On January 30, 2025, the Court of Session in Edinburgh made headlines with its ruling declaring the approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields unlawful, requiring major players like Shell and Equinor to seek new consents from the UK government before proceeding with drilling operations.
The legal fight emerged as environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Uplift, challenged the legitimacy of these sites, arguing the UK government had failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of emissions associated with the projects. The ruling marks a significant victory for climate campaigners who have criticized the government for supporting developments they believe contradict the UK’s climate obligations.
The court found the consent granted under the previous Conservative government was unlawful. Judge Lord Ericht pointedly noted, "The private interest of members of the public in climate change outweighs the private interest of the developers." This indicates the rising importance of environmental concerns within judicial proceedings.
Among the key reasons cited for the legal challenges were insufficient environmental impact assessments and lack of transparency from regulatory bodies. The court highlighted the government's failure to fully evaluate the Scope 3 emissions—that is, the emissions produced when consumers burn the oil and gas extracted from these fields. Activists were clear about their stance, with Greenpeace stating, “Jackdaw and Rosebank were both approved under the false claim they are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate commitments. This is not true—regulators approved them without taking emissions caused from burning fossil fuels, which is where the vast amount of emissions are produced.”
Specific details about the projects also reveal their significance to the UK energy infrastructure. The Jackdaw field, located 250 km east of Aberdeen, is projected to supply gas capable of heating approximately 1.4 million UK homes. It is anticipated to account for about 6% of total UK North Sea gas production. Conversely, the Rosebank oil field, predominantly held by Equinor, is believed to contain around 300 million barrels of oil and could support up to 2,000 jobs, with expectations to supply 7% of UK oil production from 2026 to 2030.
Despite the ruling, Judge Ericht permitted construction activities to continue, contingent upon new environmental impact assessments being submitted. This means no oil and gas extraction can take place until fresh approvals are granted, creating potential delays for both projects. Shell, which has invested heavily—over £800 million—in the development of Jackdaw, stated the ruling allows for progress on what they regard as nationally important energy infrastructure.
Equinor also welcomed the court's decision, expressing optimism about moving forward with the Rosebank project. Executives from both companies underscored their initiatives toward reducing CO₂ emissions and contributing to energy security. Equinor emphasized, “Oil and gas will be needed to power the global economy for many years to come,” asserting their role within the broader energy transition framework.
Environmental activists celebrated the court decision, viewing it as emblematic of shifting attitudes toward fossil fuel development and climate accountability. Greenpeace UK’s Philip Evans proclaimed it was “a historic win—the age of governments approving new drilling sites by ignoring their climate impacts is over.”
The ruling resonates beyond these immediate projects, touching on broader themes about the UK government's difficulty balancing energy security needs against climate commitments. The UK government, now under Labour leadership, had initially indicated its intention to revise environmental guidelines to require proper assessments of downstream emissions—the emissions resulting from the burned fuels—before granting consents for such developments.
The recent history of legal interventions concerning fossil fuel projects indicates growing scrutiny and increasing challenges to traditional energy development. The case emphasizes the necessity for regulatory frameworks to evolve alongside changing public opinion on climate change and energy production. Critics of the Jackdaw and Rosebank projects argue these developments will not bolster UK energy security because most North Sea oil typically enters the global market, emphasizing the urgent need for the government to prioritize clean energy alternatives.
Looking forward, both Shell and Equinor will be required to submit revised environmental impact assessments taking Scope 3 emissions fully accounted. The next steps for these companies will undoubtedly hinge on adapting to the changing regulatory environment and public sentiment as the UK makes strides toward its climate goals. The anticipated publication of new environmental guidance by the government later this spring aims to provide clarity for oil and gas companies amid fluctuated expectations.
Supporters of traditional energy production claim it is necessary for job creation and economic benefits, highlighting potential financial gains from the UK’s energy sector. But, as tensions rise between ecological commitments and energy demands, the question remains: can the UK maintain economic growth without jeopardizing its climate responsibilities?