Thank you for visiting, don't forget to subscribe by following here if you enjoy our content. We use follow.it to give you maximum control over your news.
A judge has overturned government consent for the development of two significant North Sea oil and gas projects, casting uncertainty over future operations within the region. The ruling by Lord Ericht at the Court of Session in Edinburgh declared that the approvals for Shell’s Jackdaw gas field and Equinor’s Rosebank oil field were unlawful, as they failed to assess emissions from the burning of extracted oil and gas.
This decision comes after a legal challenge brought forward by environmental groups Greenpeace and Uplift, following a Supreme Court ruling last year that mandated all environmental impact assessments for new energy projects include these so-called “scope 3” emissions. The judgement requires both Shell and Equinor to reapply for development consents under new government guidelines that are expected to be issued later this year, although ongoing construction work will be allowed to continue in the meantime.
Shell’s Jackdaw gas field, located 155 miles east of Aberdeen, has already seen an investment of £800 million and is projected to supply energy to 1.4 million homes upon completion in 2026. Wael Sawan, Shell’s chief executive, described the verdict as a setback and urged the government to act urgently in supporting the reapproval of the project. He emphasised Jackdaw’s role as critical national infrastructure, particularly at a time when domestic gas production is declining, and the UK is increasingly reliant on imports.
Rosebank, the largest untapped oil field in UK waters, lies 80 miles northwest of Shetland. Its development is being spearheaded by Equinor and Ithaca Energy, with £2.2 billion already committed to the project. Equinor has expressed cautious optimism about the decision, stating that the ruling allows Rosebank to proceed with preparatory work while awaiting revised permits under updated guidance.
While energy firms position these projects as essential for the UK’s energy security, critics argue otherwise. Environmental campaigners have hailed the ruling as a landmark victory for efforts to hold governments accountable for climate policies. Philip Evans of Greenpeace UK stated that the decision marks the end of governments ignoring the climate impacts of new fossil fuel developments. Meanwhile, Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, labelled Rosebank as a poor deal for the UK, pointing out that most of its oil is destined for export rather than domestic use.
Political and economic stakeholders remain divided over the implications of this ruling. Supporters of the North Sea oil and gas industry, such as the Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, call it a “victory for common sense,” citing its role in safeguarding energy security and UK economic interests. However, British policymakers have been increasingly shifting towards reducing dependency on oil and gas in favour of renewable energy as part of wider net-zero commitments.
As the government works on finalising new environmental guidelines, energy companies now face the challenge of balancing regulatory compliance and investment delays. This case highlights the growing tension between climate policy goals, energy security, and the financial commitments of large-scale fossil fuel projects.
Post Disclaimer
The following content has been published by Stockmark.IT. All information utilised in the creation of this communication has been gathered from publicly available sources that we consider reliable. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this communication.
This communication is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as an offer, recommendation, solicitation, inducement, or invitation by or on behalf of the Company or any affiliates to engage in any investment activities. The opinions and views expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company, its affiliates, or any other third party.
The services and products mentioned in this communication may not be suitable for all recipients, by continuing to read this website and its content you agree to the terms of this disclaimer.