Andy Burnham looks set to decide on whether to approve the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields in the North Sea. Supporters argue the fields would offer jobs, cheaper bills and energy security, while critics argue that drilling undermines climate goals and will not lower consumer bills. Burnham wants to reduce costs for struggling UK consumers, but will bills really be lowered, and what are the environmental impacts of this monumental decision?
It is reasonable to consider the environmental and economic impacts of these fields separately. Jackdaw is a gas field with an 11-year lifetime, which could start supplying gas to UK households almost instantly. Rosebank is an oil & gas field (90 per cent oil, 10 per cent gas) which would aim to be operational by 2027. Rosebank could supply around 12 per cent of equivalent oil imports and 2 per cent of gas imports between 2025 and 2050, while Jackdaw could supply around 2 per cent of gas imports over its lifetime. The estimates of CO2 emissions in the fields are 23.6m to 35.8m tonnes for Jackdaw, and a colossal 250m tonnes for Rosebank.
The UK is currently still expected to have a heavy reliance on oil and gas by 2050. Gas is imported via pipeline imports from Norway and UK fields, as well as shipped as liquefied natural gas (LNG). The lowest-carbon gas is pipeline-imported Norwegian gas, followed by UK gas, then LNG.
It is often claimed that UK-produced gas emits “four times” less CO2 than imported LNG. However, this claim does not account for all emissions. When all factors are considered, UK-produced gas emissions are only 15% lower than imported LNG. This means that the emissions of domestic gas are not as low when compared to imports as some sources might suggest.
The UK is a net importer of oil, with its main suppliers being Norway, the US, and Qatar. Most of the oil is used for transport fuels (81.4 per cent), with a small amount (4.2 per cent) being used to make kerosene. Kerosene is used to heat around 1.5 million homes in the UK, often in the most remote areas. Backers of Jackdaw and Rosebank argue the field would reduce the UK’s reliance on imports, arguing it would improve energy security.
Economic assessments suggest that the fields won’t significantly lower bills for UK households, and that proceeding with extraction risks undermining investment into renewables and clean infrastructure. One article from Imperial College London estimates that approval of the fields will lead to future climate damage costing anywhere between 6 and 17 times the money they will make for the UK.
The fields could create high-skilled jobs in struggling Scottish cities like Aberdeen, which have seen economic decline after falling oil and gas production in the UK. But won’t this just delay the problem for 25 years? And would it not be better to invest in creating sustainable jobs? Unions are divided on the issue. Unite the Union, one of the biggest trade unions in the UK, has urged the government to back the fields, while UNISON and the Fire Brigades Union have expressed strong opposition. Unions rejecting the fields worry about the long-term wellbeing of workers and long-term jobs, with the Fire Brigades Union linking the climate impact of the fields with wildfires across the country.
Allowing the field to go ahead locks in massive carbon emissions, with licenses unlikely to ever be revoked once the fields are operating. To meet the Paris Agreement, we cannot continue to license oil and gas fields globally and must keep some oil and gas in the ground. If these fields are allowed, it will threaten the legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Last week, energy giant Equinor threatened that it may stop future investments in the UK if Rosebank and Jackdaw are not approved; this not only threatens oil & gas investment, but also investment in renewables. This leaves the Andy Burnham with a serious decision to make, with risks of divestment on the one hand, and future climate disaster on the other. Will we keep oil and gas in the ground and help limit future global warming scenarios? Or will we marginally increase energy security without any real promises of lower bills for citizens?
