Rosebank oil field: the complete guide

In brief

• Rosebank will do nothing to lower UK energy bills or strengthen energy security. 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil destined primarily for international markets. Rosebank's minimal gas reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1% on average - and only if none is exported. 
• Rosebank's total lifetime emissions are estimated at 254 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, nearly 70% of the UK's entire annual emissions in 2024.
• Rosebank is incompatible with the UK's commitments under the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C. Existing global oil and gas reserves already far exceed what can be safely burned in a world committed to limiting warming to 1.5°C, making new fields, like Rosebank, incompatible with this aim.
• UK taxpayers effectively shoulder over 80% of Rosebank's development costs through generous tax reliefs, while the primary financial beneficiaries, Equinor, and Shell, paid essentially zero UK tax in 2024.

‍

What is the Rosebank oil field?

Rosebank is the UK's largest undeveloped oil and gas field. It is approximately 80 miles west of the Shetland Islands in the North Atlantic. It holds over 480 million barrels of oil.

Rosebank is currently owned by Adura, a joint venture between Shell and Norwegian state-backed Equinor, holding an 80% stake, and Ithaca Energy, which holds the remaining 20%. The field was first discovered in 2004 by Chevron, which later declared the project uneconomic. Development was repeatedly delayed before the previous Conservative Government granted Equinor approval to proceed in September 2023.

‍90% of Rosebank's reserves are oil, not gas. Like 80% of all North Sea oil, the majority of Rosebank’s oil is expected to be put in tankers and exported for refining overseas, with only some sold back to the UK at market price. 

‍Rosebank is a technically complex and expensive project. Its reserves lie over a kilometre below the surface, which would make it the deepest field ever developed on the UK continental shelf. Specific procedures would need to be put in place to deal with the field’s remote location, depth, and harsh Atlantic conditions.

Adura has already run a pipeline from Rosebank through the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt, a Marine Protected Area, home to marine ecosystems and creatures including rare deep-sea sponges, delicate cold water coral, long-lived quahog clams, whales, and dolphins. Modelling indicates that a major oil spill from Rosebank could have a serious impact on at least sixteen UK Marine Protected Areas.

‍

Rosebank: key facts

• Location: 80 miles west of Shetland, North Atlantic
• Reserves: over 480 million barrels of oil equivalent
• Ownership: Adura (Equinor/Shell joint venture, 80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%)
• Reserve composition: around 90% oil, 10% gas
• Depth: over 1km, the deepest ever proposed on UK continental shelf
• Total lifetime emissions: 254 million tonnes CO₂ equivalent
  
  

What is the current status of Rosebank?

Rosebank's original approval was ruled unlawful by Scottish courts in January 2025. A new government decision is now imminent.

The ruling followed the UK Supreme Court's Finch decision in June 2024, which established that environmental assessments for fossil fuel projects must account for the emissions produced when the extracted fuel is actually burned — otherwise known as scope 3 emissions. Uplift and Greenpeace UK, who filed legal challenges in December 2023, won on that basis.

Equinor resubmitted its environmental statement in October 2025, including scope 3 emissions. The decision on whether or not to approve Rosebank now rests with the UK Government. The judge and the regulator have made it clear that any preparatory work Adura carries out in the meantime is at its own commercial risk.

If approved, first oil is expected in late 2026. Production would cease in 2051, one year after the UK's net zero target.

‍

Timeline

• August 2022: Equinor applies for permission to develop Rosebank
• September 2023: Conservative Government approves Rosebank
• December 2023: Uplift and Greenpeace UK file legal challenges
• June 2024: UK Supreme Court rules in the Finch case that the full climate impact of burning a field's oil and gas must be assessed before approval can be granted
• January 2025: Scottish Court of Session rules Rosebank’s approval unlawful
• October 2025: Equinor resubmits environmental statement including scope 3 emissions (the emissions produced when the oil and gas is burned)
• December 2025: Shell and Equinor’s joint venture, Adura, assumes majority ownership of the field.
• July 2026: The information Adura resubmitted to the regulator is currently out for public consultation.

Is Rosebank compatible with the Paris Agreement??

Rosebank's projected lifetime emissions make it incompatible with the UK's legally binding climate commitments. According to UCL research, opening any new North Sea oil and gas fields is inconsistent with limiting warming in line with the temperature thresholds in the Paris Agreement - which the UK has ratified.

