The Basque Government has lodged an appeal in the courts of Vitoria-Gasteiz against the decision of the City Council of the capital of Alavesa. What do you expect? Do you have a ride?

The urbanism of Vitoria-Gasteiz does not allow the construction of the Armentia-2 well, as this area has a number of types of protection. Based on them, the City Hall said that mining is prohibited, and the construction of wells is a mining activity. This left two avenues for challenge: one administrative and the other administrative, judicial. They have not resorted to the administrative route, because this would in some way represent a direct conflict between two governments of the PNV, that of the Basque Government and that of Vitoria-Gasteiz. They have come to the courts. That has its political point, it leaves Uraran more possibilities to make that speech. -I will defend the interests of the city.

The Court should reject the appeal in principle, because what matters most is urban regulation. But at the time the Basque Government and the Basque Energy Agency stated that there are the so-called Territorial Guidelines, which are above the municipalities, and depending on that they may have some option.

Meanwhile, the Government of Spain is in the process of drafting the Climate Change and Energy Transition Act (LPRA). This law would prohibit powell surveys and farms, would it not?

That's it.

If the Basque Government won the courts in Vitoria-Gasteiz, would that Spanish law affect the Armentia-2 project?

There is an important article in this law, Article 8, which states that once the law has been passed, it will not be possible to carry out activities of exploitation or exploitation of hydrocarbons either on land or at sea. Therefore, no new authorisations would be given – the Armentia-2 well is within a series of permits covering a wider territory, the so-called Enara. There is also an additional provision determining what would happen to authorisations currently in progress once the law comes into force: these exploratory authorizations will not be able to move to exploitation without their prior approval of the law.

That is where the government has a problem. When you have an exploration license, you must submit an action plan to apply for an operating license that specifies the work you are going to do each year for six years. Before carrying out the action plan, you must carry out a survey, that is, a well to demonstrate the viability of the farm. And the survey requires bidding the work, building the tower, doing a production test -- a couple of years. The key is they don't have time to do it in time. The Armentia-2 well will be unimplemented when the Spanish Energy Transition Act is passed, which is expected to be passed in June.

There is a small danger. In this confusion, and on the path of a new law, it may happen that Hydrocarbons of the Basque Government (SHESA) apply for the operating licence without carrying out the previous work. I do not dare to say what would happen, because the situation would be very complicated. But the government has repeated a thousand times that it must first be explored, and then decide whether it is worth exploiting or not.

The PNV could obtain in the courts the possibility of building the Armentia-2 well, but the possibilities of exploiting the whole project are very limited. We have experienced great and greater surprises in other projects [smiles] so we can't completely dismiss it, but...

And since we have seen great surprises, because at the stage of the draft law, can these two important points that you mentioned be changed?

Yes, but it's very difficult to happen. The law is in the stage of presentation: The Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge presented the project a long time ago; then came the stage of hearings, in which the political groups and experts give their opinion; then the phase of amendments, all the political groups have tabled the amendments they have wanted; now it is in the stage of presentation. In the discussion stage, the political parties are joining a committee negotiating the amendments tabled to the original text. The negotiation of Article 8 and the additional provision is now closed. There were parties, including the PNV, which had introduced amendments not to ban farms, but they did not thrive.

The PNV still has one last chance: to bring these amendments to the plenary of Parliament, in exchange for voting in favour of them being accepted in the last-minute candies or in the rare negotiations. But for that, their votes have to be decisive, and today there is a majority to move the project forward without the support of the PNV. For a PSOE-Podemos, more independence, More Country, Conpromis... There is a majority to push the law as it stands.

Second: Some point out that a possible consequence of the political earthquake in the Community of Madrid is the advance of the general elections in the Spanish State. In that case, and if the Government changed, what would the law look like?

Everything would be cancelled. It would be difficult, however, according to the legislative timetable, this law should be in force before the summer holidays. It is true, on the other hand, that although the law was expected to be passed earlier, it has not yet been passed.

He says that, although the possibility of surprises is not ruled out in one way or another, it is very difficult for the Basque Government to exploit the Armentia-2 well and the Enara area. On the contrary, the presentation of this appeal has meant that the PNV has been involved in two conflicts. One within the party, between the Basque Government and the City Hall of Vitoria-Gasteiz. The other with the PSE, partner of government. In December the PSE voted against the survey in the Alavesa Parliament, leaving the PNV alone, in a decision that was considered historic. What is the logic or calculation of the PNV to keep trying?

And the PSE is not just a matter for the Member. The PSE also chose the City Hall of Vitoria-Gasteiz. We in the Basque Parliament have another initiative to put the well behind us, and that too will have to be decided. The PSE is often contradictory, but if this time it does not want to be very clear that the PNV is alone, at the autonomic level it will also be represented.

So?

I do not give him much credibility, but Arantza Tapia has said on more than one occasion that the Basque Government does not have 100% of the licence, that there are two other partners there, the Americans, suggesting that the government can have a patrimonial responsibility if it is delayed, that it can have an economic cost. Therefore, let others do so, that is to say, a law of Madrid, and so that responsibility is not ours. It has been used as an argument, but I do not believe it, because it is the law that says that if you are a partner and want to get out of the project, you have the opportunity for the other partners to take it up and move on. Can there be liability in case SHESA withdraws? We have called for all the agreements that have been signed so far, and there is nothing to be seen if there is nothing they have not shown.

The reasons may be two more for me. On the one hand, the closure around a project they have been defending for so many years. First they tried it through fracking: they had to be banished by the popular legislative initiative, by the conflict that had taken place, etc. But they continued with their projects. And now it's hard for them to give up on a project where they've used all the arguments, arguing it's essential. I do not rule out that.

The other possible reason is to say, before all the possible candies we have mentioned before, “just in case we will continue until the end and how in many policies carambola is a rare game, to see if there is luck.” I would not place much hope on that. If there's something else, it escapes.

Do you think that the issue of hydrocarbons creates significant tension between the PSOE and the PNV?

It's not easy to value. Is the PNV-PSE a topic capable of generating a large gap in the relationship? I wouldn't say that. It is clear that there are different positions in the CAV governing coalition. When Patxi López arrived at the Basque Government it was not a gas project, but he kept it. Subsequently, the position of the PSOE has been decoupled from hydrocarbons, especially in Madrid, where the Minister for the Energy Transition, Teresa Rivera, and the green lobby have a level of power and have influenced the PSE. This creates discomfort in the CAV Government, which is evident in parliamentary debates. Since the last legislature the PSE has said that it is not a priority bet for him, but "loyalty to the government", he said to me in the Basque Parliament Natalia Rojo of the PSE.

In the government agreements it is clear that there are a few issues, two or three, in which it is agreed that the speech of each party and also the vote will be different. The clearest example is that of a new statute. What wear will a substance like this produce? At least I do not think it is decisive.