The Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea will create only 27 direct, full-time jobs, according to an environmental impact assessment filed by its owner, Adura—a joint venture between Shell and Equinor. This figure, highlighted by Greenpeace, suggests the project’s employment impact is significantly lower than the “thousands of jobs” often cited by industry advocates and political proponents of new North Sea drilling.
Comparing Employment Claims and Reality
While the fossil fuel industry maintains that the Jackdaw and Rosebank projects are essential for the UK workforce, public filings tell a more nuanced story. According to Adura’s assessment, the Jackdaw platform is designed to be unstaffed for the majority of its operating life. The document outlines a “consistent level of employment” averaging nearly 500 jobs annually when accounting for indirect and induced roles, but the direct, site-specific headcount remains at 27.
The industry perspective offers a broader scope. A spokesperson for Adura stated that Jackdaw and Rosebank combined will support 3,500 jobs at peak construction and sustain 880 “high-quality, well-paid jobs” throughout their production lifespan. This creates a clear divergence in how project benefits are measured: campaigners focus on direct, long-term operational roles, while developers emphasize temporary construction peaks and broader supply chain effects.
Did you know?
More people can fit on to the top deck of a standard London bus than will be directly employed on the new Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea.
Economic and Environmental Debates
The push for new drilling has become a flashpoint for UK energy policy. Proponents, including members of the Conservative and Reform UK parties, argue that these fields are vital for energy security. However, Fatih Birol, the world’s leading energy economist, has stated that opening these fields would do little to enhance the UK’s energy security.
Financial viability is also under scrutiny. Tessa Khan, executive director of the campaign group Uplift, argues that the tax reliefs offered to these developments are so extensive they may outweigh the tax revenues generated. Critics further point to the climate impact, noting that Rosebank alone would create carbon dioxide equivalent to 70% of the UK’s annual emissions. Conversely, Adura asserts that these projects will be among the lowest-emission developments in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS), claiming their production intensity is roughly eight times lower than imported liquefied natural gas.
The Future of North Sea Licensing
Labour’s manifesto included a pledge to stop issuing new oil and gas licences. Because Jackdaw and Rosebank were already within the licensing system prior to the last general election, the government faces pressure to decide whether to allow them to proceed. Green campaigners characterize this as a loophole that violates the spirit of the party’s climate commitments.
With the consultation on Jackdaw set to conclude on August 8, the decision serves as an early test for the incoming administration. As North Sea resources continue to decline—with over 90% already extracted—the debate over whether to pursue remaining reserves is expected to intensify.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many direct jobs will Jackdaw create?
According to public documents filed by Adura, there will be 27 direct, Jackdaw-specific jobs. - Why are some groups against new North Sea drilling?
Campaigners cite concerns over the climate impact of carbon emissions and argue that new drilling will not lower energy bills, as much of the oil is intended for export. - Are these projects part of the new government’s licensing ban?
Both fields were already in the licensing system before the election, which proponents use to argue they fall outside the scope of the Labour manifesto pledge.
What is your take on the balance between energy security and climate goals? Join the discussion in the comments section below or subscribe to our newsletter for more updates on UK energy policy.