As long as the government and companies try to manipulate procedures, ignore facts, and follow a strategy of fait accompli, lawsuits will remain inevitable.
Dries Verhaeghe, Director of Dryade
Ineos CEO Jim Ratcliffe organised a press visit on Tuesday to the ethane cracker under construction in the Port of Antwerp. Unlike the visit in 2022, there was no celebratory atmosphere this time. Ratcliffe stated that he would not choose Antwerp again if he were to start over. He mentioned, among other things, the forced standstill due to permitting issues that has cost hundreds of millions.
Ineos Project One, as the project for the construction of the ethane cracker is called, was granted its fifth permit in January 2025. The opposing party was a coalition of NGOs, led by ClientEarth, and initially also the Dutch provinces of Zeeland and North Brabant.
The first permit was annulled because the environmental impact report was incomplete. The second permit was annulled at the request of the Dutch provinces due to nitrogen issues. The third permit was withdrawn by the permitting authority itself, after which a fourth permit was immediately granted under the newly enacted, more favourable Nitrogen Decree. Finally, a fifth permit was applied for and obtained although the fourth permit was still valid.
Creating a fait accompli
The forced standstill that Ratcliffe refers to concerns the period between the revocation of a permit and the issuance of a new permit. During that period, construction could not take place. Once Ineos received a new permit, the site resumed operations. It took about a year before that permit was revoked again. That Ineos dared to build while the permit was being contested illustrates the close cooperation with the Flemish government. They tried to create a fait accompli together: once the ethane cracker is in place, a judge will likely not dare to halt it.
In that strategy, Ineos had no complaints about a lack of cooperation from the permitting authorities, particularly the province of Antwerp and the Flemish Region. They did everything possible to make this strategy succeed and granted permits that they knew would not withstand judicial scrutiny. In the meantime, Ineos was able to build for another year.
One cracker, two permits
A government that unilaterally revokes an existing permit and issues a new one with a more favourable legal framework? Impossible for the Flemish SME or ordinary citizen, but for Ineos Project One, it is possible. Moreover, the ethane cracker now even has two permits. If the fourth permit were to be revoked, Ineos can continue building undisturbed under the fifth permit. It is as if you had two driving licences. If the judge revokes the first driving licence due to a traffic violation, you can simply continue driving with the second driving licence.
In the meantime, the Flemish Government went to the Netherlands and reached an agreement there. No one knows exactly what the Flemish Government promised, but the Dutch resistance has been broken and the provinces of Zeeland and Flemish Brabant have halted their procedures.
No more nitrogen space
The NGOs will continue the fight. Their procedures focus on climate and nitrogen. The problem for Ineos and the Flemish government is that too many greenhouse gases and nitrogen are being emitted today. The objectives of the Paris Agreement are not being met and the nitrogen basin is full. There is no environmental usage space to add a cracker in the Port of Antwerp. But that does not concern our government, the ethane cracker will come at all costs.
CEO Ratcliffe can complain about the hundreds of millions he lost, but lawsuits will continue to be filed as long as the government and businesses manipulate procedures, ignore facts, and follow the strategy of fait accompli.