Plans to develop the UK’s largest untapped oilfield have been frustrated in a major climate court case.
A Scottish court ruled the previous Conservative government acted “unlawfully” when it green-lit the offshore Rosebank oilfield and smaller Jackdaw gas project.
The cases could eventually still go ahead. But the judge said the original assessments of the projects’ climate damage failed to acknowledge the impact of burning the oil and gas, rather than just from getting them out of the ground.
The case is a victory for climate campaigners – the latest in a series of fossil fuel projects toppled in a domino effect triggered by a “game-changing” court ruling in June.
The new Labour administration, elected last July on a mandate to tackle climate change, must now consider the full climate impact of the so-called “downstream” emissions, and make a fresh decision, the court said.
Oil and gas still provide more than two thirds of the UK’s energy, although the volumes in Rosebank and Jackdaw would not dramatically lower UK imports. That makes any future decision on them “political”, said Dr Ewan Gibbs, energy historian at Glasgow University.
Labour could sign off on them while still sticking to its election promise of “no new licences” for North Sea projects, as these projects already have licences, but just need final government consent.
Campaigners celebrate ‘historic win’
Philip Evans, senior campaigner at Greenpeace UK, which brought the Jackdaw case, said: “This is a historic win – the age of governments approving new drilling sites by ignoring their climate impacts is over.”
The case argued by campaign groups Greenpeace and Uplift last year was boosted by a landmark judgment from the higher Supreme Court in June, which ruled these types of emissions could no longer be omitted.
Greenpeace called it “game-changing”.
Since then, other projects like the West Cumbria coal mine were toppled on the same grounds, and the new government said it would no longer defend such projects in court.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
During a hearing in November, the sites’ developers – Shell, Equinor and Ithaca Energy – said they accepted the previous approvals had in fact been unlawful.
But they argued the projects should be allowed to proceed anyway, as they were at advanced stages and the goalposts had been moved.
Why fossil fuel companies are also pleased
Today, Lord Ericht from Scotland’s Court of Session overturned the approvals.
“The public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers,” he said.
“The decisions will be [quashed], and can be taken again, this time taking into account downstream emissions.”
In the meantime the companies are allowed to continue developing their sites, but not extract any of the oil and gas.
A spokesperson for Rosebank’s primary developer Equinor said: “We welcome today’s ruling and are pleased with the outcome which allows us to continue with progressing the Rosebank project while we await new consents.
“Rosebank is critical for the UK’s economic growth, with an estimated 77% (£6.6bn) of total direct investment benefiting UK businesses.”
Follow our channel and never miss an update.
Rosebank contains about 300 million barrels of oil, most of which would be exported. The smaller amounts of gas from Jackdaw were destined for UK use, but were not expected to make a dent in household bills.
A spokesperson for the government’s energy department said it will in spring issue updated guidance on environmental assessments, and companies could reapply for permissions under those terms.
They added: “Our priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea in line with our climate and legal obligations, which drives towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills, and good, long-term jobs.”
A spokesperson for Jackdaw developer Shell said: “Swift action is needed from the government so that we and other North Sea operators can make decisions about vital UK energy infrastructure.”
