Key Takeaways
- Andrea Sanchez Quiroz, a Shetland resident and mother of three, leads local opposition to the Rosebank oil and gas project, fearing climate harm and damage to marine ecosystems.
- The Rosebank field, the UK’s largest unexploited hydrocarbon reserve, was granted initial approval in 2023 but later ruled unlawful in January 2025, requiring a new government decision that will consider downstream emissions.
- Legal challenges by Uplift, Greenpeace and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign highlight both climate incompatibility with the UK’s net‑zero target and alleged ties to Israeli apartheid through Ithaca Energy’s parent, Delek Group.
- Industry advocates argue the project would boost jobs and energy security, while experts contend most Rosebank oil would be exported and that the UK cannot achieve self‑sufficiency in hydrocarbons.
- Activists demand a just transition that retrains oil‑and‑gas workers for renewable‑energy jobs, insisting that any new fossil‑fuel development must be paired with concrete plans for economic diversification.
Background: Andrea Sanchez Quiroz and the Rosebank Opposition
In 2020 Andrea Sanchez Quiroz moved from Edinburgh to her husband’s native Shetland, an archipelago situated roughly 130 km from the Rosebank oilfield. Motivated by concerns for her three children’s future—stable climate, clean water, and food security—she joined the grassroots movement Shetland Stop Rosebank in 2021. Sanchez Quiroz stresses that continuing fossil‑fuel extraction jeopardises both global climate goals and the fragile Faroe‑Shetland sponge belt, a protected marine habitat. Her activism reflects a broader local unease about trading short‑term economic gain for long‑term environmental degradation.
What is the Rosebank Oilfield?
Rosebank is the United Kingdom’s largest unexploited oil and gas reservoir, located in the North Sea between Scotland and Norway. In 2023 the Norwegian state‑owned company Equinor received permission from the UK government to begin drilling. Development stalled after a legal challenge by Uplift and Greenpeace led to a January 2025 court ruling that consent for Rosebank (and Shell’s Jackdaw field) had been granted unlawfully. The judgment required developers to seek fresh approval, now obliging the government to assess downstream emissions from burning the extracted hydrocarbons as part of the environmental impact review.
Legal Challenges and Government Decision Process
Following the January 2025 ruling, the joint venture Adura—formed by Shell and Equinor—submitted its final downstream‑emissions report in June 2025. The UK government opened a public notice period in early July, set to close on 17 August 2025, after which Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh will deliver the final decision on behalf of Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s administration. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to comment on individual projects, leaving the fate of Rosebank pending the forthcoming verdict.
Environmental and Climate Concerns
Opponents argue that proceeding with Rosebank contradicts the UK’s legally binding commitment to reach net‑zero greenhouse‑gas emissions by 2050. Uplift’s deputy director Robert Palmer labelled the project “the key climate test for this government,” asserting that the science shows Rosebank’s emissions would be incompatible with national climate targets. Critics also warn of irreversible damage to the Faroe‑Shetland sponge belt, a biodiversity hotspot protected under international agreements, and stress that burning the extracted fossil fuels would exacerbate global warming.
Ties to Israeli Apartheid and Profit Motivations
Beyond climate worries, activists highlight the project’s connections to Israel. Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20 % stake in Rosebank, is a subsidiary of Delek Group—an Israeli conglomerate blacklisted by the United Nations for its role in illegal West Bank settlements and for supplying fuel to the Israeli military. Since 2020 Delek has earned over US $1 billion from Ithaca’s North Sea operations; approval of Rosebank and the adjacent Cambo field would further increase those profits. The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) warned the UK government that enabling such revenue could breach international obligations to prevent genocide, a claim amplified by former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf.
Stakeholders and Financial Interests
Adura remains the primary developer, while Ithaca Energy’s minority share ties the project to Delek’s financial flow. Ithaca asserts it adheres to the highest corporate‑governance standards, touts its role as a major North Sea investor, and points to its contributions to the UK Treasury and energy security. Conversely, campaigners argue that profits largely benefit foreign shareholders and the Israeli state, leaving local communities to bear environmental risks without commensurate economic gain.
Activist Campaigns and International Law Concerns
Protesters in Shetland have organised demonstrations, legal filings, and public‑awareness campaigns, citing both ecological harm and alleged complicity in apartheid‑linked enterprises. SPSC sent a formal notice to the UK government in January 2025, urging officials to consider the UN’s database on companies involved in settlement activity and to assess whether approving Rosebank fails the duty to prevent genocide. Although the Scottish government lacks jurisdiction over offshore licensing, it has signalled that ministers expect the UK administration to weigh these international‑law considerations seriously.
Industry Arguments for Continuing Oil Production
Representatives of the fossil‑fuel sector, including Adura’s CEO Neil McCulloch, have lobbied Prime Minister Burnham to approve Rosebank, claiming the project would bolster the UK economy, strengthen energy security, and create jobs in a declining industry. Energy‑transition researcher Greg Muttitt counters that roughly 80 % of existing North Sea crude is exported, meaning most Rosebank oil would not serve domestic demand. He argues that the UK cannot regain hydrocarbon self‑sufficiency because the easily accessible reserves have already been depleted, rendering new drilling largely a profit‑driven exercise for global markets.
Economic Impact on Shetland and Transition Needs
Oil and gas have underpinned Shetland’s economy for decades, and their decline has strained local livelihoods. Sanchez Quiroz acknowledges that many residents favour new development for its short‑term job prospects, yet she insists that supporters of drilling should not be abandoned. She calls for a collaborative approach that redirects workers into emerging industries, secures funding for retraining, and replaces fossil‑fuel dependence with sustainable alternatives. Muttitt echoes this view, stressing that governments must guarantee job creation in renewable‑energy sectors to offset losses from the waning oil and gas workforce.
Vision for a Just Transition and Renewable Energy
Advocates for a just transition urge the UK to “double down” on renewables—expanding solar panels, heat pumps, and public transport—while providing concrete pathways for oil‑and‑gas workers to shift into those fields. Sanchez Quiroz envisions Shetland becoming a hub for clean‑energy innovation, leveraging its maritime expertise for offshore wind or tidal power. Such a shift, proponents argue, would satisfy climate obligations, protect marine ecosystems, and deliver long‑term, locally rooted employment without reliance on contentious fossil‑fuel projects tied to foreign geopolitical concerns.
Conclusion: The Decision Awaits and Its Implications
As the August 17 deadline approaches, the fate of Rosebank hangs in the balance, embodying a clash between short‑term economic incentives and long‑term climate and justice imperatives. The outcome will test Prime Minister Burnham’s commitment to the UK’s net‑zero pledge, signal how the government weighs corporate profit against environmental and human‑rights concerns, and determine whether Shetland can transition from a fossil‑fuel‑dependent past to a sustainable, equitable future. Whatever the decision, the debate underscores the necessity of integrating climate science, legal accountability, and community livelihoods into energy policy.