Navitas Resourcing Group’s Post

🌍💡 US government announce $850m in grants 💡🌍   It’s brilliant to see the US government's commitment to reducing #methaneemissions with the new $850 million grant programme. This initiative offers a significant step towards a #sustainable future and could provide vital funding to support businesses to invest in suitable infrastructure.   Retrofitting existing #valves has the potential to drastically reduce emissions and is an often-overlooked solution. Our advanced leak-proof valves have been engineered to remove the common pathway for leaks which will help the #oilandgas industry meet and exceed the stringent new methane regulations, ensuring both environmental compliance and #operationalefficiency.   Find out more about the ES valve here: https://lnkd.in/djxweac6   #methane #emissions #cleanenergy Jodie Ross Chris Kennell US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reuters https://lnkd.in/d8yB9ueC

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON OIL DRILLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS On 20 June 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the case of - R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and others (Respondents). By a majority of 3-2, (in a case which had divided judicial opinion all the way up the line from the Court of First Instance), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and HELD that in applying an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to a proposed development of a new onshore oilfield, the relevant authority had to take into account of, as indirect effects, the impacts of the combustion of the oil produced. The case will therefore have immediate and profound impacts on the assessment of future fossil fuel production projects in the UK, and possibly elsewhere. Introducing the Court’s majority opinion, Lord Leggatt said – “ Anyone interested in the future of our planet is aware by now of the impact on its climate of burning fossil fuels - chiefly oil, coal and gas. When fossil fuels are burnt, they release carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” - so called because they act like a greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and causing global surface temperatures to rise…. ... It is agreed that the project under consideration involves the extraction of oil for commercial purposes for a period estimated at 20 years in quantities sufficient to make an EIA mandatory. It is also agreed that it is not merely likely, but inevitable, that the oil extracted will be sent to refineries and that the refined oil will eventually undergo combustion, which will produce GHG emissions. It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate. The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are. “ The Court’s full judgement can be found here (for those without the time to read 100 pages, paragraphs 1-7 are a helpful summary) - https://lnkd.in/emQbX2zE The Borrowed Earth Project Istituto Analisi Relazioni Internazionali YOUNGO Mock COP

An interesting statement from the Science Based Targets Initiative(SBTi). - Its always good to see the recognition for carbon offsetting as only a part of the solution, subject to a company's demonstrated mitigation hierarchy. - The potential for accelerated decarbonisation of supply chains, through 'compensation logic' needs some demonstrating for farmers and landowners, who are rightly nervous, with the uncertainty. - Props to SBTI for knowing its limits, and recognising when other parties can provide expertise and support delivery. We need to develop the best standards, not the most different labels. I am looking forward to seeing their future rules and guardrails, I hope they can help provide some certainty. #netzero #carbonsequestration #soilcarbon #carbonoffsetting #soilcarbon

https://lnkd.in/dSyZ7Pkp The UK Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgement today stating that the downstream effects of burning fossil fuels (greenhouse gas emissions) should be considered by local authorities when granting permission for drilling sites, and not just the narrow impact of extracting it. The ruling is being heralded as a win for the climate. #ESG #litigation

The Supreme Court concluded the environmental impact of emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered in planning applications for new extraction projects - not just the impacts of the emissions produced in extracting them ... In his judgement, Lord Leggatt concluded: "In my view, there was no basis on which the council could reasonably decide that it was not necessary to assess the combustion emissions." ... The court did not conclude that fossil fuel emissions were unlawful, only that they must be considered in an environmental impact assessment (EIA) - a tool used in the planning process to assess the effects of a project on the environment ... https://lnkd.in/dWDqzgRT

By a three-to-two majority, the Supreme Court allows the appeal and holds that the council’s decision was unlawful because the emissions that will occur when the oil produced is burnt as fuel are within the scope of the EIA required by law. It is an agreed fact that, if the project goes ahead, it is not merely likely but inevitable that the oil produced from the well site will be refined and, as an end product, will eventually undergo combustion, and that that combustion will produce greenhouse gas emissions [45]. It is not disputed that these emissions will have a significant impact on climate. It is agreed that the amount of these emissions can be estimated using an established methodology; indeed, the council has provided such an estimate as part of its evidence in this case [81]. The issue is whether the combustion emissions constitute “direct or indirect … effects of the project” within the meaning of the EIA Directive and 2017 Regulations. If they are, they must be assessed as part of the EIA. The Supreme Court is unanimous in rejecting the view of the Court of Appeal that this question requires an evaluative judgment about whether there is a sufficient causal connection between the extraction of the oil and its eventual combustion, on which different planning authorities could reasonably take opposite views. It is unreasonable to interpret the EIA Directive in a way that treats inconsistent answers to the question whether the combustion emissions are “effects of the project” as equally valid [59]–[60], [321]–[325]. The majority of the Court considers this question to be one of causation to which, on the agreed facts, only one answer can reasonably be given. The emissions that will occur on combustion of the oil produced are “effects of the project” because it is known with certainty that, if the project goes ahead, all the oil extracted from the ground will inevitably be burnt thereby releasing greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere in a quantity which can readily be estimated [79]–[81]. [...] There is no element of conjecture about what will ultimately happen to the oil; refining the oil does not change it into a different type of object (unlike the incorporation of a part in a motor vehicle or aircraft); and a reasonable estimate can readily be made of the emissions that will occur upon its inevitable combustion [112]–[139]. Consequently, the council’s failure to assess the effect on climate of the combustion of the oil that would be produced from the proposed well site means that its decision to grant planning permission for the project was unlawful [174]. https://lnkd.in/eh5H5fes

