10th August 2026
The debate over Rosebank and Jackdaw is often reduced to a simple question: how many jobs will these two North Sea fields create?
The answer is more complicated than some of the headlines suggest.
They will not create thousands of permanent jobs on two new oil and gas installations. But that does not mean their employment impact is insignificant.
Their real economic importance is that they can keep skilled workers, contractors and supply-chain companies active at a time when Scotland's oil and gas industry is facing a long-term decline.
That distinction is particularly important for Aberdeen and the wider Scottish economy.
Rosebank: a big construction boost, followed by fewer permanent jobs
Rosebank is the bigger of the two projects.
Equinor's economic assessment estimates that more than 1,600 direct full-time equivalent jobs were associated with the development at the height of the construction phase.
However, that is not the number of permanent jobs the field will support.
When direct, indirect and induced employment are included, the estimated peak UK employment is around 1,162 FTE jobs.
Once production begins, the number falls considerably.
Equinor estimates that the first phase of production will support nearly 300 FTE jobs for around 25 years, with about 90% expected to be UK-based.
Over the entire life of the field, including construction, production and decommissioning, the estimate is an average of around 450 UK-based FTE jobs.
So the headline figure of 1,600 jobs needs to be understood as a peak construction figure, not thousands of permanent jobs.
Jackdaw is a very different story
Jackdaw provides an even better illustration of why job figures need to be examined carefully.
Shell says that more than £1 billion has already been invested in executing the project, involving contracts with 30 supply-chain companies and supporting more than 1,000 jobs.
But those are jobs supported by the project and its supply chain, rather than 1,000 permanent jobs on the Jackdaw platform.
In fact, the Jackdaw installation itself is highly automated.
The latest environmental information identifies only around 27 additional direct full-time jobs specifically associated with the installation.
That sounds surprisingly small.
But there is a much bigger employment effect.
Shell says Jackdaw gas could help keep the existing Shearwater gas hub operating into the 2030s, potentially safeguarding around 300 direct jobs at Shearwater that could otherwise be lost if the existing operation became uneconomic.
That is arguably one of the most important employment arguments surrounding Jackdaw.
It is not simply about creating new jobs.
It is about preventing existing jobs and skills from disappearing.
So how many jobs are we really talking about?
The figures can be summarised quite simply.
Rosebank:
More than 1,600 direct jobs at the height of construction.
Around 1,162 UK-based direct, indirect and induced jobs at its estimated peak.
Nearly 300 FTE production jobs during the first phase.
Around 450 UK-based FTE jobs on average over the full life of the field, including decommissioning.
Jackdaw:
More than 1,000 jobs have already been supported through contracts with 30 supply-chain companies.
Around 27 additional direct jobs are associated specifically with the Jackdaw installation.
Around 300 Shearwater direct jobs could be safeguarded by keeping the wider gas hub operating.
These figures should not simply be added together and described as 2,600 permanent jobs.
That would be misleading.
The more accurate description is that the projects support a mixture of construction employment, operating jobs, supply-chain work and safeguarded employment.
Why supply-chain jobs matter so much
This is where the economic impact becomes much larger than the number of people working offshore.
The North Sea has created a huge network of specialist companies.
They include:
engineering firms;
fabrication companies;
subsea specialists;
electricians;
inspection companies;
marine contractors;
helicopter operators;
logistics companies;
equipment manufacturers;
consultants;
IT and technology businesses;
professional services;
training providers.
A company does not necessarily need to own an oil platform to benefit from North Sea investment.
It might supply a component, repair equipment, provide engineering expertise or transport workers and materials.
That is why the number of people employed directly on a field can be a poor measure of the field's total economic importance.
There is also a skills argument
Perhaps the most important issue is not the number of jobs created this year.
It is what happens to the people who currently possess North Sea skills.
Scotland has spent decades building expertise in offshore engineering and energy.
Those skills are potentially transferable to offshore wind, carbon capture, hydrogen, subsea electricity infrastructure and other emerging industries.
But skills cannot simply be switched from one industry to another overnight.
A highly experienced offshore engineer needs projects on which to work.
A fabrication company needs orders.
A training company needs apprentices.
A supply-chain business needs customers.
If oil and gas investment falls sharply before replacement industries become large enough, companies can disappear and experienced workers can leave the sector.
Once that happens, rebuilding the industrial base becomes considerably harder.
Jackdaw illustrates the transition problem
Shell argues that Jackdaw can provide a bridge between the existing oil and gas industry and the emerging energy economy.
Its own submission cites research suggesting that without continued investment in offshore energy, the UK offshore energy workforce could fall sharply by 2030.
The argument is that projects such as Jackdaw can help maintain the workforce while people acquire new skills for the energy transition.
Whether that happens will depend on what comes next.
Keeping somebody employed in oil and gas for another decade is not, by itself, an energy transition strategy.
The real prize would be to ensure that the engineer, electrician, fabricator or marine specialist working on today's North Sea projects can eventually work on tomorrow's offshore wind, carbon capture or other energy infrastructure.
What does this mean for Scotland?
For Scotland, the stakes are considerable.
Aberdeen has spent half a century building one of Europe's most sophisticated energy clusters.
Its importance extends far beyond the city.
Businesses throughout Scotland participate in the offshore supply chain.
Some may have contracts hundreds of miles from their headquarters.
That means the economic impact of North Sea investment can spread well beyond Aberdeen.
And that includes the Highlands.
Could Highland businesses benefit?
There is no reason the Highlands should be excluded from this transition.
The region has companies involved in engineering, marine services, construction, transport, logistics and energy.
The growth of offshore wind and electricity infrastructure could eventually provide an enormous new market for these capabilities.
But there is a danger.
If oil and gas declines faster than new energy industries develop, companies may have to look elsewhere for work.
For a small Highland business, losing a major industrial customer can have a much bigger impact than the loss of one or two jobs suggests.
It can affect investment, apprenticeships, wages and the viability of the business itself.
The real question isn't "oil or renewables"
This is why the jobs debate surrounding Rosebank and Jackdaw should not be framed simply as oil versus renewable energy.
The more important question is:
How does Scotland get from one energy economy to another without destroying the industrial capacity it already possesses?
If oil and gas investment declines gradually while offshore wind, grid infrastructure, hydrogen and other technologies expand rapidly, the transition could work.
Workers can move.
Companies can diversify.
Skills can be retained.
But if the old industry disappears before the new one is ready, Scotland could lose an enormous amount of expertise.
Two oilfields, but a much bigger jobs debate
Rosebank and Jackdaw therefore matter for jobs — but perhaps not in the way their opponents or supporters sometimes suggest.
They will not put thousands of people permanently onto two new platforms.
Rosebank will provide a substantial construction employment boost and then a much smaller long-term workforce.
Jackdaw is highly automated but is already supporting significant supply-chain activity and could help safeguard hundreds of existing jobs around the Shearwater hub.
The wider impact is about keeping companies, skills and industrial capacity alive.
And that may prove to be their most important contribution.
Scotland is attempting one of the biggest industrial transformations in its history.
It wants to move from being a major oil and gas producer to becoming a major clean-energy producer.
The danger is that the country loses the people and companies that know how to build and operate large offshore energy projects before the replacement industries are ready.
That is why the real jobs question isn't simply how many people Rosebank and Jackdaw will employ.
It is whether they help Scotland keep enough of its skilled energy workforce and supply chain intact to build the industries that come after oil and gas.