Analysis: Climate damage would outweigh economic benefits of new North Sea fields

scienceAug 25, 202624880

An analysis by Luke Hatton at Imperial College London finds carbon pollution from the proposed Rosebank and Jackdaw North Sea fields would inflict between £119 billion and £336 billion of economic damage in coming decades, far exceeding Adura’s estimated £28.7 billion value to the UK. The study applies peer reviewed research on temperature-driven economic harm to Adura’s production estimates and notes its damage figures likely understate losses because they exclude amplified extreme weather, sea level rise and climate deaths. Hatton said the numbers show “a very strong destruction of value” beyond what the fields could generate and urged doubling down on clean energy technologies. Independent experts quoted include Richard Sulley of the University of Sheffield, who cited an estimated £4.4 billion hit to the UK economy from this summer’s heatwaves, and Prof Ian Bateman of the University of Exeter, who said cumulative global climate damage is beginning to exceed oil’s face value. Adura, jointly owned by Shell and Equinor, did not respond to requests for comment, while the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero reiterated that the North Sea supports jobs, growth and energy security. The analysis has been submitted to the Rosebank consultation and to an academic journal, intensifying the economic as well as political stakes for ministers weighing approval.

Prem Sikka

@premnsikka.bsky.social

Climate damage would obliterate any economic benefits of new North Sea fields. Damage caused by carbon pollution from the oil/gas production, between £119bn and £336bn. Benefit, £28.7bn. Oil/Gas would be sold in world markets, not just kept for the UK.

27045d ago

DCharlie5

The Idea being sold to Brits is this gives us energy independence and they know that's bullshit becuase of how the markets work so effectively we are opening up the fields to make massive multinational companies making record profits make even more money whilst dooming the planet Fuck them off

Paul Woodcraft3

I wonder how enthusiastic fossil fuel companies would be about drilling if they had to base exploration on pure capitalism, without £17+ million in subsidies? www.globaljustice.org.uk/resource/fos...

Walking Pete1

We need clear science on this and a real regulatory body dealing with bogus yelps on the front pages of our ‘newspapers’ who support climate change…

mmmmavocado.bsky.social1

Yet again the Guardian (and the Green Party) fails to explain to people the difference between the Jackdaw gas field that will plug straight into the UK gas network and the Rosebank oil field that will send oil to an oil refinery in Holland. Jackdaw will be approved. Rosebank will head to court.

Dr Charlie Gardner

@charliejgardner.bsky.social

Selling the oil and gas from new North Sea fields would generate £28.7 bn And burning it would cause £119-336 billion in economic damage Yet there's nothing special about those fields, I bet you'd find similar figures for any fossil fuels. That stuff is deadly

11545d ago

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)1

Linking licencing Rosebank to funding carbon capture and storage (CCS) is deadly too bsky.app/profile/dran...

Quoting this

Dr. Aaron Thierry61

Concentrated Benefits vs. Dispersed Costs: A dynamic where a small, organized group lobbies for policies that give them large individual benefits, while thousands or millions of people pay tiny individual costs that add up to a massive societal burden

Yung En Chee4

Scuppering Rosebank sounds like a life-saving deal‼️

Petri Hoppu 🇫🇮🇪🇺🇺🇦🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈☯️⚖️2

This madness must end now! Every moment we spend dependent on fossil fuels will cost us many times more in the future than the benefits they provide. Let's do it quickly: better to crash once than to squeal forever.

Andy Brown

@andybrown1951.bsky.social

Britain is on the edge of committing itself to pumping out extra fossil fuels for over 20 years A weird response to a summer of crystal clear evidence that the serious harm from climate change is just starting to begin. www.theguardian.com/environment/...

10245d ago

lukewarm24.bsky.social1

If there was more drilling in uk waters, where would the oil be refined now that all refineries in Scotland have shut? Norway? Does that mean the Uk would get ANY benefit?? Aberdeen wouldn’t that’s for sure

Jeff1

Data centre and fuel lobby types are still in control. I imagine the spads headed No10 off at the pass until it is cooler and wetter but before next summer for announcements? Or will AB pull it out the bag.

Andrew1

After 70 years of warnings and the world literally catching fire, the response is “let’s do some more”. Humanity deserves to be extinct.

Doug Parr

@dougparr.bsky.social

A key political test for new UK PM Andy Burnham is whether to approve Rosebank & Jackdaw oil & gas fields New academic research shows economic damage caused from CO2 produced would be between £119bn and £336bn, compared with estimated £28.7bn economic benefits www.theguardian.com/environment/...

5445d ago

Quoting this

Chris Hutchings #ChoirsForClimate3

A verse from a song I'm writing: "It happens in another country It happens in a different year It happens to some other people But not us and not now and not here..." The cost of fossil fuel damage has seldom been paid by the people who burn the fuel. But we can't ignore it any longer.

