The 2024 Supreme Count judgment on the case Weald Action Group’s Horse Hill case is a key factor
Scotland’s Court of Session has today ruled that the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields were approved unlawfully. Consent for their development has been quashed.
In both cases, consent was granted with no assessment of the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions that would arise when the oil and gas to be extracted was eventually burned (known as ‘scope 3’ or ‘downstream’ emissions).
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2024 that these emissions must be taken into account. This was in their judgement on a case brought by campaigner Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group concerning an onshore oil site at Horse Hill in Surrey.
Now the Scottish Court of Session has reached the same conclusion on Rosebank and Jackdaw.
Today’s ruling is a huge victory for campaign groups Uplift and Greenpeace UK, which brought the legal challenges, and for the many campaigners who have worked so hard on this vital issue.
If Rosebank’s and Jackdaw’s operators still wish to move ahead with the projects, they must now resubmit environmental statements to the UK government which account for the fields’ full, enormous downstream emissions.
However the UK government is currently consulting on how to assess the scope 3 emissions of new oil and gas projects, and will not approve any new fields until this concludes in spring.
Sarah Finch said, “This is a huge win for the climate. Both the UK Supreme Court and the Scottish Court of Session have now ruled that it’s wrong to permit fossil fuel developments without assessing their full climate impacts – just as we argued all along.”
“The government must now recognise that the fossil fuel era is over. It must stop licensing new oil and gas projects, in the North Sea and onshore, and prioritise investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and a fair transition and green jobs for workers leaving the fossil fuel industry.”
Alice Owen from the Weald Action Group said, “We are incredibly proud of our successful campaign on Horse Hill, which has turned the tide on UK fossil fuel developments.
“But we’ll be keeping a close eye on the government as their oil and gas consultation concludes in the Spring. It is so important that this monumental progress towards energy transition is not reversed. Climate crisis is already here, but every fraction of a degree and every barrel of oil still counts.”
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.
“The continued burning of oil and gas is why we are seeing more extreme weather like Storm Eowyn and flooding that have claimed lives and caused hundreds of millions of pounds in damage and clean up costs, not to mention the devastation it’s causing in other countries. Most people are now joining the dots with endless oil and gas drilling and are worried about the future.”
“Rosebank is not the answer to energy security, lower bills or jobs. It would simply make obscenely rich oil companies even richer, while increasing the dangers for the rest of us.”
Philip Evans, senior campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: “Fossil fuels are an economic dead end. 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.”
Notes to Editors
The Rosebank oil field and Jackdaw gas field were both approved by the previous government. Greenpeace filed a legal challenge against Jackdaw in July 2022. Uplift and Greenpeace filed separate cases against Rosebank in October 2023. All three cases were paused pending the decision of the UK Supreme Court in the case of Finch v Surrey County Council, then heard together by the Scottish Court of Session in November 2024.
The government withdrew its defence of the legal challenges in light of the Supreme Court judgment on Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group.
For more on the ‘Finch’ case see our report: Historic win as Supreme Court upholds landmark climate case and the Supreme Court’s website at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0064
Would this ruling still be considered a “win” if the companies involved obtain re-consent once they submit the required emissions information?
Would this ruling still be considered a “win” if the re-consent application is denied but the UK’s hydrocarbon requirements are met through increased hydrocarbon imports, including from sources not obliged to report on scope 3 emissions?
Hi Paul and thanks for your message.
1. Yes, it would be a “win” because the decision would have been made with full knowledge of the impact of the downstream greenhouse gas emissions on the climate. Of course we hope that the sites will not be reconsented. The government is now reconsidering its approach to the assessment of scope 3 emissions and we and many others have submitted our views on this. We hope the new regime will be robust enough that climate-damaging fossil fuel production will not get consent. https://www.wealdactiongroup.org.uk/2025/01/7605/
2. These two sites would have a negligible impact on hydrocarbon imports. More than 80% of UK oil is exported and we import a similar amount. Rosebank would not change this. In the case of Jackdaw’s gas, the licences that have been issued in the last 15 years have provided the UK with a grand total of 16 days worth of gas. And half of this has been produced by one field, which is part-owned by Gazprom, and has been exported to the Netherlands.
These two sites wouldn’t solve any of the issues we face, such as energy security, lower bills or jobs. They would simply make extremely rich oil companies even richer, based on handouts from UK taxpayers. The real growth area that will help the UK is renewable energy and that is where the investment needs to go.
Thank you for your explanation.
The key issue is not oil and gas production but its consumption. As long as the UK population wants, or has to, consume more oil and gas than it produces, why not produce as much as possible locally? Naturally, in respect of environmental requirements (personally, I am not in favour of onshore extraction). Many countries would love to have the good fortune to have the UK’s hydrocarbon deposits. So, I struggle to understand the logic of being prepared to import and use oil and gas but not extract it locally offshore. Having available alternative sources of energy is, of course, part of the picture, but pulling up the hydrocarbons drawbridge before alternatives are available and economic is illogical and, potentially, reckless. Plus, there are many things as yet for which no substitute is available, such as for plastics, cement, fertiliser, and more.
