Hot issue: North Sea

Should Rosebank and Jackdaw get the go-ahead?

Both fields were approved in 2022 and 2023, then ruled unlawful by Scottish courts for ignoring the climate impact of burning the fuel. New consultations closed in August. On 14 October the Prime Minister said decisions would come 'shortly'.

6%of UK gas output Jackdaw could supply at peak, says its operator (campaigners put it nearer 2%)

Give your answerFree. No account needed. Then see how Britain split.

The options

Approve both and open up new licences too

Green-light both fields now and scrap the ban on new exploration licences, to get the most from the North Sea.

Backed by: ConservativesReform UK
Pick this option in the game
Approve both, but no new licences

These fields are already found and partly built, so let them go ahead, while keeping the ban on exploring for new ones.

No party's stated position matches this option exactly.
Pick this option in the game
Closest to what the government is doing now
Judge each on its climate impact, case by case

Weigh each field's full emissions against jobs and security of supply in a formal decision, with no new exploration licences.

Backed by: LabourSNP
Pick this option in the game
Approve Jackdaw's gas, refuse Rosebank's oil

Gas is still needed for heating and power during the switch, and home-produced gas beats shipped-in LNG, but say no to a large new oil field.

Backed by: Liberal Democrats
Pick this option in the game
Refuse both and back renewables instead

Say no to both, leave the fuel in the ground and put the investment and jobs into wind, solar and grid work.

Backed by: GreensPlaid Cymru
Pick this option in the game

What happens next

If Rosebank and Jackdaw go ahead
Rosebank's operator says about £8bn of investment, much of it spent in the UK, and Jackdaw could supply up to 6% of UK gas output at peak. Supply firms in Aberdeen and Shetland gain work.
The operators and the industry body OEUK argue
If they go ahead, do bills fall?
Oil and gas sell at world prices, so extra UK output barely moves bills. Much of Rosebank's oil is likely to be sold on the open market rather than kept for UK use.
The Climate Change Committee and energy analysts argue
If they are refused
The UK imports more gas. Imported LNG has nearly four times the production emissions of UK gas, so global emissions may barely fall while the tax and jobs go abroad.
The North Sea Transition Authority (on LNG); industry argues the rest
If they are refused, what investors hear
Money and skills shift faster towards offshore wind, grids and carbon capture. Climate groups say that is the point; unions warn new jobs may not land in the same places.
Climate groups argue; offshore unions warn
If Rosebank's oil is burned
Campaigners put its lifetime emissions at around 200 million tonnes of CO2. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 no new fields were needed on a path to net zero by 2050.
Climate campaigners; the IEA
If the North Sea winds down either way
Output is falling as fields age. Tax receipts, about £6bn in 2023/24 down from nearly £10bn the year before, keep shrinking. The question is whether Aberdeen's skills move to wind in time.
HMRC figures; Robert Gordon University research on skills

The arguments

The case for approving

Cheap, reliable energy underpins output and jobs. Countries that produce more of their own are less exposed to shocks like the one after Russia invaded Ukraine.
The UK is about 1% of global emissions. Refusing these fields will not change world oil demand, so the main effect is to import more instead.
Home-produced gas has a lower footprint than shipped LNG, and the tax it pays, including the Energy Profits Levy, stays in the UK to fund services.
Both fields are already found and partly developed. Thousands of skilled jobs in the north east of Scotland and Shetland rely on projects like these during the transition.

The case against

Every new field locks in decades of extraction. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that net zero by 2050 needs no new oil and gas fields.
Rich countries that grew on fossil fuels are expected to lead. If the UK keeps drilling, it is harder to ask poorer countries to stop.
Oil and gas are priced on world markets, so new UK fields do little to cut bills. Homegrown wind and solar do more for security over time.
The money and skills that would go into new fields could build offshore wind, grids and carbon capture, which Aberdeen's workforce is well placed for.

The trade-offs

Jobs and tax in the north east now versus emissions locked in for decades.
Energy security from home production versus prices that are set on a global market anyway.
Showing climate leadership versus the risk that demand is simply met by imports with a bigger footprint.

Questions to ask yourself

If UK fields close, does the gas we import instead have a bigger carbon footprint?
If the oil is sold on world markets, how much does it really add to Britain's energy security?
What would need to be in place for an offshore worker in Aberdeen to move into a clean energy job without a pay cut?

Sources

cityam.com /burnham-complains-jackdaw-and-rosebank-approval-delayed-by-governme…
uk.finance.yahoo.com /news/andy-burnham-says-decision-rosebank-145634557.html
ajbell.co.uk /news/articles/jackdaw-gas-field-uk-north-sea-set-be-approved-report…
energyvoice.com /oilandgas/north-sea/593241/rosebank-decision-sparks-rising-politica…
lse.co.uk /news/uk-liberal-democrat-leader-backs-jackdaw-project-in-north-sea-…

Facts as of October 2026. Party positions reflect each party's current stated policy and may change.

Britain is split. Now you decide.

Pick your side on north sea, guess how the country answered, then see where you really line up with the parties.

Give your answer

Should Rosebank and Jackdaw get the go-ahead?

The options

Approve both and open up new licences too

Approve both, but no new licences

Judge each on its climate impact, case by case

Approve Jackdaw's gas, refuse Rosebank's oil

Refuse both and back renewables instead