Rosebank Oilfield Should Only Be Approved If Conditioned on Carbon Capture and Storage
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/michael-jacobs. "Can Burnham justify giving the go ahead to oil drilling? Yes, but these must be the conditions | Michael Jacobs | The Guardian." August 24, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that the UK government should treat two proposed oil and gas projects differently: approve the smaller Jackdaw gasfield since it helps UK energy security, but only approve the larger Rosebank oilfield if its owners agree to pay for capturing and storing its carbon emissions. This is because Rosebank will still be pumping oil in 2050, mostly for export, at a scale large enough to undermine global climate goals, whereas Jackdaw is too small to matter and actually helps replace dirtier imported gas.
Conclusion
The UK government should approve the Rosebank oilfield only on condition that its owners pay to capture and store its emissions via CCS from 2035 onwards, while approving Jackdaw without this requirement, alongside job-creating decommissioning investment and a net zero roadmap.
Premises
- Rosebank is a large, long-life oilfield (25 years, 250m tonnes of emissions) that will still be producing oil in 2050, when the UK and world are legally/politically committed to near net-zero emissions
- Rosebank's oil is exported for refining and consumption elsewhere, so it does not contribute to UK energy security, unlike Jackdaw's domestically-piped gas
- Because of its size and longevity, Rosebank will materially affect global oil supply and prices during 2040-2050 when demand should be declining under climate policy, undermining international climate efforts
- CCS is a proven technology (e.g., Equinor's Sleipner field has stored over 20m tonnes of CO2 since 1996 without leakage) and the UK has an existing CCS licensing programme Rosebank could join
- Requiring Rosebank to fund equivalent CCS for its emissions would make its production compatible with net zero commitments; if owners refuse due to cost, this proves the project isn't viable under net zero constraints
- Jackdaw, being small (24m tonnes total emissions, 11-year life, ending production by 2037-38) and domestically consumed, can be justified on energy security grounds without the same CCS conditions
- Decommissioning aging North Sea infrastructure will create far more jobs (up to 25,000) than new drilling (around 4,380 jobs from Rosebank and Jackdaw combined), so job concerns are better addressed through decommissioning investment
Assumptions
- The UK's net zero and Paris Agreement commitments should be a primary constraint on domestic fossil fuel licensing decisions
- CCS technology can be scaled and made mandatory for a project like Rosebank without major technical or logistical failures
- Government has the political and legal authority to impose CCS as a binding licence condition retroactively on an already-licensed field
- Reducing UK-based oil supply will meaningfully affect global oil markets and thus global emissions, rather than simply being replaced by other producers (no significant 'leakage' effect)
- Distinguishing between domestically-consumed gas (Jackdaw) and exported oil (Rosebank) is a legitimate basis for differential climate policy treatment
- The economic and employment benefits of decommissioning are a comparable and adequate substitute for the jobs argument made by the oil and gas industry for new drilling