Shell and Equinor’s Jackdaw gas project was widely expected to receive a decision this month. Instead, that decision now appears likely to slip until after the politically sensitive Holborn and St Pancras by-election on 8 October. The government insists it has never publicly committed to a timetable. The result is another delay for a North Sea project already shaped by court rulings, downstream-emissions assessments and climate politics.
Shell’s Jackdaw project has encountered another obstacle.
This time, however, the obstacle is not engineering.
It is not geology.
It is not even a fresh court judgment.
It is timing — and, according to several reports, electoral politics.
Reuters reported on 11 September that the British government is expected to delay a decision on whether Jackdaw can proceed to production until after the Holborn and St Pancras parliamentary by-election on 8 October 2026.
Earlier reports had suggested approval could come as soon as the following week.
Instead, according to the latest reporting, the decision may now be pushed into late autumn. (London South East)
That is a significant change.
But one important qualification needs to be made immediately.
The UK government says it never publicly confirmed a decision date for Jackdaw.
Its Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has declined to comment on speculation and says any decision will consider the relevant environmental assessments and the representations received during consultation. (London South East)
So there are two distinct propositions.
It is established that a decision has not yet been announced.
It is widely reported, citing Whitehall and government sources, that the timing has now slipped beyond the by-election.
What is not formally established by the government itself is that electoral considerations are the reason.
That distinction matters.
Jackdaw was supposed to be entering its final regulatory stretch
Jackdaw is not a newly discovered prospect waiting for someone to decide whether it should be developed.
The project is already physically advanced.
Shell’s 2025 annual report recorded that substantial progress had been made on the field and that the project was expected, subject to regulatory approval, to become operational in the fourth quarter of 2026.
The topsides had already been towed from Norway and installed on the Jackdaw jacket in October 2025.
Shell also submitted a new Scope 3 emissions assessment in September 2025 as part of the process of re-establishing production consent.
That makes the latest delay particularly awkward.
The infrastructure exists.
The field has been developed.
The remaining difficulty is securing a lawful consent regime after the courts invalidated the earlier environmental approval process.
The court problem began with downstream emissions
The central legal issue is now familiar.
In June 2024, the UK Supreme Court ruled in the Finch case that an environmental impact assessment for an oil development must take account of the greenhouse-gas emissions produced when the extracted hydrocarbons are ultimately burned.
That principle subsequently affected offshore oil and gas projects including Jackdaw.
Shell’s own updated Scope 3 assessment explains the chain of events directly.
The company records that the Finch judgment required consideration of downstream emissions and that the same interpretation of environmental assessment law applied to offshore developments governed by the 2020 offshore EIA regulations. (Shell UK)
That legal development ultimately forced a reconsideration of Jackdaw’s environmental approval.
The Scottish court ruled the previous consent unlawful
In January 2025, the Court of Session dealt directly with challenges to Jackdaw and Equinor’s Rosebank project.
The legal position was unusually stark.
The parties agreed that the earlier decisions were unlawful because the environmental impact assessments had not considered downstream emissions from burning the oil and gas that would be produced.
The dispute was therefore not primarily about whether the original environmental assessment was lawful.
It was not.
The real question was what remedy should follow.
Lord Ericht ruled that the decisions should be quashed and reconsidered lawfully, with downstream emissions taken into account.
However, the reduction of consent was suspended while fresh decisions were sought, allowing construction work to continue.
What could not happen was production.
No oil or gas could be extracted until a fresh lawful decision was made. (Climate Policy Radar)
That distinction explains the odd position Jackdaw now occupies.
It can be physically almost ready.
Yet legally unable to produce.
Shell submitted the new climate assessment
After the government issued supplementary guidance on how downstream emissions should be assessed, Shell supplied the additional material required for Jackdaw.
The company’s updated Scope 3 submission explicitly addresses the climate effects associated with the eventual use of Jackdaw hydrocarbons.
It treats those emissions as downstream Scope 3 emissions driven by consumer demand and sets out the methodology Shell says should be used to assess them under the revised regulatory framework. (Shell UK)
A further public consultation followed.
