The madness of Labour’s oil and gas ban
By Paul Homewood
This war on domestic fuel production would be catastrophic for ordinary Britons.
It could almost be over for the UK’s North Sea fossil-fuelled energy miracle. Despite it contributing over £350 billion to the exchequer since 1967, with a further £10 billion forecast for 2023-24, it seems a future Labour government wants to call time on the oil and gas industry. Keir Starmer confirmed last week that Labour would ban all new drilling licences in the North Sea.
At a time when there is huge demand for reliable, secure sources of energy, and at a time when fossil-fuel industries are growing elsewhere in the world, Labour wants to severely hobble the UK’s oil and gas sector. This would be a colossal mistake.
Labour would allow residual North Sea operations (over 270 fields) to linger on. But how much longer they’ll be able to is anyone’s guess. They are already threatened by the Tory government’s windfall taxes, which are locked in until 2028 and could rise even further should Labour win the next election. Meanwhile, expensive regulations like the ‘climate compatibility checkpoint’ will continue to cripple the oil sector, regardless of which party is in power. All this is prompting investors to turn away from the UK’s fossil-fuel industries in their droves. And this, in turn, will threaten our energy supplies.
Indeed, Labour’s policy announcement alone could jeopardise the planned £24 billion development of the Rosebank oil field, which the Tories are expected to approve. A ban on new activity will also lead to current infrastructure falling into disrepair. After all, no one will want to invest in pipes and rigs if they expect to have no new customers.
Labour’s attack on the fossil-fuel industry seems self-defeating at best. The UK remains between 75 and 80 per cent dependent on fossil fuels for our primary energy use. While we are becoming slowly less reliant on fossil fuels, we are still likely to need them for at least a further 20 to 30 years. We could potentially use them for even longer while minimising the impact on the climate, if mitigation technologies like carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) are rolled out at scale. Indeed, the government has recently announced £20 billion in funding for carbon-capture development.
If Labour runs down our own fossil-fuel production, in order to meet demand, we will simply end up importing more oil and gas from outside the UK. This is why Labour’s plan is not only economically reckless – it could also be bad for the environment, too. The emissions profile, for example, of tanker-imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) is more than double that of gas drilled here.
Then consider the tax revenue lost from running down the oil and gas industry. This revenue could be invested in research and development (R&D) to reduce the cost of low-carbon technologies. But without it, the costs of R&D, not to mention the costs of importing energy from abroad, will be passed on to taxpayers. This will lead the cost of living to rise even higher, which would be catastrophic. Indeed, The Economist recently queried whether ‘expensive energy may have killed more Europeans than Covid-19 last winter’.
Labour’s policy announcement will no doubt have delighted Just Stop Oil and other climate catastrophists. But some of Labour’s trade-union sponsors are less happy. The GMB, which represents North Sea oil workers, is furious and is opposing the policy. It is extraordinary that a party that used to claim to represent workers is now blocking oil rigs and coal mines, and is celebrating the destruction of highly paid unionised jobs in the UK’s industrial heartlands.
Labour argues its energy policy is supported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and its 2021 ‘roadmap’ to Net Zero. The IEA (not to be confused with the Institute of Economic Affairs, where I work) has certainly provided a veneer of justification for ‘leave it in the ground’ policies of the type being pursued by Labour. But this is largely because the IEA reflects back to politicians their own Net Zero thinking. Its ‘roadmap’ is, above all, a product of green ideology.
What about renewable energy? Replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources is far more difficult than Labour is willing to admit. The UK’s renewables sector is hardly a success story. The government is still paying £4 billion in subsidies every year to support the wind industry, some two decades after it first started throwing money at it. And we don’t currently have serious domestic solar, hydrogen or battery industries. There are plenty of jobs in green NGOs, think-tanks and pressure groups selling the ‘growth opportunities’ of Net Zero to gullible politicians. But very few jobs have actually been created in Britain’s green sector, despite all the state support it has received.
Labour is effectively pledging to destroy real jobs and a real industry, while virtue-signalling about future tech that will take decades to mature. The ultimate beneficiaries of this self-destructive energy policy will be the US fracking industry, the Arab petrostates and perhaps even Russia – whom we will have to rely on to import our energy supplies.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This policy does seem to be driven by pure ignorance in the real world. Poor Sir Keir Starmer seems so bent on pushing Green ideas that he has lost sight of reality. His barmy ideas will drive up costs significantly as we will be forced to import oil and gas from overseas making happy Frackers in the US and happy Drillers in the Middle East.
The only good news is that this policy is so crazy it may keep him our of number 10.
Difficult to believe it is pure ignorance .https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
The UN heads of the IPCC admitted a long time ago that the whole fraud was nothing to do with the climate , but to destroy capitalism and bring about a ” One World Socialist Government “.
