The UK government faces a decision on two major North Sea oil and gas developments as consultations close on the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields. Both projects require fresh environmental assessments after a court found earlier reviews incomplete.
Legal background and consultation timeline
A consultation on the proposed Jackdaw development closed last Monday, while the separate Rosebank review ends today. The projects must undergo new environmental assessment after the Court of Session in Edinburgh determined the original decision-making process was flawed. The court found that “Scope 3” emissions had not been factored into the initial environmental reviews for either project.
The Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer had previously opposed new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea. However, industry figures have expressed hope that the government might take a more permissive approach. Chris Sawyer, a partner at Pinsent Masons, argues that approving both developments would align with the government’s election manifesto commitments, domestic growth agenda, and international climate pledges.
Arguments against and for approval
The case for rejecting the projects draws strength from recent extreme weather events. As the UK experiences heatwaves, wildfires and drought, the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change appears increasingly difficult to dispute. Critics also contend that developing new UK oil and gas production would do nothing to lower energy prices for consumers.
Related: UK backs ocean treaty with Aberdeen expertise
Sawyer acknowledges these concerns but challenges the underlying logic. He contends that blocking Jackdaw and Rosebank would not reduce short- or medium-term demand for oil and gas in Britain. The UK continues to rely on natural gas to power industry, generate electricity and heat approximately 25 million domestic boilers. If domestic production does not meet this need, the fuel must be imported.
Economic and security implications
Imports carry their own problems, according to the analysis. Foreign-sourced gas does not create or sustain direct or indirect employment in Britain and generates no tax revenue for the Treasury. Shipping liquefied natural gas by tanker would also carry greater environmental impact than North Sea production and would increase UK dependence on overseas suppliers at a time of global energy uncertainty.
Jackdaw alone has the potential to supply roughly six per cent of the UK’s gas needs. On the oil side, while significant quantities of North Sea crude is exported for refining, primarily in Europe, the majority returns to Britain in finished form. Sourcing refined products from other regions would not support UK employment or tax revenue, Sawyer argues, while the volume consumed would remain unchanged.
Results from both consultations may emerge within weeks. Sawyer suggests approving the projects would demonstrate commitment to honoring existing production licenses and visibly support British industry while sustaining regional jobs and expertise as drivers of economic growth.