GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED"

Lenard Pope
6 years ago
Views:

1 In the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry CIV under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 in the matter of an application for judicial review between GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED an incorporated society having its registered office in Auckland Applicant and THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY a Crown entity established under section 7 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 First Respondent and ANADARKO NZ TARANAKI COMPANY a registered overseas non-asic company having its address for service and principal place STATEMENT OF CLAIM 25 November 2013 B a r r i s t e r s a n d S o l i c i t o r s LEVEL 16 VERO CENTRE 48 SHORTLAND STREET PO BOX 2026 SHORTLAND STREET AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND TELEPHONE FACSIMILE isaac.hikaka@lsl.co.nz SOLICITOR ON RECORD: ISAAC HIKAKA

2 of business in New Zealand at Wellington Second Respondent

3 STATEMENT OF CLAIM The Applicant, by its solicitors, says PARTIES 1. The Applicant is an incorporated society with its registered office at Auckland with the aims of preserving the environment and promoting peace. 2. The First Respondent is a Crown entity established under section 7 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act The Second Respondent is a registered overseas non-asic company having its address for service and principal place of business in New Zealand at Wellington. THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT BASIS ITS CLAIM FOR RELIEF Issue of permit 4. On around 8 August 2006 Petroleum Exploration Permit was granted under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (Permit). The Permit is for carrying out petroleum exploration in block in the Taranaki Basin. The Second Respondent is the operator of the Permit. The final work stage of the Permit requires the Second Respondent to drill and complete one exploration or appraisal well unless geological or engineering constraints encountered while drilling make this unreasonable. Submission of Purported Impact Assessment 5. In around September 2013 the Second Respondent submitted to the First Respondent a document titled Deepwater Taranaki Basin Single Exploration Well Environmental Impact Assessment (Purported Impact Assessment). The Purported Impact Assessment did not contain copies of the following Annexes: (i) Vessel Documents 1

4 (ii) (iii) (iv) Baseline Environment Drill Cuttings Dispersion Modelling Oil Spill Modelling Reports (v) Emergency Oil Spill Response Plan / Oil Spill Contingency (including Ship Oil Pollution Emergency Plan) (vi) (vii) (viii) Well Control Contingency Plan (Well Control and Source Control Emergency Response Plan, Logistics Plan) Environmental Monitoring for Exploration Activities Marine Protection Rules Part 170 Appendix (Missing Annexes) 6. The First Respondent considered the Purported Impact Assessment to assess its compliance with the requirements of section 166 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act On or around 30 September 2013 the First Respondent decided that the Purported Impact Assessment complied with section 39 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2011 (Decision). 8. In making the Decision, the First Respondent did not consider the Missing Annexes. 9. On or around 19 November 2013 a vessel engaged by the Second Respondent arrived at the site of the Permit with the intention of carrying out exploratory drilling. FIRST GROUND UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF: ERROR OF LAW (FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MANDATORY RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS) FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE EFFECTS BEYOND THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 10. An impact assessment must identify the effects of an activity on the environment, including the sea beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone. 11. In making the Decision the First Respondent failed to take into account the effects of the exploratory drilling on the sea beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone. 2

5 The potential for the exploratory drilling to, in the event of spill, have effects on the sea beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone require the consideration of an oil spill modelling report. The oil spill modelling report was part of the Missing Annexes, and so was not considered by the First Respondent. 12. Accordingly, the Decision was made in error of law. Claim for relief SECOND GROUND UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF: ERROR OF LAW FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 39(4) The Applicant repeats paragraphs [1] to [9] above and says further: 13. The Purported Impact Assessment was required to specify the measures that it intended to take to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects identified. 14. One of the adverse effects it identified was the adverse effect of a potential oil spill. 15. The Purported Impact Assessment was required to specify all measures required by Part 200 of the Marine Protection Rules. The impact assessment was required to specify all the matters under Schedule 1 to Rule of the Marine Protection Rules. 16. The Purported Impact Assessment did not meet the requirements of section 39(4) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act The Purported Impact Assessment did not specify all matters required under Schedule 1 to Rule of the Marine Protection Rules. 17. Accordingly the Decision was made in error of law. 3

6 Claim for relief THIRD GROUND UPON WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT: ERROR OF LAW FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 39(2) The Applicant repeats paragraphs [1] to [9] above and says further: 18. The Purported Impact Assessment was required to contain information in sufficient detail to enable the First Respondent and persons whose existing interests are or may be affected to understand the nature of the exploratory drilling and its effects on the environment and existing interests. 19. In failing to include the Missing Annexes, the Purported Impact Assessment did not include sufficient detail as required under section 39(2). 20. Accordingly the Decision was made in error of law. Claim for relief FOURTH GROUND UPON WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT: ERROR OF LAW FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 39(2) The Applicant repeats paragraphs [1] to [9] above and says further: 21. The Purported Impact Assessment was required to contain information in such detail as corresponds to the scale and significance of the effects that the exploratory drilling may have on the environment and existing interests. 22. The scale and significance of the effects the exploratory drilling are such that information in the Missing Annexes was required. The potential effects include a Tier 3 oil spill. 4

7 23. In failing to include the Missing Annexes, the Purported Impact Assessment did not include such detail as required under section 39(2). 24. Accordingly the Decision was made in error of law. Claim for relief This document is filed by Isaac Hikaka solicitor for the Applicant of the firm LeeSalmonLong. Documents for the Applicant may be served at the offices of LeeSalmonLong situated on Level 16, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, Auckland, or may be posted to P O Box 2026, Shortland Street, Auckland. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV Plaintiff. Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2010-404-005092 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE SCIENCE EDUCATION TRUST Plaintiff