Government enthusiasm for fracking must respect property rights and long-term liability
The CLA has accused the Government of having too little regard for property rights and long-term liabilities to meet the demands of energy industry investors in its enthusiasm to realise shale gas extraction.
The CLA has accused the Government of having too little regard for property rights and long-term liabilities to meet the demands of energy industry investors in its enthusiasm to realise shale gas extraction.
The Association submitted its response to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Consultation on Underground Drilling Access which proposes removing the need for landowner consent for underground works associated with oil, gas and geothermal heat exploration.
CLA President Henry Robinson said: “The CLA is not opposed to the development of the UK’s shale gas and geothermal resources, but as an organisation dealing with land ownership and property rights we have serious concerns with these proposals. The consultation is extremely one-sided, squarely aimed at meeting the demands of the energy industry while disregarding the rights and concerns of UK property owners.
“Large-scale shale gas development is new to the UK and the long-term implications are relatively unknown. There is currently no clear system in place to protect landowners from any ongoing liability should problems occur once a well has been abandoned. This is a major concern for our members and a glaring omission from the consultation. Land and property owners must be protected before further development takes place.”
Mr Robinson added that no real consideration had been given to alternative means of gaining the underground access required.
He said: “The Government wants to streamline the existing system of access but we see no reason why the fracking industry should be entirely absolved of its duties to identify and agree access with landowners as other profit-making industries do.
“Many of the proposals seem to be aimed at reducing the upfront cost of exploration, but we have seen no evidence to suggest that access is anything more than a tiny proportion of the total development cost for a well. There are other ways to deliver the access required without the need for legislation.”
The CLA President added that the voluntary community fund included in the proposals is an incentive for the local community, but misses the point in providing compensation to those whose rights are infringed.
He said: “Where property rights are infringed it is only fair that owners themselves are appropriately compensated.”
Andrew Poulton, Editor at Farming Monthly National says:
“We are supposed to be moving away from fossil fuels and activities which encourage climate change. Enthusiasm for shale gas extraction, whilst veiled as reducing our dependence on imported gas, is quite clearly motivated by money and profits – the same as everything else – with no regard for the environment or peoples rights. Perhaps if the same enthusiasm were directed toward renewable energy sources and a firm commitment is made to adhere to environmental & ‘earth friendly’ policies then we won’t need to look back in hindsight with regret.”
“Proper financial compensation for property rights infringements might be the least of our worries when all said and done and we review the damage that fracking will inevitably cause. Perhaps the general public should investigate exactly what is involved in the fracking process before the method is allowed to get into full-swing.”
“Maybe these decisions are taken too lightly from a position that suggests that we are ‘doomed already – so let’s make hay while the sun shines’ ? If the government has given up on the environment already, and we continue to look the other way, then we are indeed doomed.”
