9th July 2026
When governments make energy policy, they rarely have the luxury of doing so in calm and predictable times.
As ministers consider whether the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea should receive fresh environmental consent, events thousands of miles away are once again reminding the world how fragile global energy supplies can be.
Renewed military action involving the United States and Iran has pushed oil prices higher and focused attention on one of the world's most important shipping routes – the Strait of Hormuz. Every escalation raises the possibility of supply disruption, higher fuel costs and greater uncertainty for energy-importing countries.
Against that backdrop, Britain faces a difficult question.
Should it continue to rely increasingly on imported oil and gas, or should it make greater use of the resources that still remain beneath the North Sea?
A project caught between politics and the courts
Jackdaw is one of the UK's most significant undeveloped high-pressure, high-temperature natural gas fields in the UK Continental Shelf, located around 250 kilometres east of Aberdeen. The project was originally approved in 2022 and was expected to begin production in 2026.
However, legal challenges following a landmark court ruling required the environmental assessment to be reconsidered, particularly the emissions produced when the gas is ultimately burned by consumers. As a result, the project is now undergoing a fresh regulatory review before ministers decide whether environmental consent should once again be granted.
That means the debate is no longer simply about one gas field.
It has become a test of Britain's wider energy strategy.
The industry's argument
The company developing Jackdaw argues that Britain will continue to need natural gas for decades, even while renewable energy expands.
Gas still heats millions of homes, provides fuel for industry and often generates electricity when the wind is not blowing.
According to the developer, Jackdaw could eventually provide around 6% of UK gas supply, enough energy to heat the equivalent of approximately 1.4 million homes. Because it would use existing infrastructure linked to the Shearwater Hub before bringing gas ashore at St Fergus, supporters also argue it represents a relatively efficient development.
Neil McCulloch, chief executive of Adura, has argued that if approval is granted quickly the field could begin contributing to UK gas supplies as early as this winter. He says projects such as Jackdaw and Rosebank would strengthen Britain's energy security, support thousands of skilled jobs and generate billions of pounds in economic activity and tax revenues.
Supporters also make another important point.
If Britain still needs gas, they ask whether it is better to produce it domestically under UK environmental and safety standards, or import increasing quantities from overseas.
The environmental case against
Environmental organisations see the issue very differently.
They argue that opening new oil and gas fields does little to solve Britain's long-term energy challenges because UK-produced gas is sold into international markets where prices are determined globally rather than nationally.
In other words, producing more gas in UK waters does not necessarily mean cheaper gas for British households.
Campaigners also argue that approving new fossil fuel developments risks slowing investment in renewable energy and makes achieving the UK's climate commitments more difficult.
Some research suggests that even a successful Jackdaw project would reduce Britain's dependence on imported gas only modestly over its lifetime, leaving the country still reliant on overseas supplies.
Why the Middle East changes the debate
This is where recent events become important.
Whenever conflict threatens oil and gas exports from the Gulf, governments are reminded that energy security has become a geopolitical issue as much as an environmental one.
Britain imports a substantial proportion of the energy it consumes.
Even if gas does not physically arrive from the Middle East, disruptions there affect global markets, pushing up prices for everyone.
For many years, policymakers assumed global energy markets would remain reasonably stable.
The pandemic, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and now renewed tensions involving Iran have demonstrated that assumption can no longer be taken for granted.
Every crisis revives the same question:
Should Britain be producing more of its own energy while it still can?
What does this mean for Scotland?
Few parts of the UK have more at stake than north-east Scotland.
The North Sea industry directly and indirectly supports tens of thousands of jobs, many involving highly skilled engineers, technicians, offshore workers and specialist manufacturers.
Supply-chain companies stretch far beyond Aberdeen.
Businesses across the Highlands, Moray, Caithness and elsewhere provide engineering services, fabrication, transport, logistics, marine support and professional expertise.
For many communities, this is not simply an environmental debate.
It is about employment, apprenticeships, investment and maintaining industrial capability during the transition towards lower-carbon energy.
Can Britain simply stop using gas?
This is perhaps the most important question of all.
The answer is no—not yet.
Even under ambitious net-zero plans, independent forecasts suggest Britain will continue using significant quantities of natural gas for home heating, electricity generation, manufacturing and industrial processes well into the 2030s and beyond.
That means demand is expected to continue exceeding domestic production for many years.
The real choice facing ministers is therefore not whether Britain will use gas.
It is whether that gas should increasingly come from British waters or from overseas suppliers.
A decision with long-term consequences
There are no easy answers.
Approving Jackdaw would not eliminate Britain's exposure to international energy prices.
Nor would it guarantee cheaper household bills.
But it could reduce import dependence, support domestic employment and maintain strategic energy infrastructure during the transition to cleaner energy.
Rejecting the project would reinforce Britain's commitment to reducing fossil fuel development, but it would almost certainly mean greater reliance on imported gas while domestic demand remains.
The bigger question
Perhaps the debate should no longer be framed as a choice between oil and renewables.
Britain needs both secure energy supplies today and a successful transition to lower-carbon technologies tomorrow.
The real challenge for ministers is finding the balance.
Recent events in the Middle East have shown that energy security cannot simply be assumed.
Whether that changes the government's decision on Jackdaw remains to be seen.
But one thing is becoming increasingly clear.
Every fresh international crisis makes the question of where Britain gets its energy from more important than ever.
Notes
The Jackdaw gas field is located in the Central North Sea, approximately 250 km (155 miles) east of Aberdeen, and very close to the UK–Norway median line. It lies in UK Continental Shelf Blocks 30/02a, 30/02d and 30/03a, in water about 78 metres deep.
To put it into perspective:
Aberdeen to Jackdaw: about 250 km (155 miles) east.
Shearwater platform: Jackdaw is about 30 km (19 miles) south-east of the existing Shearwater production hub.
St Fergus gas terminal (near Peterhead): Gas from Jackdaw would travel by a new 31 km subsea pipeline to the Shearwater platform for processing. From there it would flow through existing pipelines to the St Fergus Gas Terminal on the Aberdeenshire coast, where it enters the UK's National Gas Transmission System.
From a Caithness perspective, the field is:
South-east of Wick and John O'Groats, but much farther offshore than the Moray Firth oil and gas fields.
Much closer to Aberdeen than to Shetland.
In the same broad offshore region as several long-established North Sea gas developments.