Our victory in the Supreme Court last June (Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group v. Surrey County Council) has had far-reaching results for the UK fossil fuel sector.
Within weeks of the Judgment, the impacts began to be seen at other sites. One of the first was Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire. On 11 July 2024, the government and the oil company, Egdon Resources, conceded a High Court challenge against oil production there. As in the ‘Finch’ case, the carbon emissions from the use of the oil had not been taken into account when planning permission was granted on appeal.
Now the case has gone back to the Planning Inspectorate for redetermination. This will be the first time an application for fossil fuel production will be considered following the landmark Supreme Court judgment.
The oil company at Biscathorpe, Egdon Resources, has submitted a ten-page addendum to its Environmental Statement covering an assessment of the climate impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions that would arise when the oil from Biscathorpe is burned. They assume that all the oil will be used within the UK, and assess this against the UK’s Carbon Budgets. They conclude that “the projected emissions are not of a magnitude that could materially affect the attainment of the UK Carbon Budgets over the 15 year operational life of the Biscathorpe wellsite. Consequently, the effects of the proposed development on climate change would not be significant.”
Egdon Resources has also submitted an independent review of this Addendum written by – in an ironic twist – Surrey County Council’s in-house EIA expert, Dr Jessica Salder. Dr Salder agrees with their conclusion that the downstream GHG emissions would not be significant.
These documents are out for consultation, with a closing date of 12 February.
You can find the documents on Lincolnshire County Council’s planning portal here: https://lincolnshire.planning-register.co.uk/Appeals/Display/N/059/00510/21 (You will have to agree Terms and Conditions before you can access the page.)
It is important that the Planning Inspector properly weighs up the true climate harm when considering whether to allow oil production at Biscathorpe. In our view, simply comparing the projected volume of emissions with the UK Carbon Budgets is not sufficient.
The government is currently rewriting its guidance on how to assess the scope three emissions of new offshore oil and gas projects, and will not give consent to any new offshore fields until this concludes. Unfortunately, this does not apply to onshore fields, though the climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are no different depending on where the fuel was extracted. We responded to the government’s consultation on the new guidance. Everything we said about assessing impacts of offshore oil and gas fields applies equally to onshore ones.
ALL extraction of oil and the eventual burning of any of it would be significant, by releasing harmful GHG into the atmosphere. The magnitude of emissions is irrelevant.
Would you like the government’s new guidance on how to assess the scope three emissions of new offshore oil and gas projects be extended to also cover imports of oil and gas?
Would not extending the assessment requirement to also cover imports, not leave a gaping hole in the overall assessment and, in turn, not make something of a mockery of the requirement to assess just the UK’s oil and gas production?