So some of its followers might just be totally ignorant , but overall it is the left wing Marxists who are calling the shots and trying to destroy Western countries economies so that they can take control of everything .And that means all of your money and possessions .
Starmer’s attitude has nothing to do with concern for the environment, recall that he stated he preferred Davos to Westminster, he’s a Globalist.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
That is what we are up against.
Oops ITRW, didn’t notice your post!
But hey, it can never be stated too often.
“We could potentially use them for even longer while minimising the impact on the climate, if mitigation technologies like carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) are rolled out at scale. Indeed, the government has recently announced £20 billion in funding for carbon-capture development”
Neither the transition to renewables and EV transportation nor carbon capture and geological storage can go very far without the use of conventional ICE vehicles that do all of the work. That means more oil, not less. There is no way around that. Reducing emissions toward zero by 2050 is counterproductive.
Yes, Net Zero bods are never asked how much fossil fuel will be needed to build and sustain Net Zero renewables, the manufacture, maintenance, recycling, mineral extraction for the windmills and solar panes etc, or without fossil fuels how will it be done?
Carbon capture!!! I suggest everyone with that mindset reads Prof. Ian Plimer’s book, “Green Murder”, he believes there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere.
NASA satellites are showing that our added CO2 (and the small amount of warming) is turning the Earth greener. There should be no concern about CO2 capture and geological storage because even scaled up globally it cannot take even on ppm out. A total heavily subsidized scam.
Exactly so, Broadlands.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
Considering that the increase from 280ppm to 420ppm has ‘greened’ the earth by 10%+ Plimer could well be right.
The scientific and palæontological evidence appears to swither between CO2 concentrations always lagging temperature changes and every ppm increase having less influence than its predecessor.
Either way CO2 is an irrelevance. Hopefully in the fulness of the eco-fascists will get the comeuppance they deserve.
Did anyone see the Farage ‘interview’ with Michael Jacobs last night on GBNews around 7.20pm? He is a big wheel in Net Zero which will give us paradise. He’s a powerful advocate of renewables so watch out!
Yes I saw it. Complete nut job, spouting total lies. I felt Nigel let him off too lightly. He would be better off using a better-briefed opposition figure rather than trying to stand up to him himself.
The major issue is that the “climate”, “green” and “net zero” madness and active hatred of ordinary people and businesses has infected almost all European politicians irrespective of which “party” they pretend to be.
UK politicians cannot even blame the EU. It is self-inflicted.
It might be worth remembering that all this balderdash has precedents.
Whilst Norway built up an enormous Sovereign Wealth Fund from their share of North Sea Oil and Gas profit taxation and still have more money in it than they know what to do with, we spent ours largely on the payment of the dole to the unemployed.
And when the amount paid and the numbers on the dole queue grew embarassing in the run up to privatisation of the coal industry, mine managers were encouraged to identify any of those not to be retained to go out as part of the “poorly, sick and dying” brigade.
Many of these have never legitimately worked a day since. “Benefits” for a generation. What’s not to like?
As a Country, we didn’t go barmy just last month.
In fact much of the North Sea Oil money was spent propping up the plethora of nationalised industries such as British Leyland, British Coal, British Steel and numerous other such black holes.
The Lefty trade union members cost a great less when they were finally consigned to the dole!
I wouldn’t particularly argue with that. Although the speed of the privatisation process created some problems. And many of the outcomes were, ahem, disappointing. (Rail Industry, anybody??).
So called “experts” recommended (for example) that the Coal Industry be privatised (in big lumps) specifically together with appropriate “lumps” of the CEGB (generation industry). Now, I’m not a great fan of “experts” unless they are prepared to furnish their expertise on a “cock on the block” basis. But there is good evidence that such an approach might have been useful. For example, National Power and Powergen, the initial successor managements of CEGB, quite naturally wanted to demonstrate their “Capitalist – tooth and nail” credentials immediately after privatisation. This they did by giving the still-nationalised British Coal a really hard kicking. Don’t blame them. But, as an example, Drax Power Station had been designed and constructed to burn coal from the Selby coalfield, a few miles away (at Gascoigne Wood). As an aside, if the whole scheme hadn’t earlier been designed to give some part of the action to British Rail, why were Selby & Drax not bang next door to each other?)
Selby was very largely a success, despite the normal Major Project rose-tinted spectacles problem.
Drax, immediately asked for a significant reduction in “ash content” of the Selby coal. (i.e. the inherent non-combustible dirt in the coal itself). Tough but understandable, and of course the ash levels were higher than predicted (rose tinted specs again).
