North Sea Oil Drilling Under Threat from Court’s Climate Change Decision, By Richard Miller (London)
At first it looked like the decision in Switzerland that a group of ageing boomer women were adversely affected by climate change, and the government needed to move quickly to zero net carbon emissions, was just an isolated decision. But, woke has penetrated deeply into the judicial system.
Now a decision by the UK Supreme Court has threatened the future of Britain's oil and gas industry, via future North Sea oil drilling. The Supreme Court held that emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered when approving new drilling sites. Ashley Kelty, an oil and gas market analyst at Panmure Gordon, said: "This ruling is utter lunacy and is indicative of the ignorance around net zero and the practical implications.
"I fear for UK energy security as Labour are far more likely to follow stupid measures such as this and actively endeavour to shut down the North Sea."
This decision does need to be viewed in the context of a woke Labour Party set to take over the UK and bring new levels of havoc to an already decaying society. Perhaps World War III may change things, by eliminating woke, one way or another.
"The future of Britain's oil and gas industry has been thrown into doubt after a landmark decision by the Supreme Court.
The court ruled on Thursday that emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered when approving new drilling sites.
It is the latest development in the case brought by Sarah Finch, a Surrey resident who challenged the local council's decision to allow the expansion of an oil site at Horse Hill in 2019.
Ms Finch, acting on behalf of Weald Action Group, argued that the environmental impact assessment had only considered emissions from the extraction of oil – and wrongly ignored those produced when the oil was burned.
The Supreme Court has sided with her, handing down a decision that has huge implications for the entire UK oil and gas industry.
Legal experts say the decision could influence the way in which new fossil fuel projects are assessed in the UK, forcing planning officials and energy companies to justify emissions generated by oil and gas.
Tom Cummins, partner at law firm Ashurst, said: "Oil and gas companies will be working through the judgment to assess to what extent it affects future projects in the UK, and existing challenges before the courts, which had been stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision."
Ashley Kelty, an oil and gas market analyst at Panmure Gordon, said: "This ruling is utter lunacy and is indicative of the ignorance around net zero and the practical implications.
"I fear for UK energy security as Labour are far more likely to follow stupid measures such as this and actively endeavour to shut down the North Sea."
Ms Finch triumphed at the Supreme Court after her case was dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Surrey County Council had sought to challenge her case on the basis that the law did not require it to consider "downstream" emissions as part of the assessment.
Lawyers for the council claimed Ms Finch's approach was "misguided" and that the environmental assessment considered the impact of "direct" greenhouse gas releases.
In its decision on Thursday, Supreme Court justices ruled three-to-two in favour of allowing her appeal. In doing so, they also overturned the decision to grant planning permission for the Horse Hill drilling site.
In his judgement, Lord Leggatt said "it seems to me plain" that emissions created by burning oil extracted at the site "are effects of the project", and as a result "it follows that the council's decision was unlawful".
'Demonstrably flawed'In a ruling backed by Lord Kitchin and Lady Rose, he said: "The reasons accepted by the council for excluding the combustion emissions from consideration and assessing only direct greenhouse gas emissions from within the well site boundary are therefore demonstrably flawed."
"In my view, there was no basis on which the council could reasonably decide that it was unnecessary to assess the combustion emissions."
The Supreme Court's decision is also likely to set a precedent for similar legal challenges against Shell's Jackdaw project and Equinor's Rosebank development.
Following the decision, Ms Finch said: I am absolutely over the moon to have won this important case. The Weald Action Group has always believed it was wrong to allow oil production without assessing its full climate impacts, and the Supreme Court has shown we were right.
"This is a welcome step towards a safer, fairer future. The oil and gas companies may act like 'business as usual' is still an option, but it will be very hard for planning authorities to permit new fossil fuel developments – in the Weald, the North Sea or anywhere else – when their true climate impact is clear for all to see."
Comments