'Turning point': Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas permissions in North Sea scrapped by courts
Downing Street has pledged to work “at speed” to reassess two controversial North Sea oil and gas developments after a judge ruled it was unlawful for the projects to be given the green light.
The court decision to overturn permissions for the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields has left the decision on whether the projects should go ahead with the government, forcing fossil fuel giants to re-assess the full climate impact of plans.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe decision could dramatically shift the focus on the North Sea transition from the economy to the climate, despite warnings up to £1 billion of private investment could be lost and hundreds of jobs put at risk if the projects are scrapped.


Following a hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Ericht has ruled the UK government must now consider the full environmental impact of emissions from burning the oil at Rosebank and gas at Jackdaw, and make a new decision on whether the projects can go ahead.
Climate campaigners who launched the judicial review have branded the decision a “historic win”.
First Minister John Swinney, whose government is yet to set out its position on oil and gas developments, told The Scotsman that minsters have “wrestled with” any “compatibility of oil and gas activity with objectives on climate”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said: “We need to look at the judgement, consider it in detail and see what its implications are.”
The contentious proposals were approved by the North Sea Transition Authority on behalf of Conservative UK government ministers. Rosebank, the largest untapped oil field on the UK Continental Shelf, had received permission last year and Jackdaw was given the green light in 2022.
In August, the Labour UK government withdrew support for the developers, a stark move from Tory ministers insisting they would “robustly defend” the cases.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe cases brought by climate campaigners, Greenpeace and Uplift, were dealt a boost in June when the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case the burning of fossil fuels associated with the projects, rather than simply the building of the infrastructure, should be taken into account when projects are approved.
Now the Court of Session has ruled the unlawful decisions for Rosebank and Jackdaw should be subject to reapplications.


Equinor and Ithica, behind the Rosebank project, and Shell, bringing forward the Jackdaw proposals, are prohibited from extracting any oil and gas from the sites before updated environmental impact assessments are submitted and their applications are reassessed.
But preparatory works are able to continue at the sites.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdShell had warned that a 12-month suspension of the Jackdaw project could cost “at least £200 million” while “the jobs of the 1,000 workers involved in the construction of the project would be at risk”. The company said the costs of a permanent halt could “exceed £350m”.
Equinor and Ithica claimed that a one-year delay of Rosebank could cost almost £400m, while a two-year hold-up could cost more than £800m. The companies argued that “several hundred workers could be exposed to the risk of redundancy”.
But in his judgement, Lord Ericht stated “the public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said “the effect of the burning of fossil fuels on climate change and the lives of individual persons is now well recognised in law”.
Lord Ericht said the decision would be quashed, but “can be taken again, this time taking into account downstream emissions”.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift said: “This is a significant win, which means that Rosebank cannot go ahead without accounting for its enormous climate harm.


“Rosebank is a bad deal for the UK. Most of its oil will be exported and sold on the international market, doing nothing to lower our energy bills or boost UK energy security.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad"If Equinor and Ithaca Energy try to push Rosebank through despite this ruling, the government must reject it. To do otherwise would undermine its ambitious clean growth plans by sending a signal to investors that the UK isn’t serious about transitioning away from expensive oil and gas.”
Philip Evans, senior campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: “This is a historic win - the age of governments approving new drilling sites by ignoring their climate impacts is over.
“Now that the ball is back in the government’s court, ministers have the opportunity to sort out the legal mess left by their predecessors. They should use this moment to set out a new path for the North Sea, reaffirming their commitment to no new oil and gas, and prioritising clean energy.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdFriends of Earth Scotland oil and gas campaigner Freya Aitchison, labelled the ruling “a momentous victory for climate justice” and a “turning point” in moving away from fossil fuels.


An Equinor spokesperson said: “We welcome today’s ruling and are pleased with the outcome, which allows us to continue with progressing the Rosebank project while we await new consents.
“We welcome the court’s judgment, which enables Equinor to continue developing a project expected to create up to 2,000 UK jobs during its development phase.
“We will continue to work closely with the regulators and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to progress the Rosebank project.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad

“This includes submitting a downstream end user combustion emissions (‘scope 3’) assessment in full compliance with the government’s new environmental guidance, which is targeted to be published this spring.”
A Shell spokesperson said: “Today’s ruling rightly allows work to progress on this nationally important energy project while new consents are sought. Swift action is needed from the government so that we and other North Sea operators can make decisions about vital UK energy infrastructure.”
Chief executive of the trade body, OEUK, David Whitehouse, said: “The revised environmental impact assessment process which manages these consents must be robust and must be delivered at pace.”
Analysis by David Bol
We don’t yet know if this decision will truly be a “turning point” for the North Sea transitioning away from oil and gas.
What is now crystal clear is that the Conservative oil and gas decisions Labour once hid behind are no longer there to shield them from responsibility. This one will be on them.
Ahead of the general election, Labour claimed it would end all new North Sea oil and gas projects. But a sly caveat that the previous decisions the Conservatives made to give projects the thumbs up would not be changed. They claimed it was too late.
But Rosebank and Jackdaw having to reapply with the full climate costs set out, puts Labour’s credentials on winding down a key economic asset, under the microscope.
The UK government is due to publish its updated environmental guidance for North Sea oil and gas developments by the spring.
There is already tension inside the Labour government over the tussle between the climate agenda and the economy - the expansion of Heathrow is a prime example of the desperation to grow the economy at all costs. This could be no different.
These projects are by no means dead and buried. The developers may simply be able to meet the new guidelines, resubmit their plans and crack on with extracting oil and gas.
There are also questions for the Scottish Government. Although licensing is reserved to Westminster through the North Sea Transition Authority, what SNP ministers have to say about oil and gas is a big deal for the industry and that crucial confidence to invest.
Despite former energy secretary Michael Matheson stating that the Scottish Government was considering a “presumption against” new oil and gas developments, SNP ministers’ current position is that climate compatibility tests, the ones championed by Boris Johnson, should be applied.
But the Scottish Government's long-delayed energy strategy, which was completed last May, has still not seen the light of day.
A fortnight ago, John Swinney told MSPs that these court cases “fundamentally affect decision making and policy approaches in relation to consent to any oil and gas developments”.
Maybe now we can expect the Scottish Government to finally tell us whether it supports new fossil fuels projects.
A UK government spokesperson said: “The government has already consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas to provide stability for industry, support investment, protect jobs and deliver economic growth.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“We will respond to this consultation as soon as possible and developers will be able to apply for consents under this revised regime.
“Our priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea in line with our climate and legal obligations, which drives towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills, and good, long-term jobs.”
A North Sea Transition Authority spokesperson said: “We note the court’s decision and are considering the judgement.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.