7th October 2026
Rosebank, primarily an oil field west of Shetland, and Jackdaw, a gas field east of Aberdeen, were both previously approved. Those approvals were subsequently challenged successfully in court because the original assessments did not properly account for the emissions created when the oil and gas were eventually burned.
Both projects have now gone back through the regulatory process.
So far, neither has received its new approval.
But there is another question which is perhaps just as important:
What does the public actually want the Government to do?
That question has become particularly relevant after the energy shocks of recent years, higher household bills and Britain's continuing dependence on imported energy.
Where are Rosebank and Jackdaw now?
The Government's latest position is that both projects remain under consideration.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero says the decisions are going through the regulatory process, with the Energy Secretary deciding whether to agree to consent. The final consenting decisions rest with the North Sea Transition Authority.
The Government has not set a fixed timetable for Jackdaw. A parliamentary answer on 21 September said there was no fixed date for the decision and that all the material needed to be properly considered before a robust decision could be made.
The official Government record for Rosebank continues to describe the project as “Under Review”. Further information was requested from the developer during 2026 and the latest public consultation closed in August.
So neither project has been approved again.
Jackdaw is different from Rosebank
It is worth separating the two.
Jackdaw is predominantly a gas project.
Rosebank is predominantly an oil project, with about 90% of its production expected to be oil and 10% gas.
The House of Commons Library estimates that, in optimistic production scenarios, Rosebank could produce around 437 million barrels of oil and 10.7 billion cubic metres of gas over its lifetime.
Jackdaw could produce around 10 billion cubic metres of gas.
The Library estimates that Rosebank's production could be equivalent to around 12% of projected UK oil imports between 2025 and 2050, while Jackdaw could represent about 2% of projected gas imports over that period.
Those numbers need to be handled carefully.
They do not mean Rosebank would supply 12% of Britain's oil every year.
And the oil produced by Rosebank would not necessarily be refined and consumed in Britain.
That is one of the central arguments made by opponents.
But Britain still needs oil and gas
This is where the debate becomes more complicated.
Britain is moving towards a much greater reliance on renewable electricity, but that does not mean oil and gas have suddenly disappeared from the economy.
Oil remains important for transport, industry and numerous products.
Gas remains important for heating and for electricity generation when renewable generation is insufficient.
And Britain is increasingly dependent on imports.
That creates an obvious question.
If Britain is going to continue using oil and gas for many years, is it better to produce some of it domestically or import it?
Those supporting Rosebank and Jackdaw say domestic production provides energy security, supports jobs and supply chains and generates tax revenue.
Those opposing the projects argue that the additional production is too small to make a significant difference to Britain's overall energy security and that investment should instead be directed towards renewables and reducing fossil-fuel demand.
Both arguments deserve to be understood.
So what does the public think?
Interestingly, the polling does not suggest that the British public has simply decided that all new North Sea oil and gas development should stop.
An Ipsos poll in April found that 48% of Britons supported issuing more licences for companies to drill new oil and gas wells in the North Sea.
That was lower than support for investment in renewable energy such as wind and solar, which stood at 69%.
But it nevertheless showed that almost half the population supported further North Sea drilling.
At the same time, there was considerable concern about Britain's energy position.
Ipsos found that 85% were concerned about energy prices, 82% about Britain's dependence on energy imports and 76% about possible interruptions to energy supplies to homes.
That is important.
The public appears capable of wanting more renewable energy and wanting continued domestic oil and gas production.
It does not necessarily see those things as mutually exclusive.
Another poll gives an even clearer picture
A YouGov survey of more than 6,000 GB adults in May asked directly about the future of North Sea oil and gas.
46% said Britain should allow new oil and gas developments to be opened in the North Sea.
Another 23% said existing developments should continue but no new ones should be allowed.
Only 10% wanted Britain to begin closing existing North Sea oil and gas developments.
There were 21% who did not know.
So the largest single group supported allowing new developments.
But it would be wrong to turn that into the statement that “the public overwhelmingly supports Rosebank and Jackdaw”.
The poll did not ask specifically about those two fields.
That distinction matters.
Scotland is even more interesting
The Scottish figures are particularly relevant because both projects are located in the Scottish North Sea.
A YouGov survey in April found that Scots opposed the existing ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments by 45% to 37%.
Even more strikingly, 51% of Scots said it was more important to ensure oil and gas extraction in the North Sea could continue for as long as possible than to prioritise Scotland's net-zero target, compared with 36% who took the opposite view.
In England and Wales the equivalent question produced a similar overall balance, with 50% prioritising continued extraction and 34% prioritising net zero.
