Ensuring we address the urgency of climate change whilst also ensuring energy security resilience is central to energy policy development today. In this context, decisions over whether to approve new fossil fuel projects are some of the most contentious we face.

The UK government’s updated environmental guidance has reopened the possibility of drilling at the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields in the North Sea, sparking a wider debate about future oil projects. Ministers promise energy security and economic growth, but the evidence suggests these projects are unlikely to significantly enhance Britain’s long-term resilience or climate credentials. They should be rejected.

Central to the government’s case is the argument of energy security. Michael Shanks, the new Energy Security Minister, has hailed the updated guidance – which clarifies how companies must account for lifetime emissions – as a major step in ensuring a ‘managed and orderly’ transition to a clean energy future. Rosebank and Jackdaw, led respectively by Equinor and Shell, were halted earlier this year when a Scottish court ruled their approvals unlawful for failing to include downstream emissions from burning the extracted fossil fuels. Now, both firms are preparing to reapply in line with the new rules.

While the legal oversight has been addressed, the strategic rationale remains questionable. North Sea oil and gas reserves are declining rapidly. Fresh analysis by the climate group Uplift shows that even if both fields go ahead, the UK will still be dependent on imported gas by 2050, with imports rising from 55% today to an estimated 94%. This projection holds even if other approved North Sea projects also proceed.

This casts serious doubt on the claim that exploiting domestic reserves will materially strengthen energy security. Short-term supply smoothing may be possible, but the long-term trend is stark – the UK has depleted most of its accessible North Sea reserves. Global supply is not the primary constraint – strategic investment, swift roll out of clean technologies and managing demand more efficiently are. Rosebank and Jackdaw, even if productive, are not designed to replace all imports.

Furthermore, much of their output would flow to international markets, as commercial economics dictate. The price the UK would pay for its production would be set by those same international markets. In short, the development of these fields would do little to improve energy security or reduce bills for consumers.

Labour in the hot seat
Politically, Labour has landed in a familiar quandary. Its general election manifesto pledged to end approvals for new oil and gas exploration while exempting projects that already hold licences – a category that includes Rosebank and Jackdaw. This room for manoeuvre offers the Treasury and pro-development voices scope to push ahead, even as many Labour MPs hope Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, will block the projects on climate grounds.

Yet this is no minor technical policy decision. Approving Rosebank and Jackdaw would be likely to set a precedent for how rigorously new fossil fuel projects will be assessed under the current government. The government advisor on such matters, the Climate Change Committee, has been unequivocal – new oil and gas developments are inconsistent with the UK’s net zero commitment. Whilst advisors advise and governments decide, there should be a high bar to meet if we ignore that advice without undermining climate governance frameworks.

The bar for environmental consent, already raised by the courts, must therefore remain high. This does not only mean technical compliance, but it also means applying a strategic test – will these projects deliver a material benefit to UK energy resilience without undermining emission targets or delaying the transition away from fossil fuels? On every front, Rosebank and Jackdaw struggle to qualify.

If approved, they are likely to contribute marginally to domestic energy supply while distracting from the critical task of accelerating investment in clean energy infrastructure. Offshore wind, grid upgrades, hydrogen development and energy efficiency schemes promise far higher returns for energy security with a fraction of the environmental cost.

The government advisor on such matters, the Climate Change Committee, has been unequivocal – new oil and gas developments are inconsistent with the UK’s net zero commitment.

What lies beneath
Shell and Equinor assert that they are fully compliant with the new environmental rules, and there is no reason to doubt that – but this misses the point. The issue is not whether these projects can jump the legal hurdles, but whether they serve the national interest in the longer run. Approving new extraction today makes it harder to deliver clean energy tomorrow, and casts doubt on the seriousness of net zero commitments.

Labour is now at a fork in the road. Either it enshrines a new direction of travel and signals clearly that fossil expansion is not consistent with a climate-resilient economic strategy, or it cedes ground to legacy thinking that has already brought us perilously close to climate overshoot.

Rosebank and Jackdaw may yet go ahead, but the bigger reckoning concerns the direction of UK energy policy. Our future lies not beneath the waves of the North Sea, but in the winds above them and within the technologies we are only just beginning to master. To pretend otherwise is to chase a disappearing horizon.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author only and are not necessarily given or endorsed by or on behalf of the Energy Institute.

• Further reading: ‘Time to really begin the retreat from fossil fuels?’. UK judges have decided that we must not ignore the carbon emissions generated by users (Scope 3) from proposed fossil fuel projects when assessing their acceptability. Hardly a radical step and, argues New Energy World Editor-at-large Steve Hodgson FEI, maybe it’s actually time to get radical.
• Discover more about Shell and Equinor plans to merge their UK North Sea assets to form the ageing basin’s largest oil and gas company.