Stop Boris Johnson opening a new oil field in the year of COP26

A few years back a lively debate kicked-off about rumours of a ‘secret oil field’ west of Shetland. This, some Scottish nationalist campaigners argued was being hidden by the British state and would make the case for independence. We’d be rich.

Now, today, young activists are barricaded into ‘Queen Elizabeth House’ the giant Union Jack that is the UK government’s subtle new ploy to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the locals. This movement has a different take on the ‘secret oil field’ west of Shetland, this movement wants independence from oil, not independence through oil. They want a future.

Early this morning activist stormed and occupied Queen Elizabeth House, the new UK Government Hub by Waverley, and blocked the main entrance. The group are demanding that the Prime Minister puts a stop to the expected approval of the Cambo oil field in the North Sea. The action was followed up by a rally at the same offices in the afternoon. The Cambo oil field off the coast of the Shetland Islands, which is 30% owned by Shell and 70% by private equity firm Siccar Point Energy, contains over 800 million barrels of oil. In its first phase, the project expects to extract 150-170 million of these — the burning of which would create emissions equivalent to operating 16-18 coal-fired power stations for a year. The actions were the start of mass protest and movement building in the run up to the delayed COP26 in Glasgow this autumn, including Climate Camp Scotland.

We are organising mass disobedience against fossil fuels in Scotland.”

Climate activist Mikaela Loach said, “Floods are ripping through Germany. Madagascans are starving and thirsty in a fierce drought. North Americans are dying in unprecedented deadly heatwaves and wildfires rage. And the Amazon is emitting more CO2 than it absorbs. In all this chaos, the UK Government, host of the COP26 UN Climate Negotiations, is happy to sign away 800 million barrels of oil, just so a few shareholders can turn a profit. This is criminal. The Cambo oil field must be stopped.”

The regulator, the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), part of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, is set to decide in the coming weeks whether to approve or reject the plans, which come just months before the UK is due to host the crucial UN climate conference in Glasgow.

Neil Rothnie, 68, former oil worker and founding member of Offshore Industry Liaison Committee, (pictured above) said “I don’t believe that we can just keep on exploring for, and producing, all the planet’s oil and gas. My understanding of the science is that if we do that, climate change will destroy the planet as we know it, and much of the life it supports. I have young grandchildren. That destruction could be well advanced in their grandchildren’s lifetime. That scares the shit out of me.”

In May, the International Energy Agency, the world’s leading energy organisation, made it clear that no new oil and gas fields should be developed if we are to limit global warming to 1.5C. Both the UK and Scottish Government’s official policy is to maximise recovery of oil and gas – despite being in direct contradiction to their efforts to reduce fossil fuel use and even meet their own inadequate 2050 net zero target.

“The Cambo oil field off the coast of the Shetland Islands, which is 30% owned by Shell and 70% by private equity firm Siccar Point Energy, contains over 800 million barrels of oil. In its first phase, the project expects to extract 150-170 million of these — the burning of which would create emissions equivalent to operating 16-18 coal-fired power stations for a year.”

Scott Tully, 29 year old activist from Glasgow Calls Out Polluters, said “To approve the Cambo oil field would be an act of wilful climate criminality from the UK Government. This would also be utterly irreconcilable with the demands of hosting COP26. The UK cannot talk a big game on global climate ambition whilst sheepishly bending to the planet-wrecking agendas of big polluters like Shell.”

Some speakers were hostile to the COP meeting describing it as a scam and a con. Quan Nguyen from COP26 Coalition argued: “COP26 and Cambo are part of the same logic” – “COP26 is not going to give us climate justice”. Others – including the Green’s Lorna Slater spoke of the need for climate justice, workers rights and a just transition.

The climate impacts of the huge new oil field in the sea West of Shetland would be devastating. The companies want to start by drilling for over 150 million barrels of oil –  equivalent to the annual pollution from 16 polluting coal-fired power stations. The idea of Boris Johnson approving a major new oil field just weeks before the climate talks in Glasgow is obscene.

