Uplift’s recommendations for assessing offshore oil and gas scope 3 emissions

On 20 June 2024, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in the Finch case. This judgment means that the emissions from burning extracted oil and gas (scope 3 emissions)  must be assessed as part of EIAs undertaken for onshore and offshore fossil fuel projects. 

Until now, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) have only considered the production emissions of oil and gas projects, i.e., the emissions from operating the rig or platform, not the emissions from combusting the oil and gas extracted. Given that these emissions, known as scope 3 emissions, are the single most significant environmental impact from new oil and gas fields, it is common sense that they must be accounted for in Environmental Statements.

In response to this change in the law, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has developed draft EIA guidance to help offshore operators understand the practical implications of the Finch judgment. The guidance outlines what offshore operators must include in Environmental Statements submitted for the EIA process, specifically regarding scope 3 emissions. It will complement the existing EIA guidance, which applies to broader environmental impacts. 

Late last year, DESNZ consulted the public on this guidance, providing the public with a crucial opportunity to ensure robust guidance on assessing scope 3 emissions and progressing the transition from oil and gas production in the UK. 

Uplift is pleased to publish its response to the consultation and to outline our key recommendations below:

• Use a ‘do nothing’ or ‘no action’ baseline scenario: the project should be assessed against the baseline of emissions in the complete absence of the project. All emissions are additional to this baseline scenario.‍
• Confirm that substitution is not a relevant factor when assessing the significance of scope emissions, nor is it a relevant factor in determining the baseline or the selection of which emissions need to be assessed. ‍
• Implement the precautionary principle: the assessment of scope 3 emissions must follow the precautionary principle and the long-standing practice of assessing the worst-case scenario.‍
• Include a presumption of combustion: Fossil fuel projects will always result in combustion emissions. The simplest way to select relevant scope 3 emissions and assess a worst-case scenario is to rebut the presumption that all hydrocarbons produced will be combusted. ‍
• ‍Contextualise the significance and climate impacts of scope 3 emissions: combustion emissions should always be treated as likely and significant effects of fossil fuel projects. The question should not be whether they are significant but how to contextualise their significance to understand their climate impact.‍
• Assess emissions in relation to the remaining global carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5C: the global carbon budget is finite, and decision-makers must consider the cumulative picture, including the already committed emissions from existing extraction projects globally.‍
• Assess the project’s impact on carbon lock-in, climate leadership, and commitments to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.‍
• Assessment of scope 3 emissions should not include a ‘drop in the ocean’ approach, nor should the assessment depend on where the emissions are released.‍
• Ensure a robust cumulative assessment of scope 3 emissions, which are inherently global.‍
• Reject mitigation proposals: combustion emissions cannot be avoided, prevented, reduced or meaningfully offset if a fossil fuel project goes ahead. 

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will publish the new guidance in spring. This guidance must credibly assess the harm from new oil and gas fields. It will form a crucial part of the regulatory process for oil and gas projects, including the re-consideration of Rosebank. 

You can view Uplift’s full response to the consultation here.