The Tribune

HAVING written as recently as August in some detail in this column about climate change, I only refer to the subject again today because it has hit the news in Britain following approval last week of a new offshore oil and gas development in the North Sea called Rosebank. This was given the green light by the official regulator following assurances about environmental concerns. It has quickly become a controversial issue and has already been heavily criticized due to its potential impact on climate change and its connection to the UK’s net zero target. This requires the emission of no more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide than the amount taken out by the atmosphere - or, in other words, no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases. It also involves, of course, the energy security of the nation.

The decision has been strongly condemned by environmentalists as ‘total contempt for our environment and future generations’, with the UK Green Party calling it ‘morally obscene’ and an act of vandalism; not least after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading global climate science authority, and the International Energy Agency, the world’s foremost energy authority, have said that no new oil and gas projects should take place if the world is to limit global warming to internationally agreed safe limits of 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures. The IEA had warned about this at the COP26 climate summit hosted by Britain in Scotland in 2021, and the UN Secretary General subsequently called on governments to halt new licences for oil and gas development.

Situated some 80 miles west of the Shetland Islands, Rosebank is said to be the UK’s largest untapped oil field in the sea off Scotland and the last major site to be developed. It is estimated to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil.

A little research shows that extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea dates back for many years. For more than half a century, ‘black gold’ was the key to Scotland’s burgeoning economy and encouraged the country’s independence movement. Offshore exploration, drilling and production started in earnest after the 1973 world oil crisis caused the oil price to quadruple.

The Rosebank project will bring large direct investment to the UK economy. It will be run by the Norwegian state energy firm, Equinor, and the oil and gas produced – some 70,000 barrels (about 8 per cent of UK production) and 45 million cubic feet of gas a day - will be sold on the international market. Production should start in late 2026. Its owners say it will create some 1,600 jobs and “significant tax revenue” for the UK government.

Amid accusations that the timing of this announcement could hardly have been more provocative, coming as it did after the IEA had reiterated that there was no need for new oil or gas projects if the world was to get to net zero, Britain has now approved the biggest new oilfield in more than a decade. According to reports, the decision comes after the UK government said in July that it would issue new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and after a group of MPs raised concerns that the Rosebank project could produce excessive carbon dioxide and other gases and sought to block it.

Nonetheless, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is quoted as saying that “it makes sense for the UK to use its own oil and gas supplies as the country makes the change to renewables”, and that the Rosebank project is the “right long-term decision for the UK’s energy security”, while contributing strongly to its greater energy independence. He went on to say that “we will continue to back the UK’s oil and gas industry to underpin our energy security, grow our economy and help us deliver transition to cheaper and cleaner energy” – and that further oil and gas licences are compatible with climate targets.

From studying the UK press on the subject, it strikes me that the prime minister and his colleagues who have been part of this important decision are justified in their approach to such a vital part of the life of the nation. One has only to look now – admittedly with the benefit of hindsight – at the then German Chancellor’s misguided policy some years ago to depend disproportionately on Russia for the nation’s energy needs to realise the importance of being energy independent to the extent that that is possible. Of course, at the present stage of climate change, that does not mean that countries should hold back in committing substantial resources to developing renewables. The UK government claims to be a world leader at reducing carbon emissions; but, while being ambitious always to improve its performance, it has to be pragmatic.

The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in Mr Sunak’s government, Claire Coutinho, states that, although the UK is investing in renewable power “we will need oil and gas as part of that mix on the path to net zero, and it makes sense to use our own supplies”. She has repeated the prime minister’s assurances about backing the UK’s oil and gas industry, both to underpin energy security and “to help us to deliver the transition to cheaper, cleaner energy”.