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)

@drandrewboswell.bsky.social

🧵1/ Very grateful to @graceblakeley.substack.com for this guest blog on how promoters of carbon capture and storage (CCS) are trying to give Andy #Burnham a deceptively neat-looking get-out-of-jail-free card to drill Rosebank and Jackdaw. This thread explains its flawed carbon accounting

4845d ago

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)6

2/ CCS promoters are pressing Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh to link new North Sea licences to paying for CCS. Plan sounds simple: make North Sea polluters pay to store a rising share of the carbon dioxide (CO2) their oil and gas would produce. Read their pitch web.archive.org/web/20260823...

Nobodyspecial1

Yet another example of government trying to dig itself out of a hole by using unproven technology (as with Hinkley Point and Sizewell C). And when it doesn't come off or costs ten times more than expected they will no longer be around.

David Eminson1

@michaelpaynemp.bsky.social this is why the Gov should reject licenses for more oil and gas development. I don’t understand what you mean by Gov taking a pragmatic view. This is a test for Labour’s credibility on the Climate and Nature crisis.

hairlesshero.bsky.social1

Thank you for making the deception clear, Andrew.

Simon Oldridge1

Thanks so much Andrew for tirelessly shining a light to expose the huge flaws in this proposal. I really hope people in DESNZ are listening.

Quoting this

Simon Oldridge26

This is very worrying. The idea that carbon capture can compensate for #Rosebank emissions suits the oil industry and must sound appealing to Gov. But it’s total BS for a number of reasons. Please read and share Andrew Boswell’s explanation below. 🙏o

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)2

🚨 Hi - the lobbyists are not giving up easily and now they are linking licencing Rosebank to funding carbon capture and storage (CCS). ✅ Pls oppose! Read more in 🧵 below bsky.app/profile/dran...

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)2

Bill @andyburnham.bsky.social must also say no to the lobbyists who would link licencing Rosebank to funding carbon capture and storage This would be a double whammy of blocking progress on climate, read more and pls oppose! bsky.app/profile/dran...

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)2

James - do check this out. Very relevant bsky.app/profile/dran...

Prof Bill McGuire

@profbillmcguire.bsky.social

@andyburnham.bsky.social This is the reality Being 'pragmatic' about Jackdaw and Rosebank will end up COSTING the economy anything up to £300+ BILLION Just imagine what you could do with that money! www.theguardian.com/environment/...

5844d ago

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)2

voidisfull.bsky.social1

We had to bomb the village to save the village?

Dr Paul Dorfman

@drpauldorfman.bsky.social

Climate damage would obliterate any economic benefits of new North Sea fields, analysis shows Economic harm of CO2 pollution from Rosebank and Jackdaw forecast to far outweigh any boost to UK www.theguardian.com/environment/...

4445d ago

Quoting this

rainette-3.bsky.social5

"Les dommages climatiques annuleraient tous les bénéfices économiques des nouveaux gisements de la mer du Nord Les retombées économiques négatives liées aux émissions de CO2 des projets Rosebank et Jackdaw devraient largement surpasser les gains pour le Royaume-Uni"

James Bullock

@jmbecologist.bsky.social

“The climate damage caused by developing the Rosebank & Jackdaw oil and gas fields under consideration by the UK government would destroy their economic benefits many times over” (Good to see @scientistsonsurviv.bsky.social colleagues illustrating this article) www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1745d ago

Jeremy Bartlett

@jeremybartlett.bsky.social

“Expanding 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 £4.4bn loss from this summer’s heatwaves alone." www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1745d ago

Alec Luhn

@alecluhn.com

If the UK approves the Rosebank & Jackdaw fields, they would cause climate damages at least 4x greater than the value they would generate. “Not just an environmental crime but also economically illiterate,” says one expert. @dpcarrington.bsky.social www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1445d ago

James Murray

@james-bg.bsky.social

Important letter today from leading academics explaining that if the government approves Rosebank and Jackdaw then it needs to show how drilling is compatible with net zero targets, and in that case the drillers really should fund the required carbon removals. www.businessgreen.com/news/4534755...

2345d ago

James Murray16

And if the basic polluter pays principle of requiring fossil fuel developers to pay to capture the emissions they cause means the projects are no longer financially viable, then so be it.

Margot Finn

@eicathomefinn.bsky.social

Analysis 'estimates the economic damage caused by the carbon pollution from the oil and gas produced would be between £119bn and £336bn in the coming decades, compared with the £28.7bn in value to the UK'. 1/2

1845d ago

Friends of the Earth

@friends-earth.bsky.social

Exploiting new North Sea oil and gas won't benefit people, the planet or the economy. Lowering energy bills for good and creating true energy security looks like taking advantage of the UK’s vast capacity for cheap, homegrown renewable power. www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1444d ago

Real Gaz on a proper bike: [email protected]

@gazza-d.bsky.social

Drilling for more oil in the north sea would have far more negative consequences than any benefits. We need to leave it in the ground. www.theguardian.com/environment/...

2045d ago

Nobodyspecial

@suffgin.bsky.social

I hope that Andy Burnham and his Energy Secretary are reading this: www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1044d ago

#CarbonReckoning (Andrew Boswell)1

🚨 And this 👇 bsky.app/profile/dran...