Latest News

Environmental activists win landmark ruling over UK oil well strategy

A regional authority needs to have considered the longterm climate effect of onshore oil wells when it approved them preparing authorization, the UK Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that might hugely impact any future fossil fuel developments.

Environmental advocates had argued that planning permission for the retention and expansion of an oil well site in southern England was flawed due to the fact that it had just thought about the direct impact of the development, and not the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of the drawn out oil.

Judges on the UK's leading court agreed by a narrow 3 to 2 bulk, stating the planning approval was illegal due to the fact that the later emissions ought to have been considered in an Environmental Effect Evaluation (EIA).

It is not contested that these emissions, which can quickly be measured, will have a considerable impact on climate, said George Leggatt, one of the 3 Supreme Court justices who agreed with the appeal.

The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are impacts of the job at all. It appears to me plain that they are.

Ahead of the ruling, campaigners said, if they won, the landmark judgment would make it much harder for new oil, gas and coal developments to get approval, and other questionable plans would be impacted.

It is incredibly difficult to overemphasize the significance of this case, said Sam Fowles, preparation and environment law professional at Foundation Barristers. ( It) might be the beginning of the end of new nonrenewable fuel source extraction in the UK.

In 2019, Surrey County Council permitted for Horse Hill Developments, part owned by British energy company UK Oil &&. Gas Plc, to maintain two oil wells and drill 4 more over more. than 20 years near the town of Horley, near London's Gatwick. Airport.

An EIA for the task analyzed the impact of the. construction, production and decommissioning of the site however did. not examine the downstream impact from emissions that would. result from using the oil when it was later on improved and. used, for instance as fuel.

The Weald Action Group (WAG), an umbrella organisation for. local groups that project versus the extraction of oil and gas. in southeast England, estimated this would correspond to more than. 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions.

A campaigner acting for WAG introduced a legal challenge. versus the planning approval, but this was turned down both by the. High Court in London and then by the Court of Appeal which ruled. had the council had actually not acted unlawfully which it was for. government to decide on the making of policy.

In my view, there was no basis on which the council could. fairly choose it was unneeded to assess the combustion. emissions, Leggatt stated in his Supreme Court judgment.

(source: Reuters)