In a significant development for the UK energy sector, the government has acknowledged in court that the approval of the Rosebank oil field, the country’s largest untapped oil reserve located off the Shetland Islands, was granted unlawfully. This admission comes amid ongoing legal challenges from environmental campaigners seeking to halt operations at both the Rosebank and Jackdaw gas fields in the North Sea.
During proceedings at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Chris Pirie KC, representing the government, conceded that the environmental assessments conducted prior to approval failed to consider the climate impact of burning oil and gas extracted from these fields. The Rosebank project received its green light on September 27, 2023, while Jackdaw was approved on June 1, 2022, both under the previous Conservative administration.
As part of the approval process, it was mandated that environmental impact assessments account for emissions resulting from extraction activities. However, these assessments did not include greenhouse gases released during combustion, a critical oversight that has now come under scrutiny.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in June established that both types of emissions must be included in environmental evaluations. In light of this ruling, Greenpeace and Uplift are advocating for a pause on work at Rosebank and Jackdaw until comprehensive assessments can be conducted.
If Judge Lord Ericht agrees with this perspective, the decision on whether drilling will proceed may ultimately rest with Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government. Mr. Pirie indicated that if this occurs, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband may opt not to restart the assessment process entirely but instead request additional information regarding the climate impact of burning fossil fuels before making a new determination.
The companies involved—Shell, Equinor, and Ithaca Energy—argue that they should be allowed to continue drilling since their permissions were granted in good faith based on the legal understanding at that time. Christine O’Neill KC, representing Shell, warned that any temporary halt in operations could lead to significant complications and potentially end the Jackdaw project altogether.
O’Neill emphasized that Shell had acted lawfully based on government consent and should not face penalties for relying on that approval. She also challenged claims from environmental groups regarding the substantial impact of Jackdaw on climate and public health, acknowledging Shell’s recognition of climate change while asserting that assessing individual project contributions is complex.
As protests continue outside the court, environmental advocates remain hopeful that this legal challenge will set a precedent for halting further fossil fuel projects in the UK. The hearing is expected to resume tomorrow; however, a judgment from Lord Ericht may take weeks or even months.
This case underscores a pivotal moment for UK energy policy as it grapples with balancing fossil fuel development against urgent climate commitments. The outcome could reshape future energy strategies and influence public sentiment towards oil and gas exploration in a rapidly changing global landscape.
Read more:
