The UK government is deciding whether to approve a licence for Jackdaw gasfield, around 250km east of Aberdeen, in the North Sea. This is being presented by supporters as part of the answer to Britain’s energy-security problem. The UK government has argued that if Britain still needs gas, then producing it domestically is preferable to imports.

But there is a fundamental problem with treating new gas production as an answer to long-term energy needs especially when there are other enduring ways to use the North Sea to reduce bills, increase energy security and create jobs in the emerging sector of clean energy storage.

So what role should the North Sea play as the UK moves away from extractive fossil fuels across electricity, transport, manufacturing and heating?

Gas is not a future fuel. Climate science means Britain needs to reduce natural gas use (a fossil fuel that’s extracted from deep underground, often beneath the seabed) this decade. The atmosphere does not distinguish between CO₂ emitted from gas produced in the North Sea and CO₂ emitted from imported gas. All greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.

Britain’s energy system currently depends on gas for heating, electricity and industry. But there are available and proven ways to reduce gas use including but not limited to better insulation, heat pumps, geothermal energy and electrification. For example, minewater heating extracts heat in old coal mines via heat pumps to heat homes, such as in Seaham, northeast England.

Read more: We could use old coal mines to decarbonise heat – here’s how

The UK’s industrial past could become part of a post-fossil fuel future. The nation’s electricity system can change rapidly: coal was phased out of the British electricity system in 2025 and LED bulbs have been one of the most successful energy-efficiency stories.

The arguments for and against Jackdaw are well rehearsed and have played out since 2021 when the Offshore Petroleum Regulator rejected Shell’s environmental statement for it. The timing of that rejection coincided with Glasgow hosting the UN climate summit, Cop26.

Five years on, the invasion of Ukraine and its impact on European gas prices has strengthened calls to develop new oil and gas fields. Equally, the treasury will no doubt welcome new income, although the scale of production and revenues seen in the 1980s are unlikely.

One of the arguments for is that additional production of gas from UK fields could help make the energy transition more manageable. Also, in Jackdaw’s favour is that is it at an advanced stage; it should have lower emissions than imported gas; and it could provide short-term resilience while Britain reduces its gas dependence.

However, the emissions from it are incompatible with UK climate objectives. If Jackdaw is to be developed, we need to recognise that climate change impacts may put a short shelf life on it. Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are now greater than 420 parts per million (ppm), compared to around 320ppm when the decision was made to extract from the North Sea in the late 1960s. The past decade was the hottest ever measured and climate-linked disasters such as the glacial collapse in Nepal-Tibet are becoming more acute.

Arguments favouring Jackdaw share a short-term perspective. However, there are more strategic uses for the oil and gas infrastructure that we should be unlocking instead.

The need for seasonal energy storage is as important today as it was in the past. Britain’s fossil fuel system depended heavily on storage. Coal was stockpiled and gas was stored in pipelines and underground geological formations. Storage of fuel (high or low carbon) can stabilise energy prices. This in turn reduces the costs of risk that are shouldered by customers.

A renewable energy system will also need storage. Batteries will play a role, but they are primarily suited to balancing electricity over hours and days. They cannot yet replace the seasonal energy storage historically provided by stocks of coal, oil and gas. Fortunately, Britain has an unusual strategic advantage: it has already built much of the offshore infrastructure and developed the geological, engineering and technical expertise needed to develop large-scale energy storage.

The North and Irish Seas contain depleted oil and gas fields that could become enormous stores of low-carbon energy. Surplus renewable electricity can be converted into low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen and stored underground for months before being used when energy demand is high. Our recent research found that repurposing the UK’s most suitable oil and gasfields could provide several thousand TWh of energy storage.

Read more: Empty North Sea oil fields could store enough green hydrogen to power the country for seven years

The strategic question is no longer how much more fossil fuel can be extracted from the North Sea. It is how the geology, infrastructure and engineering expertise created by the oil and gas industry can be repurposed for a low-carbon and energy-secure system. Instead of extracting fossil energy from geological structures, the UK could use them to store energy produced from renewable energy.

The government’s Department for Energy and Net Zero (DESNZ) must look beyond individual licensing decisions and develop a strategic plan for the North Sea’s role in Britain’s post-gas energy system. Allowing arguments about individual gas fields to dominate energy debates misses the opportunity. A greener energy system would make those fields unnecessary, while creating new skilled and future-proofed jobs for oil workers and enhancing energy security for the UK and Europe.

A key next step will be to work with academics and industry to identify which depleted fields are best placed to provide large-scale energy storage and releasing licenses for developers to repurpose that North Sea infrastructure for storing low-carbon energy. Rather than simply managing the decline of oil and gas industries, we must use their geological and infrastructure expertise to build the energy system that replaces it.

Andrew Crossland is affiliated with NESO until 11 September 2026 and GB Energy from 28 September 2026. He is a Professor in Practice at Durham University. He works on non-UK solar energy transitions through the Global Solar Council.

Jon Gluyas and Stuart Jones do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.