OIL JUST STOPPED Implications of the Supreme Court Decision in Finch v. Surrey County Council By a 3:2 majority the Supreme Court has ruled that when carrying out an Environmental Impact Assessment, in this case for a proposed oil drilling, the 'downstream' impacts have to be considered in that assessment. For this, that has to include what is going to be done with the oil. It was agreed that much of it would be burned, so the climate impacts of that should have been considered at the application stage. As this hadn't been done the consent for the drilling was quashed, and a new broader EIA will have to be carried out before the decision can be revisited. The decision is extraordinary. First, it seemingly trespasses on Parliament's territory; oil consumption is lawful and this decision will do nothing to affect or limit that consumption, save that it will mean that some of the oil we use will have to travel further to get here. Restrictions on the use made of oil may indeed be necessary for combatting climate change, but that is surely a matter of policy for the legislature. Secondly, it is a massive extension of the ambit of EIA, and whilst climate campaigners will be celebrating, it will apply in any EIA (ie any substantial) development and no doubt provide very fertile ground for future argument before the courts as to what is and is not a 'downstream' effect, how that is to be measured and so on. Logically, housebuilders are for example now going to have to consider the climate impacts not just of building houses but also of the occupation of the houses they are building - and assess what they are. How much carbon is living in a house going to contribute, between heating, lighting, repairs, acquisition of gadgets, use of cars and other transport? Thirdly, it was a 3:2 decision following a 2:1 decision the other way in the court of appeal. Such a split is always unsatisfactory. In this case four lords of appeal agree with the decision and four disagree (and even then for different reasons), hardly a message of clarity on such an important matter. Lord Sales gave a powerfully dissenting judgment in the SC, one that we suspect will eventually prevail, though it is going to take Parliament to legislate for it to do so. In words which may come to be quoted often, and which he himself borrowed from a decision of the Irish Supreme Court, this 'open ended interpretation of article 3(1) would mean that there were “hardly any limits but the sky”' when it comes to needing to consider downstream effects. This comes at an inconvenient time for our incoming government; no major party wants to be seen to be anti-environment or pro-oil, but all are pro-growth and indeed their plans depend upon growth. This decision is firmly anti-growth; it will add complexity, cost, uncertainty and delay to any major project. Watch this space. The full decision can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eVr3azNN

Environmental and youth groups win climate court case 💚 "Three permits given by the Norwegian government to develop new offshore oil and gas fields were found to be invalid on Thursday because their environmental impact was not sufficiently assessed, in a ruling that could set a precedent for new fields." Read more https://lnkd.in/eu7_EmEd https://lnkd.in/exRN6unh #environment #sustainability #future #climatechange #energy #oilandgas #europe #norway

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed emission quantification process changes would have raised 2021 methane emissions by 130% and CO2e emissions by 41% in the upstream and gathering sectors. The addition of super-emitter events, and changes to equipment leaks, combustion slip and flaring efficiencies are the most impactful revisions that would particularly affect the Appalachian and Permian basins. The proposal could lead to more facilities exceeding the methane fee threshold in the future. The unit cost of the fee is low in aggregate but may lead to shut-ins for lower-producing, higher-emitting assets that will be disproportionately impacted. Overall, these changes will affect emission targets and we estimate it would have increased methane fee liabilities threefold to $2.9 billion, had the tax and proposal been in place in 2021.

EPA's new methane rule for the oil and gas industry is significant: it comes with an industry wide price tag (per EPA) of $22 to $31 billion over the period 2024-2038 and is expected to reduce methane emissions from the industry by around 80%. Our Client Update summarizes the key elements of the rule (as well as how they differ from current law and the proposed versions of the rule) and gives our thoughts on how the rule will impact industry beyond EPA's topline numbers, interplay of the rule with the upcoming "methane fee" under the Inflation Reduction Act and likely legal and political challenges.