Following the announcement concerning the long-awaited development green light for oil and gas fields Jackdaw and Rosebank, our current Prime Minister has acted decisively, but is it in our long term interests?
Here are the salient arguments:
Where things stand
The UK government has approved the Jackdaw gas field, with production expected as early as late October 2026. Rosebank, Britain's largest untapped oil field, remains undecided. Both projects were originally approved by the previous Conservative government, and a 2025 court ruling overturned those earlier consents.
The economic case against
It would not lower bills. The central argument is that oil and gas are sold at international prices, so UK production does not shield households from price spikes. Uplift's executive director Tessa Khan argues that households stay tied to the same gas price rollercoaster. The government has conceded part of this point: the Energy Secretary acknowledged that Jackdaw would not bring down household bills.
The volumes are small. Uplift's analysis found that Jackdaw would displace only about 2% of current UK gas imports. Energy minister Michael Shanks has said the UK will not stop being a net importer of fossil fuels because of the decision. Critics add that Rosebank is overwhelmingly oil for export, so it does little for UK energy security.
The job numbers are modest. Greenpeace says Jackdaw's environmental statement projects just 27 full-time jobs. Critics also say Equinor identified only 255 UK-based jobs over Rosebank's lifetime. They note that North Sea employment has fallen sharply even as fields have been approved. They also argue that approval risks making the UK a less attractive destination for renewable investment and increases competition between oil and gas and renewables for critical supply chains.
The profits go mostly to companies. Campaigners argue the main beneficiaries are the operators, noting that Shell, Jackdaw's majority owner, is forecast to earn $30 billion this year.
The environmental case against
Burning the fuel is the main problem. The 2025 Court of Session ruling that quashed the original consents turned on this point: the approvals were found unlawful because they had not accounted for the emissions from burning the oil and gas. Greenpeace uses government carbon valuations to estimate that burning Jackdaw's gas will cause about £16.1 billion in global damage and over 8,000 heat-related deaths. Critics say this is hard to square with the UK's net zero commitments and its climate leadership. The Energy Secretary maintains that the decision is compatible with the UK's legally binding climate commitments.
It locks in dependence. The argument is that every year spent producing fossil fuels delays the shift that would actually cut bills and emissions. Campaign groups say the only durable protection from volatile prices is to reduce dependence on oil and gas through insulation, public transport and renewables.
The other side
Supporters make several counterpoints:
Jobs and revenue: Adura says the two projects will support 3,500 jobs at peak construction and 880 sustained through production. The government says Jackdaw will safeguard hundreds of jobs and provide an estimated £2.9 billion economic boost.
Domestic gas beats imported gas: Jackdaw is expected to raise domestic production by about 6% at its peak. Even sceptical analysis concedes it would displace imports that, in the case of LNG, come with a higher carbon footprint. The UK will use gas for years regardless of what it produces, so the question is where it comes from.
Existing licences: Labour argues that the original licence predates it taking office, so approval does not breach its pledge to end new licences.
Industrial base: Industry groups say the fields can be part of a nationally significant programme of reindustrialisation and help fund public services. Many unions and north-east Scotland politicians stress the supply chain and skills that would be lost.
Key points of disagreement
The main disputes are empirical: how much domestic production affects prices and security, how to weigh a small number of direct jobs against supply-chain effects, and whether production abroad would simply replace UK output. Rosebank is still pending, so the picture may change.
Sources consulted
Oilprice.com, UK approval of Jackdaw
LBC / PA reports on the Jackdaw approval and industry reaction
Common Dreams, Uplift and Greenpeace analysis of Jackdaw
Scottish Eco-Socialist and SERA briefing on Rosebank and Jackdaw
Burness Paull, Court of Session ruling on Rosebank and Jackdaw consents
Nation.Cymru and Express & Star on environmental group reaction
