‘Jackdaw decision is a short-term fix with long-term risks’

The UK government has approved drilling in the Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea.

Professor Chris Hilson, environment and climate lawyer at the University of Reading, examines the potential benefits and drawbacks of the decision. 

For interviews, contact the University of Reading Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk. 

Professor Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading, said: 

“Approving the Jackdaw gas field could give a small, short-term boost to the UK’s net zero targets, as long as it replaces gas shipped in from abroad and meets high environmental standards.

“Producing gas in the UK and getting it to us is likely to create less pollution than shipping it in on tankers from the US or the Middle East. That matters because we still burn gas to heat our homes, and to make electricity when it isn’t windy or sunny enough for renewables. The emissions from burning that gas count towards the UK’s climate targets.

“Most of the climate damage from gas comes from burning it, not from producing or transporting it. Even so, cutting the pollution from production is worthwhile, so if UK gas is cleaner, it makes sense to use it.

“We shouldn’t overstate the benefit, though. Most of our imported gas already comes by pipeline from Norway, and that gas is cleaner than gas brought in by ship. To match Norway, Jackdaw would need to power its platforms with renewable energy, as Norway does, and keep tight control of methane leaks. If Jackdaw gas replaces shipped gas, there’s a small climate benefit. If it replaces Norwegian gas, there isn’t one unless Jackdaw does better than Norway.

“In the longer term, the decision puts net zero at risk by keeping the UK reliant on gas. The Government’s plan for a new Energy Wealth Fund to pay for renewables and other low-carbon energy, probably including nuclear, may partly make up for this. But its recent suggestion of cutting grants for home heat pumps would work against that and put net zero at risk again.

“The Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has hinted that the Rosebank oil field could be treated differently because most of its oil would be sold abroad. Oddly, that wouldn’t harm the UK’s climate targets, because the oil would mostly be refined and burned in other countries. Only the emissions from drilling would count towards UK targets, and those are small compared with the emissions from burning the oil.

“There are still good reasons not to approve Rosebank. It is much bigger than Jackdaw, so its total effect on the global climate would be far greater. Using the gas you need at home is one thing. Making money by selling climate damage to other countries is quite another. On that point, Norway isn’t always the best example to follow.”