25th October 2026
The approval of the Jackdaw gas field has brought Britain's North Sea resources back into the headlines. But it raises a wider question: are there other discoveries that could help supply the country with gas, support jobs and reduce dependence on imports?
The answer is yes. Jackdaw is not the only potential source of additional production. The challenge is establishing which other fields could realistically be developed, how quickly they could produce gas and whether the investment would be worthwhile.
A basin with more resources to explore
The North Sea has supplied Britain with oil and gas for decades, but many discoveries have never progressed to production. Some are awaiting investment decisions, others require further technical work, while smaller discoveries may only be viable if they can be connected to existing platforms and pipelines.
The North Sea Transition Authority, the industry's regulator, publishes annual estimates of remaining reserves and resources. Its 2025 report, covering estimates at the end of 2024, distinguishes between reserves in developments that are sufficiently advanced and resources that have yet to reach that stage.
That distinction matters. A gas discovery is not the same as a working gas field. Companies must establish how much can be recovered, what it will cost, whether the necessary infrastructure is available and whether expected revenues justify the investment.
The regulator has also identified substantial resources outside currently licensed areas. These figures indicate geological potential, not a promise that the gas will ever be produced.
Jackdaw: an important but limited contribution
Jackdaw, about 150 miles east of Aberdeen, received fresh approval in October 2026 after its earlier consent was overturned following a legal challenge over the assessment of emissions from burning the extracted gas.
The Government says the project could increase domestic gas production by around 6% at peak output. The developers estimate that it could supply gas over a period of up to 11 years, using existing infrastructure and supporting hundreds of jobs.
That is a useful addition to Britain's energy supply, particularly at a time of international tension and concern about the cost and security of energy imports.
However, peak production is not the same as an increase of 6% in Britain's total gas supply every year for the next decade. Output will change over the field's lifetime, and the contribution must be considered against the country's overall demand.
Nor does approval guarantee an immediate reduction in household bills. British gas prices are influenced by the wider market, including supplies from Norway and liquefied natural gas shipped from overseas.
What about other fields?
The most prominent comparison is Rosebank, west of Shetland. It is primarily an oil development, although it would also produce gas. Its revised approval process remains unresolved, so it should not be presented as a straightforward alternative to Jackdaw or as a major new gas field in its own right.
There are also opportunities involving smaller discoveries and additional production from established fields. Some could potentially be connected to nearby infrastructure rather than requiring entirely new platforms and pipelines.
This is important because the North Sea is a mature basin. As older fields decline and infrastructure reaches the end of its working life, a relatively small discovery can become uneconomic if it requires expensive new facilities. Connecting it to an existing installation can change the calculation.
The Government has signalled that it wants to allow certain developments near existing licensed fields to proceed through proposed transitional arrangements. The aim is to make better use of existing infrastructure while maintaining its commitment not to issue new licences for exploration in previously unlicensed areas.
Whether this approach unlocks significant additional gas production remains to be seen. It will depend on the individual discoveries, the rules that apply and the willingness of companies to invest.
Why have more discoveries not been developed?
There is no single explanation.
Some projects have been delayed by legal challenges and the need for fresh environmental assessments. Others face high development costs, difficult geology or uncertainty about future prices.
Companies must also consider how long a field will produce. A project requiring billions of pounds of investment may be unattractive if it has a relatively short productive life or if the cost of maintaining its infrastructure is high.
The industry's position is that a predictable regulatory framework is essential if businesses are to commit money and retain skilled workers. Environmental campaigners argue that new production brings additional emissions and risks diverting investment from the transition to cleaner energy.
Both issues deserve serious consideration. The practical debate is about which projects can deliver a credible economic and energy-security benefit, and at what environmental cost.
Would more British gas mean cheaper energy?
Not necessarily. Domestic production can reduce the need for imports, provide tax revenues and sustain jobs in Scotland's offshore supply chain. It can also improve resilience if international supplies are disrupted.
But gas is traded in an interconnected market. Producers can generally sell into that market, so increasing British output does not automatically guarantee a lower price for British households.
There is nevertheless a difference between having additional domestic production and relying entirely on supplies from elsewhere. The question is how much extra security viable projects can provide, rather than promising that another field will solve the energy-price problem.
Britain will also need to manage the decline of older fields while developing renewable electricity, storage and other sources of energy. Gas will remain important in the transition, but the long-term balance of supply and demand will change.
Time for a clearer picture
Jackdaw has attracted attention because it is a sizeable gas project and because its approval became entangled in the debate over climate policy. But the public discussion would benefit from a fuller account of the other discoveries that might be developed.
The Government and the regulator could publish a clear assessment of the most promising opportunities, identifying their estimated gas volumes, development costs, likely production dates, infrastructure requirements and regulatory status. It should distinguish projects that are genuinely close to production from those that remain speculative.
Such an assessment would help answer a straightforward question: how much additional gas could Britain realistically produce from discoveries it already knows about?
There is no case for assuming every field should be developed regardless of cost or environmental impact. Equally, it makes little sense to debate the future of North Sea gas by concentrating on one project at a time without explaining the wider choices.
Jackdaw may be an important addition, but it is not the whole story. Britain needs an honest assessment of the resources it has, the projects that are commercially viable and the contribution they could make before the North Sea's remaining opportunities become harder and more expensive to develop.
Sources: UK Government announcement on Jackdaw; North Sea Transition Authority; House of Commons Library briefing on North Sea oil and gas.
Further information can be seen at
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-12212/