not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

you might want to read

Related Articles

How fracking in America makes Scotland the home of plastic production

As global plastic production increases, we look at where all the plastic is actually coming from.

More On This
The Circular Economy must be a key player in the fight against Climate Change

As global resource consumption passes 100 billion tonnes a year, we look at how moving to a circular economy is key in the climate fight.

More On This
Making Polluters Pay

The lessons the legal system needs to learn from the Mossmorran flaring saga

More On This
Never too early to engage with planning

Scotland’s National Planning Framework will determine much about what developments will happen over the next 10 years

More On This
Planning for a Climate Friendly future – have your say!

Scotland's new Planning Framework will shape where we live, work and play, as well as our response to the Climate Emergency.

More On This
Can the law save the planet?

A very important legal case in the Netherlands shows the power of the law in protecting the planet.

More On This