7 things I learned from reading the Rosebank verdict
On the 30th September of 2023, I tapped a paper banner to the windows of North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) building in Aberdeen. It read ‘This Is A Crime Scene’, I thought it was appropriate given that they had just given consent to drill the Rosebank oil field. While doing it I got some stick from a passing local, ‘Ye canna dee that. Fit if somebdy stuck summin on your windae?!’.
Exactly 17 months later, I woke up, and as with many in the climate movement and those wanting a liveable planet (that’s everyone right?) welcomed the news that put a stop to the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields.
The headlines described how Scotland’s Court of Session had ruled the granting of consent to produce oil and gas was ‘unlawful’, because the projects’ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions created when most of the oil and gas produced is burned.
The companies will now have to resubmit new EIAs to the UK Government who will decide whether to reject these new fields once and for all.
Rosebank decision as a ‘turning point’
Only time will tell if this is, indeed, a significant turning point in the story of how the UK (and perhaps the world even) starts to wean itself of oil and gas.
I can understand why many people may have celebrated this decision, especially those supporting the Stop Rosebank campaign. However, I was feeling slightly conflicted and discussed with friends whether it was a time to truly celebrate.
Living and working in Aberdeen, as a Just Transition Organiser, I knew there would be many people in the city who would have received the news with dismay or even fear for the future. I don’t mean the top brass in Shell, Ithaca or Equinor, I mean the lower paid, often precarious workers who rely on the industry for livelihoods, especially given the much talked about ‘Just Transition’ is materially a long way off in their minds.
I recognise that many in the Stop Rosebank and related campaigns have worked really hard, I suspect most of the hours that have gone into it have been by voluntary/unpaid activists who are the backbone of this work. There have been some wins along the way, e.g. when Shell pulled out of the Cambo oil field, but largely ‘wins’ are rare, so indeed I can see how it was a moment to celebrate.
The verdict was ultimately about preventing more bad shit from happening, rather than ensuring something positive happened. So, I was left with a feeling of relief rather than elation.
I actually felt more elation a day later, when I found out Gail Delap, a 78-year-old activist had been finally released from prison to house arrest. The appalling crackdown on peaceful protest saw her sentenced to serve 20 months in prison, for simply suspending a banner from a motorway gantry. I don’t know Gail, but know people who do, so it was nice to know she would be back home with her family and friends.
I was still thinking about the question of what we were celebrating when I woke up on Saturday. So, I decided to read the entire verdict, to see if that provided the answer. And it did!
Insight into the legal verdict
If you’ve not read it, I would encourage you to. Apart from the odd legal term like ‘reduction’ it’s surprisingly written in an accessible format. It’s also revealing how oil and gas companies go about developing fields. Above all it gives some real insight into the case, that, as far as I can see wasn’t covered in depth by any media outlets.
For those that choose not to read, I’ll share some of what I learnt from the 57 pages: Some of it may surprise you.
1) Shell, Equinor and Ithaca all agreed during the case (and prior to the final verdict), the original consent to Rosebank and Jackdaw was unlawful. Yes, that’s right. The oil companies did not challenge this.
2) Thus, this case was not really about the ministerial decision to give consent to drill, what was at stake was what to do about it. This was either to allow the projects to continue despite the unlawfulness or allow the companies to come back with a revised Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, that included the emissions from the oil & gas extracted (known as scope 3 emissions).
3) The consent was unlawful because of an amendment made in 2020 to a 1999 law. This amendment incorporated an EU directive into UK law (post Brexit) that meant EIAs had to include “the impact of the project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions)…” This law was then tested and refined in the related Finch legal case which ruled that these scope 3 emissions had to be incorporated into EIAs.
4) Shell completed the wellhead platform to Jackdaw, 1 month before the Government granted consent in June 2022. I didn’t know oil companies can do work before consent – and in fact the developers claim they will continue with preparatory work for Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. But they are not allowed to extract any oil.
5) The Jackdaw field wasn’t going to create any additional jobs beyond the initial development stage as it was an ‘unmanned’ platform tied into the existing Shearwater gas platform. This is worth bearing in mind when you hear lofty claims of jobs from fossil fuel companies.
6) Despite this and the Finch legal challenge overhanging the development, Shell already ‘shelled out’ £275 million to develop Jackdaw and £48 million to modify the existing Shearwater platform Jackdaw.
7) Norwegian state-owned oil giant Equinor, claim to have spent £466 million already on Rosebank.
There are other nuggets of information and even intrigue. I enjoyed reading the judge slating the evidence given by the oil and gas trade body OEUK, which he dismissed as, ‘of little assistance’.
It’s also clear from the oil companies’ statements in the court, they are manoeuvring themselves for potential future claim against the UK Government for the development costs they have incurred, if their application to drill is ultimately rejected. Although the judge appeared to attempt to head that off with this statement, “The developers knew that the Supreme Court decision in Finch was awaited. Their decision to carry on with the development notwithstanding that uncertainty was a commercial decision for them at their own risk”.
Of course, oil companies should be paying for the climate damage that they are knowingly causing – rather than wanting to extract even more money from the public purse.
Decision built on years of campaigning
By the time I finished reading, I realised what the actual point of celebration was. For me the point of celebrating was the work and time everyone in, or who supported the UK climate movement up to 2020, especially those who in the years previously had created widespread awareness of the climate crisis to a scale that had not been previously seen.
Most notably, this includes all the School Strikers, people protesting on the streets, especially during 2018 and 2019, the numerous environmental groups/charities that supported the street-based movements, as well the celebrity endorsements and TV programmes. I think the change in the public zeitgeist on climate pre-covid would have meant it would have been very difficult politically for the Boris Johnson UK Government to have dropped that sentence in the amended legislation, especially if it wasn’t a pre-condition of the Brexit deal.
Without that amendment, we wouldn’t have seen the Finch case. And without those heady days of from 2018 to early 2020 (which also coincided with third runway at Heathrow being abandoned) Rosebank and Jackdaw would be going ahead.
So indeed, I raise my glass halfway, only halfway. It will go all the way when a Just Transition truly starts to take place. So, now’s the time for the movement to go again. We need to remain vigilant over the next few months. Expect the companies to come back with sophisticated ways in which to minimise or try to pass the buck around the scope 3 emissions. Pressure needs to be kept on the UK Government to reject these project entirely.
Years of opposition and protest created the appetite and the momentum for these legal challenges to new oil fields. A healthy movement will have lots of people working in very different ways, utilising people’s skills and interests and capitalising on opportunities created by others.
Working for a positive, constructive just transition
In the medium and long term, what is more important for the movement to focus on building a much broader coalition, including all parts of our communities. Thus, we must focus much more on issues that make an actual difference to people’s lives, like ensuring the infrastructure for renewables is made on these islands and publicly owned, instead on faraway lands and in private hands.
The Just Transition must happen in our communities too. Demand better and more affordable public transport, equitable mass retrofit’ of our homes, workplaces, streets, creating warm and affordable buildings and communities that are healthy to live and grow up in. Consent is crucial in all of this so the movement must ensure ‘energy transition’ must be done with and not to communities and workers.
The prize of getting this right is enormous, for all our lives. And while its right that we acknowledge our successes, there’s still a long way and a lot of work to do to for my arm to be fully raised.
By the way, I ended up having a chat with the guy who shouted at me on that September day in 2023. After some discussion on whether climate change was caused by some human activity or not, we did reach some common ground on that everyone’s homes should be made warmer and more affordable to heat. I feel they’re the type of conversations we must have more of in the movement.
