This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44035177

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Scottish fracking ban legal challenge to begin Judge urged to reject fracking ban challenge
(about 5 hours later)
The petrochemical giant Ineos is due to begin its legal challenge to the Scottish government's ban on fracking. A senior lawyer has urged a judge to throw out a legal action aimed at overturning the Scottish government's "ban" on fracking.
The ban followed two years of consideration by ministers but the company believes it is unlawful. The case has been brought to the Court of Session by petrochemical companies Ineos and Reach CSG.
In 2015 the Scottish government stopped all fracking while it sought the opinions of experts and the public. They say the Scottish government acted illegally in announcing an "effective ban" last year.
In making the decision for what was called an "effective ban", ministers said there was "overwhelming opposition". But advocate James Mure QC, who is acting for the government, said the companies were wrong.
The ban does not involve legislation but is an instruction to local authorities not to consent planning for any fracking-related activities. He insisted the government had "not yet adopted a position" on whether to impose a ban - with a final decision not due until later this year.
Ineos will argue that was unlawful as the licences were originally issued by the Westminster government. The Scottish government announced a moratorium - or temporary halt - on fracking in 2015 while it sought the opinions of experts and the public on whether the controversial oil extraction technique should be allowed in Scotland.
Because Ineos was granted those licences, it will also be asking the Court of Session for compensation. After considering the evidence for two years, ministers concluded there was "overwhelming opposition" and announced what was described at the time as an "effective ban".
After introducing a moratorium in 2015, ministers announced the prohibition in October 2017 which was subsequently endorsed by a vote of MSPs. The move did not involve legislation, with local authorities being instructed not to consent planning for any fracking-related activities in their areas.
Ineos Shale applied for a judicial review of the decision, citing "serious concerns" about its legitimacy. Ineos and Reach are seeking a judicial review of the decision, arguing that the government has converted a moratorium on the gas extraction into an unlimited ban.
The Scottish government said it took a "careful and considered approach" while coming to the decision, with a "detailed assessment of evidence". Ineos, which owns the Grangemouth refinery, holds two fracking licences in Scotland and imports fracked shale gas from the United States to process at its refinery in Grangemouth.
Ineos, which operates the industrial processing plant in Grangemouth and which holds fracking exploration licences across 700 sq miles of the country, said the government's decision was "a major blow to Scottish science and the engineering industry". It claims that ministers at Holyrood made "very serious" errors in their decision-making process.
The company also believes a ban on fracking would result in Scotland missing out on economic benefits, including about 3,100 jobs and £1bn for local communities.
And it claims that millions of pounds it invested in acquiring the fracking licences and obtaining planning permission for drilling sites had been "rendered worthless".
Ineos and Reach want the court to declare that it is unlawful for Scottish ministers to use their powers under planning legislation to ban fracking in Scotland, pointing out that the licences were originally issued by the Westminster government.
The petrochemical companies are also seeking damages - although the exact sum is not mentioned in legal papers.
'Preferred position'
When the case started on Tuesday, Mr Mure argued that the action should be dismissed.
He insisted the companies were mistaken in thinking that a ban was in place, and said that ministers were still considering whether fracking should be stopped - with a decision due in October of this year.
Mr Mure added: "The concept of an effective ban is a gloss. It is the language of a press statement. What they have done is to announce a preferred position on the issue.
"They have not yet adopted a position. Any position which the government will take has to undergo an environmental and strategic assessment.
"The court should therefore allow the policy-making process to go to finalisation which is expected in October this year."
What is fracking?What is fracking?
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique used to recover gas and oil from shale rock by drilling down into the earth before directing a high-pressure water mixture at the rock to release the gas inside.Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique used to recover gas and oil from shale rock by drilling down into the earth before directing a high-pressure water mixture at the rock to release the gas inside.
Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well, where it can be collected.Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well, where it can be collected.
Fracking allows drilling firms to access difficult-to-reach resources of oil and gas, and has been credited with significantly boosting US oil production.Fracking allows drilling firms to access difficult-to-reach resources of oil and gas, and has been credited with significantly boosting US oil production.
But opponents point to environmental concerns raised by the extensive use of fracking in the US.But opponents point to environmental concerns raised by the extensive use of fracking in the US.
They say potentially carcinogenic chemicals used in the process may escape and contaminate drinking water supplies around the fracking site, although the industry argues any pollution incidents are the results of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique.They say potentially carcinogenic chemicals used in the process may escape and contaminate drinking water supplies around the fracking site, although the industry argues any pollution incidents are the results of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique.
There have also been concerns that the fracking process can cause small earth tremors.There have also been concerns that the fracking process can cause small earth tremors.
And campaigners say the transportation of the huge amounts of water needed for fracking comes at a significant environmental cost.And campaigners say the transportation of the huge amounts of water needed for fracking comes at a significant environmental cost.