Tessa Khan

I worked in oil industry for 30 years, and there's no future in it. But we can make one for workers We need to invest in renewables and stop pretending that oil and gas will save us, writes John Bolland

Powerful piece from an ex-North Sea oil & gas worker:
"There is no future in oil. But there is a future for the people who work in it...We should be building infrastructure for the future, not squeezing the last drops of profit from a dying system."

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion...

"People want a stake in the energy system, they want to feel like it works for them" Tessa Khan, founder of Uplift, on the growing demand for an energy system that serves the public interest, not just private profit. Watch now > www.youtube.com/watch?v=saFp...

YouTube video by Cleaning Up Podcast ⁠If The UK Can’t Ditch Fossil Fuels, Who Can? | Ep218: Tessa Khan

This week on @cleaninguppod.bsky.social, Uplift's founder @tessakhan.bsky.social‬, dropped some truth bombs: UK's North Sea oil and gas bonanza is over. Some years the government pays the industry more than it receives. Domestic gas cannot provide UK energy security.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=saFp...

Delighted to be a guest on Cleaning Up. Thanks for having me on Bryony and Michael!

Super excited about the @neonuk.bsky.social Summer Gathering on Sat.

I'm chairing a sesh on the future of Net Zero with @tessakhan.bsky.social, Hannah Martin and Mat Lawrence which should be great.

Full programme is below and last few tickets available here: www.eventbrite.com/e/neon-summe...

But the true test of the guidance will come in its application to the UK's biggest undeveloped oil field, Rosebank.

As climate impacts escalate, & given how little other public benefit there is from new fields, the only credible response would be for the government to firmly reject Rosebank.
END

The government's climate test for new oil and gas fields signals a step-change in project scrutiny The government just made regulations for approving new oil and gas fields more stringent - rejecting Rosebank is now the only credible response, writes Uplift's Tessa Khan

I'm in @businessgreen.bsky.social today on the UK gov't's new guidance for assessing the impacts of oil & gas fields.

Despite industry spin, it takes a credible approach to assessing a field's biggest impact--the emissions produced when the O&G is burned:

www.businessgreen.com/opinion/4515...
/1

Rosebank: private profit, public risk - Blogpost from Uplift (News) If approved, Rosebank, the UK’s largest undeveloped oil field, is projected to generate billions in profits for its private developers, Equinor and Ithaca Energy. But new analysis shows that it is UK ...

As we say: "The fact that the UK government carries the financial burden upfront, while companies delay their exposure until the project is profitable, makes Rosebank a high-risk venture for the public & a low-risk, high-reward deal for private operators."
More here: www.upliftuk.org/post/roseban...

This is based on a scenario where the long-term oil price is ~$70/barrel. If the price falls, the loss to the Treasury increases. This is bc the UK gives huge tax breaks to companies for capital investment in further drilling. They can write off most of their dev't costs before profits are taxed.
/2

Treasury 'poised to miss out on £250m in tax receipts from Rosebank oil development' Campaigners have warned the economic case for approving the Rosebank oil field does not stack up

Thanks to absurdly generous tax breaks oil & gas developers receive in the UK, the development of the Rosebank oil field could result in a net LOSS of more than £250 million to the Treasury, while developers Equinor & Ithaca walk away with £1.5 billion in profit.
/1
www.scotsman.com/news/politic...

With this new climate test, Rosebank and Jackdaw look increasingly unlikely Guidance issued last week means a tighter test for new oil and gas fields. Does it mean it's all over for Rosebank and Jackdaw?

New in the Herald:

"As Greg Muttitt explains, because there is now a robust & science-based test on their climate impact it can be seen that Rosebank...(is) not consistent with achieving the Paris goals...and the economic or social case is incredibly weak"

www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/2526...

