Uplift, Greenpeace UK challenge approval of Rosebank oilfield development

Environmental advocacy groups Uplift and Greenpeace UK are taking legal action against the UK government’s decision to authorize the development of Rosebank, the UK’s largest untapped North Sea oilfield. Both organizations have filed for a judicial review with the Court of Session in Edinburgh, questioning the decision by Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho and the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).

Concerns Over Environmental Impact and Legality

The arguments presented by Uplift and Greenpeace UK focus on several key issues. They assert that the approval of Rosebank is unlawful due to its neglect of the impact of emissions from burning the oilfield’s reserves. Additionally, they argue that the project contradicts the UK government’s greenhouse gas emission reduction plans and threatens the biodiversity of a protected area in the North Sea.

The Carbon Footprint of Rosebank Oilfield

Rosebank, located about 80 miles northwest of Shetland, holds an estimated 500 million barrels of oil. The carbon emissions from burning this amount of oil equate to the annual output of 56 coal-fired power stations, said Greenpeace UK. Notably, the UK public is expected to bear 91% of the cost for developing this field, with the field’s owners receiving around £3 billion in tax breaks. Despite this significant investment, the project is not anticipated to reduce household energy bills, as the oil will be sold on the global market, with most being exported, said Greenpeace UK.

Environmental Groups File Judicial Review Against UK’s Approval of Rosebank Oilfield Development

Statements from Greenpeace UK and Uplift

Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, criticized the government’s approval of Rosebank, pointing out the misrepresentation of the project’s compatibility with the UK’s climate commitments. She emphasized the lack of benefits to the UK’s energy security and economy, underscoring the project’s prioritization of oil and gas company profits over public and planetary well-being.

Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift and a climate lawyer, highlighted the detrimental impact of Rosebank on the UK’s climate targets. She stressed the importance of the legal challenge in holding the government accountable for prioritizing public safety over profit-driven decisions.

Wider Context and International Climate Talks

The controversy around Rosebank coincides with global demands for phasing out fossil fuels, as highlighted in the recent COP28 UN climate summit. The UK’s Climate Change Committee has also emphasized the misalignment of fossil fuel expansion with the country’s net-zero target.

The NSTA’s Role and Approval Process

The NSTA’s approval of Rosebank, granted to Norwegian state-owned company Equinor, occurred amidst warnings from the International Energy Agency about the inconsistency of new oil and gas fields with global heating limits. The NSTA’s role and the process of approval have been questioned, especially given the industry’s current trajectory towards its 2030 CO2 emission reduction targets.

Conclusion:

The legal challenges by Uplift and Greenpeace UK against the development of Rosebank oilfield underscore the growing tension between fossil fuel development and environmental sustainability. This case highlights the need for a more robust approach to energy policy, one that aligns with climate commitments and prioritizes environmental protection over industrial profit.