Uisdean VassUisdean Vass, Managing Director at VassPetro Limited. Petroleum Law Specialists

Nearly two weeks ago, the UK Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in Finch v Surrey County Council, which held that an oil company seeking approval for the development of an onshore oilfield of a certain size must state in its environmental impact assessment the total greenhouse gas emissions which arise from the "project", including those arising from the burning of the hydrocarbons (the latter being Scope 3 emissions), no matter where in the world these Scope 3 emissions may actually be generated. 

Taking into account the Scope 3 emissions data, the decision-maker (County Councils onshore) must "reach a conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment." The ruling also applies by extension to the UKCS, where the planning regulation is substantially in the same terms, albeit with two national regulators. 

Prior to Finch, it was settled law that oil companies only needed to list greenhouse gas emissions arising directly from the project. 

For reasons which I give in the linked article linked below "R (Finch on Behalf of Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council - Bad Law and Worse Policy", I respectfully argue that the reasoning of the majority in the Supreme Court is flawed. Additionally, as suggested by the dissenting opinion in Finch, the new process will be unworkable in some respects. However, Finch is now settled law and binding on the onshore and offshore oil industry. 

The policy implications of the decision are negative. Onshore, County Councils will be forced into making local planning decisions based on what should (or what they think should) be national energy policy. Results may vary from County Council to County Council. 

Offshore, the law is that licensees MUST carry out licence activities including exploration, appraisal and development so as to "maximise economic recovery" (MER) of offshore hydrocarbons. Licences often also contain mandatory work obligation commitments. The logic of Finch is that there may be instances where development approval for discoveries resulting from these offshore activities may not be forthcoming based on a consideration never once anticipated by the offshore MER regime. 

The holding in Finch should be overruled by new legislation. If not, it can, I suggest, be finessed by the type of guidance suggested in my article. 

A number of good friends from commercial, technical and legal backgrounds reviewed various drafts of this article and gave valuable input. I won't embarrass them by naming them. You know who you are! 

“R (Finch on Behalf of Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council – Bad Law and Worse Policy“

KeyFacts Energy Industry Directory: VassPetro