The giant Rosebank oilfield can be approved without breaching the UK’s emission targets, according to government insiders, in a boost to those in the cabinet who are pushing for it to be given the go-ahead. The Guardian revealed last week that Miatta Fahnbulleh, the energy secretary, was leaning towards rejecting the project, but her position has put her at loggerheads with cabinet colleagues, including the chancellor, John Healey, who are lobbying for an approval. Government insiders have told the Guardian the project can be approved on a strict reading of Britain’s climate obligations, in part because once the oil is exported, the emissions from burning it no longer count against domestic targets.
A decision to approve the oilfield would be met with dismay from climate campaigners and some Labour backbenchers who view it as a harmful step away from prioritising net zero – and may see the shift of emissions from one country to another as a trivial distinction. On Tuesday, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth wrote to the prime minister urging him to consider the cumulative impacts of big decisions on North Sea drilling, Heathrow expansion and grants for heat pumps – rather than viewing each in isolation. But sources say the Treasury has already accounted for billions of pounds’ worth of tax revenue from Rosebank and so would be faced with a shortfall should it be rejected.
But he added: “It is true that the UK government is not going to find itself in any international court if it approves Rosebank. Approving it is not inconsistent with what the UK has committed to firmly, because most of the oil will be exported and so will count towards other countries’ emissions.” Fahnbulleh has been forced to make a decision over Rosebank because of a legal judgment that the previous environmental consent was incorrectly given by the Conservative government at the time. A judge ruled in 2024 that ministers should have accounted for emissions not just from drilling for oil at Rosebank, but also from those which will be generated by burning it.
Given most of that oil will be burned abroad, however, the resulting emissions will not count against the UK’s carbon budgets. Experts estimate that Rosebank could emit 1m additional tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2042, against an overall limit of 90m tonnes. Fahnbulleh is under an obligation to take into account Britain’s commitment under the Paris agreement to take action to prevent global temperatures rising more than 1.5C.
In her decision to approve the Jackdaw scheme last week, however, she noted Jackdaw would account for about 0.01% of global greenhouse gas emissions created by the oil and gas industry in 2035. Some experts believe Rosebank could be approved without meaningfully adding to global temperature changes. But others insist that any new oil and gasfields are harmful to the goal of staying within safe carbon budgets.
Downing Street insiders insist the decision rests with Fahnbulleh, rather than with Andy Burnham. However supportive ministers have interpreted the prime minister’s promise to take a “pragmatic” approach to oil and gas as a signal he would support giving the green light to Rosebank. He has also talked of “reindustrialisation” in a speech in Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, this month, language often associated in Scotland with the North Sea.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
