Can British PM justify approving new oil drilling? Yes — but only under these conditions

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing pressure over whether his government should approve two oil and gas developments, Rosebank in the North Atlantic and Jackdaw in the North Sea, after previous environmental assessments were ruled unlawful, The Guardian writes.

The fields were licensed under the previous Conservative government, but the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled last year that the assessments had failed to account for emissions produced when the oil and gas were ultimately burned. New assessments are now required before consent can be granted.

Michael Jacobs, professor of political economy at the University of Sheffield and a former energy and climate change adviser to Gordon Brown, argues that the government should treat the two projects differently.

Jackdaw, a relatively small gasfield with an expected production life of 11 years, is estimated to generate about 24 million tonnes of carbon emissions. Because its gas would be supplied to the UK, Jacobs says the project could be justified on energy security grounds, particularly if it displaces more carbon-intensive liquefied natural gas imports.

Rosebank presents a different case. The oilfield is expected to operate for about 25 years and generate around 250 million tonnes of carbon emissions. Its oil would be sent to the Netherlands for refining, meaning little, if any, would be used in the UK. Jacobs therefore argues that it would provide little benefit to British energy security.

He says Rosebank could only be made compatible with the UK's net-zero commitments if its approval were tied to carbon capture and storage. Under such a condition, the field's owners would effectively have to pay for the capture and storage of an equivalent volume of emissions, potentially from 2035 onwards.

Jacobs points to Equinor's Sleipner project in Norway, where carbon dioxide has been stored since 1996, as evidence that the technology can operate at scale. He argues that Rosebank could potentially join the UK's wider carbon-storage programme, although the additional costs could lead its owners to abandon the project.

The government should also impose strict methane limits on both Rosebank and Jackdaw, Jacobs says, given methane's greater warming effect compared with carbon dioxide.

On employment, Jacobs argues that approving new drilling should not be presented as the only way to protect jobs in Scotland's oil and gas sector. He points to the large-scale decommissioning work expected across the North Sea, including the plugging and abandonment of thousands of wells.

He says decommissioning could generate up to 25,000 UK jobs over the next decade and provide about £6.8 billion in economic benefits.

Jacobs also calls on the government to publish a long-term net-zero transition roadmap covering energy, transport, industry and agriculture. Such a plan, he argues, would provide greater certainty for businesses, workers and consumers while giving investors a clearer view of the UK's path away from fossil fuels.

The central question, therefore, is not simply whether the government should approve Rosebank, but whether the project can proceed under conditions that are consistent with Britain's domestic and international climate commitments.

By Aghakazim Guliyev