Blog Categories: Europe

Planning Permission Extension for Fracked US LNG Import Terminal Threatens Ireland’s Climate Obligations and Dolphins in the Shannon Estuary

Ireland banned fracking but a company named Sambolo Resources wants to open one of Europe’s biggest projects to process fracked US gas from Trump’s America in the Shannon Estuary nature reserve where whales and dolphins swim.

The recent decision of An Bord Pleanála to extend the old planning permission for another five years – without a previous public consultation on the need for LNG development in Ireland – has shocked environmental groups and local activists[1] who have hoped for at least a proper democratic process.

They highlight that the Shannon LNG terminal would contribute significantly to climate change, destroy local biodiversity, involve more fossil fuel lock-in and damage the up-and-coming Irish renewables industry. Global trends show that investors are prioritising green development.

The proposed Shannon LNG terminal is huge: the proposed final maximum capacity of at least 10 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year would equal the European Union’s most ambitious gas project, the Southern Gas Corridor, and supply Ireland‘s fossil gas needs twice over. Fracked hydrocarbons would be tankered in from the United States, processed and much of it then sent to Europe, with Ireland becoming a gas import hub.

Planning permission was first granted in 2008 but since then lots of things have changed:

The Shannon Estuary has been declared an Estuaries Special Protection Area by the EU; the exact site is now an EU Special Protected Area for waterbirds and whales, dolphins and porpoises.
We now know how dangerous fossil gas – in particular fracked gas – is: over a 20 year period methane is almost 90 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Numerous leaks and accidents have proved the destructive impact of fracking and LNG on the environment, climate and public health.

Ireland has banned fracking and the Dáil has voted for full divestment from fossil fuels.

Ireland signed the Paris Climate Agreement; this project would make our emissions goals unreachable.

However, An Bord Pleanála, the Irish State Planning Board, decided to fully ignore all these facts, stating that extending the expiring planning permission for the proposed Shannon LNG “would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment.”

This decision comes at a time when even the economic arguments speak against the extension of LNG infrastructure in Europe. The utilisation rate of all existing EU LNG terminals is at only roughly 23 percent, clearly showing that any new investments in LNG infrastructure will almost inevitably create stranded assets. At the same time, environmental groups as well as the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) challenged a Department of Energy-funded study that concludes U.S. economic growth would be boosted by unlimited LNG exports.

According to the groups, An Bord Pleanála has failed to provide a proper democratic process and has completely ignored the significant local, national and international main arguments that clearly speak against the project – such as Ireland’s Climate Change commitments and the absence of a Strategic Environment Assessment.

They also express concerns about possible political interference in the decision-making process at An Bord Pleanála – given the fact that a major US investor is apparently close to purchasing the entire Shannon LNG site for an estimated €25-€30m.

Jointly, they’re calling for a judicial review of the decision and a proper public consultation on the proposed fracked gas LNG terminal at Shannon.

[1] Safety Before LNG, Not Here Not Anywhere, Love Leitrim, Food & Water Europe, People’s Climate Clare

Contacts:

Not Here Not Anywhere, Ciara Barry. Email: [email protected]

Safety Before LNG, Johnny McElliot. Email: [email protected]

People’s Climate Clare, Anne Marie Harrington. Email: [email protected]

Love Leitrim*, Eddie Mitchell. Email: [email protected]

Food & Water Europe, Andy Gheorghiu. Email: [email protected]

Notes for the Editor:

*Love Leitrim is a community organisation that was to the forefront in the Irish Fracking ban (http://www.loveleitrim.org).

http://www.safetybeforelng.ie/

https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/blogs/fracked-us-lng-torpedoes-irelands-dreams-of-a-fossil-free-future/

https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/blogs/blog-europes-terminals-to-import-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-heavily-underused/

https://www.foe.ie/takeaction/no-to-shannon-lng/

https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/

https://fossil.energy.gov/app/docketindex/docket/index/10

 

UK Fracking Billionaire Reportedly Leaves for Tax Haven in Monaco

Ineos CEO Jim Ratcliffe wants to frack the UK to build his polluting plastics empire

Washington, D.C. and Brussels – The owner of chemical giant Ineos, who has been leading the charge to expand the environmentally destructive practice of fracking to the United Kingdom and mainland Europe, is reportedly planning to move to the tax haven of Monaco.

Ineos’ billionaire CEO Jim Ratcliffe—named the richest man in the UK this year, and who was also knighted in June—has waged a public campaign to downplay the risks of fracking in the UK. The supply of fracked gas would feed the company’s energy-intensive petrochemical facilities, which are major sources of air and water pollution around the world.

Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter issued the following statement:

“Jim Ratcliffe has pioneered Trans-Atlantic gas liquids shipments from Pennsylvania, which means more fracking and pollution in the United States and more plastics manufacturing pollution in Scotland. All of that drilling brings us closer to climate chaos, which is why the fight against fracking must be global. Polluters like Ratcliffe must be held responsible for the damage they are causing around the globe.”

Reacting to the news that Ratcliffe is moving to live in a tax haven, Joe Corré of Talk Fracking said: “Jim Ratcliffe has used the legal system in the UK to silence people’s right to protest in the form of far-reaching draconian injunctions. He’s bought the government pushing through permitted development for fracking against science and against the will of the people. After all that, Britain’s richest man – worth £22 Billion – has made himself a tax exile in Monaco.”

Steve Mason, spokesman for Frack Free United, added: “Here we see the true colours of Jim Ratcliffe and Ineos. Just like Amazon, Ratcliffe’s primary aim is making tax-free cash at the expense of the UK population, which includes environmental and health impacts for hundreds of communities. This trumps his cynical use of the America’s Cup team and the sponsoring of kids’ fun runs to greenwash his plans to frack up the North to enrich his plastics empire. The artful dodger has definitely been bettered!”

Over the past dozen years, Ineos has transformed from a global chemical powerhouse into an oil, gas, and petrochemical conglomerate. The company’s number of shale licenses makes it the UK’s number one wannabe-fracker.

Ineos has promoted itself as an “Anglo-Swiss” company. In 2016, Ineos re-opened its London headquarters with fanfare, and its executive owners became UK tax residents. Despite Ineos’ substantial UK footprint, it is far from an English company; parent company Ineos Limited is incorporated in the Isle of Man, a low-tax offshore finance centre. And many of Ineos’ biggest holding companies—such as Ineos AG, Ineos Holdings AG and Ineos Europe AG—are based in Switzerland.

Three-Year Old Report on Fracking Risks Quietly Published This Week After Cuadrilla Permit Awarded

Ineos and Cuadrilla benefited from the delay in publication and their permits should be revoked, says advocacy group

Washington, D.C. and Brussels — In 2015, the UK Government’s Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) wrote a report citing the increase of national pollution emissions that would be caused by proposed shale development in Britain.

Before the report was finally published this week, Public Health England, UK’s official body for the improvement of the nation’s health and wellbeing, always concluded that “the risks to public health from exposure to emissions from shale gas extraction are low if operations are properly run and regulated.”

Now, the AQEG report warns that “Impacts on local and regional air quality have the potential to be substantially higher than the national level impacts, as extraction activities are likely to be highly clustered. Studies in the US have shown significant impacts on both local air quality and regional ozone formation, but similar studies have not yet been undertaken for the UK.“

In response, Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter issued the following statement:

“The apparent suppression of this important report has helped the fossil fuel industry’s plans to turn communities into sacrifice zones. This inevitable industrialisation that goes along with shale development and the need to take the cumulative impacts into account was clearly highlighted in several formal comments against fracking plans in the UK.

“However, the UK Government chose to ignore the known risks and instead, gave companies like Cuadrilla and Ineos the go-ahead for their plans to frack – mostly for plastics.

“The public knows the dangers fracking poses to our clean air and water, and its direct connection to plastic production and waste. Communities in Pennsylvania have already experienced dangerous air and water pollution linked to fracking and plastic production. And now, activists in the UK are taking bold action to protect their communities against these threats.

“Companies like Cuadrilla and Ineos would like to stifle this movement, and the current UK Government has chosen to oppose those advocating for a healthy climate and a livable world. It’s time for the government to do the right thing and revoke Cuadrilla’s and Ineos’s permits in light of the now published evidence.”

Dozens of Advocacy Groups Refute Energy Dept. Report Touting LNG Export Demand and Feasibility

In Submitted Public Comments, Fundamental Flaws and Biases of Study Are Listed

Washington/Brussels — In comments submitted to the Energy Department today, dozens of national and international advocacy groups highlighted fundamental flaws in a draft federal study that is intended to assess the macroeconomic impacts of expanded liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The comments were submitted by groups including Food & Water Watch, Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth-US, 350.org,the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for International Environmental Law, and dozens of local community groups fighting gas infrastructure in their areas.

The joint submission criticizes the study for: a failure to consider expanding state-based restrictions on fossil fuel extraction; a failure to consider expanding economic costs of fossil fuel-driven climate chaos; a failure to consider the increasing production and decreasing cost of clean energy sources; and a dismissal of growing international pressure to solve the climate crisis and rein in fossil fuels that will increasingly impact overseas demand for LNG.