So next, as Drax thought some more of the same medicine might be helpful, the ash specification was again reduced. This meant that (a) Drax created problems for themselves as the ash content demanded was now below the level upon which the power station was designed (and at that time sufficiently large quantities of coal could not be imported through the available port facilities.) And (b), Selby coal would have to be washed, necessitating a large spoil heap at Gascoigne Wood, which residents had been promised would never happen.
So the successful Selby Coal field was down to be closed, with the loss of 2,000 jobs, at privatisation.
Eventually, a Planning Application for a spoil heap at Gascoigne Wood was permitted and 2,000 jobs saved, at least until HMG started the direct attack on coal with early ‘Climate’ taxation and that, together with some inept Management and stupid planning decisions, led to the whole Selby project closing in 2004.
That’s just one of many nasty little details, well before Ed Miliband and his 2008 Climate Change Act.
And, so far as “Lefty Trade Union Members” are concerned, let’s not forget Civil Servants, Teachers, Academics, the NHS etc even today.
Sure, Even if Tony Benn had been PM, he would have eventually realised that Scargill had to be beaten in 1985. But most miners were reasonably socially conservative. Witness those who wouldn’t join the strike.
There was a hard core of militants, most of whom had gone down that track because in the earlier 1972 & 1974 strikes, appalling working conditions, lack of investment in the industry and wages far below those pertaining in British Leyland (for example) had become the norm. Nationalised Industries records certainly aren’t great. Neither are the record of many Private Industries, of course.
Norway only had a population of 5.5m to spend it on – which they did, quite lavishly (much the same happened in Alaska). But it was nowhere near enough to use up all the oil and gas money. With rather more than 10 times the population our cash was spread more thinly. There was certainly no surplus to invest at the behest of the state. Indeed, the state sold off many of its assets to pay its bills. The cash did go to reducing the tax we needed to raise. At least until Gordon Brown spent the equivalent of all the North Sea tax all at once on bailing out the Financial Crisis.
This AM on the today show, showed just how much the mantra is sticking. Biden said the “green economy will create many new green, highly paid unionised jobs.” Repeated ad nauseum by Johnathan Ashworth on Radio 4. The phrase repeated by Macron and the Dutch government. All this from politians who have created no jobs, but have destroyed millions.
There is nothing that will mess with people’s minds more than a strongly held “religious” belief. Replacing the concept of a deity with fundamental physical complexities – Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) –> Net Zero – allows the adherents to transition from one untenable aspect to another without having to prove or justify any part. Net Zero has been codified as the modern-day Golden Calf.
G.K. Chesterton got it right!
‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.’
… including several contradictory things at the same time.
Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said. ‘One can’t believe impossible things.’
I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”
Similar to the druid monks and Incas – we need to sacrifice a few thousand folks to appease the gods or the sun wont come up , the crops wont grow and we wont be fertile but us monks and priests need to stay good in order to oversee the
sacrifices – much as we envy your brave acts.
Looks like the Dutch and Irish are going to sacrifice a few million cattle.
I wonder what the Hindu make of that…
Klaus wants farms seized by 2025 and the cattle burned . Of course giving off more CO2 than if we just ate them.
Indian rain dances and garlands round a cow had more logic than this lots
solutions to no crisis whatsoever.
Blair had a head start on how to burn healthy cattle .
And then there is this claptrap from the BBC today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65633082
” “The physics behind this haven’t changed in my lifetime. They’re not going to change going forward.”
Says it all! Of course “the physics” hasn’t changed in her lifetime. Nor mine, nor anybody else’s since God said the magic words “let there be light” (or whatever).
How the eco-fascists have chosen to interpret or to pretend to alter the physics by playing computer games is another matter entirely.
Time she took a deep breath and rejoined the real world of physics.
‘”It presented itself as depression and anxiety,” she says. She felt completely paralysed and often unable to get out of bed.’
. . . to the relief of the world.
‘Her PhD on melting ice sheets and changing sea levels had taken her to . . . .’
‘Jennifer didn’t complete her PhD on the disappearing ice sheets’
See what they did there? They lied to you, giving her authority she hadn’t earned. Direct fraud by the BBC.
I wish people would realize that there’s no stopping the steady rise in CO2. And that there’s no harm in that
As 75% of the human emissions come from countries who haven’t any intention of reducing them, rather of increasing them, it would be true that human emissions will increase. Also that the atmospheric level of fossil CO2 is only (about) 20% – the rest being emitted by natural means, which means that a cold period would reduce the atmosphere level of CO2 (because oceans will absorb more – Henry’s law) and animal life will be less.
If CO2 has any effect of temperature we should be glad that it could help our grandchildren.
“Also that the atmospheric level of fossil CO2 is only (about) 20%”
Considerably less actually, 3% – 4% depending on who you believe.
