October 21, 2026

expert reaction to government approval of Jackdaw gas field

Scientists react to government approval of Jackdaw gas field.

Dr Mark Ireland, Senior Lecturer in Energy Geoscience at Newcastle University, said:

“Ultimately, the UK must transition away from fossil fuels, including oil and gas. However, in the short term, energy security remains a significant challenge, particularly given the impact of global events on gas markets and supply chains. While Jackdaw will strengthen domestic supply and reduce reliance on imports, it is unlikely to materially reduce UK gas prices or exposure to international market volatility. The wider challenge is whether the UK Government and the North Sea Transition Authority can establish a credible and consistent framework for managing a mature North Sea basin going forward, balancing energy security, economic value and net-zero targets as domestic production inevitably declines.”

Prof Paul Brockway, Professor of Energy Transitions at the University of Leeds, said:

“Jackdaw may be making headlines but it will make little difference to UK household bills.

“Estimates suggest it could add on average one billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas over its lifetime. We use 4,000 bcm per year globally.

“The gas is sold at international market rates, which means a reduction of 25p on a typical household gas bill of £1,000/year. So, in that sense it serves more as a distraction from the switch to domestic renewables which will actually give the UK the energy security it is seeking.”

Prof Jim Watson, Professor of Energy Policy and Director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL, said:

“This decision will make very little difference to UK energy security. It is very unlikely to make an impact on UK gas prices and household bills because gas is internationally traded, and the Jackdaw field is relatively small. 

“Whilst it could have low production emissions compared to some other sources of gas (particularly Liquefied Natural Gas or LNG that we import), it is important to remember that most emissions occur when gas is burned in homes or power plants. 

“Giving the go ahead to Jackdaw will not change the overall direction of travel for UK oil and gas production. Production is in long-term decline, having peaked two decades ago. Therefore the main focus of government policy should be to manage the economic and security consequences of this decline whilst shifting to non-fossil sources of energy as quickly as possible.”

Prof Sara Walker Director, Birmingham Energy Institute, University of Birmingham, said:

“In the long term, a transition away from fossil fuel use is significantly beneficial for our energy security. Whilst Jackdaw can contribute to UK gas needs, it is a relatively minor contribution at about 2% of annual gas demand. It would be more effective, and more permanent, to address energy security by reducing our need for gas. Doing that through energy efficiency also helps with the cost of living. Delivery of the Warm Homes Plan could be a win-win for Government, and I hope we see commitment on that in the forthcoming budget.”

Prof Sam Fankhauser, Professor of Climate Change Economics, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford:

“The tangible impact of Jackdaw is much smaller than the debate around it would suggest – in terms of energy prices, energy security but also carbon. The wrong signal it sends, however, is huge. To justify that, the government should add two conditions to the license: an obligation to recapture most or all of the additional carbon that is being released, and an obligation to sell the gas on the domestic market should there be shortages.”

Dr Anupama Sen, Head of Policy Engagement, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford:

“Today’s Jackdaw decision does little for workers in the North East, who need a properly planned transition into the industries of the future, not a short-lived reprieve. And the economic case is hard to follow for a field that will make only a marginal contribution to our energy security and no contribution to bringing down household energy bills.” 

Prof Steve Smith, Arnell Associate Professor of Greenhouse Gas Removal, Smith School, University of Oxford:

“The Jackdaw field is expected to meet around 2% of UK gas demand over the next decade. While that’s not nothing, it is far smaller than the 50% reduction in gas demand we achieve by following the CCC’s balanced pathway to net zero by 2050.”

“So in carbon terms the Jackdaw issue is totemic but it’s not the main player. It’s interesting to see that the Government has announced that revenues will be ploughed into an “Energy Wealth Fund” for the green transition. That transition will be key.”

Alexis McGivern, Research Fellow, Oxford Net Zero, University of Oxford, said:

“The news today about Jackdaw is predictable and devastating. Andy Burnham calls this a “pragmatic approach” that will protect jobs and keep people warm this winter. But that’s wishful thinking – continually tapping a declining basin in the North Sea without a real, funded plan for what happens beyond the immediate future is just kicking the can down the line. The government needs a serious plan in place for long-term energy security, not one that continues our toxic dependency on fossil fuels.”

Prof Dan Gladwin, Professor of Electrical and Control Systems Engineering at the University of Sheffield, said:

“This is a sensible decision. Britain will need gas for years to come, and producing it here is better than importing more LNG with a higher carbon footprint. Jackdaw is almost fully built, so approving it adds supply this winter at very little extra cost, and it helps keep vital North Sea infrastructure like the Shearwater hub running.

“We should be honest that it won’t lower household bills, because gas prices are set on international markets. Its value is in security and in reducing our reliance on imports.

“Jackdaw is not a substitute for the energy transition, but it is a responsible bridge while we build the storage, flexibility and clean generation we need.”

