Key Points
- The developer of Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas projects, Adura Energy, has been instructed by the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED) to revise its environmental assessments due to inconsistencies.
- OPRED identified 71 issues across the two projects’ assessments, including concerns over emissions evaluation methods and conclusions that emissions are “not significant” at a global level.
- Regulators challenged the comparison of individual project emissions to total global emissions, deeming it not “meaningful” due to scale differences, and requested reassessment of significance and cumulative impacts.
- Rosebank emissions estimated at up to 250 million tonnes CO2e over its lifetime; Jackdaw at around 36 million tonnes CO2e, based on reports submitted last autumn.
- Previous approvals by the prior UK government were ruled unlawful in January 2025 by Scotland’s Court of Session for failing to consider downstream (Scope 3) emissions from combustion of extracted hydrocarbons.
- Equinor and Shell, original developers, merged their North Sea and west of Shetland assets in December 2025 to form Adura Energy.
- Projects cannot proceed to production until revised assessments are approved and referred to UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.
- Rosebank is the UK’s largest undeveloped oil field with 500 million barrels; burning its reserves could exceed annual emissions of the 28 lowest-income countries combined.
- Jackdaw expected to produce 2.76 million barrels of crude oil and condensate, plus 1.4 billion cubic meters of gas annually over 11 years.
- Rosebank threatens the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt Marine Protected Area.
- Government seeking input on new environmental guidelines post-ruling; companies can reapply under updated rules.
- Both projects are advanced in construction, but production halted pending reviews.
The developer behind the controversial Rosebank oil field and Jackdaw gas field in the UK North Sea has been ordered to overhaul its emissions estimates once more before any final approval decision can be made. As reported by Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer on 30 March 2026, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED) has sent letters to Adura Energy, demanding revisions to address significant flaws in the latest environmental impact assessments. This development keeps the projects in limbo amid intense scrutiny over their climate impact, following a court ruling that invalidated prior consents.
What Triggered the Latest Revisions?
OPRED’s directive stems from a detailed review uncovering multiple shortcomings in Adura Energy’s submissions. According to Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer, the regulator pinpointed 71 issues across the Rosebank and Jackdaw assessments, particularly questioning how emissions were evaluated. The letters explicitly state that the company must resolve these inconsistencies before the projects can be forwarded to UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband for a decision.
Regulators took issue with Adura’s assertion that emissions from both fields are “not significant” globally. As detailed by Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer, OPRED argued this conclusion lacks meaning because comparing a single project’s downstream emissions to total global emissions ignores vast scale disparities. Furthermore, the assessments treated each project in isolation, neglecting cumulative environmental effects, which OPRED has now mandated be reconsidered.
The Rosebank report cited an International Energy Agency (IEA) document to claim the project supports global oil demand, even in net-zero scenarios. However, as noted by Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer, it omitted the IEA’s counterpoint that “there is no need” for new oil and gas investments. These omissions and methodological flaws have prompted the call for thorough revisions.
What is the Background of the Court Ruling?
The projects’ path hit a major snag in January 2025 when Scotland’s Court of Session deemed prior approvals unlawful. As reported by Irem Gozlukaya of Palatinate on 11 February 2025, the court revoked consents for Shell’s Jackdaw gas field and Equinor’s Rosebank oil field due to inadequate environmental impact assessments that ignored downstream emissions from burning the extracted fuels.
Lord Ericht, in his judgement covered by BBC News on 30 January 2025, ruled that a more detailed assessment was essential, factoring in combustion impacts. Reuters reported on 30 January 2025 that this marked a significant victory for climate campaigners, forcing Britain to reconsider the vast North Sea developments. ClientEarth and other challengers, including Uplift and Greenpeace UK, succeeded in their legal action, as highlighted by elaw.org on 17 February 2025.
In response, the government announced consultations on new guidelines for emissions evaluation. A Shell representative told Reuters, “Prompt action from the government is essential for us and other operators in the North Sea to make informed decisions about crucial energy infrastructure in the UK”. Equinor welcomed the ruling, stating it enables progress on Rosebank while awaiting fresh approvals, with Ithaca echoing support.
Who Owns the Projects Now?
Adura Energy emerged from the December 2025 merger of Equinor and Shell’s North Sea and west of Shetland assets. Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer notes that initial emissions estimates for Rosebank came from Equinor, and for Jackdaw from Shell, prior to this consolidation. The new entity now handles both fields’ regulatory submissions.
This corporate shift occurred amid ongoing legal and environmental battles. BBC News on 21 November 2025 detailed Shell’s emissions disclosures for Jackdaw, underscoring the field’s environmental cost if approved.
What are the Emissions Figures Involved?
Quantifying the climate stakes is central to the controversy. Last autumn’s reports, as per Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer, pegged Rosebank at up to 250 million tonnes CO2e over its lifetime and Jackdaw at 36 million tonnes CO2e. Equinor’s October 2025 response document estimated Rosebank’s gross GHG emissions at 254 million tonnes CO2e.
Elaw.org emphasised Rosebank’s scale: at 500 million barrels, its combustion emissions surpass those of the 28 lowest-income countries combined annually. For Jackdaw, BBC News cited expectations of 2.76 million barrels of oil and condensate plus 1.4 billion cubic meters of gas yearly over 11 years, with emissions dwarfed by Rosebank but still substantial.
OPRED’s critique focuses on Scope 3 emissions—those from end-use combustion—which prior approvals overlooked. Both projects reference energy security, but regulators demand robust justification amid net-zero goals.
How Significant are the Environmental Risks?
Beyond emissions, ecological threats loom large. Elaw.org reported on 17 February 2025 that Rosebank endangers the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt Marine Protected Area. Cumulative impacts, now flagged by OPRED, could amplify harm across the North Sea basin.
Construction on both fields is advanced, yet BBC News noted on 21 November 2025 that a judge’s order bars production until ministers and regulators vet new assessments. Sam Baker of The Chemical Engineer highlighted that Jackdaw’s emissions, though smaller, remain under intense review alongside Rosebank’s massive footprint.
What Happens Next in the Approval Process?
Adura Energy must submit revised assessments addressing OPRED’s 71 points. Only then can referrals reach Ed Miliband. The Chemical Engineer’s coverage stresses this as a prerequisite for any green light.
Post-ruling, new guidelines are in development, per Reuters. Shell urged swift government action for operator clarity. With projects stalled but built-out, delays risk economic fallout in the North Sea.
Why Do These Projects Matter for Energy Policy?
These fields symbolise tensions between energy security and climate targets. Proponents argue they bolster UK supply; critics decry locked-in emissions. The IEA’s dual messaging—demand needs versus no new fields—fuels debate.
The merger to Adura and ongoing revisions reflect industry’s adaptation to stricter rules. As Palatinate’s Irem Gozlukaya observed, the court’s focus on Scope 3 sets precedent.
In the evolving energy landscape, professionals navigating regulatory compliance, environmental impact assessments, and Oil & Gas operations can benefit from targeted training. Imperial Training Institute offers specialised Oil & Gas courses that equip teams with skills in sustainable practices and regulatory navigation, ensuring readiness for such high-stakes scenarios.