Challenge to oil drilling expansion plans

We were instructed by Friends of the Earth, an intervening party in the Supreme Court  proceedings regarding a decision by the Defendant to permit commercial exploitation at an onshore oil well site. The issue in question was whether the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) needed to incorporate an assessment of the impacts of the downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the oil extracted.

Sarah Finch brought a Judicial Review on behalf of Weald Action Group against the 2019 decision of Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for the expansion of an existing oil well site. The site would increase in size from 2 to 6 wells and involve the extraction of crude oil for commercial purposes. The case was dismissed in the High Court (2020).  In the Court of Appeal (2021), two Justices upheld the appeal over the dissenting judgment of another.  The Supreme Court granted permission for the appeal to be heard in June 2023.

An EIA was produced for the development and included an assessment of the direct GHG emissions associated with the extraction of the crude oil (i.e. emissions from drilling operations at the well site), however omitted the GHG emissions associated with the use of the oil after the oil had been sold.

We represented Friends of the Earth in the Supreme Court, instructing Paul Brown KC and Nina Pindham as counsel.  Friends of the Earth’s submissions included that:

• The EIA Regulations were clearly drawn broadly, seeking to capture any “indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects”
• It is inherent in the terminology “indirect” and “secondary” that the effect is separated from the development for which permission is sought e.g. by some other, intermediate step
• It is therefore incorrect (as the lower courts did) to determine that intervening processes should mean that an effect should not be assessed, especially in this case where all parties accepted that the carbon emissions from the end use of the oil and gas was “inevitable”
• Extensive international jurisprudence demonstrate the feasibility of assessing such ‘downstream’ emissions and are highly persuasive as to whether downstream emissions are indirect effects for the purpose of EIA in this country

The Supreme Court  judgement is expected later this year.