Page 16 - EurOil Week 45

EurOil POLICY EurOil

Gazprom and partners appeal against

Poland’s Nord Stream 2 fines

EUROPE GAZPROM and its European partners at the appealed against it on November 5. The same
Nord Stream 2 project have filed appeals against day Shell also did the same.
UOKiK penalised the fines levied by Polish regulator UOKiK, saying According to ICIS, Wintershall is yet to
partners for financing the watchdog’s actions have no basis in law. appeal, but reserves the right to do so.
Nord Stream 2 without UOKiK imposed fines in early October on Nord Stream 2 will pump up to 55bn cubic
its permission. all six investors in Nord Stream 2 – Gazprom, metres per year of Russian gas directly to Ger-
France’s Engie, Austria’s OMV, Royal Dutch many at full capacity. Its launch was set to hap-
Shell, Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall Dea pen at the end of 2019 but is now at least a year
– for moving forward with the project without behind schedule, as a result of Danish permitting
its consent. Gazprom was fined the most – some delays and US sanctions.
PLN29bn ($7.6bn). Gazprom and its European partners origi-
The Russian company launched its appeal nally tried to form a consortium to develop Nord
on November 4, and now its partners have con- Stream 2, but needed UOKiK’s permission to do
firmed following suit. so because of the pipeline’s impact on the Polish
“OMV has appealed against the decision, gas market. The regulator denied the request.
thereby taking the position that the decision Gazprom’s European partners instead pro-
lacks any legal basis,” OMV was quoted as saying vided the Russian company with loans to finance
by Russia’s TASS news agency. the pipeline, but UOKiK argues that these fund-
“Yes, Uniper has appealed against the fine ing agreements effectively constituted a joint
from UOKiK,” that company said. Engie said it venture, and therefore its approval was still
“strongly disagrees” with the decision and had needed. ™

Top Norwegian court hears

case over Arctic drilling

NORWAY NORWAY’S highest court has begun hearings the constitution,” Norway’s Attorney General
on the legality of licensing for offshore oil and gas Fredrik Sejersted, representing the government,
The case centres on the exploration in the Arctic, after a lawsuit was filed said in his submission to the top court.
Barents Sea, Norway’s by environmentalists. Environmentalists say that oil and gas pro-
main frontier for oil and The lawsuit, backed by Greenpeace Norway duction, which has made Norway one of the
gas exploration. and Nature and Youth, attempts to use Norway’s richest countries in the world, does not align
founding principles as justification for curbing with its ambitious climate goals. Norway has
oil and gas activity. pledged to reduce its emissions by at least 50%
“The Constitution says that everyone has a by 2030.
right to healthy environment, and we will not “While this case is specifically about the 10
secure it if we continue to drill for more oil,” licences, we do hope that the court’s decision to
Greenpeace Norway head Frode Pleym told rule them in breach of the constitution could
Reuters on November 4. “We do hope and expect lead to a different political course [on oil explo-
the supreme court to rule in [our] favour.” ration], Pleym said.
The case centres on the Barents Sea, Norway’s The high-profile case is among a series of
main frontier for oil and gas exploration, where lawsuits brought by activists in Europe, seeking
environmentalists want to invalidate drilling to block oil and gas activity through the courts
licences. Two lower courts earlier found the rather than by lobbying for government policies.
government’s 2016 decision to grant the licences In another landmark case, French local authori-
was valid, but the campaigners want to overturn ties and several NGOs tried to take oil giant Total
these rulings. to court early this year over its failure to address
“The decision was made after thorough pro- climate change adequately. The court deter-
fessional, administrative and political processes, mined that there was no justification for hearing
which were fully in line with Norwegian law and the case, however. ™

P16 www. NEWSBASE .com Week 45 12•November•2020