Adura-commissioned report says rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK £10.8bn
A Public First report commissioned by Adura, the company behind the Rosebank and Jackdaw North Sea fields, estimates that refusing approval would cost the UK £10.8bn in GVA over a decade and about 3,330 jobs a year. The government has yet to decide on the fields.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2A new report commissioned by Adura, the company behind the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field, warns that failing to approve the North Sea projects could cost the UK thousands of jobs a year and almost £11 billion in economic value over the next decade. Evening StandardN “Failing to approve the controversial Rosebank and Jackdaw fields in the North Sea could cost the UK thousands of jobs a year, a new report has warned” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “Failing to approve controversial North Sea oil fields could cost thousands of jobs a year and see almost £11billion lost to the economy over a decade, a new analysis warns.” Read at GB News ↗ Mixed · 2The analysis, carried out by Public First, found that approving Rosebank and other planned fields would support £35.3 billion in gross value added (GVA) between 2026 and 2035, against £24.5 billion if key oil projects do not go ahead, a difference of £10.8 billion. Evening StandardN “approving Rosebank and other planned fields would support £35.3 billion in UK GVA between 2026 and 2035, compared with £24.5 billion if key oil projects do not go ahead – a difference of £10.8 billion.” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “a difference of £10.8billion.” Read at GB News ↗ Mixed · 2Jobs supported would fall from an average of 13,860 a year to 10,530, or 3,330 fewer a year, and the Standard reports that consenting to both Jackdaw and Rosebank could add £4.1 billion to tax revenues over the decade; the report estimates more than half of the jobs supported by Adura are in Scotland. Evening StandardN “The number of jobs supported would fall from an average of 13,860 a year to 10,530, meaning 3,330 fewer jobs across the UK economy every year.”“consenting to both Jackdaw and Rosebank could provide the UK with a £4.1 billion boost to tax revenues over the next decade.” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “More than half of the jobs supported by Adura are estimated to be in Scotland, the report states.” Read at GB News ↗
Mixed · 2Adura chief executive Neil McCulloch said the report "puts a clear price on leaving viable North Sea resources from existing licensed fields in the ground" and called Jackdaw and Rosebank "two of the most important investment decisions now facing the UK". Evening StandardN “This report puts a clear price on leaving viable North Sea resources from existing licensed fields in the ground.” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “two of the most important investment decisions now facing the UK” Read at GB News ↗ Mixed · 2The report argues that demand for oil and gas will stay high for decades, so the UK will need supply from domestic production or imports, and that imports of liquefied natural gas have an emissions impact more than three times higher than domestic production. Evening StandardN “imports of LNG (liquefied natural gas) said to have an emissions impact that is more than three times higher than domestic production.” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “Stressing “demand for oil and gas is expected to remain high” for decades to come” Read at GB News ↗ Mixed · 2In the foreword, Professor Nick Butler of King's College London, a former senior policy adviser to Gordon Brown, called the two projects "great projects of which we should be proud"; according to GB News, he also cited the Iran war and the blockade of Hormuz as reasons to maximise domestic output. Evening StandardN ““Rosebank and Jackdaw are great projects of which we should be proud”.” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “Rosebank and Jackdaw alone cannot substitute for the oil and gas trapped behind the blockade of Hormuz” Read at GB News ↗
Centre · 1The UK government is still weighing the decisions. The projects were first approved under the previous Conservative administration, and Labour's 2024 manifesto promised a ban on new North Sea drilling, but Prime Minister Andy Burnham has vowed a "pragmatic" approach and reports suggest Jackdaw will be approved first. Evening StandardN “while Labour had promised a ban on new drilling in the North Sea in its 2024 election manifesto, Prime Minister Andy Burnham has vowed to take a “pragmatic” approach”“reports have suggested the UK Government will approve new North Sea drilling, starting with the Jackdaw gas field” Read at Evening Standard ↗ Mixed · 2Both fields are fiercely opposed by environmental campaigners, and GB News says work has stopped at both sites because of climate-grounds challenges and that the final decisions rest with Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh. Evening StandardN “both of which are fiercely opposed by environmental campaigners” Read at Evening Standard ↗ GB NewsR “Work has stopped at both sites because of challenges on climate grounds.”“The final decisions now rest Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh.” Read at GB News ↗ Right · 1GB News also reports that shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie urged Burnham to approve the projects during a reported Scottish visit on Friday, claiming 1,000 workers a month are losing jobs; a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said any decision will weigh all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations. GB NewsR “Andy Burnham must use his first major trip to Scotland to finally give the green light to new drilling in the North Sea.”“Any decision will take into account all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations received as part of the regulatory process.” Read at GB News ↗
Centre · 1The Standard said it had contacted the government for comment. Evening StandardN “The UK Government has been contacted for comment.” Read at Evening Standard ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left0 outlets
No left outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- Reports the Adura-commissioned study as new research, setting it in the context of Labour's manifesto pledge and Burnham's 'pragmatic' stance.
