21st October 2026
The expected approval of a major gas field has brought Britain's energy security back into focus. But the decision still awaited on the much larger Rosebank oil development could prove even more consequential.
The expected go-ahead for the Jackdaw gas field has attracted considerable attention, but another major North Sea decision remains outstanding. Rosebank, the controversial oil field west of Shetland, is still awaiting a final decision from the UK Government.
The two developments have followed a similar path through the regulatory system, yet their outcomes are being considered separately. Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh indicated last week that a decision on Jackdaw was imminent, while Rosebank would take longer. On 20 October, reports said Jackdaw was expected to receive approval the following day. Rosebank, meanwhile, remained unresolved.
That leaves an important question: why is the Government moving towards a decision on one project while the other continues to wait?
Two fields, two different energy questions
Jackdaw is a gas development about 150 miles east of Aberdeen. Its supporters argue that it can contribute to Britain's domestic gas supply, support offshore jobs and help sustain the wider North Sea supply chain.
Rosebank lies west of Shetland and is a much larger oil development. Its estimated recoverable resources are around 300 million barrels. The project is being developed by the Adura joint venture, involving Shell and Equinor, alongside Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20% interest.
The distinction matters. Gas is used directly for heating, electricity generation and industrial processes. Oil is primarily used for transport fuels and as a feedstock for industry. Both are traded in markets influenced by international supply, demand and geopolitical events, but they do not serve precisely the same purposes.
Nor would approving either field guarantee cheaper energy for British consumers.
Why have the decisions taken so long?
The original approvals for Jackdaw and Rosebank were overturned by the Scottish courts in January 2025. The problem was that the environmental assessments had not properly accounted for the emissions produced when the extracted oil and gas were eventually burned.
Following the court ruling, the Government issued supplementary guidance and required the developers to provide further environmental information. Both projects then went through renewed regulatory procedures, including public consultation.
The consultation periods have now closed, but that does not mean approval is automatic. Ministers must consider the evidence and representations received before making separate decisions. The process is intended to ensure that the environmental consequences of extracting and using the fuels are properly assessed.
Rosebank's application has involved further exchanges of information during 2026. The developer submitted additional material in June, followed by public notices in July. That helps explain why the project remains under consideration, although the Government has not provided a firm public decision date.
Would Rosebank make Britain more energy secure?
Supporters argue that Britain should make use of resources in its own waters rather than become increasingly dependent on imported oil. Domestic production can support employment, provide work for suppliers and generate tax revenue.
The industry also argues that producing oil and gas under UK regulation can be preferable to relying on supplies from countries with different environmental standards or less stable political conditions.
These are legitimate considerations, particularly when international tensions threaten shipping routes and push up oil prices. The recent volatility in global energy markets has reinforced the importance of secure supplies.
However, there is a difference between producing more oil and insulating British consumers from international price movements. Oil is sold into a global market, and the price paid by motorists, farmers and businesses will continue to reflect international crude prices, refining costs, distribution and taxation.
Even if Rosebank is approved, its production would not simply be reserved for British consumers at a guaranteed lower price. Nor would the additional supply necessarily reduce the international price of oil by a noticeable amount.
The economic argument cuts both ways
The potential employment and tax benefits are important, particularly for Scotland's offshore industry and the businesses that depend on it. But forecasts of future revenue depend on production, oil prices, development costs and the tax treatment of the project.
There are also questions about how many jobs would be created, how long they would last and how much work would go to UK-based suppliers. Investment in one large offshore development does not automatically translate into a lasting revival across every part of the North Sea economy.
Ithaca Energy has warned that refusing Rosebank could affect its willingness to invest in further UK developments. That is a significant statement from a company with money at stake, but it is also a commercial position that should be considered alongside the arguments made by environmental groups and other analysts.
The Government must weigh these potential economic benefits against the costs and consequences of further fossil-fuel development.
Climate commitments remain central
The principal argument against Rosebank is that extracting and burning more oil is difficult to reconcile with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Supporters of the project respond that Britain will continue to need oil for some time and that refusing domestic production will not necessarily reduce global consumption if the shortfall is replaced by imports.
The debate cannot be resolved simply by pointing to the emissions from operating an offshore platform. The environmental assessment must also consider the emissions associated with using the oil produced, alongside the wider consequences of the development and the relevant climate commitments.
The Government must therefore make a decision that can withstand legal scrutiny, rather than one based solely on political pressure from either side.
What happens next?
Jackdaw's expected approval may offer an indication of how the Government intends to approach existing North Sea developments. But it does not settle the future of Rosebank.
Three broad outcomes remain possible: approval subject to conditions, refusal, or further delay while regulatory issues are resolved. A decision could also face a legal challenge.
For Scotland, the consequences extend beyond the immediate question of drilling. The offshore industry supports skilled employment, specialist engineering and supply-chain businesses, while the transition towards lower-carbon energy requires investment in new technologies and opportunities for workers.
The Government must explain how these competing objectives fit together.
Jackdaw may have taken centre stage, but Rosebank is still the bigger unanswered question. Its eventual decision will test how Britain balances energy security, industrial employment, climate commitments and the future of its North Sea resources. Whatever the outcome, consumers should not be led to believe that approving another oil field will, by itself, bring down their fuel bills.