In Oceana UK v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the High Court is reviewing the lawfulness of the UK government’s decision to grant 31 new oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea as part of the 33rd offshore oil and gas licensing round, announced in May 2024.
The claimant, Oceana UK, a marine conservation NGO, brought the judicial review on the grounds that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with statutory and common law duties to assess environmental impacts before issuing the licences. In particular, Oceana alleges that the government did not properly consider the effects of new exploration activities on marine protected areas (MPAs), nor did it assess the cumulative impact of additional fossil fuel development on the UK’s climate change commitments under domestic and international law.
Oceana argues that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) conducted prior to licensing was outdated and insufficiently detailed, particularly in light of the UK's legally binding net zero targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It contends that a failure to carry out an up-to-date Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) breached duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations SI 2017/1012 .
The government defends the legality of its decision, arguing that the licences are only for early-stage exploration and do not grant permission for extraction or drilling, which would be subject to further, site-specific environmental assessments. The Secretary of State maintains that the existing assessment processes met the legal requirements, and that delaying or cancelling the licensing round would undermine energy security and investment in the North Sea basin.
The High Court has heard the arguments but has yet to deliver judgment. The case raises critical questions about the adequacy of environmental safeguards in fossil fuel licensing and whether current assessment frameworks are fit for purpose in the context of escalating climate risks.
This case is significant because it challenges the balance between the UK’s energy policy and its environmental and climate obligations. A ruling in favour of Oceana could force greater scrutiny of the government’s licensing processes and potentially reshape how future fossil fuel projects are assessed and approved in line with ecological and climate priorities.
