Since
Fortunately, the
What was it about again?
Porthos is a system of pipelines and installations serving CCS, or underground storage in the
However, Mobilisation for the Environment or MOB appealed against the permits granted for Porthos in 2021. MOB is Johan Vollebroek's vehicle that lodges all kinds of nitrogen-related appeals in the administrative courts (and is regularly successful in doing so - not least with the 2021 PAS rulings). Although, according to its statutes, the MOB aims to improve the quality of the environment, it has also appealed against the permits for Porthos. In particular, the appeal also now concerns nitrogen-related aspects caused by Porthos (during construction). In addition, MOB is also opposed on principle to the application of CCS because it does not lead to CO2 prevention. MOB thus fails to recognize that a transition simply consists of interim solutions (after all, there is no 'button' to immediately replace CO2 in certain processes; this is still technically impossible at present), but this is not really at issue in the proceedings before the
The proceedings before the
Due to the current nitrogen crisis, any project with nitrogen emissions must be carefully examined whether those nitrogen emissions will have significant negative impacts on surrounding natural areas (
The construction of Porthos was nevertheless approved by the relevant competent authorities because the so-called partial building exemption could be applied, which meant that nitrogen emissions during the construction phase could be exempted from the required nitrogen investigation. In the case of Porthos, this would result in only nitrogen emissions in the use phase needing to be investigated (which is zero). Therefore, the permits for Porthos could be granted without an additional nature assessment or nature permit. This was where MOB disagreed.
In the
What has the RvS said
In today's ruling, the RvS ruled that the additional research Porthos came up with can be used to substantiate the permits for Porthos. The study shows that significant negative effects of the construction of Porthos can be ruled out.
Today's ruling by the
What are the consequences
By leaving the Porthos permits in place, these permits have become irrevocable. This also means that work can actually start. When that will happen and how long those works will take is not known. The delay in legal proceedings has changed the playing field. Costs have risen over the past two years and the contractors and suppliers involved will not have been idle for two years and may have picked up other work. So it will be a wait and see when construction of Porthos will actually begin.
The industry will also be able to breathe a sigh of relief now that a temporary solution to capture CO2 emissions is in sight. These CO2 emissions, which often cannot yet be technically prevented, can be stored underground via Porthos. So these companies can now also go ahead with their sustainability plans (by 'ordering' a CCS installation, for instance). So the ruling will also have a positive knock-on effect on a longer chain.
In the end, there are no real winners, as this ruling has led to many delays. Porthos will possibly be commissioned two years later (which could have meant a CO2 storage of 5 megatons). In addition, both Porthos and the companies that want to tap into it are likely to have higher costs to implement or finance their projects.
MOB was also ultimately unsuccessful in stopping the Porthos project. True, the partial construction exemption is off the table, but that was not MOB's only concern. MOB's appeal did not earn it much credit either, with many voices questioning why they chose precisely this project to tackle the construction exemption (and not one of the many other permits that have the same underpinnings - often with more nitrogen emissions). Choosing this case for its nitrogen battle has delayed the commissioning of Porthos by two years. In doing so, it very flatly prevented 5 megatons of CO2 from being stored - 5 billion kilos! -, relative to an attempt to save some 6 grams of nitrogen (per hectare) on sensitive wildlife areas. The MOB's nitrogen blinkers thus seem to have done more damage than it was able to prevent in this case.
Fortunately, the positive note is that a whole series of projects can now move forward, direct projects such as Porthos and the companies to be connected to it, but indirectly also the related sustainability initiatives. By enabling CO2 capture and storage, the companies involved can further focus on the next step in phasing out CO2.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Van Doorne
Jachthavenweg 121
1081 KM
URL: www.vandoorne.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source