12th October 2026
Britain needs energy, the Treasury needs revenue and the North Sea needs investment. So why are two major oil and gas projects still waiting for the government to make up its mind?
Britain is facing high energy costs, pressure on public finances and growing uncertainty about its future oil and gas supplies. Yet two major North Sea developments, Jackdaw and Rosebank, remain caught in a regulatory process with no firm decision date.
The question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. What exactly is the government waiting for?
The two projects could bring billions of pounds in investment, support skilled jobs and contribute tax revenues at a time when the Treasury is searching for money to fund public services. They could also provide additional supplies of oil and gas while Britain continues its transition towards renewable energy.
None of those benefits is guaranteed, and neither project is free from environmental or legal difficulties. But the longer the uncertainty continues, the more difficult it becomes for businesses and workers to plan for the future.
Billions for the Treasury
The financial figures are substantial.
According to projections published by the companies developing the fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank together could generate £1.4 billion in tax revenues before the end of the current UK Parliament, rising to £3.8 billion by the end of the next.
These are company estimates, not money already sitting in the Treasury's bank account. Actual receipts will depend on production, oil and gas prices, costs, profitability and the tax rules in force.
Nevertheless, the potential contribution is significant. In Parliament in September, an MP also highlighted estimates of £1 billion to £2 billion in VAT receipts alone.
At a time when ministers are under pressure to fund public services and manage government borrowing, the prospect of additional tax revenue deserves serious consideration.
The money would not solve Britain's public-finance problems. But neither should potential revenue on this scale be casually dismissed.
We still need oil and gas
There is another uncomfortable reality. Britain has not stopped using oil and gas simply because it wants to move towards cleaner energy.
Gas remains important for electricity generation, heating and industrial processes. Oil continues to be essential for transport, manufacturing and numerous everyday products.
Renewable energy is expanding, but the transition takes time. Electricity storage, grid connections, new infrastructure and alternative industrial technologies cannot all be delivered overnight.
If Britain produces less of the oil and gas it needs, it becomes more dependent on what it can buy from overseas. International prices, shipping disruptions and geopolitical tensions can then affect British consumers and businesses.
The recent instability in the Middle East is a reminder that energy supplies cannot always be taken for granted.
Developing domestic resources would not insulate Britain from international prices, nor would every barrel produced in the North Sea necessarily be used here. Rosebank's oil, in particular, is expected largely to be exported. But additional domestic production can still contribute to supply, support industrial activity and reduce some dependence on imports.
The case for Jackdaw is particularly relevant because it is a gas development, and much of the infrastructure is already in place. If approved, production could begin relatively quickly compared with a project requiring extensive new facilities.
Jobs and investment are also at stake
The projects represent a substantial investment in the North Sea and its supply chain.
Their developers estimate that the combined investment will be around £10.8 billion, with more than three-quarters expected to be spent in the UK. They forecast around 3,500 jobs at peak construction and 880 jobs sustained throughout production.
Those figures come from the companies involved and should be treated as forecasts. But they illustrate why the decisions matter to Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and specialist businesses across the country.
Oil and gas expertise is not confined to offshore platforms. It supports engineering firms, fabrication yards, marine services, transport businesses and specialist suppliers.
Companies cannot keep investing indefinitely if they do not know whether major projects will proceed. Skilled workers may seek opportunities elsewhere, while suppliers may be reluctant to commit money to equipment, training and recruitment.
On 6 October, Equinor's chief executive warned that rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw would be a major setback and could lead investors to question whether Britain remained an attractive place to invest.
That is an interested party's assessment, but it raises a legitimate economic question: how does Britain persuade businesses to invest billions when the future of major developments remains uncertain?
Why is the government taking so long?
There is a genuine legal complication.
The original approvals for both projects were overturned following legal challenges concerning the assessment of emissions generated when the oil and gas are eventually burned.
The government has since revised its guidance and required fresh applications and regulatory consideration. The purpose is to ensure that the environmental consequences are properly assessed and that new decisions can withstand legal scrutiny.
That is a legitimate requirement. A rushed approval that is subsequently overturned would simply create more uncertainty.
But the consultation periods closed in August. In September, ministers told Parliament that decisions would be made separately and “in due course”. On 11 October, the Conservatives were still publicly pressing the government to approve the projects and accusing it of delaying.
The government has not published a firm date for the decisions.
It is reasonable to ask what outstanding issues remain, what work is still required and when the process is expected to conclude.
There is also a political balancing act. Approving the developments will attract opposition from environmental campaigners, while refusing them will anger parts of the oil and gas industry and communities dependent on its supply chain.
Ministers must weigh those competing arguments, but political difficulty is not a substitute for explaining a timetable.
What about the environmental cost?
The argument for proceeding must not ignore climate change.
Burning the oil and gas produced will generate emissions, and those consequences must be considered in the regulatory decisions. Campaigners argue that approving new fields risks locking Britain into further fossil-fuel production when it should be accelerating the transition to cleaner energy.
Supporters counter that Britain will continue to consume oil and gas for years, and that refusing domestic production could simply increase imports without eliminating the associated global emissions.
That debate deserves proper examination. Domestic production is not automatically preferable in every circumstance, just as rejecting a project does not automatically eliminate demand for its products.
The government needs to explain how it has assessed the environmental consequences alongside the economic and energy-security arguments.
A decision is needed, not another open-ended wait
Jackdaw and Rosebank are not identical projects, and each should be judged on its own merits. Their legal requirements, environmental impacts, commercial prospects and contributions to energy supply need to be considered separately.
But the public also deserves a clear timetable.
If ministers believe the projects should proceed, they should explain why the evidence supports that conclusion. If they intend to refuse consent, they should explain the consequences for investment, jobs, energy supply and the public finances.
And if further work is genuinely necessary, they should identify what remains to be done.
Britain cannot demand investment, worry about energy security, search for additional tax revenue and then leave major investment decisions hanging indefinitely without explaining why.
The choice is not simply between supporting oil and gas or supporting renewable energy. Britain needs to manage the transition while maintaining reliable supplies, protecting workers and ensuring that investment decisions are made on a clear and credible basis.
The government may ultimately decide that one or both projects should not proceed. That is its responsibility. But it should be able to explain the decision and the timetable for reaching it.
For the Treasury, the North Sea industry, energy consumers and communities in Scotland, continued uncertainty has its own cost.
The question now is simple: when will the government decide, and what is the country losing while it waits?