Rosebank, Jackdaw Climate Damage to Dwarf £28.7bn Benefit
Get the Energy newsletter
Daily energy & climate — solar, EVs, oil, the policy fights and tech bets shaping the transition. Free.
- Luke Hatton at Imperial College London conducted the analysis for the Rosebank consultation, estimating £119bn–£336bn in climate damage from carbon pollution versus Adura's £28.7bn estimated value, with Hatton saying there would be "very strong destruction of value above and beyond what Rosebank and Jackdaw could generate for the UK."
- Rosebank accounts for approximately 88% of the projected climate damages, and if production exceeds Adura's central case, the damage range rises to £170bn–£482bn — of which just 6% felt in the UK would wipe out all the fields' projected domestic gains.
- Prof Ian Bateman at the University of Exeter Business School said that once tax giveaways to the oil industry are added and costs are compared with renewables, "the economic case for leaving oil in the ground is overwhelming."
- Richard Sulley of the University of Sheffield's Grantham Centre called expanded North Sea production "not just an environmental crime but also economically illiterate," citing £4.4bn in UK losses from this summer's heatwaves alone.
- Adura, the Shell-Equinor joint venture promoting the fields, did not respond to a request for comment; the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero called the North Sea "a vital national asset" and said oil and gas will play a role "for decades to come."
- The Climate Change Committee said in March that achieving net zero is a more cost-effective path for the UK economy than continued fossil fuel reliance, while Dr Rick Lupton at the University of Bath called the analysis "reasonable exploratory work" with sound general conclusions despite specific numerical assumptions.
- Ed Miliband previously called the Rosebank proposal "climate vandalism," and the approval decision faces opposition from Labour MPs and most centre and leftwing parties, while the oil industry and rightwing parties are pushing for the go-ahead.
Why it matters: The analysis has been submitted to the Rosebank consultation and an academic journal, landing directly in a politically charged decision where Burnham faces a Labour MP revolt and a partial approval (Jackdaw only) is reportedly on the table — and with Rosebank alone responsible for 88% of projected damages, blocking it would neutralize the bulk of the analysis's projected harm.
Ask SkimNews
