The argument that approving Rosebank and Jackdaw would reduce UK bills and improve energy security is a \u201cdelusion\u201d, according to energy experts<\/a>, as they are internationally traded commodities. Proponents of new drilling argue it would boost the UK economy, but the new analysis indicates this would be outweighed by long-term economic damage.<\/p>\n \u201cThe numbers presented here show there\u2019s going to be a very strong destruction of [economic] value above and beyond what Rosebank and Jackdaw could generate for the UK,\u201d said Luke Hatton, at Imperial College London, who conducted the analysis. \u201cThe alternative is to really double down on clean energy technologies.\u201d The UK\u2019s net zero sector has grown three times faster<\/a> than the overall UK economy in recent years.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s official climate advisers have said \u2018net zero is a more cost-effective path for the UK economy than continued reliance on fossil fuels\u2019. Photograph: Andrew Milligan\/PA<\/p>\n Richard Sulley, of the University of Sheffield\u2019s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, who was not part of the study, said: \u201cExpanding oil and gas production in the North Sea is not just an environmental crime but also economically illiterate. Climate change has already damaged the UK economy, with an estimated \u00a34.4bn loss from this summer\u2019s heatwaves<\/a> alone.<\/p>\n \u201cRemaining tied to the use of fossil fuels keeps UK industries and consumers exposed to the international markets that set prices and will cost way more than it can ever deliver in growth.\u201d<\/p>\n Prof Ian Bateman, at the University of Exeter Business School, said: \u201cThis is an interesting study which shows the cumulative global climate damage of oil extraction and use is beginning to exceed its face value. When we add in the tax giveaways to the oil industry and compare this to the declining cost and zero climate damage of renewable energy then the economic case for leaving oil in the ground is overwhelming.\u201d<\/p>\n Adura, which is jointly owned by Shell and Norway\u2019s Equinor, did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n Activists staging a protest outside Equinor\u2019s offices in London in February. Photograph: Jack Taylor\/Reuters<\/p>\n A spokesperson for the Department for Energy<\/a> Security and Net Zero said: \u201cThe North Sea remains a vital national asset, supporting jobs, growth and the UK\u2019s energy security. 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.\u201d<\/p>\n The government\u2019s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee, said in March<\/a>: \u201cAchieving net zero is a more cost-effective path for the UK economy than continued reliance on fossil fuels, bringing a net benefit to society.\u201d<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n Sign up to Down to Earth<\/p>\n The planet’s most important stories. Get all the week’s environment news – the good, the bad and the essential<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n The analysis<\/a> uses research published in the journal Nature<\/a> in March and production data submitted to the government by Adura<\/a> to assess how much carbon dioxide pollution would result from Rosebank and Jackdaw and how much economic damage that would cause around the world.<\/p>\n The economic damage is estimated for the period up to 2100 and the spread of estimates from \u00a3119bn to \u00a3336bn results from using ranges for how damages may increase in the future and are valued in today\u2019s money. The analysis is based on additional CO2 being added to the atmosphere as evidence shows new oil and gas fields do not generally lead to other fields being shut down<\/a>.<\/p>\n If oil and gas production at Rosebank and Jackdaw is better than Adura\u2019s central case, the climate damage range rises to \u00a3170bn-\u00a3482bn. Just 6% of this higher estimate would need to be felt in the UK to wipe out all the suggested economic gains within the country.<\/p>\n Rosebank\u2019s anticipated production accounts for the bulk of the damages \u2013 about 88%. It has been suggested Burnham could approve Jackdaw<\/a> but block Rosebank.<\/p>\n Dr Rick Lupton, at the University of Bath, said: \u201cThe analysis is a reasonable piece of exploratory work based on real data and studies, but there are lots of assumptions involved in the specific numbers. The general point is sound: climate damage will certainly increase from exploiting these fields, and this may well be comparable or much larger than the economic benefits from the development, especially considering the mismatch between who benefits and who suffers the impacts.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/500.jpg\")
<\/p>\n