The UK’s average oil consumption per day is around 1,300,000 barrels and daily UK production is around 645,000 barrels. No projection scenarios show the UK as becoming self-sufficient in hydrocarbons this century. Rosebank and Jackdaw are projected to produce around 120,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, an amount compared with both current and projected demand and production therefore difficult to consider negligible.
UK hydrocarbon production does support UK energy security, jobs, and GDP/economic growth. It can also support lower bills, as longer-term the state would have greater tax receipts from the companies involved and from the associated increased economic activity. Increased UK hydrocarbon production instead of increased hydrocarbon imports certainly would not act to increase bill
Due to domestic refining capability, most of the oil exported goes to nearby NL for refining and is later reimported into the UK (naturally, the re-imported refined products are not necessarily from the exact same crude oil exported – the net amount of oil imported is the relevant figure to consider). Whether oil extracted in the UK is sent for refining to Fawley or Pembroke in the UK or to The Netherlands or elsewhere outside the UK, therefore, changes little to nothing. Not to communicate this when stating most UK is exported as a reason not to produce oil in the UK suggests being uninformed or disingenuous.
Oil extraction companies, which can, meaning mainly the “Majors”, are fleeing the UK as the regulatory and fiscal conditions do not justify the investment risks. With them goes their investment potential, including in alternative energy sources, and causes reduced hydrocarbon production and, consequentially, reduced… jobs and GDP/economic growth. The biggest issue is likely not to find ways to discourage the oil companies but how to keep them in and investing in the UK.
The transition to alternative energy sources does not need to be pitted against domestic hydrocarbon production, an energy source which the UK will still need for many decades. It does not need to be either/or hydrocarbons and alternative energy sources. The transition needs to be managed in a rational way and with a timeline which strives to avoid unintended consequences, such as making the UK less energy secure and poorer.
I hope my arguments help to see the side of the debate where prejudice against North Sea developments is both premature and irrational, and therefore how not providing re-consent for Rosebank and Jackdaw would be a huge loss for the UK.
Hi Paul, Thank you for your reply. We don’t agree that opposition to these North Sea developments is premature or irrational. Far from premature, the International Energy Agency said that no new fossil fuel projects should be approved anywhere in the world as of the end of 2021 if we are to meet globally agreed climate targets. There is more than enough oil & gas in already operating fields and no need to open new ones apart from to increase the wealth of already fabulously profitable companies.
According to the latest DUKES statistics, 87% of crude oil from the UK coastal shelf is exported. 42% went to the Netherlands and 13% to UK refineries. When oil refined from the Netherlands is reimported, we pay the global market price.
Rosebank and Jackdaw don’t offer the sustainable economic growth and long-term jobs the government is seeking. Jobs in the oil & gas sector have been declining steadily, more than half the jobs supported by the sector have been lost in the last decade. This is because the North Sea is a mature basin. That’s a geological reality and tax breaks won’t change it. You mentioned tax receipts – but the companies behind these fields (which are vastly profitable, Equinor made £6.4 billion in Q4 of 2024 alone) will benefit from billions of pounds in tax breaks. The UK taxpayer will pick up most of the cost of developing the field and the beneficiaries will be foreign companies, not British people.
We absolutely agree that the transition needs to be managed in a rational way. We believe that means taking the climate emergency seriously, continuing to use oil & gas from already developed fields while rapidly reducing energy consumption and developing renewables. Opening new fields is not managing the transition but postponing it.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your views. Rational and informed discussion is much needed in these polarised times.
I certainly echo your sentiment that informed, reasoned, rational, and respectful discussion is what is needed. This is the mature way for positions and opinions to be moulded.
Putting aside whether the IEA, for such matters, is the appropriate arbiter, their predictions accurate, or indeed if climate targets should override everything, they do not have to think about the security of individual countries. Alternative energy sources, especially wind and solar, are unreliable, and without suitable back-up to cover their intermittency, cannot yet guarantee power supply. Plus, some needs will require hydrocarbons for many many decades. It would be dangerous and reckless for a country to rely on unproven alternative energy supply predictions, and on such predictions ability to distribute and deliver power where needed. Therefore, I consider it a risk too great to discontinue with the existing energy sources until my concerns are adequately addressed. As I am sure you’re aware, around the world many new hydrocarbon fields are being developed, and exploration continues apace. As an example, concerning China and Russia, see https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3296670/chinas-15km-drill-project-quest-deep-earth-energy-resources . You will have seen President Trump’s “drill baby drill” plans for the US. I agree, it would be giving a worthy leadership signal for the UK to cut all new production opportunities, but such action would be naïve and, as said, reckless and dangerous. The timing and trade-offs associated with the energy transition needs re-thinking.
