--- title: "Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if rejected, report says" publication: "MediaBias News" url: "https://mediabias.news/business/rosebank-and-jackdaw-oil-fields-uk-faces-108bn-economic-loss-if-rejected-report" api: "https://mediabias.news/api/v1/stories/rosebank-and-jackdaw-oil-fields-uk-faces-108bn-economic-loss-if-rejected-report" markdown: "https://mediabias.news/business/rosebank-and-jackdaw-oil-fields-uk-faces-108bn-economic-loss-if-rejected-report.md" audio: "https://mediabias.news/api/audio/rosebank-and-jackdaw-oil-fields-uk-faces-108bn-economic-loss-if-rejected-report" category: "Business & Economy" area: "United Kingdom" published: "2026-10-14T09:46:00.143Z" source_reported: "2026-10-14T05:00:00.000Z" updated: "2026-10-14T09:46:00.143Z" trust_score: 42 critic_score: 65 hype_score: 41 assessment_type: "coverage-and-source-reporting-analysis" fact_check_status: "not-performed" coverage_measured: "2026-10-14T11:30:12.875146+00:00" --- # 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.* **Scores for the source reporting** (0-100, assessing the original journalism this article was written from, not this write-up): - Trust 42 of 100, higher is better. Central claims attributed to Adura and Public First, with figures and dates provided. - Craft 65 of 100, higher is better. Reports quote or mention affected parties and state what happens next. - Hype 41 of 100, lower is better. Headlines promise economic impact, with some outlets using 'warns' and 'could cost'. Scored by MediaBias News; method at https://mediabias.news/methodology. **The short version** - 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'. 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. ## Who covered it Shares of the 7 covering outlets with a published leaning rating: - Left: 71% (5) - Centre: 29% (2) - Right: 0% (0) 2 of 9 covering outlets carried no usable leaning rating and were excluded from those percentages. Coverage measured 2026-10-14T11:30:12.875146+00:00. **Coverage watch:** developing. Checked 9 times; 0 checks found a material change. Most recently checked 2026-10-14T12:00:09.882Z. ## How the sides framed it ### Left - 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 - 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 No separate framing summary. **Provisional coverage gap:** right. The watch is not closed, so this is not yet a settled blindspot finding. ## Factuality profile of the covering outlets These are published factuality ratings of the outlets, not a verdict on whether this story or its claims are true. - mixed: 1 - high: 5 - unknown: 2 - veryHigh: 1 ## Verification scope This page compares coverage and scores the source reporting. It is not a ClaimReview verdict on whether the underlying event or claim is true. ## Original reporting this was written from - [Yorkshire Post](https://yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/blocking-rosebank-would-cost-ps11bn-campaigners-say-as-decision-looms-9285003) — Blocking Rosebank would cost £11bn, campaigners say as decision looms - [The Herald Scotland](https://heraldscotland.com/news/26633270.north-sea-report-warns-blocking-rosebank-will-cost-billions) — Failure to approve Rosebank would cost UK billions, report finds - [Stv](https://news.stv.tv/north/rejecting-rosebank-and-jackdaw-could-cost-uk-economy-10-8bn-report-warns) — Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw 'could cost UK economy £10.8bn' - [Nation.Cymru](https://nation.cymru/news/rejecting-rosebank-and-jackdaw-could-cost-uk-economy-10-8bn-study-warns) — Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns - [The Scotsman](https://scotsman.com/news/politics/failure-to-approve-rosebank-and-jackdaw-could-cost-uk-economy-ps108-billion-9283952) — Failure to approve Rosebank and Jackdaw 'could cost UK economy £10.8 billion' - [The Echo UK](https://echo-news.co.uk/news/national/26630833.rejecting-rosebank-jackdaw-cost-uk-economy-gbp10-8bn-study-warns) — Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns - [The National](https://thenational.scot/news/26632294.jackdaw-rosebank-developers--11bn-economic-hit-claims-rubbished) — Jackdaw and Rosebank developer's '£11bn economic hit' claims rubbished - [The Independent](https://independent.co.uk/news/business/andy-burnham-north-sea-labour-uk-government-conservative-b3065726.html) — Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns - [The Independent (US)](https://the-independent.com/news/business/andy-burnham-north-sea-labour-uk-government-conservative-b3065726.html) — Rejecting Rosebank and Jackdaw could cost UK economy £10.8bn, study warns ## Questions **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. --- MediaBias News — https://mediabias.news. Reproduced from https://mediabias.news/business/rosebank-and-jackdaw-oil-fields-uk-faces-108bn-economic-loss-if-rejected-report. Please cite as: MediaBias News, "Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields: UK faces £10.8bn economic loss if rejected, report says", https://mediabias.news/business/rosebank-and-jackdaw-oil-fields-uk-faces-108bn-economic-loss-if-rejected-report