Campaigners against Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oil field, have told the UK government that approving the project would risk breaching international law.
They say profits would flow in part to the Israeli oil and gas company Delek Group, which the UN human rights commissioner accuses of “supporting the maintenance and existence” of illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Note that Delek is not a Rosebank partner, but is the majority shareholder in a 20% Rosebank partner, Ithaca Energy. The 80% owner and project operator is Equinor, which is 2/3 owned by the Norwegian govt. Apparently, neither Equinor nor Norway are troubled by Ithaca Energy’s 20% Rosebank share. (There is no indication that the BBC contacted Equinor prior to publishing the article.)
The most sensible quote in the article is from the govt of Israel which dismissed the accusations as “absurd and distorted.”
Which do left-wing activists hate more – oil or Israel?
In the case of the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, Lord Ericht ruled that the environmental assessment must take into account the climate effect of downstream emissions resulting from the consumption of oil and gas produced at those fields.
The Sale 257 decision was even more extreme in that Judge Contreras ruled that BOEM failed to consider the “positive” effect that higher prices (which might result from lower US offshore production) would have in reducing worldwide demand and the associated GHG emissions.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the extent to which GHGs affect the climate, halting UK and US projects will have virtually no effect on international oil and gas demand. That demand will be satisfied by other suppliers who will reap the economic benefits.
Presumably, revised environmental assessments, will allow the previously approved UK projects, for which some facilities have already been constructed and installed, to go forward. The UK government has been considering how to calculate downstream emissions. The model will no doubt yield outcomes that are highly uncertain.
In the meantime, the UK sector of the North Sea, unlike its Norwegian counterpart, continues to flounder.
“We need more of it because even the most ardent supporters of renewable energy, the most vocal proponents of net zero, quietly admit oil and, especially, gas will be needed for a couple of decades at least. That obvious truth, that inarguable necessity, is not, apparently, enough for ministers to encourage UK production, however, or temper their rhetoric around renewables.“
“Allowing our rigs and refineries to power down and relying on other countries to keep the lights on still seems a little, well, counter-intuitive. We will import oil and gas but not produce it while happily exporting contracts, skills and jobs overseas? The practical impact of Labour’s refusal to grant new exploration licences in the North Sea might remain unclear but the message it sent was absolutely crystal.“
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 