Dr Iain Staffell in Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy:

“It is good news that Jackdaw has been approved – as it will barely affect global emissions, but will improve the UK’s balance sheet and reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels.  Even environmentally conscious people need to be pragmatic – if we oppose too many projects like this it could be cutting our nose off to spite our face, as the backlash against green NIMBYism will grow, and wider efforts get dragged backwards. 

“Based on the developer’s estimate, Jackdaw has the potential to provide £500m to HMRC over its lifetime – which could be spent on helping UK households reduce their emissions from heating and transport, as well as keeping money and jobs in the UK – rather than exporting them.”

Prof Michael Grubb, Professor of International Energy and Climate Change at UCL, said:

“In some – rather extreme – circumstances, Jackdaw could contribute to energy security, because the gas will land in the UK (securing fuel for homes and power stations).   But this decision won’t significantly affect energy bills, since its output will be sold on international markets.

“All fossil fuels emit CO2 when burnt, and there are usually some emissions arising from production itself.  There is a good case that gas from Jackdaw would displace more carbon-intensive imported gas, in which case it would reduce net global emission in the short term – though that remains to be fully validated as it could depend on the composition of the extraction and the extent of cleanup.”

Richard Sulley, Senior Research Fellow in Sustainability Policy at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, said:

“Why approve the Jackdaw gas field? It makes no sense economically, it will create only 27 jobs, and some modest tax receipts for the exchequer. Environmentally if it displaces imported LNG it will reduce emissions marginally, but if it displaces Norwegian gas they will be worse. It will do nothing for the cost of living, the volume extracted will be too small to have a material impact on the global markets. There’s no energy security benefit, it in fact keeps UK industries and consumers exposed to the international markets that set prices and the wills of foreign governments who can control the flow of resources.”

Prof Jon Gluyas, Emeritus Chair in Geoenergy Carbon Capture & Storage, Durham University, said:

“Development of Jackdaw will improve UK energy security and reduce the UK’s emissions because it will displace imported LNG, some of which has emissions as high as burning coal. 

“It is unlikely to lead to reduced gas bills because they are in part controlled by the price of imported LNG and Jackdaw production will not displace all of the LNG the UK imports.  The gas once extracted will flow first to Shearwater and then onto the Barton terminal in Norfolk.

“The UK petroleum industry will benefit – job retention in Aberdeen, balance of payments will benefit a little too, leastways for a short time until the field is depleted in around 10-12 years – though most fields last longer than initially estimated.

“Reinvigoration of a UK petroleum industry is not viable though. Field finding rates will continue to decline and field size reduce. There are better ways of delivering long term energy security  and sustainability, especially for heat (half of all the energy we use is for heating) and it is the Earth beneath the feet of every woman, man and child in the UK that can deliver – geothermal heat for all for ever!

“Development of Jackdaw will, for some, be taken as emerging from an energy crisis – but it isn’t and it could still negatively impact the energy transition and the science, engineering and social change we need for that energy transition.”

Prof Myles Allen FRS, Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, said:

“We heard this morning that United Utilities will deal with the sewage generated by the water they supply around Windermere, but Adura will not take any responsibility for the carbon dioxide generated by the gas they extract from Jackdaw. One day, that will have to change, because the only alternative is a global fossil fuel ban, which is clearly impossible.

“Government could have required Adura to spend some of their substantial profits on capturing a small but rising fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by this project and returning it under the North Sea. That would have generated even more jobs, made Jackdaw the world’s first net-zero-aligned gas field, taken some of the £22 billion cost of developing carbon capture off the taxpayer, and set the world an example of imaginative climate leadership. Fingers crossed for the next big decision, Rosebank.”

All our previous output on this subject can be seen at this weblink: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/?s=jackdaw&cat=

Declared interests

Jon Gluyas: “I am a founder of the UK National Geothermal Centre.”

Myles Allen: “My group is currently working on a project on Geologically Balanced Fuels for Net Zero Aviation funded by VietJet.”

Richard Sulley: “no interests to declare.”

Sam Fankhauser: “No interests to declare.”

Anupama Sen: “No interests to declare.”

Steve Smith: “No interests to declare.”

Michael Grubb: “No interests to declare but we do have business philanthropic support for our research Centre”

Dan Gladwin: “I have no financial or advisory relationship with Shell, the Jackdaw field partners, or any oil and gas exploration or production company.  My research group has received industry funding for battery energy storage research, including from SSE plc (2022 to 2024), Siemens and Siemens Gamesa (2017 to 2022), and Uniper/E.ON (2015 to 2016).  I have a long standing research collaboration with Mobile Power Ltd (MOPO), which provides battery rental services in sub Saharan Africa. None of these organisations has any involvement in the Jackdaw field.”

Mark Ireland: “previously employed (until 2019) by BP”

Paul Brockway: “None.”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.