The arguments at the centre of a landmark legal challenge to UK onshore oil production have secured a separate historic court win against the Norwegian government.
Photo: DrillOrDrop
Environmentalist Sarah Finch took a case to the UK Supreme Court against oil extraction at the UKOG site at Horse Hill near Horley in Surrey.
Her challenge, heard in June 2023 and still to be decided, argued that permission for long-term production at Horse Hill was unlawful because it failed to take into account the climate effects of burning the extracted oil.
Last week, two Norwegian campaign groups won a separate case against their government on the same issue.
Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway) argued successfully that approvals of three new oil and gas fields in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea were invalid.
Work on the Breidablikk, Yggdrasil and Tyrving oil and gas fields must be stopped immediately after a ruling by the district court of Oslo.
Sarah Finch said today:
“I am hugely encouraged by the result of this important case. It’s great to know that a judge has considered the arguments on future emissions from combustion of fuels – and concluded that these must be part of the assessment process for new oil and gas developments.
“The UK Supreme Court judges are examining the same issue right now in relation to the Horse Hill case and I hope they will reach the same conclusion.
“Meanwhile, the Norwegian judgment is a clear indication of the direction of travel on this vital issue. And best of all, it means that millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases will be prevented from going into the atmosphere and making our future worse.”
The two challenges centred on the failure to take account of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of oil and gas, known as combustion, indirect or scope 3 emissions.
Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for Horse Hill and Breidablikk did not consider these combustion emissions from the oil produced. The assessment of the global climate impact of Yggdrasil and Tyrving were described by Greenpeace Nordic as “highly inadequate”.
In both cases, the campaigners argued that failure to assess the full climate impact of the fields did not meet the obligations required under the EIA regulations.
Their opponents argued that combustion emissions were not effects of a development and did not need to be considered in the EIA.
The Horse Hill case is a pivotal legal challenge in the UK.
It is likely to set a precedent for future domestic fossil fuel projects and could be critical to limits on carbon emissions and temperature rise. If it succeeds, it could be used to challenge whether the UK government was right to approve a new coal mine in Cumbria. A judgement in the Horse Hill case is expected early this year (2024).
The 188-page Norwegian judgement is regarded by campaigners as a major victory for the environment.
The court ruled that “combustion emissions from petroleum extraction are such a significant and particularly characteristic consequence of such projects that they must clearly be considered indirect climate impacts” within the meaning of the EIA regulations.
It said:
“The Court has concluded that there is a legal requirement that combustion emissions must be subject to an impact assessment.”
And that:
“the impact assessment must analyse the actual climate impacts of combustion emissions”.
The judge also confirmed that the Norwegian government violated legal precedent from the Norwegian Supreme Court by not subjecting combustion emissions to an environmental impact assessment.
Gytis Blazevicius, head of Natu rog Ungdom, said:
“With this judgement, millions of barrels of oil will remain in the ground.
“During the trial, the State tried to diminish the impact of the emissions Breidablikk, Tyrving and Yggdrasil would have globally. As confirmed by the court’s decision, emissions from the oil fields would have catastrophic effects on the global climate, on people and the planet.”
The Norwegian court ruling referred to Ms Finch’s case. It also said US law required an environmental impact assessment of combustion emissions for the Willow oil field in northern Alaska, carried out in January 2023. A ruling in the Australian courts recognised that combustion emissions from coal as indirect impacts of a development, the judgement added.
DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.
DRILL OR DROP? 
These campaigners need to go a get a job!
Brilliant riposte!
A fantastic win by the campaigners. A precedent setter that will effect planning decisions everywhere. A job well done.
Until it is reversed!
Hahaha…. Delusional! How’s you mate Gayzer Frackman John?
Here is one of the foremost experts on this planet giving evidence to a US Senate Hearing.
Please feel free to pick any points he makes and provide countering evidence.
My personal favourites in this is how he explains what NASA and the IPCC have done to the “real data”
Another which is brilliant is he explains where the phrase “97% of Scientists agree”, you’re going to love that one as it shows how easily you have been deceived and how manipulative they have been, with the help of the media.
But listen, you feel absolutely free to pay my taxes to “save the world” if you like!! 😂
A reminder of what the President of the USA and top NASA astronaut have to say on the subject of climate change. Start at 1-14-30 through to 1-21-30.
ELI-GOTH 🤣
Your not rolling out , Dr Don Easterbrook as your BIG GUN are you ??????
He’s made more wrong predictions than our friend MARTIN .
Just take a look.
https://www.desmog.com/don-easterbrook/
[Edited by moderator]
Except I haven’t made wrong predictions, Jack. Now, I think you are confused again with those who embrace propaganda Jack. Who would be the advocate of that on DoD??
Meanwhile, I note Mr.Musk has been making predictions that sales of his product will decline this year, China will be able to out compete and therefore he desires sanctions are put in place to assist him. Perhaps the real answer is to supply a competitive product?
I did smile at your PREDICTION that when the war is over “we” will all be friends again and buying Russian products. I would look at predictions with probability considered. Snowballs and hell come to mind-then, I have seen such propaganda many times before.
The President of the USA!!!?
OMG. Is that the one where the Russians say, “look, we can embalm our leaders when they die” and the USA reply, “but our technology is superior, we can do it when the “scientists” say ours is still living”?
Strange though that USA is on course to becoming the largest producer of oil and gas the world has ever seen. I would suggest some people actually look at what the reality is. Heaven knows how they manage when they get a ‘phone call from India about their credit cards!
Last time I checked the UK / England were not part of Norway and not subject to Norwegian Law?
Perhaps the UK Government will do a “Rwanda” and bring in a new law to overturn any judgement against them?
‘Perhaps the UK Government will do a “Rwanda”’
They have recently done this.
‘Joint declaration to promote bilateral strategic cooperation between the UK and Norway.’
‘Bilaterally, we will continue to engage closely on shared interests in defence, foreign policy and security, prosperity, trade and technology, energy, climate and environment, innovation, and culture. Regular dialogue and cooperation across all sectors will advance bilateral trade and investment as we move towards a Net Zero economy’
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-declaration-to-promote-bilateral-strategic-cooperation-between-the-uk-and-norway/joint-declaration-to-promote-bilateral-strategic-cooperation-between-the-uk-and-norway#Climate%20Change%20and%20Environmental%20Issues
“Strengthening our close and strategically important energy relationship, based around energy trade, climate change commitments, resource management of the North Sea Basin and our longstanding oil and gas relationship”
This would be the Norway that recently declared they would drill under every stone, using the energy requirement in Europe as their justification?
Governments make the law, courts apply it and interpret it. If they interpret it contrary to Government desires, then Government clarify/amend the law. Unless you live in USA where courts believe they make Governments.
As UK Government is currently passing legislation to clarify the position in the N.Sea, then “strategic co-operation” between the two would point in a certain direction-see my comment of 24th, 11.53am.
At least be thankful UK has no Arctic seas to exploit for rare minerals for the Net Zero Utopia, unlike Norway who intends to do exactly that. After they have eaten the whales! So, will UK be doing both? Look out UK beavers-they shoot them in Norway.
Lovely people the Norwegians, but they do value their independence in many areas, as the EU have discovered. Looks as if UK wish to get their paws on some of their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Maybe “we” will, maybe “we” will be told, “make your own, Norway has already provided the blueprint”.