I was lucky enough to get invited onto the @TEDTalks stage to explain how our reliance on oil and gas is driving multiple crises, including a fuel poverty catastrophe in the UK, and how the movement against oil and gas expansion has never been stronger:.

The true test 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 from the government would be to firmly reject Rosebank. END.

I'm in @BusinessGreen 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:./1.

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.".

This is based on a scenario where the long-term oil price is ~$70/barrel. If the price falls, the loss to Treasury increases. This is bc the UK gives tax breaks to companies for capital investment in further drilling. They can write off most devt costs before profits are taxed./2.

Thanks to massive 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 Equinor & Ithaca walk away with £1.5 billion in profit. /1.

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".

The only upside is that the ~3.5 bn barrels that WON'T, in any realistic scenario, be extracted means ~1.5 bln 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 half of our O&G 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 is exported. /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." /2.

Another day, another story from the oil & gas industry that's pure spin. The claim is there's 3.5-ish bln extra barrels of O&G for the taking in the N Sea, which cld generate huge riches for the UK. Except the underlying analysis confirms this is "beyond realistic assumptions"

. 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/econ effects are 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 likely the Rosebank oil field will go ahead. /11.

There are also references to the 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 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 bc, if they didn't open up a field, someone else will (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.

1st, there is no room for "drop in the ocean" arguments. 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: ./4.

The UK govt agreed to revise the environmental impact assessment (EIA) guidance for O&G projects to reflect that. Today 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.