Rosebank would generate a total of 254 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime. That’s the equivalent of nearly 70% of the UK's entire annual emissions in 2024.* To contextualise that figure further: the climate pollution from Rosebank's reserves would be greater than the combined annual CO₂ emissions of the 73 lowest-emitting countries and territories, representing over 114 million people and is equivalent to running 67 coal-fired power stations for a year.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has confirmed that there is no new oil and gas development on a credible pathway to limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Fatih Birol, the IEA's Executive Director and the world's foremost energy economist, has said plainly of new North Sea fields: "These fields would not change much for the UK's energy security, nor would they change the price of oil and gas. They would not make any significant difference." Meanwhile the UN Secretary-General has described continued investment in new fossil fuel exploration as "moral and economic madness."

The UK Government’s vision for the North Sea includes an approach to oil and gas developments which supports its climate obligations, i.e. being in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Given Rosebank's enormous scope 3 emissions, the emissions produced when the extracted fuel is burned, it is difficult to see how the field can credibly pass that test. Many now see Rosebank as a defining test of this government’s climate credibility. 

‍

Would Rosebank help the UK's energy security?

When politicians talk about UK energy security, they mean gas: the fuel that heats our homes and sets our electricity prices. Rosebank contains very little gas: it is 90% oil. That oil will be loaded onto tankers and sold on international markets to the highest bidder. It will not heat British homes, fuel British industry, or lower British bills.

The small gas component of Rosebank's reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1% on average, and only if none of it is exported. The UK has been a net importer of gas since 2004 and will remain so even if new fields were approved. 

Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency and the world's leading energy economist, was unequivocal that new UK fields “would not change much for the UK's energy security” and “won’t provide any significant quantities of oil and gas for many years to come.” 

True energy security comes from homegrown renewable energy, power that cannot be exported, cannot be disrupted by geopolitical events, and whose price does not swing with global markets. Renewables supplied more of the UK’s electricity than any other source in 2025. 

Would Rosebank lower UK energy bills?

Rosebank would make no difference to UK energy bills.

This is not a claim made only by campaigners. Former Conservative Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho publicly admitted that new North Sea drilling would not bring bills down.

UK energy prices are not set by the volume of oil and gas extracted domestically. They are determined by global market prices. Adura will sell Rosebank’s oil and gas to the highest bidder at international market prices. None of the revenue is tied to what UK consumers pay at the pump or on their bills.

The UK's structural vulnerability to volatile fossil fuel markets is the root cause of the energy crisis. UK household bills skyrocketed in 2022, not because of net-zero, but because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine destabilising the market. More North Sea drilling cannot insulate households from this kind of shock. Only reducing dependence on fossil fuels can.

‍The lasting route to lower energy bills is accelerating the shift to renewable energy. In 2025, British windfarms reduced the price of electricity by around £38 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Prices could have been about 46% higher without wind power limiting the role of gas power plants in setting prices.

Who benefits financially from Rosebank?

The primary financial beneficiaries of Rosebank are its owners, not UK taxpayers.

Rosebank is owned by Adura (Shell and Equinor, 80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%). Based on a long-term average oil price of $70 per barrel, the field's owners stand to earn £1.5 billion in profit. UK taxpayers, by contrast, would effectively shoulder over 80% of Rosebank's development costs through tax relief.

‍Neither Shell or Equinor paid meaningful tax to the UK government in 2024. Equinor, which reported $29.8 billion in global adjusted operating income, and approximately $50 million in UK adjusted operating income, paid no tax or royalties to the UK in 2024. 

Shell paid effectively no tax on North Sea drilling and received £12.4 million back from the UK Government in tax relief. Shell is also expected to avoid over £1 billion in UK tax through the mechanics of its Adura joint venture with Equinor.

Since Equinor is majority owned by the Norwegian state, Norwegian citizens stand to gain substantially more from a Rosebank approval than the UK public. Approving Rosebank would, in effect, represent a further redistribution of wealth away from the UK public to one of the world's wealthiest nations.

Rosebank’s tertiary owner, Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20% stake in Rosebank, is majority owned by Israeli fuel conglomerate, Delek Group. Delek Group is expected to receive over £200 million in revenue from Rosebank. The conglomerate is named on a UN list of businesses whose activities have "raised particular human rights concerns" in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Delek Group also provides fuel, via a subdiary, to the Israel Defence Forces. Because of this, the UK Government could breach its obligations under international law - particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention - if it chooses to reapprove the Rosebank oil field.

