CAMPAIGNERS have warned the UK Government against allowing two controversial oil and gas projects to proceed as it could pave the way for a dozen more fossil fuel developments.
In January, the Court of Session in Edinburgh upheld a legal challenge by environmental campaigners against the decision to grant consent to the Rosebank oil field and Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea.
The firms behind the fields will now need to re-apply for environmental consent, taking into account the emissions caused by burning fossil fuels.
This comes despite Labour vowing to halt North Sea licences, The Scotsman reports.
One of the projects is the Buchan Horst development, brought forward by Aberdeen-based New European Offshore Energy, Serica Energy and Jersey Oil and Gas.
Developers are awaiting the outcome of the court case and will now need to reassess its emissions.
Should Rosebank and Jackdaw be eventually approved, it could pave the way for other developers to justify extracting fossil fuels in line with climate commitments.
As of last year, 13 projects were sitting in the pipeline - with two in the “under assessment” stage and 11 in the “authorise phase”.
Earlier this week, Alex Grant, UK manager of Equinor, said that his company will “push forward” with the Rosebank plans, adding that “we are confident we’ll get that to first production”.
The UK Government is set to finalise new guidance in the spring which sets out what the developers will be required to do in order to receive environmental consent.
Draft guidance seen by The Scotsman states that "the emissions resulting from the combustion of oil produced from a project are an effect of the project".
The document states that “the assessment of the likely significant effects” of the emissions created by the fossil fuel development will depend on “a range of factors” including “whether the emissions are likely to occur in the UK or elsewhere”.
This potentially opens the door for the Rosebank development to justify it meets standards due to the vast majority of the oil poised to be exported to be burnt overseas.
Analysis from environmental campaigners shows that the climate pollution from burning Rosebank's reserves would be more than the annual CO2 emissions of all 28 lowest-income countries in the world combined.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, which won the judicial review against Rosebank, told The Scotsman that “the world has more oil and gas in existing fields than we can safely burn”.
She added: "Rosebank alone, which is the biggest of these developments in the pipeline, would create more CO2 emissions than the 700 million people living in the world's lowest income countries do in a year.
“But, thankfully, the tide is turning in the public's favour.”
Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth Scotland's just transition campaigner, Rosie Hampton, said: “The Rosebank decision must mean the end of new oil in the UK. Labour promised voters a sea change in energy policy away from the Tories’ reckless drill every drop approach and now they must deliver.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “Fields with a licence but not yet consented may be awaiting additional guidance before determining whether to proceed with their developments – this depends where they are in the regulatory process.
“However, this is a commercial matter for the relevant companies.”