There has also been more recent polling commissioned by Cavendish which found 69% of Scots supported either fast-tracking new North Sea oil and gas licences or considering them on a case-by-case basis.
That is a striking figure.
But again, it is about new North Sea licences generally, rather than a referendum on Rosebank and Jackdaw.
Why does the public view matter?
Governments do not normally decide individual oil-field applications by opinion poll.
Rosebank and Jackdaw are going through a regulatory and quasi-judicial process.
The Energy Secretary has to consider the environmental and other evidence rather than simply asking whether a majority of people favour the projects.
But public opinion is relevant to the wider political debate.
And the polling suggests that the public's attitude may be rather more pragmatic than the arguments on either side sometimes imply.
People appear to want renewable energy.
They also worry about energy prices.
They worry about dependence on foreign energy.
And a substantial proportion believe Britain should continue producing some of its own oil and gas while the transition to a lower-carbon energy system takes place.
What about cheaper energy bills?
This is perhaps the most important issue for households.
It would be tempting to say that approving Rosebank and Jackdaw would bring down energy bills.
That claim needs to be treated cautiously.
The UK's oil and gas market is connected to international markets.
Producing more oil in the North Sea does not automatically mean cheaper petrol, diesel or heating oil for British households.
Similarly, additional North Sea gas would not necessarily translate directly into cheaper household gas.
The benefit is more about security of supply, reducing some imports, supporting the domestic economy and retaining industrial capability.
That is a different argument from saying that consumers will suddenly see much lower energy bills.
There is also a jobs argument
The North Sea is not simply about the platforms themselves.
There is a large supply chain involving engineering, fabrication, maintenance, transport, offshore services and professional services.
The industry argues that continued projects can help maintain that capability while Britain moves towards a lower-carbon economy.
That matters particularly in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, where the transition away from oil and gas is already creating difficult economic questions.
But critics argue that continuing new oil and gas developments risks delaying the transition and diverting investment from industries which will have to provide Britain's future energy.
Once again, the choice is not quite as simple as “oil or renewables”.
Britain is currently trying to do both.
What happens if the Government says no?
Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw would not mean Britain stops using oil and gas.
The country would continue to need them.
The question would be where that oil and gas comes from.
It could mean greater reliance on imports.
Supporters of the projects therefore argue that refusing domestic production while continuing to consume imported fossil fuels makes little sense from an energy-security perspective.
Opponents argue that this confuses security of supply with security of demand.
If Britain wants to reduce its exposure to international energy shocks, they argue, the long-term answer is to reduce the amount of oil and gas it needs.
That means insulation, heat pumps, electric vehicles, renewable generation, storage and a more flexible electricity system.
Both sides therefore have a point that needs to be considered.
And what happens if the Government says yes?
Approval would not mean that Britain's energy problems disappear.
Nor would it end the argument about climate change.
It would mean that two projects already deep into the development process could proceed, potentially bringing investment, production, tax revenue and supply-chain work.
It would also send a signal to the North Sea industry that Britain remains prepared to approve some new developments under its revised regulatory framework.
That could influence future investment decisions.
But the projects could still face further legal challenges.
The original approvals for both fields were overturned following successful legal challenges, so another approval would not necessarily be the final chapter.
The public appears to want something more complicated than either side is offering
The polling is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole debate.
There is substantial public support for renewable energy.
There is also substantial support for continuing domestic oil and gas production.
And there is very strong concern about energy prices and Britain's dependence on imports.
That suggests that many people are not necessarily choosing between “oil and gas” and “renewables”.
They may be saying:
“We want Britain to build the energy system of the future without making itself unnecessarily vulnerable while getting there.”
That is a rather different proposition.
So where does Rosebank and Jackdaw leave us?
The Government has not yet approved either project.
Jackdaw appears to be further along in expectations surrounding a decision, but ministers have made clear that there is no fixed timetable.
Rosebank remains under review.
The public evidence does not provide a mandate to say that Britain wants these two particular fields approved.
But it does provide evidence that a substantial proportion of the public wants Britain to continue producing some of its own oil and gas, particularly when energy security and dependence on imports are part of the question.
Perhaps the most important question for ministers is therefore not simply:
“Do we want Rosebank and Jackdaw?”
It is:
“If Britain is still going to need oil and gas for many years, do we want to produce some of it ourselves while we build the replacement energy system?”
That is the real argument.
And with energy prices, international supply disruptions and Britain's dependence on imports all still fresh in the public mind, it is an argument that is unlikely to disappear simply because Britain has set a long-term net-zero target.