Russell Borthwick, Chief Executive of Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, told the Sunday Express: “Decisions of this importance should be taken on their merits, not delayed for political expediency. Jackdaw and Rosebank represent billions of pounds of investment, support thousands of good jobs and will provide secure energy from our own waters that Britain will otherwise have to import.”

Industry body Offshore Energies UK supports the development of renewable technology but warns that more than 40% of UK energy is now imported and forecasts that the country will need at least 11 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050.

An industry insider said: “Every delay pushes us closer to a point where recovery becomes impossible. If the postponement of Jackdaw and Rosebank is indeed a political calculation designed to influence a by‑election, it is profoundly irresponsible. While Westminster hesitates, a once world‑leading industry edges towards the point of no return.”

He said: “Oil and gas prices are at their highest level since 2022. The UK is sitting on vast reserves, and will be using both well beyond 2050. Opening these fields should not be a matter of debate, the economic and security case is clear. A serious Government, let alone one with an unassailable majority, would be considering that ahead of the obsessions of internal critics and campaigners in a single seat.”

The Tories have linked the hike in inflation to 3.1% to Labour’s “mad energy policies”. Further support for drilling came from leading think tanks.

Sean Ridley, an energy researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies, called on Mr Burnham to stand up to Left-wing opponents of drilling, saying: “He might face resistance from within his party but it’s time to show leadership and recognise that what we’re doing is placing now an undue burden on bill payers and British industry.”

Fred de Fossard of the Prosperity Institute warned: “If the Prime Minister takes British energy security and British prosperity seriously he would approve these fields, repeal the windfall tax on the North Sea and remove all regulatory barriers to drilling.”

And Silvia Andreoletti of the Adam Smith Institute, said: “The UK’s energy costs are the highest in the developed world and are continuing to rise, taking more and more money out of Brits’ pockets. Expensive energy hurts manufacturing, increases inflation, and is one of the country’s biggest barriers to growth.

But Areeba Hamid of Greenpeace UK argued: “The case for saying no to Jackdaw and Rosebank only gets stronger as the decision is deferred. The Government might want to put some distance between the wildfires and drought of the summer and an expansion of fossil fuel drilling, but would that decision look any less absurd a few months from now, with ministers standing knee-deep in the floodwater?

“On all counts – bills, jobs and emissions – the case against drilling is clear cut.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We do not comment on speculation. The North Sea remains a vital national asset and oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come – alongside transitioning to clean power to protect jobs and tackle the climate crisis.

“Any decision will take into account all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations received during the consultation process.”

Andy Burnham Urged to Find Backbone and Green-Light Mega Deal ‘Before It’s Too Late’

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing growing pressure to make a decision on two major North Sea oil and gas projects, with business leaders and industry supporters warning that continued uncertainty could put billions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs at risk.

The projects at the centre of the dispute are Rosebank and Jackdaw.

Supporters of the developments are urging the government to give them the green light, arguing that Britain needs domestic energy production, investment and greater resilience against international energy-price shocks.

Critics take the opposite view. Environmental campaigners argue that approving new oil and gas developments would conflict with Britain’s climate commitments and would do little to reduce household energy bills because oil and gas are traded in international markets.

The political pressure on Burnham has therefore intensified as his government approaches the Labour Party conference.

Calls for Burnham to make a decision

The latest calls came from business and energy figures who argue that delays are becoming increasingly damaging.

Russell Borthwick, chief executive of Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said decisions of this importance should be made on their economic merits rather than being delayed for political reasons.

He argued that Rosebank and Jackdaw represent billions of pounds of potential investment and could support thousands of jobs while providing additional energy from Britain’s own waters.

The argument has particular resonance in Aberdeen and the wider north-east of Scotland, where the oil and gas industry remains an important part of the regional economy.

Richard Brooks, leader of the Conservative group on Aberdeen City Council, has also urged Burnham to approve the projects.

He argued that the prime minister should consider the national and local economic implications and provide clarity for businesses and workers in the sector.

These calls do not establish that the projects would necessarily deliver all the economic benefits claimed by their supporters. They demonstrate, however, the strength of the pressure being placed on the government by sections of the energy industry and business community.

The two projects at the centre of the row

Rosebank is one of the largest undeveloped oil fields in the UK North Sea.

Jackdaw is a gas project operated by Shell.

The government has been considering whether the projects can proceed under its interpretation of Labour’s commitments on North Sea production.

Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledged to honour existing oil and gas licences while not issuing new licences for exploration.

The question of how existing developments, new drilling and so-called tieback projects fit within that commitment has become increasingly contentious.

Earlier reports suggested that Burnham’s government could approve certain developments without formally breaching the manifesto commitment, but such a decision would still face opposition from Labour MPs and environmental campaigners.

The uncertainty has consequently become a political issue in its own right.

Why Aberdeen is watching closely

For Aberdeen and surrounding communities, the debate is about more than a single pair of oil and gas fields.

The North Sea industry supports a network of companies involved in exploration, engineering, construction, offshore services and energy technology.

Industry representatives argue that uncertainty over future licensing makes it harder for companies to plan investment and retain specialist workers.

Offshore Energies UK has argued that Britain could potentially unlock a much larger pipeline of North Sea projects if the government changed aspects of its fiscal and regulatory approach.

An industry report cited by AOL said changes to the windfall tax and approval of Rosebank and Jackdaw could potentially unlock 111 projects and attract around £50 billion of investment. Those are industry estimates rather than independent government forecasts.

The wider concern is that declining domestic production could increase Britain’s reliance on imported energy.

Supporters of new North Sea production therefore frame the issue as one of energy security as well as jobs.

