Energy secretary leaning towards rejecting Rosebank oilfield

Energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh is considering rejecting approval for Rosebank, one of the North Sea’s biggest proposed oilfields. Officials say she is minded to refuse the project, but she has not made a final decision. The choice matters because Rosebank would affect the North Sea industry, UK energy policy and climate campaigners.

Fahnbulleh approved the smaller Jackdaw gasfield, but said its reasoning did not automatically apply to Rosebank. Jackdaw is intended to supply gas to the domestic market. Rosebank is mainly an oil project, and most of its oil would be exported. Fahnbulleh said each application must be judged separately against climate obligations and carbon budgets.

A decision is expected later this year. Rosebank’s developer remains confident it will be approved, pointing to jobs and economic benefits. A refusal would be a major victory for climate campaigners and a setback for the North Sea oil industry.

An oilfield is an area containing underground deposits of crude oil that companies can extract and process. Oil is a liquid fuel and a major energy industry product. The term describes the resource and the production site, rather than a single well. Rosebank is an oilfield, while Jackdaw is a gasfield producing natural gas.

The projects differ in both fuel and intended market. Fahnbulleh said Jackdaw would cater for the domestic market, helping supply gas during the transition to net zero. She described Rosebank as an oilfield mainly intended for export. The government therefore views their energy-security benefits differently.

The distinction is central to the approval debate. Jackdaw was approved because officials judged its gas supply compatible with climate commitments. Fahnbulleh said that reasoning did not automatically apply to Rosebank, so the applications must be assessed separately.

The article estimates that Jackdaw will add 36m tonnes of carbon emissions. Rosebank would emit about seven times the carbon of Jackdaw. This makes Rosebank the much larger climate concern in the comparison, even though the article does not give a separate exact tonnage for Rosebank.

The projects are different in scale and duration. Rosebank is described as a bigger field that would last longer than Jackdaw. Its fuel is also oil rather than gas, and most of the oil would be exported. These features help explain why officials compare their emissions and energy-security value differently.

The emissions gap is important because Fahnbulleh must consider climate obligations and carbon budgets. She judged Jackdaw compatible with those commitments, but is not applying that conclusion automatically to Rosebank. The final Rosebank decision remains pending and is expected later this year.

The government distinguishes the projects by fuel, market and energy-security value. Fahnbulleh said the UK will need gas while moving towards net zero. She argued that gas from relatively low-carbon North Sea sources could be preferable to imported gas. That reasoning supported Jackdaw, which is intended to supply the domestic market.

Rosebank is mainly an oilfield for export. Fahnbulleh said it would do less for UK energy security because most of its oil would leave the country. Rosebank would also emit about seven times as much carbon as Jackdaw. Its case therefore cannot rely on the same domestic-supply argument.

Fahnbulleh said each application must be judged on its own merits. She must consider climate obligations, carbon budgets and the intended energy transition. Jackdaw’s approval shows that some new production can be permitted, but it does not guarantee approval for a larger export-oriented oilfield.

Rosebank’s outcome could affect several competing interests. Approval would support the North Sea energy industry and could bring jobs and economic benefits. The project’s company says Rosebank is bigger and longer-lasting than Jackdaw, making its economic impact different. Unions and industry supporters have campaigned for permits.

Its energy-security contribution would be weaker than Jackdaw’s because most Rosebank oil would be exported. The field would also emit about seven times Jackdaw’s carbon. Rejecting it would therefore be a major victory for climate campaigners and reduce the emissions associated with this proposed development. Approval could instead create political difficulty for Labour.

The decision could affect Labour’s support in north-east Scotland, where much of the industry is based. It may also upset Labour MPs in seats challenged by the Greens. A poll found nearly one-third of voters would be less likely to vote Labour after more North Sea oil drilling.

The government’s transition plan combines several energy sources. Fahnbulleh says the UK will still need gas while moving towards net zero. Domestic North Sea gas is presented as preferable to imports when it comes from relatively low-carbon sources. Imported energy can fill gaps, but the government links homegrown energy with stronger security during crises.

Longer term, the planned energy wealth fund is intended to direct North Sea revenues into cleaner options. Fahnbulleh said the money would support renewables, nuclear power and other clean-energy schemes. These sources are meant to help change the energy system rather than preserve dependence on oil and gas.

The plan has unresolved details. The government has committed £2bn to the fund, but has not specified which tax revenues will enter it or how much it will raise. Fahnbulleh also admitted Jackdaw is not about reducing household bills. The chancellor will provide further details in the budget.

Net zero means reducing greenhouse-gas emissions sharply and balancing remaining emissions with removals. Carbon budgets are legally set limits for the emissions the UK can produce over specified periods. Climate obligations are the national and international commitments that guide those limits. Together, they define the direction of the energy transition.

These rules do not automatically ban every new oil or gas project. They require ministers to test whether a proposal is consistent with the country’s emissions pathway. Fahnbulleh said Jackdaw did not violate the UK’s climate commitments. She also said Rosebank must be judged separately against those commitments and carbon budgets.

That makes emissions, fuel type and market important. Jackdaw supplies domestic gas during the transition, while Rosebank is mainly an export oilfield and would emit about seven times as much carbon. The government must therefore weigh energy needs against its longer-term climate destination.