A decision to grant permission to open up the controversial Rosebank oil field is now expected to be delayed.
The UK Government’s North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) was expected to imminently determine whether the fossil fuels project should be given the green light.
But a decision is now not expected until after the UK Parliament returns from summer recess.
If approved, Rosebank would be the UK’s largest untapped oil field.
The UK Government has pledged to open up the North Sea to more fossil fuels projects, despite a flurry of warnings from the UN, the International Energy Agency and climate scientists.
Read more: UK Government threatened with legal action over 'unlawful' oil plans
The NSTA has the final decision on whether to grant permission for Equinor’s Rosebank plans, but UK ministers are also required to sign off aspects of the development.
But reports suggest a delay to determine the development could be down to concerns Rosebank would be at odds with legally-binding climate targets.
City AM reported that electrifying the project if Rosebank is not powered by renewable energy, may not be compliant with emissions reductions required by the UK Government’s North Sea transition deal.
The UK Government has pledged to become net zero in 2050 while Scotland’s contribution to the climate crisis is due to end in 2045.
Burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas is a key contributor to the climate emergency.
If all the oil and gas contained within Rosebank is burned, it will produce the equivalent CO2 emissions of the annual emissions of 28 low income countries.
Read more: Climate advisers: UK has 'undermined' COP26 progress with oil push
Friends of the Earth Scotland oil and gas campaigner Freya Aitchison said: “This is the latest in a long series of delays showing that the pressure from campaigners and across civil society to stop the disastrous Rosebank field is working.
“However, the UK Government needs to end its climate denial and say no to Rosebank once and for all.
“The vast majority of the emissions from any oil field comes from burning the oil and gas extracted, not from the production process. The claim that companies will power the extraction with renewable energy are a greenwashing distraction from the true damage this field will cause.”
She added: “The wind farm on Shetland that is earmarked to provide electricity to Rosebank and other oil fields could either power three new oil fields or all the homes in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Shetland put together.
“It should be a no-brainer that this clean power should be used to bring down people’s energy bills and not to prolong the lifespan of the oil and gas industry.
Read more: Outgoing climate chief 'disappointed' by Tory and Labour net zero plan
“The Scottish Government needs to find its voice and join the chorus who strongly oppose this disastrous project adding to the pressure on the UK Government to say no to Rosebank.”
An NSTA spokesperson said: "The NSTA does not comment on individual cases.
“We remain fully committed to reducing emissions across the industry as a whole and our production projections, even with new developments, show a continuing decline to 2050 in alignment with the global 1.5C reduction target.
“We are also working hard to take significant action in areas such as carbon capture, only recently announcing offers of 21 storage licences.
“We are holding North Sea industry to account on its commitment to halve emissions from production operations by 2030. Strong progress is being made, with overall emissions down by more than a fifth between 2018 and 2021 and flaring cut in half over the last four years.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here