Oceana UK leads a legal case against the government’s issuance of exploration licences, arguing they were granted without proper environmental assessments.
The UK government is facing a significant legal challenge from environmental campaigners regarding the validity of 31 oil and gas exploration licences granted in the North Sea. The case, which is set to be heard at the High Court, is led by Oceana UK, an international conservation organisation, and targets the licences awarded last May under the previous Conservative administration.
The Labour government, which assumed power in July, has chosen to defend these licences despite its manifesto commitment to not issue new licences for exploration. Current discussions within the government focus on managing existing licences while aligning with Labour’s environmental goals.
Hugo Tagholm, executive director of Oceana, expressed optimism that the case might influence Labour’s position on existing licences. He stated, “This is protecting nature to protect future prosperity, future industry.” Oceana contends that the government failed to adequately consider the potential climate and environmental impacts on marine protected areas when granting these licences.
Central to Oceana’s argument is the assertion that the approval process for the exploration licences was unlawful as it did not fully evaluate the risks of oil spills and other environmental impacts associated with climate change. This claim is informed by a recent Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Finch, which determined that regulators need to account for the climate implications of fossil fuel extraction in their environmental assessments.
The pertinent licences were issued by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) and followed assessments made by the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED). Oceana highlights that these assessments did not adequately take into consideration the advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which raised concerns about the potential harm to marine environments and confirmed that exploration could exacerbate climate change.
Desnz – the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero – along with NSTA, stated they could not comment on ongoing legal matters. However, individuals close to NSTA indicated that licences were granted only after thorough evaluations of potential adverse effects were conducted. Perenco, one of the companies involved, reaffirmed its commitment to adhering to environmental regulations during operations, while TotalEnergies and Ineos did not provide comments at this time.
Oceana’s case coincides with echoing sentiments within the Labour Party regarding its approach to energy and environmental policy. Notably, Labour’s current stance diverges from its previous decision not to contest the development of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields, both of which faced scrutiny earlier this year after Scotland’s top civil court ruled their consent had been granted unlawfully.
As the UK navigates its energy transition, the implications of this legal challenge extend beyond the operations of individual companies; they resonate through the broader context of the country’s energy policy and its dual commitment to economic viability and environmental stewardship.
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive our newsletter
