Britain risks sacrificing £10.8bn in economic value and supporting thousands fewer jobs every year if ministers refuse to approve two of the North Sea’s most contentious energy projects, according to industry-backed research that sharpens the political battle over the country’s future fuel supply.
The analysis, commissioned by Adura, the company behind the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gas field, puts renewed pressure on the government to decide the fate of developments stalled by climate-based legal challenges. The findings offer a stark economic warning, though the projected gains depend on approvals and wider investment assumptions materialising.
Research by consultancy Public First estimates that a supportive and stable regulatory regime, allowing Rosebank and other developments in existing licensed fields to proceed, could generate £35.3bn in gross value added between 2026 and 2035. If key projects do not go ahead, that figure falls to £24.5bn.
The difference — £10.8bn over a decade — illustrates the economic stakes for a sector that remains deeply divided over how to reconcile domestic production, energy security and the UK’s climate commitments.
Average annual employment supported across the UK economy would also be higher if the projects proceeded, reaching an estimated 13,860 jobs, compared with 10,530 under the less supportive scenario. That represents 3,330 fewer jobs supported each year if the developments are blocked. More than half of the jobs associated with Adura’s activities are estimated to be in Scotland.
Neil McCulloch, Adura’s chief executive, said the report put “a clear price” on leaving resources in already licensed fields undeveloped.
“Failure to approve Rosebank and other planned developments would mean billions of pounds less economic value for the UK and thousands fewer jobs supported every year,” he said.
Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh will make the final decisions, as Prime Minister Andy Burnham faces competing demands from industry and climate campaigners. Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oilfield, and the Jackdaw gas project have become symbols of a wider argument over whether new North Sea production can support the economy without undermining emissions targets.
Investors, suppliers and workers across the offshore energy industry are watching the government’s approach closely. Shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie has urged Burnham to approve both projects, accusing ministers of deterring investment and weakening Britain’s energy security. Opponents of new drilling contest those claims, arguing that expanding fossil fuel production conflicts with the transition to net zero.
The report argues that demand for oil and gas will remain substantial for decades and that Britain must choose between meeting more of that demand domestically or relying on imports. It also claims imported liquefied natural gas can have an emissions footprint more than three times that of domestic production, although the precise comparison depends on the sources and methods used.
Nick Butler, a visiting professor at King’s College London and former senior policy adviser to Gordon Brown, argued that developing Rosebank and Jackdaw would help protect energy security. He also pointed to geopolitical instability and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz as reasons to maximise production from other sources.
Neither field, however, could independently insulate Britain from international price shocks. Oil and gas trade on global markets, so domestic production does not guarantee cheaper bills for UK consumers.
That is the central tension confronting ministers. Rejecting the projects could put prospective investment and employment at risk, while approving them would intensify scrutiny of Britain’s climate strategy and the long-term role of fossil fuels.
The decisions will therefore carry consequences beyond two North Sea developments. They will signal how the government intends to balance industrial investment, energy security and decarbonisation — and how much economic risk it is prepared to accept on either side of that divide.
Leave a Comment