In a significant ruling, the UK government has acknowledged that the approval process for Rosebank, the country’s largest untapped oilfield located off the coast of Shetland, was conducted unlawfully. This admission came during a court case brought forth by climate advocacy groups challenging both the Rosebank oilfield and the Jackdaw gas field situated in the North Sea.
At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Chris Pirie KC, representing the government, conceded that the environmental assessments mandated for these projects failed to encompass crucial factors, particularly the impact of burning the extracted fossil fuels on climate change. The Rosebank project received governmental endorsement on September 27, 2023, followed by the Jackdaw project, which was approved earlier on June 1, 2022, under the authority of the previous Conservative administration.
According to UK regulations, the government is obligated to consider comprehensive environmental impact assessments before granting permission for such projects. These assessments must take into account the emissions produced from the extraction processes. However, critically, the current regulations do not include the greenhouse gases released when the fossil fuels are combusted, which has been a central point of contention within this ongoing debate.
In a separate ruling by the UK Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for comprehensive environmental evaluations, it was determined that both operational and subsequent emissions must be factored into environmental impact assessments. This landmark ruling has become a cornerstone for the case brought before the Court of Session by various environmental organizations, including Greenpeace and Uplift. They are advocating for a pause on activities related to Rosebank and Jackdaw until more thorough assessments can be conducted.
The implications of this court case extend far beyond legal nuances, as it could ultimately hand significant decision-making power regarding drilling operations to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour-led government. With the current energy secretary Ed Miliband representing Labour, the future of both projects now hinges on whether a fresh assessment process is mandated or if only supplementary data regarding climate effects will be required before a new decision is rendered.
The companies involved in the projects—Shell, Equinor, and Ithaca Energy—assert they should be permitted to continue their drilling operations, arguing that they operated in good faith under the laws as understood at the time their approvals were granted. In her remarks, Shell’s representative, Christine O’Neill KC, stated that any temporary suspension followed by a resumption of work would not only be complicated but could potentially lead to the permanent cessation of the Jackdaw project.
Lord Ericht, presiding over the case, expressed skepticism regarding claims made about the straightforwardness of pausing the project. He highlighted the lack of assurance that Jackdaw could progress if work is halted, prompting O’Neill to advocate that Shell should not face penalties for its compliance with the government’s previous decisions. Notably, O’Neill acknowledged the recognition of climate change and the critical importance of urgent action to address it, admitting to a “legal error” in the approval process of Jackdaw but also emphasizing the complexities surrounding the extent to which individual projects contribute to climate change.
As the hearing moves forward, expectations are that judgment from Lord Ericht may not come until several weeks or even months have passed, leaving the future of these controversial oil fields in a state of uncertainty. The ongoing court proceedings, alongside vigorous protests and opposition from environmental groups, underscore the growing tension and scrutiny surrounding fossil fuel projects in an era increasingly defined by climate change concerns.
