In January, Greenpeace and Nature and Youth won a crushing victory in their climate lawsuit against the state in the Oslo district court. The permits for three oil projects in the North Sea were known to be invalid. The court also decided that activity on the fields had to be put on hold until the case was finally decided in the court system – what is called a temporary injunction. But the work now continues without consequences, after several twists and turns in the case. Recently, the pumps started for the first time on one of the three disputed fields. Today, the parties are resuming the battle over only this question: must the oil projects be stopped? An illustration of Breidablikk, one of the three oil and gas projects that were declared invalid by the district court. Breidablikk started production in 2023. Photo: Equinor / Equinor What is at stake? The rest of the climate lawsuit continues later, in the Efta court in Luxemburg. Only the question of a temporary stop is now dealt with separately, in a separate court session. Both parties argue for potentially serious consequences if this does not go their way. – The Ministry of Energy’s view is that there is no basis for a temporary injunction, says Ingunn Solheim, communications officer at the Government Attorney. The state will argue thoroughly for this, she says. It is estimated that NOK 140 billion will be invested in the three oil and gas projects Breidablikk, Tyrving and Yggdrasil, writes lawyer Gøran Østerman Thengs in his final submission in the case. He conducts the case on behalf of the state. A possible stop would create challenges for operation and development, “with potentially large direct financial losses”. He further writes that the “societal consequences will be great”. Government attorney Gøran Østerman Thengs during the previous round in the climate lawsuit. Photo: Emilie Holtet / NTB The climate organizations fear that without a temporary halt, the oil fields will be developed at the same time as the legal process is ongoing. Frode Pleym in Greenpeace refers to calculations that the maximum emissions from these three fields correspond to the total emissions to Norway for 9.5 years. – As the climate experts say, this leads to large emissions that take human lives and have major natural consequences. – The state has shown zero willingness to respect the judgment from the Oslo District Court, and shows zero willingness to wait for a good and thorough appeal process in the Court of Appeal. That’s really all we ask for, says Pleym. Nature and youth compares the situation to the Fosen case: – When you get too far into the process, the authorities will not, for example, demolish these oil fields if they have already been developed. The threshold is too high, says Gytis Blaževičius, head of Nature and Youth. At the Greenpeace office, there is little doubt about what they think about the government’s climate policy. Photo: Milana Knezevic / news Repeal of coercion The case has taken several turns after the verdict was first handed down in January. The state appealed, and in May the Court of Appeal concluded that there are shortcomings in the District Court’s decision. Therefore, they lifted the coercive force of the order, until the case will now go to court again. – This means that right now it does not apply. Thus, the Ministry of Energy can process questions about these three fields in the usual way, says Ingunn Solheim, at the Government Attorney. The climate organisations, for their part, point out that the ban has not been lifted. – It is the coercive force that has been lifted, not the ban itself. And it is the state’s active choice to defy the ban by granting new permits and starting production, says Pleym. New field opened just before the court session news has asked the Ministry of Energy for an overview of all permits that have been granted to these three projects since the compulsory power was lifted in May. We did not receive this, and were referred to the various directorates involved in the work. According to Greenpeace’s own count, 13 permits have been granted since their victory in the district court in January. Greenpeace keeps a separate record of permits which they believe should not have been granted in the three oil projects. Photo: Milana Knezevic / news Yesterday, Aker informed BP that they have started production at Tyrving, around half a year ahead of schedule. Rude, says Pleym. – Here, there are two parties who are doing something they shouldn’t be doing. Aker BP should not have wanted to speed up the start-up of the oil field. And the state should not allow it. Aker BP tells news that they have all the necessary permits, and are also not a party to the case. An illustration of the Tyrving field, which has now started production. Photo: Aker BP / Aker BP The Ministry of Energy says licensees can start production from a field when development is complete and all permits are in place. – There is nothing in the regulations that means that the licensee must apply to the ministry to start up earlier than the assumed start of production in the approved development plan, writes communications advisor Jo Henrik Jarstø in an e-mail to news. Published 04/09/2024, at 07.35
ttn-69
“Potentially large direct economic losses” – news – Klima
