THE UK Government is being taken to court over its decision to grant 31 oil and gas licences.
Oceana, the world's largest ocean conservation campaign group, is arguing that the UK Government failed to assess the environmental risks associated with the licences before making its decision.
The case will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Wednesday, where a protest will also take place.
The licences were issued by the Conservative government in 2024 and extend over 9413 km squared of UK waters – approximately half the size of Wales. The current Labour Government has previously said it is against granting new oil and gas licences.
Oceana has raised concerns that the licences put marine protected areas (MPAs) at risk, and has called on the UK Government to reverse them.
Over two thirds of the licences (21 of 31) are inside designated MPAs which are home to wildlife such as harbour porpoise, grey seals and puffins.
The UK Government did not assess the risk of oil spills inside MPAs when granting these licences, despite an investigation by Oceana which found that there were more than two oil or chemical spills every day last year from oil and gas developments in UK waters, which resulted in more than 82,000kg of oil spilling into the sea.
As well as direct damage to marine species and habitats, oil and gas exploration involves seismic airgun surveys which emit loud noises that can affect marine life – by disrupting mating and feeding and can lead to strandings and death.
Oceana is set to argue that the licences will lead to severe impacts on protected marine habitats, which have not been taken into account by the UK Government.
The group will say that granting the licences while "overruling the environmental consequences" is "unlawful" and "short-sighted", ultimately despoiling habitats and betraying communities.
Oceana has instead called on the UK Government to invest in renewable energy instead of defending these licences, to "lower household bills and increase energy security".
Naomi Tilley, campaign lead for Oceana UK, said: “Today in court we will see government lawyers sit down on the side of Big Oil, and in opposition to those who represent the ocean, nature, and our collective future.
“Labour has made a welcome commitment to ending new oil and gas licences and to building a future powered by clean, reliable sources of energy. They now need to hold true to that and choose the right side of history.
“The steady drip-feed of pollution from oil and gas developments has well-documented and severe impacts on marine wildlife ranging from cancers to stillbirths, and across species from porpoises to cod. This is on top of the pressures of the climate crisis.
“We need to prioritise thriving seas and flourishing communities over short-term profits and greed.”
Meanwhile, Dr Daria Shapovalova, senior lecturer in energy law at Aberdeen University, said: “It is paramount that decisions on oil and gas licensing and developments are made in accordance with the regulations and with full understanding of the impact they may have on the environment.
“These rules are designed to ensure our most important and vulnerable wildlife and habitats get the protection they need.”
Rosebank case sets precedent
Cases such as the recent quashing of the Rosebank oil field approval have set a "precedent" for Oceana's hearing, the law firm behind the case has told The National.
The need for environmental impact assessments to account for emissions caused by burning the fossil fuels extracted was first established by the Finch ruling last year.
Since then, numerous judgements have now been decided based on this ruling, including in the case of Rosebank.
In January, a judge upheld a legal challenge by environmental campaigners Uplift and Greenpeace against the decision to grant consent to the new Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
The Court of Session ruled that the decision to grant consent was unlawful because environmental impact assessments did not take into account downstream emissions resulting from the burning of the extracted fuels., ruled that the consent should be “reduced” (quashed) and reconsidered.
Carol Day, senior environmental solicitor at Leigh Day, the law firm representing Oceana, told The National that having case law such as the Rosebank decision meant that undergoing environmental impact assessments was no longer just "a possibility", but something that the UK Government must undertake.
Day said: "That is something that the Government is required to do. It does make a big difference.
"There are greenhouse gas emissions that could arise from the exploratory stage, and they [the UK Government] know how big the reserves are as well, they can calculate that figure for downstreaming [emission] issues.
"It should be done now."
