Applications to develop North Sea oil and gas fields to reopen
Applications to develop already-licensed North Sea oil and gas fields will re-open from Thursday, according to the UK Government.
During a visit to the Port of Aberdeen on Thursday, energy minister Michael Shanks announced that offshore developments – such as the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields in the North Sea – will once again be able to submit applications to develop already-licensed oil and gas fields.
The announcement is part of new guidance from the UK Government in response to last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling for the North Sea.
The Finch judgement ruled that the global environmental effects of burning oil and gas are an inevitable consequences of extraction projects.
It meant that for the first time, North Sea operators were required to consider the impact of burning extracted oil and gas in environmental impact assessments.
In practice, the UK Government put applications to extract oil and gas in already-licensed fields on hold following the ruling.
After Thursday, that applications process will be relaunched.
When deciding on an application, the UK Government will consider the significance of a project's environmental impact, while taking into account and balancing relevant factors on a case-by-case basis – such as the potential economic impact and other implications of the project.
'This new guidance offers clarity on the way forward for the North Sea oil and gas industry following last year's Supreme Court ruling,' Shanks said.
'It marks a step forward in ensuring the full implications of oil and gas extraction are considered for potential projects and that we ensure a managed, prosperous, and orderly transition to the North Sea's clean energy future, in line with the science.'
He added: 'We are working with industry, trade unions, local communities and environmental groups to ensure the North Sea and its workers are at the heart of Britain's clean energy future for decades to come – supporting well-paid, skilled jobs, driving growth and boosting our energy security.'
The UK Government said the guidance brings 'greater clarity for Britain's oil and gas sector, as the government continues its work with the industry to build a clean energy future for the North Sea'.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
3 hours ago
- Daily Record
New call to scrap National Insurance deductions for working people aged over 60
National Contributions are no longer taken from wages when someone reaches State Pension age. Income tax rises for Scots in April - how the changes affect you A new online petition is calling on the UK Government to scrap National Insurance contribution deductions for workers over the age of 60. People automatically stop seeing NICs deducted from payslips when they reach State Pension age, which is currently 66, but set to rise to 67 over 2026 and 2028. However, petition creator Mike Haynes argues making workers over 60 exempt from paying National Insurance would 'make it easier financially for older people to survive'. He added: 'We are calling for this as many over-60s are struggling to survive due to what we believe has been incompetent government spending over the past 30 years.' The 'exempt workers over 60 from National Insurance payments' petition has been posted on the UK Government's Petitions Parliament website. At 10,000 signatures of support, it would be entitled to a written response from the UK Government, most-likely The Treasury. At 100,000 signatures, it would be considered by the Petitions Committee for debate in Parliament - you can read it in full here. Understanding National Insurance The Chartered Institute of Taxation explains National Insurance is a tax on earnings paid by both employees from their wages and by employers (on top of the wages they pay out), as well as by the self-employed (from their trading profits). Technically National Insurance is a social security contribution rather than a tax, but really, it's a compulsory payment taken from you by the Government, a lot like a tax. Most people stop paying National Insurance contributions after reaching State Pension age. However, you only pay Income Tax if your taxable income - including your private pension and State Pension - is more than your tax-free allowances (the amount of income you're allowed before you pay tax). This has been frozen at £12,570 since the 2021/22 financial year, but will rise with inflation on April 6, 2028. Even if you're still working, when you reach State Pension age you usually stop paying National Insurance contributions. If you continue to pay them, you can claim back any National Insurance if you have overpaid. Calls to unfreeze Personal Allowance An online petition calling for the personal tax allowance to rise from £12,570 to £20,000 to help people on a low income 'get off benefits and allow pensioners a decent income' was debated last month by MPs in Parliament after more than 271,800 people across the UK have shown their support for the proposal. An update from the UK Government, related to the potential impact of increasing the Personal Allowance to £20,000, looks set to crush any hopes people may have of seeing the income threshold freeze lifted before the planned rise with inflation in April 2028. In a written response to Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Treasury Minister James Murray said the UK Government 'has no plans to increase the Personal Allowance to £20,000'. Mr Murray said: 'The Government is committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility and so, at our first Budget, we decided not to extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds. 'The Government has no plans to increase the Personal Allowance to £20,000.' He went on to explain how increasing the Personal Allowance to £20,000 would 'come at a significant fiscal cost of many billions of pounds per annum' adding this would 'reduce tax receipts substantially, decreasing funds available for the UK's hospitals, schools, and other essential public services that we all rely on'. The Treasury Minister continued: 'It would also undermine the work the Chancellor has done to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability, which are critical to getting our economy growing and keeping taxes, inflation, and mortgages as low as possible. 'The Government keeps all taxes under review as part of the policy making process. The Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events in the usual way.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Students in England now graduate with average debt of £53,000, data shows