Sign the Letter to Boris Johnson here:


Comments (9)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Mark Bevis says:

    What is even more depressing is that the 170 million barrels of oil to be extracted amounts to a mere TWO DAYS worth of world consumption! If the entire field of 800 million barrels was extracted it would supply the world for less than ten days.

    How many years will it take to pull that out of the ground? On top of the all the oil expended in actually getting it out of the ground and to the refinery.

    Madness, fucking madness. It shows how desperate the bankrupt oil companies are to keep on extracting subsidies to pay their shareholders and executive salaries.

    They make these oilfields sound like huge amounts when they talk of hundreds of millions of barrels of oil, but they’d have to be measured in hundreds of billions to make viable sense. Throughout history the size of fields has always been overegged to persuade investors to part with cash – this might have 800mb of oil, but I bet only the 170mb is extractable.

  2. Tom Ultuous says:

    To paraphrase Sting “Don’t the ‘UK’ love their children too?”

  3. Peter Breingan says:

    This must be stopped – what agenda does the Oil and Gas Regulator have? – I doubt it has the teeth or political will to terminate this appalling project.

    1. Colin Robinson says:

      The Oil and Gas Authority’s statutory principal objective is to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources. I presume it will approve the company’s plans if the recovery of the oil and gas reserves in the Cambo field is ‘economic’.

      1. Rich says:

        OK – so that’s the technicalities dealt with , Colin , but what do you think or feel about this ?
        Can you contribute more than what you read online ? Can you actually contribute ?

        1. Colin Robinson says:

          What I feel about it is neither here nor there, Rich. It’s the discourse around it that matters. It needs to be constantly undermined if anything’s gonna change. If you don’t like my posts, just ignore them.

          1. Rich says:

            Your original post stated a technical fact , a search result , you have done many times before . You do however add rather vague and not entirely clear comments sometimes – as in your response here .
            Perhaps you could expand or clarify the first , third and fourth ‘it’ and tell us what you would be wanting to change (and why it should change) .

            You have correctly noted my opinion of you as an irritant .
            I believe you are a compulsive poster (does that in turn make your posts disingenuous ?) . I feel it adds to an article when one goes on to the ‘Comment’ so as to flesh it out . The tone and content of contributions signal their validity as well as their sincerity . I find yours lacking in both – ‘milk-water’ is what comes to mind… not quite here nor there , both insubstantial and yet opaque .
            What is not lacking is the quantity . Quite how many sites do you contribute to every day ? Is this the ‘constant undermining’ you talked of ?

          2. Colin Robinson says:

            Nae bother, Rich.

            The first ‘it’ has the same reference as the ‘this’ about which you ask after my feelings.

            The third ‘it’ refers to the matter of that reference.

            The fourth ‘it’ refers to the discourse around that matter.

            I would want to change the discourse around that matter. It should change because, as all discourse does, it frames our responses to the matter to which it pertains, and because our current responses are inadequate to the task the matter lays on us.

            ‘Colin Robinson’ only contributes to this site. But bear in mind Lacan’s view, to which Barry Graham alluded in relation to the matter of the performance of self on the stage & social media: that the ‘I’ which speaks and the ‘I’ which is spoken of are not the same. There are lots of pseudonymous characters on social media, where the traditional ‘author’ – like God – is dead.

            And, yes; ‘this’ (which presumably doesn’t have the same reference as your first ‘this’, but refers instead to this praxis) is the constant undermining or disruption of prevailing discourses/mindsets/narratives that ‘I’ often talk about.

  4. Wul says:

    On a more positive note, it was kind of the UK Government to provide a gathering point for protesters in Scotland to rally against UK policy.

    Saves making the trip to Westminster, thus producing less CO emissions. Win-win. I hope it becomes as popular for gatherings as “Donald Dewar’s Steps” in Glasgow.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.