The Rosebank oil field development would have a much greater impact on the climate than the Jackdaw gas project
UK Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh has been urged to approve the controversial Rosebank oil field “before Christmas” amid speculation she is poised to halt the proposal.
Ms Fahnbulleh has approved the Jackdaw gas project, concluding that the project by Adura - a joint venture between Shell and Equinor - would not stop the UK meeting its 2050 net zero target.
The climate impact of the Jackdaw project is estimated to be around 35.8 million tonnes of carbon over its 11-year lifespan, compared to the annual climate emissions of Scotland at around 39 million tonnes of carbon. Rosebank could burn up to 250 million tonnes of carbon.
Speculation has emerged that Ms Fahnbulleh is minded to turn down Adura’s environmental consent application for its Rosebank project.
READ MORE: Jackdaw bosses set out Tornado gas hopes as government says it will fast-track other North Sea projects
Rosebank is also harder to justify on energy security grounds. Jackdaw, which is estimated to provide up to 6 per cent of the UK’s gas demand at its peak was justified, in part, as it will feed directly into the grid.
But the vast majority of oil contained in the Rosebank project, around 80 miles off the west coast of Shetland, will be exported overseas for refining.
Conservative MP for Aberdeen South, Douglas Lumsden, has penned a letter to Ms Fahnbulleh, claiming that failing to approve Rosebank would be “cruel, unnecessary and uneconomic”.
Despite the vast environmental impact and lack of an energy security justification for Rosebank, the Conservatives are focusing on the economic benefits of approving Rosebank - with an estimated 525 long-term jobs potentially created by the project. The Jackdaw gas field will create just 27 direct full time jobs.
READ MORE: Jackdaw gas field approval cannot be distraction from wider crisis facing Aberdeen and the North Sea
Ms Fahnbulleh’s officials reportedly told the Guardian that she was minded to reject Rosebank.
Speaking in Aberdeenshire yesterday, she said: “One is a gas field that caters for the domestic market, while the other is an oil field that is mainly for export.
“It is right that we judge each application in its own right, and it is absolutely critical that the decision is consistent with our climate obligations, our carbon budgets and the end destination we need to get to with the energy transition.”
Mr Lumsden said he was “deeply concerned” by reports Rosebank could be rejected and has written to Ms Fahnbulleh, urging her to grant environmental consent by the end of the year.
READ MORE: Jackdaw: what does it actually mean for business, you and energy prices
In his letter, Mr Lumsden, said: “The city of Aberdeen and my constituents in Aberdeen South depend on the continued extraction and exploration of oil and gas fields.
“There are simply not enough jobs in the renewable sector to replace the jobs in the oil and gas sector. I simply do not understand why this government fails to understand this.
“To deny this project would be to unnecessarily condemn the prospects of many of my constituents. It is cruel, unnecessary and uneconomic.”
He added: “If the Prime Minister wants to see growth in every postcode, then he must approve Rosebank, scrap the energy profits levy, and remove Labour’s ban on all new licences for the people and businesses of Aberdeen South.
Scottish politics has never been more important - get The Steamie newsletter today
“I hope you will seriously consider the consequences of your actions should you fail to approve Rosebank.
“My constituents expect this government to do the right thing. I urge you to approve Rosebank before Christmas and ask you to confirm that a decision will be announced by then.”
But climate campaigners, who are holding a demonstration in Edinburgh this afternoon, have called for Rosebank to be blocked.
A UK government spokesperson said: “This is speculation. As the Energy Secretary has said, each project will be assessed on its own merits.”