😐 Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

• The Court of Session ruled that the previous consents for the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields in the North Sea were unlawful because they did not consider the emissions from burning the fuel produced. Developers must reapply for consent, taking into account scope 3 emissions.

• The government is consulting on revised environmental guidance to include emissions from burning oil and gas, aiming to provide stability for the industry. Finalised guidance is expected soon, after which decisions on environmental impact assessments will resume.

• The government reaffirmed its commitment to a fair and prosperous transition in the North Sea, balancing oil and gas with clean energy, in line with climate and legal obligations.

• The opposition criticises the government for risking jobs and investment but acknowledges the need for a transition towards renewables. They stress that oil and gas will still be needed for many years.

• There is a consensus that the North Sea is a declining basin, necessitating planning for future industries, jobs, and technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen.

• The government’s focus on clean energy and economic growth was highlighted, with investments aimed at supporting jobs in regions like the north-east of Scotland.

• The importance of adhering to legal rulings and not prejudicing future applications was emphasized by the Minister, despite opposition calls for clarity on handling new applications.

• The debate also touched on broader energy policies, including the impact of oil and gas on energy bills and security, and the push towards energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

The session on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields exhibited a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 out of 5. Here are the key points and examples that support this assessment:

1. Partisan Disagreement: There is a clear divide between the Conservative and Labour parties regarding the approach to oil and gas fields. For instance, Andrew Bowie criticizes the Labour government’s handling of the situation and accuses them of prioritizing ideology over economic considerations, saying, ‘It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.’ In contrast, Labour ministers defend their actions as legally necessary and part of a broader strategy for energy transition, with Michael Shanks emphasizing adherence to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

2. Policy Approach: Disagreement is evident in the policy approaches to oil and gas. The Conservative MPs, such as Andrew Bowie and Harriet Cross, argue for continuing investments in existing oil and gas fields to protect jobs and maintain energy security. For example, Harriet Cross stresses the importance of Rosebank for investment and jobs in North East Scotland, asserting, ‘Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland.’ On the other hand, Labour ministers and MPs, like Michael Shanks and Bill Esterson, underscore the importance of transitioning to renewables, criticizing the Conservative approach for ignoring the need for a shift away from fossil fuels.

3. Economic vs. Environmental Priorities: The debate also highlights tensions between economic and environmental priorities. Conservative figures like Bradley Thomas draw parallels between supporting Heathrow expansion for growth and supporting the domestic oil and gas industry, questioning the government’s coherence on growth vs. environmental commitments. Labour MPs, such as Olivia Blake and Helen Hayes, counter that focusing on renewables and sustainable energy solutions aligns with both economic growth and environmental responsibilities, with Hayes mentioning the Grantham Institute’s concerns about international signals of continued oil dependency.

4. Legal and Procedural Disagreements: There’s disagreement on the government’s handling of legal and procedural aspects related to the oilfields. Michael Shanks repeatedly emphasizes the need to follow legal processes dictated by the Supreme Court and the importance of not prejudicing future applications, whereas Conservative criticism, particularly from Andrew Bowie and Julia Lopez, focuses on the abrupt withdrawal of government lawyers in the legal case and its impact on investor confidence.

5. Future Investment and Job Security: There’s evident contention regarding future investments and job security in the North Sea region. Labour MPs emphasize their investment in renewables and carbon capture, whereas Conservative MPs express skepticism about these plans and their impact on the oil and gas workforce, with John Cooper calling Great British Energy a ‘booby prize’ and questioning the commitment to current energy needs.

Overall, while the session is characterized by typical political disagreements, there are specific areas of contention, especially around the handling of oil and gas licensing, the balance between economic and environmental priorities, and the future of the workforce in North East Scotland. This level of disagreement is significant but does not rise to the highest level of conflict, hence a rating of 3.