Shell’s own Jackdaw permit page records that additional information was published in November 2025 and that consultation on that material closed on 22 December 2025. (Shell UK)
So by this year the argument was no longer simply:
Did Shell assess downstream emissions?
It had.
The new question became:
Does the revised assessment justify renewed production consent?
Opponents say the project should still be rejected
Environmental campaigners have continued to argue that Jackdaw should not receive fresh approval.
The Weald Action Group, whose campaign helped produce the Finch judgment, submitted representations opposing Jackdaw during the renewed consultation.
Its submission specifically linked the Court of Session ruling to the earlier Supreme Court judgment and argued that Shell had been forced to reconsider the climate effects of downstream emissions because of those legal victories. (GOV.UK)
Other environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Uplift, have similarly argued that expanding North Sea production is inconsistent with UK climate objectives.
For them, the revised emissions analysis does not solve the underlying problem.
It simply quantifies it more honestly.
Shell and industry make a very different argument
Shell’s position is fundamentally different.
Jackdaw is a gas-condensate field in the Central North Sea.
The company has argued that domestic production can play a continuing role in UK energy security while the economy transitions towards lower-carbon energy.
The Court of Session record noted Shell’s submission that the viability of the project could be threatened if consent were permanently lost and that the project had wider implications for UK energy supply and investment. (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service)
Industry supporters also argue that Britain will continue consuming oil and gas regardless of whether it produces those hydrocarbons domestically.
From that perspective, refusing Jackdaw does not necessarily eliminate demand.
It may merely increase reliance on imports.
That argument has gained political force during periods of elevated energy prices and concern about security of supply.
Jackdaw can be significant without transforming UK energy security
Both sides are prone to rhetorical inflation.
Jackdaw is significant.
But it is not the North Sea equivalent of discovering Saudi Arabia.
Court records describe it as an ultra-high-pressure, high-temperature field expected to produce for roughly eight years.
At peak output, Shell has estimated that Jackdaw could supply gas equivalent to around 6.5% of UK demand. (Climate Policy Radar)
That is meaningful.
But it is also temporary.
And it does not mean Jackdaw alone determines whether Britain is energy secure.
Equally, arguing that the field makes no difference because it cannot transform the whole national market understates the importance of individual domestic supply sources.
The sensible position lies between the slogans.
Jackdaw matters.
It is simply not decisive by itself.
Then came the political complication
Until very recently, reports suggested the government was moving towards a decision.
The latest reporting has changed that expectation.
The Financial Times reports that the decision has now been delayed until at least October amid the politically sensitive Holborn and St Pancras by-election, previously represented by former prime minister Keir Starmer. (Financial Times)
The Guardian similarly reports that Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh had been expected to make her recommendation shortly, but that Whitehall sources now believe the decision will not be made before Parliament enters its party-conference recess.
That timing would push the announcement beyond the 8 October vote. (The Guardian)
The Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, is standing in the constituency.
And he has made opposition to additional North Sea drilling a prominent feature of his campaign. (The Guardian)
That is why Jackdaw has suddenly become entangled with a parliamentary by-election hundreds of miles from the North Sea.
The accusation: Labour does not want Jackdaw on the ballot paper
The political charge is straightforward.
Critics allege that the government does not want to approve a controversial gas field immediately before a by-election in a constituency where the Greens are mounting a serious challenge.
If that is what has happened, it would mean the timing of a major energy-infrastructure decision was being influenced by short-term electoral considerations.
Conservative critics have already made that allegation.
The opposition has accused the government of putting political convenience ahead of energy security.
The Green Party has made the opposite accusation: that Labour is concealing its true intention to approve Jackdaw until after voters have gone to the polls. (The Guardian)
Remarkably, both criticisms depend on the same assumption.
That Jackdaw is likely to be approved.
But the government has not admitted any political delay
This is where factual discipline becomes important.
The government has not formally announced:
We are delaying Jackdaw because of the by-election.
Instead, its position is that no public timetable was ever promised.
The energy department says any determination must take account of all relevant evidence, including the environmental assessment and public consultation responses. (London South East)
So the claim of electoral delay rests on media reporting based on unnamed government and Whitehall sources.
That reporting may be accurate.
Indeed, multiple outlets now point in the same direction.