Would Rosebank create British jobs?

Rosebank will do little to stem the decline in North Sea jobs.

Jobs supported by the North Sea oil and gas industry have more than halved in the past decade despite continued new field approvals during that period. Rosebank will not reverse this trajectory. After decades of extraction, the North Sea is a hyper-mature basin approaching the end of its productive life. Continued investment in new oil and gas fields only delays the much-needed transition to clean energy.

The only way to protect workers, supply chain firms, and communities that are currently dependent on the oil and gas industry from this decline is to invest in renewables and other industries that have a long-term future, such as offshore wind manufacturing, and then support UK energy workers to transfer into these jobs. 

 Approving Rosebank risks sending contradictory signals to investors, undermining the confidence and capital needed to deliver clean energy jobs. As Nick Stern, a former chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said: “Investing in North Sea oil is not a strategy for the technologies of the 21st century,” warning that the impetus to invest in new technologies would be lost if the oil industry continued to be propped up.

Who opposes Rosebank?

There is broad, cross-sector opposition to Rosebank. Opposition spans international scientific and energy institutions, UK politics, the trade union movement, civil society organisations, and the general public.

The International Energy Agency and the UN Secretary-General have both issued unequivocal statements against new fossil fuel development and the Climate Change Committee, while acknowledging that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net zero, has made it clear that “this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.

Political Opposition

62 MPs and 12 MSPs have signed a pledge to oppose the Rosebank oil field and advocate for a properly funded just transition for oil and gas workers and communities. Zack Polanski, Green Party leader, warned that Labour would “lose all credibility” on climate change if the government approves Rosebank. Ed Davey, Liberal Democrats leader, also said Rosebank should not go ahead.

Many MPs and MSPs have been vocal in their opposition to Rosebank:

Mike Reader, Labour MP for Northampton South, said: “Opening up the North Sea would be tin-eared while we’re dealing with record-breaking heat, and the second energy spike in four years caused by our over-reliance on oil and gas. Anyone who thinks this is a good time to take our focus off clean, secure power is frankly deluded.”

Chris Murray, Labour MP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, said: “It makes no sense that, as the country swelters, some are calling for us to permit Rosebank, the UK’s largest undeveloped oilfield.”

Wera Hobhouse, Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, said: “Extreme weather is damaging crops, putting pressure on farmers, and destroying our precious natural environment. We cannot ignore these warning signs. A massive new oil field like Rosebank would only make matters worse.” She added that approving the Rosebank development would “make a mockery of Labour’s environmental promises”.

Trade Union Opposition 

Major unions including UNISON, the National Education Union (NEU), Fire Brigades Union, PCS, CWU, UCU, Equity, BFAWU, UVW and IWGB, and nearly 2000 individual trade unionists published an open letter opposing Rosebank. 

Andrea Egan, General Secretary of Unison, commented: "With the Iran war, UNISON members are more worried than ever about their energy bills and transport costs. New oil fields won't do anything to reduce the prices they pay in the coming months; they will delay action for real energy security and climate justice through a shift to renewables. 

"At the same time, the likelihood that Rosebank will lead to significant losses for the UK Treasury, while corporations, including one linked to Israeli war crimes, pocket billions, should outrage us all. I know it outrages public service workers.”

Steve Wright, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union said: “Firefighters are on the front line dealing with the wildfires and floods which are more frequent and dangerous because of climate change. There is no option for a safe future other than a transition away from fossil fuels.

“We also know that companies extracting oil and gas from Rosebank would sell their product at the highest price on the global market to maximise profits. So the way to shield the UK from future oil price shocks is not North Sea drilling but a transition to renewable energy.”

More than one million people have signed a petition opposing new North Sea oil and gas development. A YouGov poll also found that 54% of the public want the UK to get off oil and gas as quickly as possible, compared to just 10% who support continuing to rely primarily on fossil fuels.

Notes 

*The UK’s 2024 territorial emissions were published in March 2025. Equinor estimated the total lifetime greenhouse gas emissions for the field as part of its submission to the UK Government following the Scottish Court of Session's January 2025 ruling that Rosebank's original consent was unlawful.

‍