There could be a flurry of new drilling if developers can justify extracting fossil fuels in line with climate commitments.

Keir Starmer’s government has been warned that allowing two controversial oil and gas projects to proceed would open the floodgates to potentially more than a dozen more fossil fuel developments - despite Labour vowing to halt new North Sea licences.

The claim comes after the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the proposed Rosebank oil field, being developed by Equinor and Ithaca Energy and the Jackdaw gas field, overseen by Shell, will need to reapply for environmental consent - for the first time taking into account the emissions caused by burning the fossil fuels contained in the projects.

Campaigners take part in a Stop Rosebank emergency protest outside the UK government building in Edinburgh. PIC: Jane Barlow/PA Wire

Now, it has emerged that 13 other North Sea oil and gas developments are in the pipeline and could seek development consent in future - opening the door to a flurry of new drilling if developers can justify extracting fossil fuels in line with climate commitments.

As of last year, 13 projects were sitting in the pipeline - with two in the “under assessment” stage and 11 in the “authorise phase”.

Earlier this week, Alex Grant, UK manager of Equinor, said that his company will “push forward” with the Rosebank plans, adding that “we are confident we’ll get that to first production”.

But the show of confidence comes as Scottish Labour energy minister, Michael Shanks, indicated in the strongest terms yet that the UK government, which will give the final consent to projects through the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (“OPRED”), will treat all approvals needed as new applications - potentially making it more difficult for ongoing applications to receive the green light.

The draft new guidance, set to be finalised by the UK government in the spring, seen by The Scotsman, sets out what the developers will be required to do in order to receive environmental consent.

There is a drive to reskill North Sea oil and gas workers to undertake renewables work.

Pointing to the Court of Session ruling and a previous Supreme Court case relating to onshore fracking in England, known as the Finch ruling, the draft guidance stresses that “the emissions resulting from the combustion of oil produced from a project are an effect of the project”.

The document states that “the assessment of the likely significant effects” of the emissions created by the fossil fuel development will depend on “a range of factors” including “whether the emissions are likely to occur in the UK or elsewhere”.

This potentially opens the door for the Rosebank development to justify it meets standards due to the vast majority of the oil poised to be exported to be burnt overseas.

The draft guidance states that emissions “for downstream activities associated with gas could be different from oil because the location of where and how the product is likely to be used can be different, with gas often more likely to be combusted in the UK than oil, which may be exported, refined and used elsewhere”.

But analysis shows the climate pollution from burning Rosebank’s reserves would be more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 lowest-income countries in the world combined.

In updated environmental statements, the draft guidance indicates developers can bring forward “mitigation measures”, where the burning of the oil and gas contained in a project is likely to have an impact on the environment.

It also opens the door to the potential and controversial use of offsetting emissions to justify consent for fossil fuel projects.

The guidance states that updated environmental statements “must present a comprehensive description of the features of the project or measures to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset likely significant adverse effects of the proposed project on the environment”.

It adds that “offsetting should only be considered if other identified mitigation measures are not suitable”.

Another project that is awaiting the outcome of the court case and will now need to reassess its emissions is the Buchan Horst development, being brought forward by Aberdeen-based New European Offshore Energy, Serica Energy and Jersey Oil and Gas.

Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, which won the judicial review against Rosebank, told The Scotsman that “the world has more oil and gas in existing fields than we can safely burn”.

"Rosebank alone, which is the biggest of these developments in the pipeline, would create more CO2 emissions than the 700 million people living in the world's lowest income countries do in a year”, she added. “But, thankfully, the tide is turning in the public's favour.”

She said that “the public interest in staying within safe climate limits trumps the oil companies’ wish to profit“.

Addressing the draft guidance suggesting companies could try to mitigate or offset emissions, Ms Khan added: "The vast majority of the harm to our climate comes from burning the extracted oil and gas – for example, in planes – and so it is utterly impossible to avoid or reduce these emissions by, say, trying to capture them, a point made by the Supreme Court recently.

“No amount of tree planting will offset them either given their scale. The only way to stop this climate harm is to leave these reserves in the ground.”

Friends of the Earth Scotland’s just transition campaigner, Rosie Hampton, said: “The Rosebank decision must mean the end of new oil in the UK. Labour promised voters a sea change in energy policy away from the Tories’ reckless drill every drop approach and now they must deliver.

“If Labour crumbles on Rosebank, oil companies will never stop pushing for new projects because they are remorseless in their desire for profit. We are all paying the cost of the current energy system in higher bills and a wrecked climate.”

During the general election campaign, Labour pledged to end the issuing of new oil and gas licences to help accelerate the transition to renewables, which alongside continued windfall taxes on energy profits, angered the oil and gas sector.

Mr Shanks has now suggested that his government will treat the environmental consent needed to begin extracting oil and gas as a separate process to licences already obtained from the North Sea Transition Authority.

UK Scottish Labour energy minister Michael Shanks. Picture: Lisa Ferguson/National World.

He said: “We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence.

“However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.”

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “Fields with a licence but not yet consented may be awaiting additional guidance before determining whether to proceed with their developments – this depends where they are in the regulatory process.

“However, this is a commercial matter for the relevant companies.”

Exclusive:Rosebank approval 'poised to open floodgates' to 13 oil projects despite Labour's drilling vow

Comments