It is abundantly clear now that the Net Zero democratic deficit has widened to such an extent that the cross-party Westminster consensus on climate policy has broken. The tensions around the policy agenda are no longer defined as between 'scientists' and 'deniers', nor Left and Right, and are evident even within the Labour fold. Union voices (such as they are) are now joined by Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar, who, fearing job losses turning into seat-losses ahead of the Scottish Parliament elections next month, has reportedly been lobbying Ed Miliband to reverse his objections to North Sea oil and gas development. But spare a thought in this new battle of the climate war for its antagonist, the Green Blob. Despite having spent billions of pounds on lobbying in many forms, it is now losing the long overdue debate. And so it falls to its grantees to produce its talking points – and to the Guardian (also a grantee) to report such lines verbatim – in an attempt to hold the ground against reality. 'New North Sea drilling would barely reduce UK gas imports at all,' claims Fiona Harvey in the newspaper this week.
It’s an odd claim, mostly for the vehemence that accompanies it: “The Jackdaw field, one of the largest unexploited gasfields in the North Sea, would displace only 2% of the UK’s current imports of gas,” says Harvey. And worse: “The Rosebank field… would displace only about 1% of the UK’s gas imports.” This, she explains, “would leave
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Embers report, quote “A quarter of Britain’s solar and wind farm capacity has been added since 2021, explains the report”
The keyword is ‘capacity’, not actual field results. You often see that, when companies are planning a wind farm, the capacity figures rather than any real world figures are quoted.
Do we know who or what funds ‘Uplift’? They’re frequently quoted in The Times as well.
The mad part here is the lack of coal mining in Britain. We have known reserves for electricity generation (all of it!) for 300 years. Applying some modern technology and we do not need many miners, just modern large mines. Modern large coal power stations (just like the Chinese) are very reliable and provide 24/7 electricity. Coal also allows steelmaking at low cost. We must become self-sufficient because energy is likely to become the cause of the next World War. So obvious and so simple, and yet apparently this would destroy the World (except India and China!). Some people have zero understanding of anything! These policies have very nearly bankrupted Europe as a whole, and “net zero” has NO scientific basis. Politicians are fools in suits. I would lock most of them up in a mental institution. Look at Millibrain and Srarmer, they have the expressions to match Broadmoor!
The figures above represent only 1 well drilled in each field. This is mad, we can drill many and get a far larger flow. How do you suppose Norway produces so much? It is not from 1 well per field!
There is currently an Ember electric bus upside down outside Aviemore!
Both of the Guardian’s readers will probably agree.
There would be nosebleeds all round if the Guardian started publishing truthful articles on energy supply – or anything else really…
The article has overlooked a very important factor with respect to oil.
In the 1970s UK had 19 oil refineries, by the end of the 90s there were 12, now there are only 4. Soon there may be none. So from the motor fuel production aspect, increasing North Sea oil – assuming it is of the type our refineries can use – won’t make much difference, because without more refineries, we won’t be able to process it and still will have to import much of our motor fuel and aviation spirit.
The current tax on oil and gas from the North Sea is 78%. There is no incentive to increase production, because the costs involved to do so are not worth it in terms of the poor return on the capital.
The devastation by successive Governments since the 90s of our energy sector is wide and deep.
“… the cross-party Westminster consensus on climate policy has broken…”
No it hasn’t, it’s just about posturing to mislead voters. The policy is the same – none have rejected the preposterous notion of Manmade Climate Change (except Reform UK).
Net Zero just has to be implemented a bit later, more slowly so it has a less noticeable effect.
Not taking advantage of one’s own energy resources is absolutely idiotic, however one spins it.
It is utter insanity to be importing commodities we can produce domestically.
Oil and gas are just great especially as one of the byproducts is CO2. The CO2 is currently helping plant growth worldwide and helps plants survive droughts as well.
This article contains a victorious court submission from Professors Happer, Lindzen and Koonin (for Shell) showing how good CO2 is.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-the-man-made-climate-change-scam-will-never-end/
CO2 is falsely accused of being problematic, but it is actually highly beneficial. Yeah, go CO2
“As of early 2026, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is valued at approximately $2.2 trillion (over 21,000 billion NOK). It is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.”
