New government guidance on assessing carbon emissions from oil and gas production has been welcomed by environmental campaigners.

The guidance, issued yesterday, is for UK offshore developments.

It follows the landmark judgement from the Supreme Court a year ago today on the need to assess emissions from burning oil and gas.

The court ruled that decision-makers must take into account these combustion emissions, also known as scope 3 or downstream emissions. Previously, they considered only the emissions from the production process.

The new guidance sets out how the effects of fossil fuel extraction on the environment should be assessed and how decisions should consider scope 3 emissions.

It means that offshore developers will now be able to submit applications for consent to extract oil and gas in already-licensed fields. This includes the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, where consent was quashed by the courts following the Supreme Court judgement.

Sarah Finch, who brought the Supreme Court case on behalf of the Weald Action Group, said she hoped the new guidance would make it harder for new oil and gas developments.

The Weald Action Group said it would campaign for the guidance to be applied to onshore oil and gas projects.

Friends of the Earth described the guidance as “a huge win” for the climate and for common sense.

Tessa Khan, executive director at the campaign group, Uplift, described the new guidance as “a genuinely robust, credible approach”.

Full reaction below

Details

The energy minister, Michael Shanks, said of the guidance:

“It marks a step forward in ensuring the full implications of oil and gas extraction are considered for potential projects and that we ensure a managed, prosperous, and orderly transition to the North Sea’s clean energy future, in line with the science.

“We are working with industry, trade unions, local communities and environmental groups to ensure the North Sea and its workers are at the heart of Britain’s clean energy future for decades to come – supporting well-paid, skilled jobs, driving growth and boosting our energy security.”

The guidance focusses on what should be included in an environmental statement (ES), the detailed study resulting from an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and how scope 3 emissions would be assessed.

It confirmed:

• The ES must assess scope 3 emissions from hydrocarbon production over the lifetime of the proposed project
• These emissions must be considered regardless of evidence that hydrocarbons produced by the project would replace those extracted elsewhere
• The scope and extent of any assessment of the effects of scope 3 emissions must be transparent and clearly explained in the ES

A key point dealt with the significance of likely effects on the environment.

The guidance said developers must take into account global and national objectives, set out in the Paris Agreement and the UK Climate Change Act.

The ES should be “comprehensive” on the effects on climate from greenhouse gas emissions to help the decision-maker reach a conclusion on their significance, the guidance said.

The ES must also consider the cumulative effects of a proposed project with other existing and planned future projects, in a global context.

It recommended the six-step process on assessing greenhouse gas emissions from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

The guidance said developers must include a baseline –  “a realistic and reasonable description” of the current state of the environment. It adds that the location of the emissions is not relevant because greenhouse gas emissions have a global effect on climate.

Developers must also describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and how the selected option compares with them, the guidance said.

Reaction

Sarah Finch said:

“We are hopeful that that the guidance will make it harder for new oil and gas developments in the North Sea to go ahead. We will work hard to get similar guidance for onshore oil and gas.”

The Weald Action Group said:

“We are cautiously optimistic that the guidance provides clear advice that will make it much harder for any new oil and gas projects to get the go-ahead. The government has put paid to the oil and gas industry’s spurious claims, such as that any new project is insignificant compared with global emissions, and that other developers would open up new fields if theirs didn’t go ahead.

“While this new guidance is very welcome, it currently is only applicable to offshore oil and gas developments. The onshore environment must not be ignored.

“Under the existing regulatory environment civil society groups and local communities continue to face an uphill battle in stopping these developments. For example, the National Planning Policy Framework still unfortunately (and despite its recent review) encourages planning authorities to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas developments, which is entirely out of step with the overall thrust of the government’s intention to transition away from fossil fuels. The Weald Action Group will be campaigning for the same guidance to be provided to planning authorities who regulate onshore developments and for the planning framework to be updated.”

Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, said:

 “The government is absolutely right to change these rules – it was reckless and illogical to assess new oil and gas projects without factoring in their full climate impact.

 “These reforms will strengthen assessments, ensure the public gets the full picture, and make it harder for decision makers to dodge responsibility.

“With UK renewables now cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build, this should be yet another nail in the coffin for new fossil fuel developments.”

“This is a huge win – for the climate, for common sense, and for Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, whose landmark legal fight forced these long-overdue changes.”

Tessa Khan, executive director at Uplift, said it was “clear that the government had taken this exercise seriously and in good faith”.

She said assertions that the guidance would make approval of the Rosebank oilfield more likely were “wrong and wishful thinking for the industry”.

She said the guidance ensured that companies can “no longer get away with presenting a fundamentally incomplete picture of the climate impact their projects will have”.

Ms Khan added:

“There is no room for ‘drop in the ocean’ arguments from developers. Instead, emissions from a field will need to be assessed against the current state of global emission reduction pathways.”

She welcomed the starting point that all produced hydrocarbons over the lifetime of a project would eventually be combusted. She also welcomed that the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions should be based on the highest possible level of production occurs and that the assessment methodology should be “current, credible and widely accepted”.