Authored by David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, via City AM,
Jackdaw and Rosebank could strengthen UK energy security by increasing domestic oil and gas production while demand remains substantial.
The projects are expected to support billions of pounds of investment, thousands of jobs, and a broad UK offshore supply chain.
Continued North Sea production could reduce import dependence while preserving engineering skills and industrial capacity needed for offshore wind, hydrogen, and carbon capture.
Britain faces a simple choice. While we still need oil and gas, do we produce more of it here, supporting jobs, investment, energy security and lower production emissions, or do we import more from overseas, which costs more and involves higher emissions? That is the real question facing ministers as they consider Jackdaw and Rosebank.
With extreme weather becoming ever more visible, the need to tackle climate change is beyond doubt. The UK must scale up renewable and low-carbon energy, but people deserve honesty. Even on our path to net zero, Britain will need oil and gas for years to come.
Oil and gas still meet around 75 per cent of current UK energy needs, which is why the decisions facing ministers on Jackdaw and Rosebank are so important.
Jackdaw could provide more than six per cent of UK gas supply by this winter, equivalent to the gas needed to heat around 1.4m homes. Rosebank is another major opportunity to strengthen domestic production while demand remains.
The public consultation on Jackdaw and Rosebank has now closed.
The economic prize is significant. More than £3bn has already been invested in these projects, with total anticipated investment reaching £10.8bn. Over their producing lives, they could contribute £28.7bn to the UK economy and generate £1.4bn in tax revenues before the end of this Parliament.
For readers, this is not an abstract debate. It is about capital allocation, supply chains and whether the UK remains a credible place to invest.
More than 170 UK supply chain companies are already involved. Jackdaw and Rosebank together will support around 3,500 jobs at peak construction, around 880 long-term jobs during production and 125 apprenticeships. Those skills are not yesterday’s economy. They are the same engineering and technical capabilities needed for tomorrow’s energy system.
Some argue the fastest route to net zero is to stop new domestic oil and gas production, but if UK production falls faster than demand, Britain will not stop using oil and gas. It will import more. In the process, we hollow out our industrial strength, skilled workforce and supply chains needed to build our energy future.
Production emissions from Jackdaw and Rosebank could be around eight times lower than imported liquefied natural gas. Importing more energy means exporting jobs, investment and emissions accountability.
Approving Jackdaw and Rosebank would not solve every challenge facing the North Sea, but it would send an important signal. There is a £50bn pipeline of potential oil and gas investment that could be unlocked over the coming decade.
That means jobs, tax revenues and energy security. It also means sustaining the supply chain companies Britain will rely on for offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and the wider low-carbon economy.
If the government wants a serious industrial strategy that supports growth, it should back the North Sea during the transition. The alternative is higher import dependence, weaker domestic capability and less influence over the emissions linked to the energy we consume.
The UK should be ambitious about renewables. It should also be practical about the energy system we have today. Backing North Sea oil and gas production while demand remains is not a retreat from net zero. It is a responsible way to get there.