But it remains reporting rather than an official ministerial admission.
Any responsible account should preserve that distinction.
The Labour manifesto problem
Jackdaw also sits awkwardly inside Labour’s broader North Sea policy.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto committed the party to ending new oil and gas exploration licences.
But Jackdaw does not require a brand-new exploration licence.
It concerns production approval connected to an already licensed field.
That creates a politically uncomfortable middle category.
Labour can say it is honouring its commitment not to issue new exploration licences while still allowing certain previously licensed developments to proceed.
Environmental campaigners regard that distinction as legalistic.
Industry regards it as essential.
The government is therefore caught between two incompatible pressures.
Reject Jackdaw and it will be accused of undermining domestic energy production, investment and North Sea jobs.
Approve it and it will be accused of watering down climate policy.
There is no politically painless answer.
A by-election makes that dilemma worse
Normally, such contradictions can be managed through consultation documents, ministerial statements and carefully drafted policy language.
A by-election changes the incentives.
Holborn and St Pancras is an urban constituency with a substantial environmentally conscious electorate.
The Green Party has chosen to field its national leader there.
That creates an obvious political risk for Labour.
Approve Jackdaw before polling day and the Greens can campaign against a concrete government decision.
Delay it and Labour faces accusations that it is hiding an unpopular decision until voters can no longer punish it.
Either way, the field has become political ammunition.
That is a remarkable fate for an offshore gas project hundreds of miles away.
Jackdaw is already part of a much larger argument about Britain’s energy future
The latest delay should not be viewed in isolation.
Britain is trying to reconcile four objectives that frequently conflict:
lower emissions;
energy security;
affordable consumer prices;
and:
continued investment in domestic energy infrastructure.
The argument becomes especially difficult when natural gas is involved.
Gas emits carbon dioxide when burned.
But it also plays a major role in heating, electricity generation and industrial energy consumption.
Renewables are growing rapidly.
Yet their intermittency means Britain still requires dispatchable generation and balancing capacity.
North Sea production is declining structurally.
Meanwhile, Britain imports increasing quantities of energy.
That is the policy environment in which Jackdaw is being judged.
No individual project can resolve those tensions.
But every individual project becomes a proxy battle for them.
The jobs argument is also contested
Supporters of Jackdaw frequently point to employment and economic activity.
Opponents challenge how many jobs the project will actually create directly.
Guardian reporting in July cited documents suggesting Jackdaw itself would support only 27 direct full-time jobs, while broader industry estimates include indirect employment, construction activity and supply-chain effects. (The Guardian)
That does not mean the wider economic effect is zero.
Nor does it mean thousands of permanent workers will be stationed on the platform.
Both sides tend to select the employment measure most favourable to their argument.
Again, the distinction is between:
direct permanent jobs
and
total employment supported across construction, supply chains and associated activity.
They are not the same thing.
Shell has already invested before receiving its final answer
From Shell and Equinor’s perspective, the regulatory sequence must be deeply frustrating.
The project was originally approved.
Major construction followed.
The legal framework changed after Finch.
The previous consent was declared unlawful.
The courts nevertheless allowed physical development to continue while a new lawful consent process took place.
Shell prepared the new downstream-emissions assessment.
A public consultation was completed.
And the field now sits physically advanced while awaiting permission to produce.
That does not give Shell an entitlement to approval.
Legal compliance must come before sunk cost.
But sunk cost explains why the stakes are so high.
This is no longer a debate about whether someone should drill an exploratory hole.
Billions of pounds of infrastructure and corporate planning sit behind the regulatory decision.
An especially awkward moment for Shell
The timing is also notable given Shell’s wider strategic direction.
Under Wael Sawan, Shell has emphasised:
upstream hydrocarbons,
LNG,
capital discipline,
shareholder distributions,
and investment in projects capable of producing competitive returns.
Only this month Shell completed its major acquisition of ARC Resources in Canada.
In the United States, it is actively rearranging gas-fired power assets to strengthen trading positions.
And its upstream leadership is benefiting from a period of strong market valuation.
Against that backdrop, Jackdaw is an anomaly.
It is exactly the sort of hydrocarbon asset Shell generally appears willing to develop.