The only upside is that the approx. 3.5 bn barrels that WON'T, in any realistic scenario, be extracted means approx. 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 won't be emitted. Good thing too given we've had the warmest spring on record, parts of the UK are in drought & we can't have new O&G & a safe climate.
END

The industry also claims this means we could meet 1/2 of our oil & gas needs domestically, but of course that ignores the govt's own conclusion that NS oil production has little impact on our supplies because the vast majority ends up exported. But never let facts in the way of a good story.
/3

To quote: "The ‘No Constraints’ Case is considered to be beyond realistic assumptions given the current regulatory and fiscal conditions and investor sentiment. For this case to be realised, major industry change would be required." But perfectly fine to inform current debate of course.
/2

Another day, another story from the oil & gas industry that's all spin. The latest claim is there's an extra 3.5-ish bn barrels of O&G there for the taking in the North Sea, which would generate huge riches for the UK. Except the underlying analysis confirms this is "beyond realistic assumptions"
/1

Rosebank & Jackdaw fields face 'tightened' approval process Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that firms must account for emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels.

The UK gov has just published new guidance for environmental impact assessments for oil & gas projects. Despite reports/industry spin, it includes a genuinely robust, credible approach to assessing the emissions caused by burning oil & gas. Let's take a look! 🧵
www.heraldscotland.com/news/2525207...

...are wrong & wishful thinking from the industry.The guidance makes no judgement on specific fields--what it does do is ensure companies can no longer get away with presenting a fundamentally incomplete picture of the climate impact their projects will have.
END

(Not to mention that the energy/economic effects are also reasons to reject new fields in favour of an energy policy that will deliver real energy independence, long-term jobs and a safe climate). Assertions in the press that this makes it more likely that the Rosebank oil field will go ahead...
/11

There are also references to the underpinning objectives of the Paris Agreement and 1.5C. While the Minister will also consider the broader economic/energy effects of the field, as has always been the case, they will now also have to grapple with the true impact of new fields on our climate.
/10

5th, it is clear that the methodology a developer uses to estimate scope 3 emissions must follow the general principles applicable to EIA, including that the methodology is "current, credible, and widely accepted."
/9

4th, it takes a robust approach to any mitigation measures that a developer might propose, requiring that they must "include a delivery plan, be linked back to the proposed project, be permanent and there must be details of third party monitoring."
/8

3rd, the govt rejects the spurious assertion by O&G companies that scope 3 emissions aren't relevant because, if they didn't open up a field, someone else would (known as the 'market substitution' argument). If they put that argument forward, it needs to be backed up with real evidence.
/7

2nd, the starting point is a (rebuttable) presumption that all produced hydrocarbons over the lifetime of a project will eventually be combusted, plus the assessment should be based on a worst case scenario i.e. that the highest possible level of production occurs.
/6

Related to that, the guidance states that "given the global effect of GHG emissions, the environmental statement must consider the cumulative effects of the proposed project with other existing and planned future projects, in a global context.”
/5

Rosebank oilfield: why more UK oil means more global emissions It’s a myth that producing oil with lower upstream emissions benefits the climate.

1st, 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.This is key and reflects the approach taken in studies like this: theconversation.com/rosebank-oil...
/4

The UK govt agreed to revise the environmental impact assessment (EIA) guidance for O&G projects to reflect that. Today, following a public consultation, it published that new guidance. The guidance makes clear that the govt has taken this exercise seriously and in good faith. Here's why:
/3

Some background: last year, thanks to the indefatigable Sarah Finch, the UK Supreme Court ruled the govt must take into account scope 3 emissions when it assesses new O&G projects. This was an emphatically sensible position, given those emissions are the largest source of environmental harm
/2

Rosebank & Jackdaw fields face 'tightened' approval process Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that firms must account for emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels.

The UK gov has just published new guidance for environmental impact assessments for oil & gas projects. Despite reports/industry spin, it includes a genuinely robust, credible approach to assessing the emissions caused by burning oil & gas. Let's take a look! 🧵
www.heraldscotland.com/news/2525207...

Things BP does not like include but are not limited to: the requirement to electrify its platforms by 2030; reducing flaring (which is effectively illegal in Norway & an unbelievably wasteful, polluting practice); assessments based on the "societal cost of emissions".

Inside the battle for North Sea control: How oil giants like BP lobbied over emission restrictions Documents show BP was among the respondents to a consultation that ultimately led to emissions requirements being watered down for the North Sea.

Your latest reminder that the oil & gas industry is not interested in reducing emissions & will lobby govt/ regulators until it get its way.

Great reporting from the @scotsman.com on how BP successfully weakened the UK oil & gas regulator's plan to reduce emissions:
www.scotsman.com/news/scottis...