The firms involved — Shell, Equinor, and Ithaca Energy — say they should be allowed to carry on with drilling because permission was granted in good faith under the law as it was understood at the time.
For Shell, Christine O’Neill KC told the court that any temporary pause and resumption of works would not be straightforward and would amount to the Jackdaw project being “brought to a permanent end.”
Lord Ericht took issue with that assertion but the lawyer insisted that in such a case the court could have “no assurance” that Jackdaw could proceed.
Shell, she said, had “acted lawfully” in relying on the government’s consent and should not “be punished” for doing so.
Ms O’Neill also took issue with the environmental groups’ claim that it was “an accepted fact” that Jackdaw would have “a substantial impact” on the climate and human health.
She said Shell accepted the existence of climate change; accepted that greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change; and accepted that urgent action was needed to tackle it.
However, she added “the question whether, how and to what extent any individual project contributes to climate change is a complex one”.
Ms O’Neill said Shell accepted that the approval of Jackdaw had involved an “error of law” on the part of the government.
The hearing is expected to continue tomorrow but Lord Ericht is not expected to issue his judgment for some weeks or months.
