Exclusive: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.
The North Sea oil regulator weakened environmental requirements designed to control greenhouse gas emissions after being lobbied by oil and gas companies including energy giant BP, a new investigation has revealed.
The findings have heightened concerns over the level of influence large oil firms have over independent UK agencies charged with managing the sector.
Documents obtained by The Scotsman through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, in partnership with the investigative organisation Point Source, show BP pushed back against a wide range of proposed requirements that had been drafted by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) as part of their Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) Plan.
These included requirements to reduce the “emissions intensity” of offshore oil platforms, as well as requirements to “secure substantial and consistent total emissions reductions”.
The scope of the North Sea consultation
The NSTA received 32 responses from respondents that included industry bodies, relevant persons, energy transition companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Outside of BP, the list of respondents also included Shell, Ithaca Energy - the company pushing to extra oil from the Rosebank field, west of Shetland - and Harbour Energy, which last month announced it was cutting a further 250 jobs in Aberdeen. The two-month consultation closed on November 30, 2023.
The Scotsman was denied a request to access unredacted consultation responses from other companies outside of BP involved in the consultation, with confidentiality exemptions cited.
BP responses - and how the regulator adapted the oil plan
In the wake of BP’s communications with the NSTA, a requirement to reduce the emissions intensity was removed from the strategy document, along with a series other concessions that included relaxing requirements for the electrification of offshore platforms.
Pushing back on an NSTA drive to shut down low-production fields that have high emissions intensity that was outlined in a draft plan, BP said the NSTA needed to take into consideration wider implications of shutting down these assets such as “investor confidence” and “risk of company defaults”.
After changes were made to the OGA plan, Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) said in its newsletter for members the consultation had led to the NSTA "softening" the language within the document.
The trade association body said: "The plan originated from the position that the offshore industries own, and will continue to own, the agenda". Mark Wilson, OEUK's HSE and operations director, added: "Regulatory intervention should only be available as a backstop if required."
Lang Banks, the director of the environmental group WWF Scotland, said: “The influence that oil companies have over the supposedly independent North Sea Transition Authority means that instead of helping to support a planned and fair transition away from fossil fuels it prioritises watering down requirements that would reduce polluting emissions. This delays action on climate change, and stalls progress on green job opportunities.
“As we head towards the Holyrood elections next year, we need all political parties to commit to ensuring Scotland and the wider UK reaps the multiple benefits that will come from a properly planned and fair transition to clean energy.”
Consultation documents obtained by The Scotsman under FOI legislation show BP called for deadlines to be abolished for requirements to electrify oil platforms, a move that was intended to reduce the reliance on burning oil and gas to provide power for platforms.
Following the consultation, the NSTA scrapped its proposed target of making all platforms “fully electrified” by January 1, 2030 and replaced it with a requirement for platforms to be either fully electrified or “run on alternative low carbon power with near equivalent emission reductions” by the same date.
Ahead of the publication of the final OGA Plan, BP also criticised a proposed requirement that would force oil companies to carry out an assessment of “potential emissions savings” that was based on “the societal cost of emissions”.
The oil and gas company said that including an assessment of this kind was a departure from “traditional practice” and could cause market distortion. After receiving submissions, the NSTA removed the phrase “based on the societal cost of emissions” from the finished version of the plan, which was published in March last year.
The consultation documents also reveal BP pushed back against a proposal that would require oil companies to execute emissions reduction initiatives aimed at reducing the “emissions intensity” of an asset over a reasonable time scale and a requirement to deliver “secure substantial and consistent total emissions reductions”.
BP called these requirements “impractical”. The NSTA changed the wording for both parts of the OGA Plan following the consultation, making the requirements less onerous for oil and gas companies.
The NSTA replaced the phrase “emissions intensity” with “emissions” in the first paragraph, and said companies needed to “secure substantial and emission reductions”, removing the requirement for consistent improvements in the second paragraph.
BP’s position
A BP spokesperson said: “BP, similar to many organisations, engages appropriately with policymakers, industry groups and non-governmental organisations to offer feedback, expertise and insights into the policy-making process. This includes responses to public consultations.
“Our aim is to inform the development of balanced and practical policy and regulation that promotes shared objectives across the industry.”
The company’s view on flaring
The consultation documents also show BP criticised proposals that would require oil companies to put in place plans to deliver “continuous improvements in flaring and venting reductions” as well as a proposed requirement that “all assets must deliver zero routine flaring and venting by 2030”.
Flaring is the practice of burning off methane that is produced alongside oil and venting is when methane is released into the atmosphere without being burned.
In 2023, oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea flared and vented enough gas to heat more than 700,000 homes, representing a lost market value of £250 million, according to the NSTA’s 2024 emissions monitoring report.
BP pushed back against the proposed requirements for “continuous improvements” in flaring and venting saying this was not “technically feasible”, according to communications obtained by The Scotsman.
The oil company also stated dissatisfaction with plans to require oil companies to reduce gas leaks, also known as “fugitive emissions”, on a yearly basis. BP said: “Due to the nature of leaks and seeps, continuous reduction is unachievable as they are by their nature ad hoc.”
Louis-Maxence Delaporte, an energy sector analyst at the campaign group Reclaim Finance, said: "This investigation puts the spotlight once again on BP's weak climate strategy, which relies even more heavily on oil and gas than previously.
"BP has severely reduced its planned investment in so-called 'low carbon' activities, it has increased its 2030 oil and gas production trajectory and abandoned its critical target for reducing scope 3 emissions. Far from being in transition, BP is building a fossil future.”
Other company submissions
The UK-based oil and gas company Serica was one of the other companies that responded to the consultation and pushed back against some aspects of the draft OGA Plan.
The company stated that requiring yearly improvements in emissions “may not be a useful target”, adding the “overall direction should be lowering emissions”.
Serica said the proposed requirement for “continuous improvement” to flaring and venting was “not realistic” due to “unforeseen disruptions to production and the time it takes to implement material flare reduction projects”.
The company also called for the NSTA to make the “intent and mechanics” clearer for its proposed methodology to determine the that date oil and gas assets should be shut down.
Serica was contacted for comment by The Scotsman.
The OGA Plan was published ahead of the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruling earlier this year that permissions granted to the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field under the previous Conservative government were unlawful and the fossil fuel giants behind the plans, Shell, Equinor and Ithaca, should have to reapply for permission.
Conflicts of interest?
However, significant concerns remain about the influence that large oil companies have over regulators like the NSTA, partly due to financial conflicts of interest.
According to the NSTA’s most recent financial results, which were published in July last year, the regulator’s board members and their family members held shares in companies linked to the energy sector worth £351,258, including shares in BP.
The family of the NSTA chairman Tim Eggar, who stood down in September last year, held 4,099 BP shares worth £20,331, as well as 1,875 shares in Shell worth £49,219.
Iain Lanaghan, another NSTA director held 1,017 BP shares worth £5,044 as well as 358 shares in Shell that are worth £9,398. The NSTA said that its board did not consider these holdings sufficient to “impair their independent judgement in board discussions”
An NSTA spokesperson said: “The OGA Plan is a robust set of requirements, which demands that industry takes immediate action to reduce production emissions on the path to net zero by 2050.
“It was finalised following extensive public consultation, including responses from several operators and, as with any thorough consultation, all responses were considered.”
- This article was published with the support of the Tenacious Awards.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.