Greenpeace loses legal bid to revoke BP's Vorlich oil permit

The UK Government’s lawyers argued that emissions from burning oil extracted from crude fields are “not relevant” when granting a permit.

The case, heard in the Court of Session, centred on the Vorlich oil field in the North Sea, owned by BP and Ithaca Energy, and which has been operating for around nine months.

We previously told how BP were fined a five-figure sum by a government watchdog for breaching licence conditions in the Vorlich field. 

Environmental campaigners brought the case to court arguing a “myriad of failures” in the public consultation ahead of the permit being granted meant they were denied a “clear, timely process for challenging decisions”.

However, in his written judgement, Lord Carloway, the Lord President, rejected the group's arguments as “overwhelmingly technical and unconvincing” and said the matter was a “political and not a legal one”.

READ MORE: Alister Jack accused of 'rewriting Good Friday Agreement' with border poll comments

Greenpeace has said it intends to appeal against the ruling in the Supreme Court.

It comes just weeks before the UK Government is due to host COP26 in Glasgow.

Lawyers on behalf of Greenpeace argued that BP did not clearly pubilicise their Environmental Statement (ES) or signpost where objections and submissions could be made.

BP admitted they had failed to publish the application for drilling permission alongside the ES on its website, omitting the location of the field and the cut-off date for representations from interested parties.

However, as the notice was printed in The Telegraph, the Press and Journal, and online, the claim was rejected as Carloway said there was “sufficient publicity”, and added that the subsequent missing information would be easy to find.

He added that Greenpeace, as a “leading environmental watchdog, ought to have been well aware of the legal mechanisms available in order to mount a challenge”.

Greenpeace have said they will challenge the decision in the Supreme Court ©Greenpeace

The campaigners argued that when the application for drilling consent was issued they would have wanted to make representations on issues such as the “failure to assess climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions”.

Carloway also found that consumption of oil and gas do not constitute “significant effects” of the project.

In his written judgement, Carloway said: “It is the effect of the project, and its operation, that is to be considered and not that of the consumption of any retailed product ultimately emerging as a result of a refinement of the raw material.

“It would not be practicable, in an assessment of the environmental effects of a project for the extraction of fossil fuels, for the decision-maker to conduct a wide-ranging examination into the effects, local or global, of the use of that fuel by the final consumer.”

He added that although Greenpeace’s aim is for the extraction of oil to stop, they did not challenge that the UK economy is still reliant on oil and gas “in a number of different ways”, referencing the recent shortage of oil and gas supplies.

READ MORE: BBC denies Laura Kuenssberg and Michael Gove had 'rap battle' at Tory conference

Carloway continued: “It is not maintained that the exploitation of the Vorlich field would increase, or even maintain, the current level of consumption.

“Unless it did so, it is difficult to argue that it would have any material effect on climate change; even if it is possible to arrive at a figure for its contribution by arithmetical calculation relative to the production of oil and gas overall.

“The Secretary of State’s submission that these are matters for decision at a relatively high level of Government, rather than either by the court or in relation to one oilfield project, is correct. The issue is essentially a political and not a legal one.”

John Sauven, Greenpeace UK executive director, said: "The government is celebrating a win for the fossil fuel industry after its lawyers argued in court that emissions from burning oil extracted by BP are ‘not relevant’ when granting an oil permit.

Greenpeace criticised the Prime Minister (centre) ahead of COP26

"And now the Prime Minister is poised to sign off even more oil if he approves a new oil field at Cambo - against official guidance from climate experts.

"In just a few weeks’ time, Boris Johnson will be opening global climate talks where his actions, not his words, will be what counts.

"And right now his actions are covered in oil.

“We will not give up the fight for the climate. Our intention is to appeal this ruling before the Supreme Court.”

A UK Government spokesperson said: “We welcome today’s judgment which upholds the environmental decisions made by the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning.

“While we are working hard to drive down demand for fossil fuels, there will continue to be ongoing demand for oil and gas over the coming years as we transition to lower carbon, more secure forms of energy generated in this country.”

You can read the full Court of Session judgement by Lord Carloway here. 

The ruling may have implications for the Cambo oil field, 125km off the north west coast of Shetland, which is awaiting permission to begin drilling.

We recently told how the UK Government accepted it had powers to stop the controversial field from going into development, after a legal challenge brought by campaigners.