UK Government Acknowledges Unlawful Approval of Major Oil Field

In a court proceeding, the UK government acknowledged that Rosebank, identified as the nation’s most significant undeveloped oilfield located off Shetland, received unlawful approval. This admission occurred within the context of a legal challenge initiated by climate activists concerning both the Rosebank project and the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea. Chris Pirie KC, representing the government at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, conceded that the environmental assessments failed to incorporate “the effects on climate of the combustion of oil and gas to be extracted from the fields.” The previous Conservative administration granted approval for Rosebank on 27 September 2023, and for Jackdaw on 1 June 2022. The government’s consenting procedure mandated the consideration of environmental impact assessments pertaining to these fields. While these assessments accounted for climate change impacts from emissions generated during the oil and gas extraction process, they did not include the greenhouse gases that would be emitted upon the eventual combustion of these fossil fuels. In June, a distinct ruling by the UK Supreme Court, concerning proposals for an oil well near London’s Gatwick Airport, determined that environmental impact assessments must encompass both categories of emissions. During the judicial review at the Court of Session, environmental organizations Greenpeace and Uplift contend that this precedent necessitates a halt to operations on Rosebank and Jackdaw until more comprehensive environmental impact assessments are completed. Should Lord Ericht, the presiding judge, concur, the ultimate decision regarding the continuation of drilling could fall to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government. Mr. Pirie stated that, in such an event, the current stance of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband would be to avoid restarting the entire assessment process. Instead, he would request supplementary data concerning the climate impact of burning the fuels prior to rendering a new decision. The companies implicated — Shell, Equinor, and Ithaca Energy — assert their right to proceed with drilling, arguing that permission was initially granted in good faith, in accordance with the legal understanding prevalent at that time. Representing Shell, Christine O’Neill KC informed the court that a temporary cessation and subsequent recommencement of operations would present significant complexities, seemingly implying that such an action would result in the Jackdaw project being “brought to a permanent end.” When Lord Ericht inquired whether the scenario was genuinely “as extreme” as described, the lawyer responded that although Shell would not preclude reapplying for consent, the court could possess “no assurance” that the Jackdaw project would definitively advance. She further stated that Shell had “acted lawfully” by relying on the government’s consent and should not “be punished” for its actions. Ms. O’Neill additionally challenged the environmental groups’ assertion that it was “an accepted fact” that Jackdaw would exert “a substantial impact” on both the climate and human health. She affirmed that Shell acknowledged the reality of climate change, recognized that greenhouse gas emissions were a contributing factor, and agreed that immediate measures were necessary to address it. Nevertheless, she appended that “the question whether, how and to what extent any individual project contributes to climate change is a complex one.” Ms. O’Neill confirmed that Shell accepted that the approval process for Jackdaw had contained an “error of law” on the government’s behalf. The proceedings are anticipated to resume tomorrow, though Lord Ericht is not expected to deliver his judgment for several weeks or months. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the content of external websites. Information regarding our external linking policy is available.