WTF, SHELL? JACKDAW’S ‘NEW’ CLIMATE MATH

A court told Shell to count what gets burned. Now Jackdaw’s fate depends on whether the UK wants the gas—and the emissions that come with it—on the books.

Shell—aka the ultimate sin stock with a green paintbrush—has filed a fresh environmental impact assessment for the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea after losing in court to Greenpeace. Translation: the judges said, if your product gets burned, you have to count the emissions from burning it—those pesky Scope 3s—before ministers decide whether to hand you the keys. The previous approval? Unlawful. 

Jackdaw isn’t some tiny puddle of methane dreams. It sits about 150 miles east of Aberdeen, and Shell loves to say it could churn out around 6% of the UK’s gas once it’s turned on—if ministers ever let them turn it on. Construction of the production platform is already well under way, but no extraction can start until the government retakes the decision under the new rules. 

Shell, naturally, is deeply moved by the rule of law. A company spokesperson offered this immaculate corporate haiku, which we reproduce verbatim:

“We have submitted our response to the regulator’s request for further information on Jackdaw, which includes the assessment of scope three emissions associated with the project.

“We remain committed to delivering Jackdaw, which is a nationally important project that is almost complete and would provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million homes.

“North Sea projects like Jackdaw deliver energy to UK homes and industry with significantly less emissions than importing more gas from overseas.”

Having prised open the emissions ledger, Greenpeace chimed in with a reminder that the atmosphere isn’t a PR department:

“It’s not surprising to see Shell doggedly pursue a new gas project that will boost their multi-billion-pound profits while fuelling more extreme weather and bringing no relief to bill payers.

“But we have won a decisive court ruling that forced Shell and other oil giants to come clean over the full scale of climate damage caused by new drilling projects in the North Sea.”

Context, because facts matter: In January 2025, Scotland’s Court of Session ruled approvals for Jackdaw (Shell) and Rosebank (Equinor) unlawful for failing to account for downstream emissions. The UK government then issued new guidance in June 2025 explaining how developers must assess those Scope 3 emissions in their EIAs. While work on Jackdaw’s build could continue, actual production can’t begin until fresh consents are granted. The first major tests of the new guidance will be—drum roll—Jackdaw and Rosebank. 

And hovering over all of this—the money. Shell’s biggest investors include BlackRock and Vanguard, the asset-management superpowers whose ESG slogans could power a small wind farm but whose voting records tend to keep the fossil taps comfortably open. If you’re wondering why Shell keeps “re-balancing” toward hydrocarbons while promising the Earth…follow the funds. 

So here we are: Shell has to redo its homework, this time with the real carbon numbers. If ministers approve Jackdaw after that, it’ll be with eyes wide open about the climate tab. If they don’t, expect howls about “energy security”—and a new round of investor throat-clearing about “transition,” while the rigs keep rising on the horizon.

Suggested subhead: A court told Shell to count what gets burned. Now Jackdaw’s fate depends on whether the UK wants the gas—and the emissions that come with it—on the books.

Disclaimer. The criticisms are pointed, the humour intentional, and the facts stubbornly real. Quotes are reproduced word-for-word from trusted sources. As for authorship—John Donovan and AI both claim credit, but the jury’s still out on who was really in charge.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment.