Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jake Rickman" data-source="post: 146405" data-attributes="member: 8521">Hey Alex, I think you raise some good points. I suspect you're right that environmental campaign groups will see how they can challenge the government's decision. However, it is not readily apparent to me on what grounds they may do so... Are there express restrictions on the ability of the government to permit further hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation in the North Sea? I would be surprised if that's the case. (Though I must confess I do not know that legal specifics surrounding the 2030 and 2050 climate targets...). I suppose that the threat of future challenges as to the authority of the government to grant further licenses would be material risk to businesses that obtain these licenses and commence exploration and extraction activities. I personally see this first and foremost as a political issue: the Conservatives have evidently found a new wedge issue — climate and environmental protection issues — and seem to be latching onto it as a way to bolster their poll standings. It is hard to read these developments outside of their narrow victory in Uxbridge, which the talking heads have attributed to voters there rejecting London's ULEZ expansion. Likewise, in the past week, the Tories have also diluted carbon pricing mechanism designed to make it expensive to pollute in the UK. This runs contrary to the consensus that aggressive action is necessary to mitigate the severe effects of climate change, but from a purely commercial and financial perspective, it is hard to argue with the fact that short-term demand for oil and gas persists: we saw what happened when we emerged from the lockdowns and the supply chains could not facilitate the surging demand for oil and gas. This sent prices up, which Russia's invasion of Ukraine made a lot worse. (The PM I think has couched these new licenses in the context of "energy security", i.e., minimising reliance on Russian gas, which does have some merit). So to your point about Labour trying to unwind these anti-Green initiatives, I think they would face political and commercial difficulties in doing so. I am not sure what you mean by "facing claims under investment law", but there probably would be a legal argument or two to challenge any attempt. I agree with your point that there is lender and investor pressure on the majors arising from environmental concerns, which is influencing market decisions and outcomes at least to some degree. At the same time, as I have alluded to in other posts and articles, many of these same lenders and investors have a hard time staying away from oil & gas when the cycle swings in their favour...Always a good thing to consider how this impacts on law firms. I find it helpful to think about which practice groups a development like this engages. In this case, there are loads. I must say that I have not seen much in the way of firms shying away from oil & gas work due to sustained criticism. But maybe that will change or be different in this particular case?</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread