UK Oil and Gas continues drilling at Horse Hill, Surrey, despite a Supreme Court ruling that revoked its planning permission for poor environmental impact assessments, according to the Times.
This situation highlights how companies exploit enforcement gaps and benefit from shallow assessments. Sarah Finch, an environmental campaigner with the Weald Action Group, and her advocacy resulted in the Supreme Court's June decision to revoke approval. This decision sets a precedent for comprehensive assessments that account for total environmental impacts.
What's happening?
UKOG unlawfully continued operations after the ruling, which ended its planning permission. The company has been going unchecked during necessary enforcement periods, which brings attention to the issue of unregulated projects.
Finch said the environmental impact assessment for the project should have also considered the pollution from burning the extracted oil, not just the direct impact of its extraction.
In July 2023, UKOG's oil production reached 152 tons, surpassing pre-ruling levels and raising concerns about Supreme Court enforcement and industry practices. Though UKOG is seeking retrospective planning approval — or adjusting plans to mitigate public upset — the council has labeled production as unlawful.
Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer for the campaign group Friends of the Earth said: "It's hard to view this as anything other than a developer gaming the planning system."
Why does this matter?
There is an ongoing conflict between the oil and gas sector and climate accountability, which exposes weak points: Government agencies lack follow-through with businesses, and impact assessments are insufficient. If similar cases continue without consistent enforcement, pollution from unchecked big oil developments could amount to millions of tons of air pollution. The jump would contribute significantly to habitat loss and other weather events.
The Horse Hill case is part of a larger pattern of how some big oil companies manage accountability. Corporate-backed initiatives, like Exxon Mobil's carbon capture plan and BP's carbon offset initiatives, prioritize public image over real climate action and relate to the culture of insufficient follow-through with businesses.
It's necessary to enforce mandatory compliance checks, penalties for ignoring rulings, and company disclosure about its adherence.
What can be done about it?
Enforcing climate rulings can pause or cancel projects that fail to comply with environmental standards, and companies can see positive outcomes when prioritizing modern environmental standards.
For example, Mars, Inc. significantly cut its pollution output and improved its brand reputation through sustainability initiatives, proving that enforcing environmental policies can lead to both ecological and financial benefits.
Ensuring consistent enforcement through impact assessments and mandatory follow-up assessments benefits the environment, modernizes businesses, and supports climate goals.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Cool Picks