The comments focus primarily on a blatant statement of bias made in the study that undermines its credibility. The study authors dismiss the potential impact on LNG demand of the Paris Agreement on climate change, something almost every nation other than the United States is working to implement, with what would appear to be their personal opinion that “future progress will (not) be very much greater than the past”. With this they assign a very low probability (5%) to the possibility of tepid future demand for LNG.

“The draft study is deeply flawed, as the authors chose to ignore both climate science and climate action in favor of what appears to be a political imperative over any objective analysis. In my experience, this would not stand up to peer review in any academic institution,” said Lorne Stockman, Senior Research Analyst with Oil Change International and lead author of the comments. “The authors need to start again using robust methods for assessing the impact of climate policy on future global LNG demand. Anything less is doing a disservice to the taxpayers that paid for the study.”

“While a number of states and most countries are smartly turning away from filthy, antiquated fossil fuels, the Trump administration is senselessly pushing ahead with climate-killing LNG exports. The world will increasingly reject our gas exports in favor of truly clean, renewable power, and as a result the costs of this policy to Americans will skyrocket. Trump makes up his own science, and our country and the world suffers,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, the group that co-authored the joint comment.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to promote and expand LNG exports on all fronts. This week it finalized a rule expediting the approval of “small-scale” LNG exports. The rule applies to LNG shipments destined for countries without free-trade agreements with the United States, which have generally been subject to a higher degree of agency scrutiny.

In Fracking Case, Scottish Court Rules Against Ineos

Petrochemical giant Ineos lost its challenge to the Scottish government’s moratorium on fracking.

In response, Food & Water Europe and Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter issued the following statement:

“In its quest to frack Scotland, Ineos has been blocked by local government officials, the courts, and the overwhelming majority of the Scottish public. The company should heed this overwhelming opposition and abandon its dangerous scheme to frack Scotland.

“Ineos’ fracking for plastics has made a significant contribution to pollution on both sides of the Atlantic. The company has most recently complained about the negative impacts of the shutdown of the Mariner East pipeline in Pennsylvania, which supplies its Grangemouth facility. It is clear that Ineos only wants to frack the UK in order to secure a cheap feedstock for its plastic production.

“The next step for the Scottish government is to clear up any remaining ambiguity and enact a once-and-for-all total ban on fracking.”

EU/UK Andy Gheorghiu, Food & Water Europe, [email protected]

US Peter Hart, Food & Water Watch, [email protected]

Growing Doubts Over Adequacy of €102 Million EU Public Money for Krk LNG Terminal After Lex LNG Adopted in Croatia’s Parliament Today

Brussels – Today, the Croatian Parliament agreed on a law facilitating a planned LNG terminal offshore the island of Krk. Parliamentarians voted in favor of the Law on Liquefied Natural Gas heavily criticized by local groups and NGOs. Environmental organizations warned that the law would speed up the construction of a project implemented against the will of local communities that poses a threat to local tourism and the environment and lacks economic sense.

The project is considered highest national priority and was recently re-confirmed as a Project of Common Interest (PCI) for the EU in the PCI list adopted in March. Thanks to its PCI status, the Krk terminal recently received a grant of €102million EU public money through the Connecting Europe Facility [1].

However, growing local opposition and a worrying lack of transparency cast a bad light on the benefits the terminal receives at the EU-level. Arguments opposing the planned terminal are getting louder and include crucial questions about the need for such infrastructure considering current and projected gas demand in Croatia, as well as about the climate implications of a lock-in into fossil gas imports – even more so in connection with possible imports of particularly climate-harmful fracked gas from the United States.

On 26 and 27 March, representatives of the EU Commission’s DG Energy conducted several visits and interviews with stakeholders connected to the Krk LNG terminal in Croatia. To date, no final report about the outcomes has been produced.

“A lot of EU-tax payers’ money has been invested in this terminal, and yet we have serious doubts over its economic sense and its democratic legitimacy. Local decision makers oppose this project, communities protest against it, and there is no market for a project of this size, yet still the EU Commission will provide over €100 million for its construction,” says Frida Kieninger, Campaign Officer at Food & Water Europe. “We want to see the conclusions of the EU Commission’s fact-finding mission and highly doubt that the provided CEF money is invested with appropriate diligence.”

Both an offshore terminal, as it is currently discussed, as well as an onshore LNG facility constitute costly fossil fuel infrastructure, threatening to weigh heavy on Croatians’ gas bills. LNG terminals can be operated for decades, locking us into fossil gas far beyond the moment by which we will have to manage a complete fossil fuel phase-out to avert the worst of the climate chaos ahead.

Contact: Frida Kieninger – Tel: +32 (0) 2893 1045, Mobile: +32 (0) 487 24 99 05

_______________________

[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-280_en.htm