Whatever the environmental hazards in continuing with oil and gas, they are both needed in the short-term. So it is surely not unreasonable to hope that people will be able to accept a future that puts as much investment into renewables as possible leading to a point when the country no longer has to depend on oil and gas. But, before that point is reached, oil and gas should be used in the most cost effective and safe manner. In the words of the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, “we are accelerating renewables and nuclear power but will still need oil and gas for decades to come – so let’s get more of what we need from within British waters”.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH: A FAMILIAR NAME SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD

Of the many conflicts around the world, perhaps one of the longest running has been that involving the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan in which the neighbouring country of Armenia is also closely involved. A deep-seated dispute has been simmering for many years – and from time to time boils over into fighting with heavy casualties on both sides. Recently, this dispute has flared up again and US TV screens have been filled with images of thousands of people fleeing their homes by car or on foot. So the name has become familiar.

But, although the drama of human suffering is filmed in detail, there is seldom any explanation of what is really happening and why. So, in case of any local interest in this far-off conflict, it might be useful today to offer some brief explanation and analysis.

The small nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan, with respective populations of 2.8 million and 10 million, lie in the mountainous region of the South Caucasus between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, with Turkey to the south west and Russia to the north. In the 1920s, both countries became republics in the Soviet Union. The area designated as Nagorno-Karabakh had a majority ethnic Armenian population that was controlled by Azerbaijan. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh’s regional parliament voted to become part of Armenia.

This breakaway territory, which consists mostly of mountains and forests, has for long been internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. But large areas of it have been run for decades by ethnic Armenians. There is a history of deep-seated hatred between Armenia and Azerbaijan and, between 1988 and 1994, the two fought a war over the issue which Armenia won with the help of Russia -- though, reportedly, Russia later abandoned them after becoming preoccupied with the war in Ukraine.

Under the terms of a ceasefire brokered by the Russians, Armenian forces gained control of Nagorno-Karabakh and the areas adjacent to it though the territory remained part of Azerbaijan. Since then, it has mostly been governed as a separatist, self-declared republic run by ethnic Armenians and backed by the Armenian government.

The most recent violence seems to have arisen after Azerbaijan blockaded at the end of last year a vital route in to the enclave from Armenia on the grounds that weaponry and military equipment was being supplied. It is said that Azerbaijan still seeks to suppress what it regards as a separatist movement. This triggered an Azerbaijani military offensive and intense fighting, resulting in local forces agreeing to be disarmed and disbanded. The separatist leader then announced that the breakaway republic will cease to exist from January next year thus ending the territory’s struggle for independence.

Meanwhile, it is now claimed that almost the entire population of ethnic-origin Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh – up to some 120,000 - has left the territory and crossed the border to Armenia, fearing ethnic cleansing even though Azerbaijan has not ordered them to leave and is offering citizenship to them as long as they lay down their arms.

From what I have read, the international community would probably be reluctant to oppose the reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh in to Azerbaijan. But commentators remind everyone that Azerbaijan is not a democracy and fears about ethnic cleansing are real.

Ethnic-origin Armenians who refused to budge over their demands for independence have now ended up displaced and removed from their homeland. This has rapidly developed into a major humanitarian issue with many thousands in urgent need of assistance. To try to deal with the current situation and the long-running conflict, some Western analysts argue that, notwithstanding the war in Ukraine, perhaps the time has come for the European Union and the US to intervene.

A golfing event to remember

Since the power has suddenly gone out at home as I finish off my weekly column this morning, the short piece I had intended to produce about Europe’s Ryder Cup victory on Sunday will have to be dropped. Instead, suffice it to say at short notice that, despite some wobbles during the singles matches on Sunday, it was ultimately a comfortable victory against a star-studded US team that included golf’s world No 1, the US PGA champion, the Open champion and the US Open champion.

The biennial Ryder Cup has become one of the world’s greatest sporting events. I managed to watch on TV much of last weekend’s contest at the splendid – and, clearly, superbly well maintained – Marco Simon Golf and Country Club on the outskirts of Rome. The event appeared to be impeccably organised and it took place in warm weather under cloudless skies. The whole spectacle was simply magnificent.