They must have got that from Abba. Ah, hold on, that was Sweden…
If it wasn’t financially viable to explore and extract more gas and oil from the north sea, the sensible Norwegians wouldn’t be doing it.
It patently IS financially viable. It would provide considerable amounts of tax revenue for the British Treasury; it would improve our energy security and would reduce energy costs for consumers whose household finances are being destroyed by the Net Zero Insanity and the fallout of the Iran war.
The Eco Zealots, fronted by Red Ed, are deliberately destroying the British economy and the finances of millions of British citizens. Do they really think there won’t be a massive backlash?
The reason it is not financially viable is because of the aggregate 78% tax on profits. The return to capital is not enough.
Reduce the tax and it becomes viable.
This is followed by a Greenpeace spokesman, who claims “the only path to real [energy] security is to leave fossil fuels behind as quickly as possible”,
Which I estimate to be about 50 years before fusion power is contributing a substantial amount to the National Grid.
I agree. First we have to use fossil fuels to the fullest, for about 30-40 years. That’s what I consider to be ‘as quickly as possible’. We must simultaneously build local nuclear, whilst we also invest in Fusion. Fusion has been 20 years away for about 50 years now, but its day will come, unless we invent something else better in the meantime. There is no standing by and hoping someone else fixes our problem.
Fission is absolutely fine and has been working well for decades. 🙂
About 4.6 bn years in our neighbourhood. Mind you it is damn dangerous. I once turned quite pink because of it.
Fusion has been working fine for billions of years. There were no development costs, there are no operating costs, useful lifetime of the reactor is thousands of years, and the energy has been stored in large, underground batteries called coal, oil and gas – free for the taking.
“We must simultaneously build local nuclear, whilst we also invest in Fusion.”
”We” being the taxpayer. The cost and losses of these hugely expensive, fantasy projects will be socialised, their profits, if any, will be privatised.
So count me out of the “we” let’s make it “you” and others like you who are strangers to economics and simple arithmetic.
If these were at all likely to give a reasonable return on investment, people in the private sector would be fighting each other to do them.
Like wind and solar, they are capital intensive with no prospect of profitability without massive taxpayer support and guaranteed, above market-rate pricing.
The future is coal, gas and oil – not for 40 or 50 years, but for centuries to come. Note: we have more oil now than 100 years ago despite the exponential increase in using it? Why? Free market capitalist process which drives and funds innovation and technology to turn scarcity of a resource into abundance.
Fossil Fuels don’t exist. Rocks don’t make liquid.
Natural abiotic hydrocarbon energy does.
North Sea can produce hydrocarbon energy to satsify 100% of this country’s needs forever.
When does the 50 year estimate begin? Fusion has been a decade away for 50 years or so already?
No it’s only 30 years away. It’s always been 30 years away.
Fusion power is the energy of the future and always will be. Since the 1970s it has always been just ten years away – just like Peak-Oil.
Greenpeace focus solely on their perception of energy, ignoring the fact that fossil fuels will always be needed for the manufacture of a diverse range of essential products. Typical mindless, primarily left wing, ideology.
So these fields will produce more alone than the entire 1% solar contribution to UK energy needs. They will do it night and day, in sunshine and in rain and will not be contributing anything to China’s manufacturing behemoth. What is not to like?
Exactly, we should call their bluff and say ‘thanks for making a great case for drilling, let’s go’…
If it is so unproductive why a) are Norway doing so well in the same North Sea b) why are you so against something that can only ever yield ‘3%’!
The oil and gas reserves don’t respect national boundaries. The oil and gas that Norway drills is exactly the same oil and gas that we could be drilling.
Nope. There isn’t just one big lake pf oil under the North Sea.
Oil and gas fields are discrete. Where they might straddle international boundaries there will be Treaties covering sharing extraction quotas and revenues.
Precisely. Blob gaslighting getting increasingly desperate.