What’s in store for Rosebank?

When the Conservative government approved the Rosebank oil field, they did so ignoring the massive climate pollution – estimated to be more than 200 million tonnes of CO2 – that would be released into the atmosphere when its reserves are inevitably burnt. To put this into perspective, that’s more CO2 than all 28 of the lowest income countries in the world produce in a year. 

For decades, it has been the norm for oil and gas companies not to have to disclose to governments their scope 3 emissions – i.e. the emissions created from burning the oil and gas they produce – even though we know, and they know, these are the main drivers of climate change. In the case of UK projects, the climate impact of burning the oil and gas produced is unquestionably their most harmful environmental impact. Approving oil and gas projects without taking into account scope 3 emissions has been likened to ruling that cigarettes are safe as long as no-one smokes them. 

But now, thanks to a historic decision taken by the Supreme Court, in the case of Finch v Surrey County Council, oil and gas companies will have to disclose the full extent of the harm new developments will have on our climate. As the leading judgment of Lord Leggatt points out, it is “not merely likely, but inevitable” that the oil extracted will be refined, undergo combustion and produce these emissions.

Crucially, the decision in Finch confirmed important principles that will have impacts across the board for all fossil fuel projects. The court confirmed that it is feasible to assess and estimate the scope 3 emissions from a fossil fuel project; that there is a sufficient causal link between a project and its scope 3 emissions; and that leaving oil in the ground does not result in a corresponding increase in production elsewhere. The government, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) and offshore developers have often relied upon these arguments, now definitively rejected by the Supreme Court.

What does this mean for Rosebank?

There can be no doubt that the Finch decision will have massive ramifications, not just for the onshore development which was quashed as a result of the ruling, but for all fossil fuel developments in the pipeline - including Rosebank.

Equinor, Norwegian oil giant and Rosebank’s owner, did not disclose or assess the full extent and impact of the field’s emissions when it sought approval for the development. Under this new precedent from the Supreme Court, the Conservative government’s decision to approve Rosebank without taking account of these emissions could be deemed unlawful.

Uplift and Greenpeace UK have filed two separate cases against the decision to approve Rosebank which will both be heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, likely later this year. Both cases will argue that the previous government approved the field ignoring the huge amounts of climate pollution that it will create. Uplift’s case will also argue that Rosebank is incompatible with the UK’s own climate targets, that the government failed to adequately assess the marine impacts of Rosebank, and that the North Sea Transitional Authority (NSTA) failed to give any reasons at all, let alone any rational ones, for its decision to grant consent to the development. If the judge agrees with Uplift’s or Greenpeace’s grounds, then the decision will need to be remade, this time with the full environmental impact considered. 

The new government, which was elected on a platform of shifting from oil and gas production to renewable energy, will then have to weigh the case for and against Rosebank – an expensive fossil fuel project which will do nothing for UK energy security and nothing to lower bills and which the public will effectively end up covering 90% of the costs of developing. Given these circumstances the right decision – and the one that would be most in the public interest – would be to reject Rosebank.

‍