Around 80% of Rosebank field oil will not be kept in UK to boost energy security

Submitted ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Jho@feddit.uk⁩ to ⁨unitedkingdom@feddit.uk⁩

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/04/uk-government-admits-rosebank-oil-will-not-be-kept-in-uk-to-boost-energy-security

My TL;DR:

Ministers have repeatedly claimed developing the huge oilfield off Shetland will improve UK energy security.

For example, in September, Rishi Sunak said Rosebank would help prevent young people from growing up “dependent on foreign dictators” for energy security.

Furthermore, in the king’s speech: “Legislation will be introduced to strengthen the United Kingdom’s energy security and reduce reliance on volatile international energy markets and hostile foreign regimes".

However, in a written answer to a parliamentary question, the government admits that the private companies extracting the oil will sell the vast majority internationally: “Around 80% of the oil produced in the UK is refined overseas into the products demanded by the UK market".

Alexander Kirk, of the climate justice group Global Witness, says “UK oil and gas is owned by the companies that extract it and sell it on global markets. New oilfields like Rosebank will only line the pockets of rich fossil fuel firms, it won’t help the millions of Brits that are struggling to pay their bills.”

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

rayquetzalcoatl@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
What a total shock! I really thought Rishi was being honest when he said Rosebank would benefit young people, and I’m even more stunned that the King’s Speech wasn’t totally accurate. Wow!

source
Jho@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Just want to being particular attention to this quote:

“…around 80% of the oil produced in the UK is refined overseas into the products demanded by the UK market."

It’s quotes like this that convince me more and more that one of the best things we common folk can do to help tackle climate breakdown is just buying less stuff…

source
- danielquinn@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  So long as it’s understood that “we should buy less stuff” translates to “legislation reducing carbon dependent travel and mandating repairability” and not “if only everyone made the same decisions as me”.
  
  The former has a measurable effect, while the latter is just something we do as individuals to help us feel better.
  
  source
  - Jho@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I don’t really agree with your last point. Every little bit helps.
    
    That said, legislation would be much more effective.
    
    Our society encourages to consume things we don’t need, and we can endeavour to recognise when this is occurring and resist where we are able. But there is much we are forced to consume due to lack of appropriate legislation (lack of repairability is a good example of this).
    
    Both of these things are issues. One is bigger than the other for sure, but I don’t think it’s fair to discourage people from taking individual action where they are able by implying it doesn’t have any positive effect.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Docus@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Getting rid of the conservative party is up there too
  
  source
- ChicoSuave@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That also highlights the hidden cost of moving the materials to and from countries. Building and refining near the oil field will save a huge amount of travel costs, reduce the carbon footprint of the oil tanker fleet that moves the oil, and provide a huge number of jobs to the area.
  
  But capitalism says it’s wasteful to provide locally when you can save pennies abroad. Whatever will this island nation do?
  
  source
- byroon@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  We need systemic change (which can only be effected by the government) not individual action (although we as individuals can still pressure the government to do this)
  
  source
  - Jho@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yes I agree. I hope my original comment didn’t imply otherwise.
    
    source
- queermunist@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Reduce, reuse, recycle.
  
  It comes first for a reason.
  
  source
byroon@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It was always clear this was going to be the result

source
ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
shocked-pikachu

source
voight@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
🇳🇬: First time?

source
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Rosebank field was given the green light in September and has the potential to produce 500m barrels of oil in its lifetime, which, when burned, would emit as much carbon dioxide as running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year.

The project has faced stiff resistance, with hundreds of climate scientists and academics and more than 200 organisations, from the Women’s Institute to Oxfam, joining tens of thousands of people across the UK in opposing it.

The Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who submitted the parliamentary question, said: “This government’s answer proves Rosebank is not about supplying the UK with oil and gas, it’s purely another gimmick designed to appeal to a section of the electorate which has no concern for either the future of the planet or their own children.

Government spokespeople have repeatedly defended the plan, saying it will “help us meet our energy needs, while also supporting UK jobs, generating tax revenues and attracting investment”.

Alexander Kirk, of the climate justice group Global Witness, said the government had finally admitted that drilling and exporting more “planet-wrecking, expensive fossil fuels will do nothing for the UK’s energy security”.

They added: “We will continue to back the UK’s oil and gas industry, which underpins our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs, and will provide around £50bn in tax revenue over the next five years – helping fund our transition to net zero.”

The original article contains 668 words, the summary contains 234 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

source
- Jho@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Last quote is not by Kirk like the bot implies. It’s a quote from a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
  
  source
  - frazorth@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    If we burn more oil, then we can be net zero!
    
    source
echodot@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Well that was blindingly obvious from the start.

If you give companies extraction licenses then they will obviously just sell what they extract on the open market, why did anyone think that anything else to the country was going to happen? It’s not like the licenses have any particular restrictions attached to them we knew that.

source
Biohazard@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The increased supply will reduce the global price which makes oil products cheaper to UK consumers.

source
- idkmybffjoeysteel@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Sorry buddy but the price of energy in the UK is no longer correlated with supply and demand and hasn’t been for at least two years now.
  
  source
  - Biohazard@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Obviously it is. When oil prices are high, do petrol prices go down?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Jho@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  By oil products do you mean goods manufactured using oil or petrol/diesel/etc?
  
  Because the implication from the govt is that the majority of this oil will be used for the former, not the latter, so price of fuel will assumedly not be significantly affected.
  
  source
- 420stalin69@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It makes the already-wealthy owners of the extraction license wealthier and nothing more than that you boot sucking goon.
  
  source
- JillyB@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Theoretically, that would only reduce the price proportional to the amount of new production relative to existing world production. This does little to dampen market turbulence.
  
  source
  - Biohazard@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    True. Oil companies hold up the FTSE 100 so the government are pussies about demanding taxes
    
    source
    -> View More Comments