The government’s position

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has not confirmed that the projects will receive approval.

A department spokesperson said the government does not comment on speculation and that the North Sea remains a vital national asset.

The department also said oil and gas would continue to play a role in Britain’s energy system for decades while the country transitions towards clean power.

Any decision, it said, would take account of environmental assessments and representations received during the consultation process.

That means the government is not simply choosing between approving the projects immediately or abandoning North Sea production.

Ministers must consider environmental evidence, energy policy, legal requirements, economic consequences and the government’s broader strategy for reaching net-zero emissions.

Claims that the decision is being delayed for political reasons

One of the most controversial allegations concerns the timing of the decision.

Reuters reported earlier this month that the government was expected to delay a decision on the Jackdaw gas field until after an October parliamentary by-election, citing the Telegraph and government sources.

The timing has generated criticism from supporters of the oil and gas industry, who argue that energy policy should not be influenced by the electoral calendar.

An industry source quoted in the Sunday Express went further, warning that continued postponement could push the industry towards a point where investment becomes difficult to recover.

Those claims are political and industry assessments rather than evidence that the government has formally linked the decision to the by-election.

The government itself has not confirmed that political considerations are responsible for the delay.

Environmental groups strongly disagree

The pressure on Burnham is not coming from only one side.

Greenpeace UK has urged the government to reject both Rosebank and Jackdaw.

Areeba Hamid of Greenpeace argued that the case against the projects becomes stronger as decisions are delayed and said the government should instead direct investment towards renewable energy.

Environmental campaigners maintain that new North Sea production would increase fossil-fuel use while doing little to shield British households from global energy prices.

That argument is supported by some energy analysts and climate researchers.

A recent analysis reported by the Guardian estimated that the climate-related economic damage associated with emissions from Rosebank and Jackdaw could greatly exceed the economic value claimed by the company promoting the projects.

The analysis estimated potential global economic damage of between £119 billion and £336 billion, compared with an estimated £28.7 billion in value to the UK.

Those figures are based on modelling assumptions and should therefore be treated as an analysis rather than a guaranteed future cost.

Nevertheless, they demonstrate why the environmental debate is so sharply divided from the industry’s economic argument.

Would new drilling reduce energy bills?

This is one of the central questions.

Supporters of Rosebank and Jackdaw argue that domestic production could improve energy security and reduce Britain’s exposure to international disruption.

Opponents argue that this does not automatically translate into cheaper energy for consumers because oil and gas prices are determined by international markets.

The UK can produce more oil and gas while still selling much of that production into a global market.

This means the connection between domestic production and household bills is not straightforward.

The debate therefore involves two different concepts of energy security.

One concerns having domestic production capacity available.

The other concerns whether that domestic production actually lowers the price paid by households and businesses.

The government must weigh both questions when assessing the projects.

Pressure from the energy industry

The industry has become increasingly vocal.

Andy Mayer of the Institute of Economic Affairs argued that Britain’s remaining North Sea resources should be considered in the context of continued demand for oil and gas.

He said Britain would continue using fossil fuels for many years and argued that approving the fields could support the economy and energy security.

Dale Vince, the founder of Ecotricity and a prominent supporter of renewable energy, has also recently argued that Burnham should consider approving Rosebank and Jackdaw under strict conditions.

Vince proposed price controls on the resulting oil and gas, arguing that this could make domestic production more beneficial to consumers.

His position represents a notable shift from his previous opposition to new North Sea drilling.

That illustrates how complicated the debate has become.

Even some supporters of the transition towards renewable energy acknowledge that Britain will continue to consume oil and gas during the transition period.

The political dilemma

For Burnham, the decision carries political consequences whichever way he goes.

Approving the projects could reassure parts of the energy industry, business groups and communities dependent on North Sea activity.

But it could provoke opposition from environmental campaigners and Labour MPs who believe the government should move more rapidly away from fossil fuels.

Rejecting them could strengthen the government’s climate credentials but potentially increase concern about investment, jobs and Britain’s future domestic energy supply.

The issue is particularly sensitive because Labour has promised both economic growth and a transition towards clean energy.

Reconciling those objectives is not straightforward.

The bigger question about Britain’s energy future

The argument over Rosebank and Jackdaw is ultimately about what Britain’s energy system should look like during the next two decades.

The country is investing heavily in renewable generation, electricity infrastructure and low-carbon technologies.

At the same time, oil and gas remain significant parts of the British economy and energy system.

That creates a transition problem.

Britain cannot instantly eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels, but decisions to develop new fields could influence how quickly investment moves towards alternative technologies.

Burnham must therefore consider not only the immediate economic case but also the longer-term direction of energy policy.

A decision with consequences either way

Calls for the prime minister to “find backbone” and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw reflect one side of an increasingly heated national debate.

Business groups and industry representatives say delay threatens investment and jobs.

Environmental organisations argue that approving new fields would undermine climate goals and divert resources from renewable energy.

Neither side can settle the question through political rhetoric alone.

The government must consider the evidence on energy security, emissions, investment, employment, taxation and the future demand for oil and gas.

For now, no final approval of both projects has been announced.

That leaves the political pressure intact.

The North Sea industry wants certainty. Environmental campaigners want the projects rejected. Local communities want clarity over employment and investment. And the government faces competing demands over energy security, economic growth and climate policy.

The eventual decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw will therefore be more than a decision about two fields.

It will provide a clearer indication of how Burnham’s government intends to balance Britain’s remaining dependence on oil and gas with its commitment to a longer-term transition towards cleaner energy.

Until the government publishes its final decisions and supporting evidence, claims that either approval or rejection would automatically solve Britain’s energy problems remain arguments rather than established outcomes.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.