Legal storm to hit Rosebank as UK’s historic ruling brings emissions from burning oil & gas into play

The UK’s Supreme Court has introduced a potential game changer with its decision to deem approval of an energy project unlawful due to no consideration being given to the climate impact of burning the oil. This is expected to have serious implications for all new fossil fuel developments in the country as it adds weight to activists’ cases against such projects. The ink is not even dry yet on the ruling but it has sparked excitement about resuming a legal battle against Rosebank, said to be the largest undeveloped oil field in British waters.

Following five grueling years locked in a court battle, the ruling on a legal challenge, brought on by local campaigner Sarah Finch on behalf of Weald Action Group and supported by Friends of the Earth, against Surrey County Council over its decision to grant planning permission for oil drilling at Horse Hill, has led to an unprecedented plot twist in the handling of lawsuits against fossil fuel projects, giving an advantage to those fighting for the climate in court.

After winning the case, Finch said: “This is a welcome step towards a safer, fairer future. The oil and gas companies may act like ‘business as usual’ is still an option, but it will be very hard for planning authorities to permit new fossil fuel developments – in the Weald, the North Sea or anywhere else – when their true climate impact is clear for all to see.”

As the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes for the first time that emissions from burning oil and gas need to be taken into account when approving such projects, environmental activists and climate campaigners have hailed the decision to quash the planning permission for the Horse Hill project as a historic win for the climate. According to Katie de Kauwe, Lawyer from Friends of the Earth, this marks “another fantastic step towards a fossil-free future.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision is also seen as a green light to proceed with the legal case against the Equinor-operated Rosebank oil field, as activists believe their lawsuit is now standing on much stronger ground. The court put the lawsuit on hold, pending the decision in the Finch case, as one of the claims was also about the need to assess the emissions from burning oil and gas.

As a result, the activists expect to get the all-clear to move forward with the Rosebank case soon, along with a date for the hearing. Their hopes of stopping Rosebank have grown in proportion in the aftermath of the court’s ruling, as they interpret it to mean that oil and gas projects now must take into account emissions of actually burning the fossil fuels they extract when seeking approval, which was not the case before as developers were able to get away with ignoring these emissions.

With the Rosebank oil field estimated to contain over 300 million barrels of oil, climate campaigners argue that burning the field’s oil and gas would produce more CO2 than the 28 lowest-income countries produce in a year. Even though Equinor is saying Rosebank may be powered by renewable energy, climate activities see this as a greenwashing attempt to lower the carbon footprint of the oil field.

Based on environmental groups’ logic, if the approval of Horse Hill is considered unlawful because it failed to assess the climate impact of the emissions that will inevitably be produced from the burning of the oil, then the approval of Rosebank should be considered unlawful for the same reason.

Located about 130 kilometers off the coast of the Shetland Islands in the UK, the Rosebank oil and gas field is expected to lead to £8.1 billion (over $9.8 billion) of total direct investment, of which 78% is likely to be invested in UK-based businesses. 

At its peak, the field could produce 69,000 barrels of oil or 9,000 tons per day, equivalent to 8% of the UK’s entire output between 2026 and 2030. With electrification, it is estimated that the Rosebank lifetime upstream CO₂ intensity would decrease from 12 kg to about 3 kg CO₂/boe.

Equinor and its partner, Ithaca Energy, plan to invest $3.8 billion in the development of the first phase, which entails subsea wells tied back to a redeployed floating production storage and offloading vessel (FPSO), Petrojarl Knarr, with start-up planned in 2026-2027.

Climate campaigners scored a huge legal win last month when the High Court ruled the UK government’s climate strategy was unlawful and ordered the next government to produce a new one. Despite these recent wins, activists underline that their fight to end the era of fossil fuels is not over, as there are more legal battles to be won to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

In the race to stave off climate catastrophe, environmentalists using the campaign slogan #StopRosebank see no room for new oil and gas production and neither does Oceana, an ocean conservation organization, which is threatening the government with legal action, following the decision to grant 31 new oil and gas licenses, over a third of which are believed to overlap with marine protected areas.