But unlike Shell’s North American projects, its fate depends on a particularly combustible mix of UK climate law and domestic politics.
The historical irony
There is an irony here.
The legal challenge that destabilised Jackdaw was not ultimately based on whether emissions would arise directly from the platform itself.
It concerned emissions produced later, when customers burned the hydrocarbons.
For decades, oil and gas companies sought to distinguish the emissions from their own operations from those arising from consumer use.
The Finch judgment changed the environmental-assessment landscape by requiring the downstream consequence to be considered at the project-approval stage.
That is why Shell now has a document specifically titled:
JACKDAW SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT.
The vocabulary alone illustrates how much the regulatory environment has shifted.
A gas field is no longer assessed merely as an offshore engineering project.
Its ultimate combustion emissions have entered the planning equation.
Commentary: regulation by election calendar would be a bad precedent
If the government is simply taking the time necessary to consider a complex environmental assessment properly, there is nothing improper about a delay.
Major energy projects should not be approved merely because companies want certainty quickly.
But if — and this remains an if — the decision has genuinely been moved solely to avoid electoral embarrassment before 8 October, that would be troubling.
Regulatory decisions should be made because the evidence is complete.
Not because polling day has passed.
Equally, environmental campaigners should be careful what they wish for.
A short political delay does not necessarily mean Jackdaw is closer to rejection.
The opposite may be true.
The current reporting largely assumes that approval remains probable and that the politically inconvenient element is simply when to announce it.
If that interpretation is correct, delaying the decision until after the by-election would not represent a climate-policy victory.
It would represent political choreography.
Shell waits again
And so Jackdaw enters another period of uncertainty.
The field was approved.
The approval was challenged.
The environmental assessment was found wanting.
The consent was quashed.
Construction continued.
A new Scope 3 assessment was submitted.
Consultation followed.
Approval was expected.
Now the decision appears delayed again.
Shell has spent years building the field.
Campaigners have spent years trying to stop it.
The courts have forced the government to reassess it lawfully.
And now a Westminster by-election may have become the latest factor in deciding when the country finally learns Jackdaw’s fate.
There is something almost absurd about that sequence.
An ultra-high-pressure gas field beneath the North Sea.
A platform already installed.
An emissions assessment running through Scope 3 carbon accounting.
A legal precedent originating in an onshore Surrey oil case.
And perhaps, finally, a parliamentary contest in central London determining when ministers feel politically comfortable announcing the result.
That is modern British energy policy in miniature.
What is established
The previous Jackdaw production consent was ruled unlawful because its environmental assessment did not include downstream emissions. A fresh lawful decision is required before production can begin. (Climate Policy Radar)
Shell submitted a revised Scope 3 assessment, and the government conducted a further consultation process. (Shell UK)
The field is physically advanced, with its topsides installed, and Shell had expected production subject to regulatory consent.
No new production approval has yet been publicly announced.
What is reported but not formally confirmed
Reuters, the FT, the Guardian and other outlets report that the decision is now likely to be delayed until after the 8 October Holborn and St Pancras by-election. (London South East)
The government has not formally confirmed that electoral considerations are the reason.
It says it never publicly committed to a decision date and that all relevant environmental evidence and consultation responses must be considered. (London South East)
Sources
Reuters, 11 September 2026: Government expected to delay the Jackdaw decision until after the October by-election. (London South East)
Financial Times, 11 September 2026: UK delays Jackdaw decision amid politically sensitive by-election. (Financial Times)
The Guardian, 11 September 2026: Decision likely to move beyond the Holborn and St Pancras vote. (The Guardian)
Shell — Jackdaw permit applications: project description, additional Scope 3 materials and consultation record. (Shell UK)
Shell — Jackdaw Scope 3 Emissions Assessment: Shell’s revised downstream-emissions assessment following Finch. (Shell UK)
Court of Session: Greenpeace and Uplift judicial-review proceedings concerning Jackdaw and Rosebank; previous consents found unlawful because downstream emissions were not assessed. (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service)
Shell Annual Report 2025: physical progress on Jackdaw, topsides installation and anticipated operational timetable subject to consent.
Site-wide disclaimer applies.
*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, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