Students in England are finishing their degrees with government loans averaging £53,000, a jump of 10% in a year, as they increase their borrowing to meet the rising cost of living. The Student Loans Company (SLC) has released figures showing individual loan balances were £5,000 higher in 2024-25 than a year earlier, when the average in England was £48,270. In comparison, students in Scotland – where undergraduate tuition remains free for local students – finished with just £17,000 in government loans. Those in Northern Ireland accrued £28,000 in debt and those from Wales £39,470. Rising costs also mean more students are taking on paid work during term time. A survey published by the Higher Education Policy Institute found 68% of full-time students worked for an average of 13 hours each week, the highest rate in the decade the survey has been conducted. The SLC reported that 62% of former students who are liable to repay their loans are in the UK tax system, with nearly 3 million (40%) making repayments averaging £1,100 in 2024-25. The government's total student loan book for England has hit £266bn, up from £64bn 10 years ago after the introduction of £9,000 annual tuition fees and loans. That figure will rise more quickly from next academic year after the government raised the tuition fee for domestic students from £9,250 to £9,535 from September. The extra income is unlikely to solve higher education's financial woes, as the government plans to reduce the number of international students and competition between universities for domestic students intensifies. Research by the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education found that a quarter of the sector's leaders say their institution will need a 'complete overhaul' to survive the crisis. More than half of the leaders surveyed said financial stability was now their 'top institutional priority', while 28% said that international student recruitment was their most important activity. A new report by the Tony Blair Institute found that as tuition fees from UK students have been eroded by inflation, falling by nearly a third in real terms since 2012, many universities now rely on international student fees to cross-subsidise courses for domestic students. The institute warned that a group of universities are now vulnerable to changes to student visas that the UK government is considering as part of its immigration white paper, including a 6% levy on tuition fees, stricter compliance regulations and a reduction in the amount of time international students can spend working in the UK after completing their course. Alexander Iosad, the institute's director of government innovation policy, said universities with lower international rankings and former polytechnics had weaker finances and were most reliant on international students, putting them most at risk from any visa changes. The report says: 'As the government seeks to reform the immigration system, it is worth considering the interplay of these changes with the broader need to reform the higher education funding system so that it is put on a more sustainable basis.'
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Potential 2028 Democrats shy away from Supreme Court trans care ruling
But one group on the left has been quiet since the ruling sent shockwaves: Democratic leaders across the country eyed as potential 2028 White House picks. The lack of response to the 6-3 ruling underscores what some political observers have called the party's continued nervousness over how to address an issue that became pivotal in the 2024 election. It also shows how fraught the topic may remain heading into the 2026 midterms that will decide control of Congress. President Donald Trump campaigned heavily on a promise to ban gender-affirming care for youth and prevent transgender athletes from competing - and he's taken several executive actions impacting transgender Americans since the start of his second term. Here's what to know about how prominent Democrats responded to the Supreme Court's ruling. What happened? The decision, in which the court said preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was immediately criticized by liberal and progressive groups, like Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. The court's ruling comes after Trump and Republicans made transgender rights a key part of the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. "Kamala supports tax-payer funded sex changes for prisoners," one of Trump's campaign ads alleged about then-Vice President Kamala Harris. "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." Some Democrats called the ads among the most effective of the campaign, according to multiple reports last year. And in recent months some Democrats have worked to separate their party from elements of transgender rights efforts. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines in March when he suggested transgender athletes' participation in women's sports was "deeply unfair" and acknowledged the campaign ad was "devastating." Since taking office in January, Trump has signed executive orders to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports, end federal support for gender-affirming care and prevent transgender people from serving openly in the military. Trump also signed on his first day back in office an order declaring that the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female. Governors quiet Newsom of California, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, the three governors considered leading contenders to run for president in 2028, all kept quiet after the Supreme Court's decision this week. Most forthcoming of the party's potential 2028 contenders was Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, who has a transgender cousin, and who wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Illinois has protections to "meet this very moment." "In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it's more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community," he added. "You have a home here always." Rank and file Reaction among Democrats on Capitol Hill was largely quiet as well, though several members of Congress did make statements. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York denounced the decision on the Senate floor as part of a "cruel crusade against trans Americans." On social media he called it a distraction from issues impacting all people, regardless of gender identity. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not mention it in a news release or on social media. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, pointed out in a statement that 24 other states have similar laws blocking some gender-affirming care for transgender youths. "Today, hate won," he said, alleging the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices "endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years." "Once again, politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms," Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Delaware, the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on X, formerly called Twitter. "This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country."