- Emphasis
- The report's figures, the political background and the note that the projects are opposed by environmental campaigners.
- Leaves out or plays down
- No political reaction from opposition parties; no government response yet.
- Charged language
- “controversial”
- For example
-
“Research for Adura – the company behind both the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field – finds that the “UK North Sea stands at a critical juncture”.” — Evening Standard
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Presents the report as a warning about jobs and money lost to the economy, and adds Conservative criticism of Burnham's delay and the Iran war and Hormuz energy-security context.
- Emphasis
- Jobs, energy security and import dependence, a Conservative call to approve, and Ed Miliband's past 'climate vandalism' remark.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not say in its own voice that the findings come from research commissioned by the developer beyond a brief mention; the 'almost £1 billion' boost figure sits oddly beside the £10.8bn figure and is not explained.
- Charged language
- “dithering”“absolute madness”“climate vandalism”
- For example
-
“His dithering over granting approval for Jackdaw and Rosebank is having a devastating effect on investment in the sector.” — GB News
What every side reports
- Adura commissioned Public First research estimating a £10.8bn GVA difference between 2026 and 2035 if Rosebank and other key projects are rejected.
- Jobs supported would fall from 13,860 to 10,530 a year, 3,330 fewer.
- The UK government has not yet decided on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and Andy Burnham has promised a 'pragmatic' approach.
- Environmental campaigners fiercely oppose the projects.
Where accounts differ
-
Who bears responsibility for the delay and its costs
- Centre
- The Standard reports the research and notes the opposition of environmental campaigners and the government's pending decision, without apportioning blame.
- Right
- GB News carries shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie's claim that Burnham's 'dithering' and a Labour-SNP 'ban' are costing 1,000 jobs a month.
Adura organisation
Adura says the report puts a price on leaving North Sea resources in the ground and argues Rosebank and Jackdaw approvals would retain value, jobs and investment in Britain.
“Decisions taken now will help determine how much of that value, employment and investment is retained here in Britain.” — Evening Standard
Rosebank oil field other
Described as Britain's largest untapped oil field and the subject of a pending government decision; opposed by climate campaigners.
“the largest untapped oil field in the North Sea, which lies some 80 miles north-west of Shetland” — Evening Standard
Jackdaw gas field other
A gas field 150 miles east of Aberdeen, reportedly likely to be the first approved.
“starting with the Jackdaw gas field located 150 miles east of Aberdeen” — Evening Standard
Left0 articles
No coverage yet.
Centre1 article
-
Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8 billion, report warns
Neutral Straight report of the Adura-commissioned study with political context and attribution of the figures to the research.
Right1 article
-
GB NewsR ·
Rejecting North Sea drillings could cost UK thousands of jobs and see £11BILLION lost in ten years
Mixed Leads on the cost of rejection and adds a Conservative attack on Burnham and energy-security arguments, with the government's response at the end.
- 13 Oct 09:50 First Evening StandardN Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8 billion, report warns
- 13 Oct 12:29 +2h 39m GB NewsR Rejecting North Sea drillings could cost UK thousands of jobs and see £11BILLION lost in ten years
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.
Ask about this story
Loading…