Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if rejected, report says
New research commissioned by Adura suggests thousands of jobs could also be lost.
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
Organisers from Fossil Free London demonstrate using red ribbon to visually emphasise the Government's legally binding commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement, as a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields is awaited, outside the Department For <i>(Image: Maja Smiejkowska/ PA Wire)</i>
Photograph: The Herald Scotland (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Failing to approve the Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas fields could cost the UK economy £10.8 billion over the next decade, according to research for Adura.
- The research, conducted by Public First, also suggests that 3,330 fewer jobs would be supported across the UK economy each year if the projects are not approved.
- Adura, the company created through the merger of Shell’s and Equinor’s UK North Sea assets, commissioned the report.
- Oxfam UK has dismissed the report, stating it is 'hardly surprising that a report commissioned by an oil company concludes that more drilling is a good idea'.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 7 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 2 of the 9 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
42/100
Craft
65/100
Hype
41/100
9 sources · methodology
Thin on the right so far
None of the 7 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
Research commissioned by Adura suggests that the UK economy could lose £10.8 billion over the next decade if the Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas fields are not approved. The study, conducted by Public First, also forecasts that 3,330 fewer jobs would be supported annually across the UK if the projects do not proceed. Adura was formed through the merger of Shell’s and Equinor’s UK North Sea assets.
The report states that approving Rosebank and other planned fields would support £35.3 billion in UK gross value added between 2026 and 2035. If key oil projects do not secure approval, this figure would fall to £24.5 billion. The number of jobs supported would decrease from an average of 13,860 a year to 10,530 a year.
Nick McCulloch, chief executive of Adura, stated that failure to approve Rosebank and other planned developments would mean billions of pounds less economic value for the UK and thousands fewer jobs supported each year. He added that Jackdaw and Rosebank are two of the most important investment decisions facing the UK, with their impact felt across the supply chain, the wider economy, and public finances.
Disagreement on the report's findings
Oxfam UK has dismissed the report, with Katherine May, head of Oxfam Scotland, stating it is 'hardly surprising that a report commissioned by an oil company concludes that more drilling is a good idea'. May also noted that the report conspicuously omitted any serious reckoning with the cost of climate breakdown, citing warnings from the UK’s own climate advisers about costs running to tens of billions of pounds a year by mid-century. She added that lifetime emissions from Rosebank and Jackdaw could drive an estimated 65,495 excess heat deaths globally by 2100.
What the coverage left out
No right-rated outlet ran this story. The digests from The National and The Herald Scotland mentioned Oxfam Scotland's criticism, but only The Herald Scotland's full report included the specific figure of 65,495 excess heat deaths globally by 2100 attributed to the lifetime emissions from Rosebank and Jackdaw.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 6 times, most recently on 14 Oct 2026, 11:15, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
IPSO Regulated image
The Echo UK — embedded from source
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
5 rated outlets
- Five left-rated reports carried the story. The Herald Scotland and The Scotsman led on the potential economic cost of not approving the fields, with The Herald Scotland quoting Adura chief executive Nick McCulloch on the 'clear price' of leaving resources in the ground. The National's headline stated that the developer's claims were 'rubbished', and its digest focused on Oxfam UK dismissing the report. The Independent and The Independent (US) digests also highlighted the £10.8 billion figure.
Centre
2 rated outlets
- Two centre-rated reports covered the story. The Echo UK and Yorkshire Post led with the potential economic loss of £10.8 billion and thousands of lost jobs if the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields are not approved. The Echo UK also included comments from Adura's chief executive and quoted Professor Nick Butler, a visiting professor at King's College London, who described the projects as 'great projects of which we should be proud'. Both centre-rated reports also included Oxfam Scotland's criticism of the report.
Right
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated right has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if…?
- Of the 7 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 71% are rated left, 29% are rated centre, 0% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 9. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if… left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 7 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if… biased?
- Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if rejected, report says is one event reported by 9 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if…?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if…?
- 9 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What is the estimated economic cost of rejecting the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields?
- Research commissioned by Adura suggests that failing to approve the Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas fields could cost the UK economy £10.8 billion over the next decade. This figure represents the difference in UK gross value added between approving and not approving key oil projects.
- How many jobs could be lost if the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects are not approved?
- According to research for Adura, 3,330 fewer jobs would be supported across the UK economy each year if the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects are not approved. The report forecasts a decrease from an average of 13,860 jobs supported annually to 10,530.
- What is Adura?
- Adura is the company created through the merger of Shell’s and Equinor’s UK North Sea assets. The company commissioned research by Public First on the economic impact of the Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas fields.
- What has Oxfam UK said about the report?
- Oxfam UK has dismissed the report, stating it is 'hardly surprising that a report commissioned by an oil company concludes that more drilling is a good idea'. Oxfam Scotland also noted the report's omission of the costs associated with climate breakdown.
Read it at the source
9 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
5- Failure to approve Rosebank would cost UK billions, report finds (opens The Herald Scotland in a new tab)
The Herald Scotland — is The Herald Scotland biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Failure to approve Rosebank and Jackdaw 'could cost UK economy £10.8 billion' (opens The Scotsman in a new tab)
The Scotsman — is The Scotsman biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Jackdaw and Rosebank developer's '£11bn economic hit' claims rubbished (opens The National in a new tab)
The National — is The National biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns (opens The Independent (US) in a new tab)
The Independent (US) — is The Independent (US) biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns (opens The Independent in a new tab)
The Independent — is The Independent biased? Our profile of this outlet
Centre
2- Blocking Rosebank would cost £11bn, campaigners say as decision looms (opens Yorkshire Post in a new tab)
Yorkshire Post — is Yorkshire Post biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns (opens The Echo UK in a new tab)
The Echo UK — is The Echo UK biased? Our profile of this outlet
Right
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Not rated
2How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
More in Business & Economy
All Business & Economy →
Elsewhere on the site
Politics•3 min readTrump shares AI tiger video after fatal attack
Politics•3 min readObama accepts honorary doctorate in Belfast
Conflict & Security•4 min readBurnham to meet Zelensky in London amid missile supply acceleration
Politics•4 min readUK PM Andy Burnham Weighs North Sea Oil and Gas Drilling Decision