Prominent Labour leaders are issuing strong warnings against any move by Keir Starmer to approve a major new oilfield project near Shetland later this year.
Members of Parliament and ministers have conveyed to the Guardian their readiness to challenge the UK prime minister if he attempts to finalize approval for the Rosebank project, which represents the largest undeveloped oilfield in Britain.
Many within the party view the potential conflict over Rosebank as a significant battleground between the party’s environmental faction and those aligned with Rachel Reeves, who prioritize economic development. This week, the Chancellor expressed support for a third runway at Heathrow as part of the government’s strategy to boost the economy.
An associate of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who spearheads the government’s climate initiatives, suggested that the former Labour leader would deliver a “forceful” rebuttal to any moves aimed at approving Rosebank. The associate remarked, “Ed will engage in that conflict armed with extensive data on the impact Rosebank will have on our carbon footprint.”
Miliband’s office chose not to comment on the matter.
A Labour backbencher stated, “[A decision regarding Rosebank] will serve as a crucial opportunity to voice our concerns. Many of us, from various factions within the party, would be extremely upset if approval were granted.”
Another Labour MP observed: “Few in the party would rally for Heathrow, but Rosebank raises a completely different response. There would be significant opposition if they attempted to authorize that.”
The Rosebank initiative suffered a major legal setback this week when a Scottish judge ruled that the previous government’s decision to greenlight it was unlawful. The judgment indicated that officials should not have granted consent without an understanding of the carbon emissions produced by burning the oil extracted from the field over its operational lifetime.
Equinor, the Norwegian firm leading the Rosebank project, is expected to conduct a more comprehensive assessment and submit a revised consent application later this year. Following the ruling, an Equinor representative stated that they would continue collaborating with the government to obtain approval, emphasizing that “Rosebank is vital for the UK’s economic development.”
While the decision rests with the independent North Sea Transition Authority, governmental sources indicate that the sensitivity of the situation may necessitate direct involvement from the prime minister.
When Labour assumed power last year, it committed to halting the issuance of new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea. However, the Rosebank project already holds its license and can continue its development until it secures the necessary environmental approval to begin oil extraction.
A close source to Starmer revealed that although the prime minister has not dismissed the possibility of approving the field, he would first want to review the application.
Nevertheless, many perceive that the government’s renewed emphasis on growth, particularly after Reeves affirmed support for another Heathrow runway and further planning reforms, makes such approval more probable.
When questioned last week about the potential clash between her economic agenda and environmental objectives, Reeves stated: “The primary mission of this government is growth, as it forms the foundation for all else, including enhancing our schools and hospitals, and achieving net zero.”
An oil and gas lobbyist commented: “Three months ago, I would have been less optimistic about the government granting consent. However, the enthusiasm for growth exhibited by Trump and Labour post-Christmas significantly raises the likelihood.” Equinor has indicated that the project would create 4,000 jobs.
Reeves’s apparent scaling back of the government’s climate ambitions is already generating concern among Labour members. Backbencher Clive Lewis articulated in the Guardian on Friday: “A growing sense of skepticism suggests our government may lack a coherent guiding philosophy or ideological framework, operating solely under the vague objective of ‘growth.’ If ‘growth at all costs’ becomes the mantra, the consequences will soon be painfully evident.”
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email summarizes the day’s key stories, explaining current events and their significance.
Miliband is reportedly advised the cabinet this week that any proposal to expand Heathrow would likely contravene the country’s carbon emissions targets, although he has stated he will not resign over the matter.
Many Labour backbenchers have confessed to setting aside their apprehensions regarding Heathrow, believing that the project is not likely to materialize. However, some are on alert for further indications of the government diverging from its environmental commitments.
A Labour MP conveyed to the Guardian: “We take pride in being the greenest government this country has seen. That’s significant, and we wouldn’t want to abandon that stance.”
Another added: “With Justin Trudeau’s departure [as Canadian prime minister], Keir will effectively be the most prominent global leader committed to climate issues. We should embrace that role and not shy away from it.”
Miliband is preparing to release findings from a recent consultation with the energy sector and the public regarding how the government should account for the carbon emissions resulting from oil and gas produced in the UK.
Government officials assert that the results of this consultation will be crucial in determining their ability to approve a new oilfield while still adhering to Labour’s CO2 reduction targets.
Advocates argue that the project is unlikely to deliver the economic growth its supporters assure.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, stated: “Renewable energy is the key sector for growth in the UK, presenting both investment and employment opportunities, where our competitive edge lies.
“However, that sector is now competing with the oil and gas industry for talent, supply chains, port infrastructure, and other resources, not to mention the damaging signals sent to clean energy investors by a continued reliance on oil and gas.”
