The UK government has admitted in court that it unlawfully approved the Rosebank oil field, the country’s largest untapped oil reserve, off the coast of Shetland. This admission came during a climate-driven legal case against Rosebank and the Jackdaw gas field, both of which were green-lit by the government despite not fully assessing their environmental impacts.
The case, which took place at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, revealed that the government had failed to include crucial climate factors in its environmental assessments. Specifically, it did not account for the greenhouse gases released when the extracted oil and gas are burned. Instead, only emissions directly resulting from the extraction process were considered.
The Legal Challenge
In the court session, Chris Pirie KC, representing the UK government, accepted that this oversight had occurred. The failure to consider the full climate impact of burning the fossil fuels was a key point raised by the climate campaigners involved in the case, including Greenpeace and Uplift. These environmental groups argue that the projects should be paused until comprehensive assessments are carried out, considering the effects of combustion on the climate.
The Rosebank project was approved on 27 September 2023, and Jackdaw received the green light on 1 June 2022, both under the previous Conservative administration. The government’s approval process, which requires environmental impact assessments (EIAs), only included emissions linked to the extraction process but ignored those tied to the eventual burning of the fossil fuels. This omission directly contradicts a recent ruling by the UK Supreme Court, which confirmed that both types of emissions must be included in EIAs.
The Climate Debate and the Role of Labour
The case has sparked intense debate over climate responsibility and energy policy. If the judge, Lord Ericht, agrees with the environmental groups’ arguments, the future of these oil and gas projects could rest in the hands of the Labour government led by Sir Keir Starmer.
Should the court rule in favor of the activists, it could lead to a pause in drilling activities, with further environmental impact assessments required before work can continue. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, under Labour’s leadership, has indicated that the government would likely request additional information on the climate impact of burning the oil and gas but would not require the entire assessment process to start over.
Industry Response
The companies involved in the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects—Shell, Equinor, and Ithaca Energy—have defended the legality of the approvals. Shell’s legal representative, Christine O’Neill KC, argued that the company had acted lawfully based on the understanding of the law at the time the approval was granted. She also expressed concern that a temporary pause in operations could jeopardize the Jackdaw project, potentially halting it permanently.
O’Neill stressed that while Shell acknowledges climate change and the urgent need for action, the extent to which any individual project contributes to climate change is complex and should be carefully assessed.
Protests and Public Outcry
The ongoing legal proceedings have been met with protests outside the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Activists from Greenpeace and other groups have gathered to demand that the government take stronger action against fossil fuel projects that contribute to climate change. The protesters are calling for an immediate halt to the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects, which they argue would have a significant adverse impact on the climate and public health.
What’s Next?
The legal hearing will continue, but Lord Ericht is not expected to deliver a judgment for several weeks or even months. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the UK’s energy policy, particularly in relation to oil and gas projects and their role in the fight against climate change.
The government’s admission of unlawful approval marks a significant development in the case, highlighting the growing tension between energy needs and climate obligations. The debate is likely to intensify as more projects face similar scrutiny in the coming months.
