The consent given to the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields by the UK Government was deemed ‘unlawful’. This was acknowledged by all parties involved, including the energy companies Shell, Equinor, and Ithaca Energy, during the Court of Sessions in Edinburgh this past week.
The issue at hand is what actions should be taken moving forward. Should the UK Government be required to reconsider the consent given? And during this reconsideration, should the drilling activities in the deep waters of the North Sea, specifically at Jackdaw and Rosebank, be halted?
Legal challenges were brought forth by Greenpeace and Uplift in the Edinburgh court over the past week, focusing on the “Scope 3” emissions associated with these oilfields. Scope 3 emissions refer to the greenhouse gases produced by the burning of oil and gas, rather than just their production. Previously, these emissions were not taken into account in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for consent applications. However, a recent Supreme Court decision deemed this omission unlawful, leading to the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero seeking consultation on updated EIA guidance.
Developers of Rosebank and Jackdaw, including Equinor, Ithaca Energy, and Shell, have defended their actions, stating that they acted in good faith as there was no requirement to consider Scope 3 emissions at the time of application.
The Court of Session hearing, presided over by Lord Ericht, concluded on Friday with a decision expected in early next year. There is a possibility that the UK Government may be compelled to make a fresh decision on consent, which has left both campaigners and developers anxious. Greenpeace and Uplift are advocating for the permanent withdrawal of consent and a pause in works while the impacts of the oilfields are reassessed.
The significance of Scope 3 emissions lies in holding both consumers and producers accountable for fossil fuel emissions. By integrating this impact into the consent system, the direct link between oilfield development and resulting pollution is recognized. Uplift estimates that Scope 3 emissions from Rosebank alone could be equivalent to those of the 28 lowest-income countries.
While the developers argue that these emissions are already factored into oil and gas demand calculations and that the UK’s overall emissions will not increase significantly, campaigners are concerned about the global implications of continued oil and gas production. The UK’s role in contributing to global emissions and the need to align with Net Zero goals are crucial considerations.
The ongoing legal battle underscores the complex interplay between economic interests, job creation, energy security, and environmental concerns. The decision made by Lord Ericht will have far-reaching implications for the future of oil and gas development in the UK and its alignment with climate goals. The public interest in addressing climate change and reducing emissions must be carefully weighed against economic factors and job creation in the energy sector. The outcome of this case will set a precedent for how environmental considerations are integrated into regulatory decisions moving forward.