Another reason UK crude is exported is its sulphur content of crude which makes it less cost effective to process in the UK. Whatever the reasons for and the amount of UK crude exported, I repeat, it changes little to nothing. Sold and processed in the UK or sent abroad and reprocessed, I agree will not significantly affect the price to the consumer. The difference is crude produced in the UK creates direct and indirect jobs, increases economic growth/GDP, and improves security. Both energy security and the country’s security. (If needed, in an unthinkable emergency scenario, the UK could quickly bring on extra refining capacity.)
Oil and gas exploration and production companies take great risks and invest over very long timeframes. The risk to reward ratio reflects this. The price of oil during Covid should be remembered. If the preference is to discourage investment, then capital will go elsewhere, as it already has and will continue to do. Expecting to privatise risk and nationalise reward, as is being done in the UK now, is not sustainable. Market fixing as this is a step away from a centrally controlled type of economy, and the UK’s populations shows few signs of wanting this. Perhaps another reason oil and gas production in the UK is being discouraged is the fear the competition such activity would cause across the supply chain for renewables/”unreliables”. More centrally controlled market thinking. To the point about the North Sea being a mature basin and the fields there not offering sustainable economic growth, my argument is to let the market decide. About Equinor, I assume you know they are owned 67% by the Norwegian state, and that Norway is the biggest source for both oil and gas for the UK. I don’t understand how you conclude the UK taxpayer would pick up the cost of developing these fields. More detail would be needed for me to be able to comment properly on this.
It’s good we absolutely agree an energy transition is needed and that it must be managed in a rational way. It’s the drivers and trade-offs behind this “rational way” we differ on. I see your points, and, in an ideal world, I could even agree with them, but where we are right now, I view it as foolhardy to take the risks, either at an individual family level or at a country level, that the policy you propose would bring. Tellingly, in your penultimate paragraph, you put “while rapidly reducing energy consumption”. I agree with you on this objective, to reduce energy consumption, but… it is not going to happen. I base this prediction on evidence from past transitions, demographics (both in numbers and in expectation of standard of living increases in “developing countries” and therefore energy consumption per capita increases), and… human nature. It would be great if I am wrong, but it is a risk I am not willing to take. You, it appears, have a different calculation of the trade-offs and a higher risk threshold.
The conclusion from your reasoning is the desire for a centrally controlled economy and an energy strategy controlled at a global level (““energy” is the economy”, but this is another discussion) leading to a lower standard of living/simpler way of life. I can see the benefits of such an arrangement, but history has shown the drawbacks it brings. It is also a scenario I consider unacceptable and dangerous for the UK to plan around and, anyway, it is not going to happen. That countries with a more centrally controlled organisation are going hell for leather to find new oil and gas should be a big enough warning.
The UK should indeed be giving leadership in driving the transition, including to net zero, but the transition must include the existing energy sector, and it’s supply chain, and be on a reasoned and rational forward=projected timeframe, not working back from a timeframe driven more by wishful thinking and ideology. Leadership based on unreliable assumptions is a poor example to give. The UK instead of bolstering domestic supply, enabling production from the North Sea and attracting new investment into the North Sea, has discouraged investment and has become increasingly reliant upon imports. This approach spooked the energy sector and its supply chain and knocked confidence at precisely the wrong moment. I therefore remain of the opinion that prejudice against North Sea developments is both premature and irrational, There could still be time to recover the situation, and a re-consent of Rosebank and Jackdaw would be a win and a signal in the right direction. Yes, climate issues need to be taken seriously, but so do a country’s security issues and its people’s condition. The key will be to find the suitable mix of trade-offs for the so-called energy trilemma. On this you have one view, I have another. That’s the way it should be as we wait to see the decisions our elected officials will arrive at.
Hi Paul
Thanks for the further reply. As you say, we have different calculations of the trade-offs. We believe that tackling the climate crisis has to be the highest priority – for lots of reasons, including financial. Just think about the hundreds of millions of pounds in damage and clean-up costs after Storm Eowyn two weeks ago and the flooding this winter.
Just to pick up on a couple of points you made:
Solar and wind are improving rapidly and importantly, don’t have the major downside of worsening climate change.
Reducing energy consumption is not impossible. Many technologies are now far more energy efficient than they used to be and that will continue. Simple steps could help – like insulating homes and improving public transport and infrastructure for walking and cycling, would help. However there’s no doubt that we do need to curb the excessive consumption of the richest of us. Researchers say a global population of 10 billion could enjoy decent living standards while using 60% less energy than today, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512
On the UK taxpayer picking up the bill, Equinor use a tax break called Ringfence Expenditure Supplement (RFES) which secured them £400m tax relief in 2021 and 2022. https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/rosebank-equinor-oil-and-gas-tax-break-north-sea-4837476
It’s not just climate campaigners who believe the time has come for new oil & gas in the North Sea to end. The majority (70%) of UK business leaders support Labour’s policy to end new oil and gas licensing in the North Sea. https://www.upliftuk.org/post/majority-of-uk-business-leaders-back-an-end-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licensing
Thank you again for your posts.