The implications of a landmark legal challenge about climate emissions from onshore oil have spread to the offshore industry.

The government announced today it was not defending a judicial review of development consent for the Rosebank oil field off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen.

A statement from the energy security department said this was because of the Supreme Court judgement in the case brought by campaigner, Sarah Finch.

In June, a majority of the court’s justices said regulators must consider the climate impact of burning oil and gas, known as indirect, downstream or scope 3 emissions.

The Finch case centred on planning permission for oil production at the Horse Hill onshore site in Surrey. The Supreme Court ruled that the permission was unlawful because the proposal’s environmental impact assessment took into account only the emissions from the extraction process.

Last month, the government conceded another legal challenge because of the Supreme Court decision. This was for onshore oil production at Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire. Ministers also abandoned their legal defence of permission for a new coalmine in Cumbria.

Today the energy minister, Michael Shanks, announced plans for new environmental guidance for oil and gas firms. He said:

“The guidance is necessary in light of a Supreme Court ruling that has implications for the assessment of new development consent.”

He said:

“We will consult at pace on new guidance that takes into account the Supreme Court’s ruling on Environmental Impact Assessments, to enable the industry to plan, secure jobs, and invest in our economy.”

The Rosebank and Jackdaw consents had been challenged by Greenpeace UK and the climate campaign group, Uplift.

The government said its decision not to defend the judicial reviews would save taxpayer money. It does not mean that the licences for the fields have been withdrawn, the government said.

Tessa  Khan, the executive director of Uplift said.

“Rosebank is a terrible proposition economically, from an energy-security perspective and environmentally for the UK public.

“No government should be prepared to approve a project like that.”

She said:

“It’s mostly oil for export and would do nothing to lower bills or boost our energy security yet, because of huge tax breaks for new oil and gas drilling, the UK public would effectively cover a huge chunk of the costs of developing it.

“It is astonishing that the massive emissions from burning oil and gas have been overlooked by decision-makers till now.”

Greenpeace UK said on X:

“This is amazing news and a big win for the climate.

“The government must now properly support affected workers and prioritise investment in green jobs.”

The organisation added:

“Rosebank and Jackdaw would generate a vast amount of emissions while doing nothing to lower energy bills.

“But the permits were granted without taking into account the emissions caused from actually burning the fossil fuels. Something now deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.”

The government also said it would consult later this year on its manifesto commitment not to issue new oil and gas licences to explore new fields. It said the consultation would be concluded by spring 2025.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.