A LEGAL challenge against the Rosebank oil field has begun in Edinburgh.
Environmental groups Greenpeace and Uplift have jointly raised a judicial review arguing consent both for the Rosebank oil field north-west of Shetland and the Jackdaw oil field off Aberdeen ought to be paused and reassessed.
The Rosebank field, set to be developed 80 miles off the coast of the Shetland Islands, was approved by the previous UK government in 2023.
The UK Government said in August it would not challenge judicial reviews brought against the development.
The Rosebank field is owned by Equinor and Ithaca Energy, while the Jackdaw field is owned by Shell.
The joint campaign against the oil fields has been backed by a host of celebrities, including Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle, comedian and presenter Joe Lycett, and conservationist Chris Packham.
READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: Labour have left it to Scottish courts to stop Rosebank
The first submission was heard at the Court of Session in the capital on Tuesday morning.
Greenpeace and Uplift argue that the UK Government – along with the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), failed to consider the full impact of emissions caused by burning gas from the fields.
They also argue their reasons for approving the schemes were not transparent and the development will disrupt a marine protected area.
Ruth Crawford KC, representing Greenpeace UK, told the court a “substantive error of law” had been made when consent was granted for the two schemes based on limited information on their environmental impact and that the charity was seeking “remedy”.
She said: “It was not simply a matter of discretion on whether or not to take emissions into account, it is a matter of the law the impact of emissions had to be taken into account.”
Crawford argued for both developments to be paused and for the oil companies involved in the projects to be made to submit revised environmental impact assessments.
READ MORE: IDF-linked firm to receive millions from Rosebank oil field in North Sea
She said these assessments should include consideration of so-called Scope 3 emissions which would be produced by burning all the oil and gas to be extracted from the fields.
Shell said Jackdaw is a “vital project for UK energy security” and will provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million homes in the UK.
Equinor has similarly said Rosebank is “vital for the UK” in terms of local investment, jobs and energy security.
‘It’s these types of emissions that are causing climate chaos’
Meanwhile, climate activists staged a demonstration outside the Court of Session as the first submission was being heard on Tuesday morning.
Campaigners called for the two projects to be halted, as Philip Evans of Greenpeace UK said: "Earlier this year, the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that the climate impact of emissions from burning fossil fuels must be assessed before any new oil and gas projects can be approved.
"It’s these types of emissions that are causing the climate chaos we’re seeing all over the world.
READ MORE: Poll: Should politicians be able to stand as both MPs and MSPs?
"But oil companies want to keep drilling for maximum profits whilst ignoring the damage they’re doing.
"That’s why we are taking Shell, Equinor and Ithaca to court to stop them in their tracks."
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, said Rosebank should never have been approved.
She said: "Rosebank is a terrible deal for Britain. It’s mostly oil for export, which would do nothing to lower fuel costs or boost our energy security yet, because of huge tax breaks for new drilling, the UK public would effectively cover almost all of the costs of developing it while the oil companies walk off with the profits.
"It won’t provide long-term security for oil and gas workers either.
"Even with new fields being approved, jobs supported by the industry have more than halved in the past decade. Workers need clean-energy jobs that have a long-term future.”
The case, before Lord Ericht, continues.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel