Meeting of the Parliament 07 May 2014
I am pleased to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives.
A number of members have rightly referred, as does our amendment, to the importance of energy security, which I want to emphasise, not least in light of the political events that have involved Russia in the past few months.
We cannot ignore the fact that, 10 years ago, the UK was a net exporter of gas, whereas now we have to import billions of cubic tonnes of gas each year to meet demand. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, much of that comes from Pennsylvania to Grangemouth, which I am sure would like a more local supply.
The chief executive of Centrica, Sam Laidlaw, said recently:
“By 2020 we will be reliant on imports to meet 70 per cent of the country’s gas needs. So when it comes to security of supply, there is a pressing need for solutions.”
The Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued that our energy supply must come from as diverse a range of sources as possible, and that remains our position.
Last week, I was pleased to host a briefing in the Parliament on the excellent work that is being done on nuclear fusion research at the Culham centre for fusion energy. That is a potential energy source in the medium to long term that could be transformational.
Given our view that energy should come from a broad range of sources, we believe that it would simply not be responsible or sensible to ignore the potential of shale gas extraction and coal-bed methane. Rather, we should seek to exploit our unconventional gas reserves, as other nations have done with much success, in a sensible manner that ensures that the appropriate environmental safeguards are in place.
A number of the concerns about unconventional gas extraction are based on worries about risks that are similar to those that are associated with conventional coal mining and oil and gas exploration, which are covered by regulations in those sectors. I understand that, because of the more intense nature of shale gas extraction, the process is associated with more negative impacts than conventional drilling, but issues that are associated with hydraulic fracking, such as water contamination risks, can be covered by regulation from SEPA and minimised by proper designs for the integrity of wells.
The UK Government has rightly shown support for the industry. The Scottish Government should seek to emulate the efforts of DECC’s office of unconventional gas and oil in streamlining legislation in the area.
I am aware that the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee’s fifth report suggested that offshore shale gas might potentially dwarf onshore gas. Although it is currently not economically viable, I hope that the UK Government might at some stage in the future consider using tax breaks to incentivise that exploration. From the climate change angle, we should also recognise that burning shale gas in the USA has displaced significant amounts of coal burning and resulted in a fall in CO2 emissions of around 450 million tonnes in five years.
To conclude, we cannot support calls to ban unconventional gas extraction, as there is too much potential from those sources to help to boost our economy and increase the security of our future energy supply. We recognise that shale gas is still at an exploratory stage in the UK and that there are opportunities for coal-bed methane, which is known as coal seam gas in Australia, where advances have been made, especially in Queensland and New South Wales. We look to the Scottish Government to work as constructively with companies in that field as it does with those in the conventional oil and gas sector.
I support Murdo Fraser’s amendment.
15:58