The UK energy security minister, Graham Stuart, has countered arguments to reject Rosebank, saying that only in a “parallel universe” would it make sense to do so.
In the House of Commons debate, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas argued that approving Equinor’s controversial west of Shetland development would be a “last ditch, desperate attempt to justify propping up the fossil fuel industry”.
The debate comes as news that the UK regulators OPRED and the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), are expected to decide on the Rosebank application in coming weeks.
© Supplied by Altera Infrastructur‘Won’t make a single barrel of difference’
Minister Stuart argues that Rosebank “won’t make a single barrel of difference on how much we consume.”
He argued that if not for Equinor’s project, oil would be imported from overseas and that demand will remain, regardless of how much, or little, the UK produces.
He pointed to the benefits of producing oil and gas domestically as an emissions reduction exercise, saying that imported fossil fuels increase UK emissions.
However, Ms Lucas says that “there is no argument around energy security in favour of Rosebank.”
The Green MP pointed out that “90% of its reserves are oil, not gas” and that this oil will be shipped to overseas refineries as it is “it is not suitable” for the facilities in the UK.
‘Rosebank won’t deliver long-term job security’
As the two political opponents run the gauntlet of the usual Rosebank topics of debate, the impact the development has on business and jobs sprung up.
For the government minister, the approval of the largest undeveloped field in UK waters would support the domestic supply chain companies that are needed to deliver the transition to net zero.
Mr Stuart says that denying Rosebank “would remove the very supply chain that we need for transition.”
Caroline Lucas took umbrage with previous claims that Rosebank would create 1,600 jobs.
© PA WireShe said: “Rosebank won’t deliver long-term job security. Equinor claims that Rosebank will deliver 1,600 jobs but the real number is less than a third of that with the rest being short-term, temporary jobs just during construction.”
The member for Brighton, Pavilion says that investing in green energy would create more jobs than the decision to bring about Rosebank would.
Ms Luca explained: “There are far more jobs, as we know, in a green energy future.”
‘Staggeringly costly to the public purse’
With the creation of jobs comes an impact on the county’s economy, something neither politician was going to leave unsaid.
Ms Lucas says that “This development would be staggeringly costly to the public purse.”
She added: “I have been told time and again that new licenses are essential for our economy and for energy security.
“Yet, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to Rosebank.”
The Green Party MP raised concern over the tax relief clause in the energy profits levy, often referred to as windfall tax, saying that the Norwegian-owned Equinor would save “£3.75 billion in tax breaks, thanks to this government’s regime.”
However, the minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero argues: “To make out that new projects would somehow cost the taxpayer, be subsidised by the taxpayer, the impact of North Sea production is tens of billions of pounds coming into the UK exchequer.
“It does make a difference to our energy security because we produce it here, at home, and it supports hundreds of thousands of jobs which his majesty’s opposition and the Scottish National Party have turned their face against.”
Recommended for you