Nowhere near that level. ALL the CO2 is zero point zero four percent. Even the alarmists admit that the “manmade” part of that already small number is only three percent.
Three percent of zero point zero four percent is zero point zero zero one two percent for ALL countries
The question to ask the alarmists is: why did the climate change when the things they now want to ban and tax out of existence did not even exist?
>>atmospheric level of fossil CO2 is only (about) 20%
There is some confusion. I meant that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (125 p.p.m.) since 1895 was largely due to natural events, so about 25 p.p.m. human. This was based on a check of C14 to C12 ratios (as coal, oil and gas is largely free of C14) – I haven’t a link possibly notrickzone.
90% of human emissions of CO2 come from the northern hemisphere but the level in the southern hemisphere is in sync. so it maybe that the amount of human emissions is very low.
A successful policy that will fail in implementation, perfect.
In the UK the consequences of this failed policy will be inconvenient, but the idiots are actually trying to implement this in 3rd world countries where the consequences will be hunger, famine and disease.
The problem is all three major parties have much the same insane energy policy. I am at a loss to understand why the Conservative ban on shale gas is any more sensible than Labour’s proposals.
The only party with a credible energy policy seems to be Reform.
The trouble is that there is a small number of Tory MPs who oppose fracking, and would have allied with Labour to overturn Liz Truss’s plan to restart it.
The Tory Party is in hock to a small minority.
For the umpteenth time the well tests done two years ago proved conclusively that UK shale, like Poland’s and many others , is too impermeable to deliver viable gas.
Meanwhile Starmer’s lunacies are a complete red herring. The North Sea is exhausted anyway. Rosebank, so long as it goes ahead (which I hope it does) will be the most difficult and expensive oil/gas developement anywhere ever, and almost certainly the last for the UK.
That, for the umpteenth time, is up to Quadrilla and the rest who are prepared to spend millions to develop shale and North Sea oil fields to decide, not some armchair expert.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet…
Labour hires former Extinction Rebellion lawyer as climate and energy adviser
6 June 2023
Conservative MPs said it proves there is a “revolving door between eco-extremists and Labour HQ”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/06/labour-party-hires-former-extinction-rebellion-lawyer/
Ceremony coming to a wind-farm near you:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/tribe-throw-goats-and-chickens-into-volcano-to-please-the-gods/ar-AA1cc1J4?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a01825e9a85443548b8468ca4a26d3ec&ei=12
Kudos to anyone capable of throwing a goat into a wind turbine!
A new event for the Highland Games?
Trouble is, the turbines tend to win, as countless birds of prey can attest.
Good article —pity about the: “We could potentially use [fossil fuels] for even longer while minimising the impact on the climate…”
There is NO “impact on the climate”! Doh…..🙄
As anticipated, no sooner said than rowed back on.
Spectator article:
“Keir Starmer said oil and gas would remain a part of Britain’s energy mix ‘for decades to come’ and that he would ‘never’ allow ‘a repeat of what happened in coal mining where an industry came to an end and nobody had planned for the future’. He was speaking to the GMB Congress, where Labour’s plan to stop issuing new licences for oil and gas production in the UK came under fire.”
Our spineless, lying, attention seeking politicians are an utter disgrace.
“Our spineless, lying, attention seeking politicians are an utter disgrace.”
To whom? You are not their customer.
They are a disgrace to everyone. Look at all the the taxes and bans they invent.
>>“Our spineless, lying, attention seeking politicians are an utter disgrace.”
To whom? You are not their customer.
Well, sure, they are doing a terrible job serving you. But they don’t exist to serve you. Those they serve are quite happy.
Klaus is nodding in approval.
Vernon E
An alias for Dale Vince? Talk the same old twaddle.
Martin: Which bit is twaddle – precisely please.
Every syllable.
After all, if there was a scintilla of credible evidence that none of the identified UK shale seams would be productive, HMG would encourage the Gas Industry to heavily invest in the project, knowing they would speedily bankrupt themselves at zero cost to themselves.
Here are some of the findings from the British Geological Society survey:
“Shale gas exploration in the UK
The main rock formation of interest for shale gas exploration in the UK is called the Bowland Shale Formation, which occurs across a large area of central Britain. These shales were deposited in marine basins during the Visean and Namurian stages of the Carboniferous period (between 347 and 318 million years ago) when the UK was located around the equator. Carboniferous marine shales can reach thicknesses of up to 5000 m and contain enough organic matter (1–3 per cent, but locally over 10 per cent) to generate hydrocarbons.The Bowland Shale Formation is not restricted to the onshore environment; the basins extend offshore beneath the Southern North Sea and the East Irish Sea.
Andrews (2013) estimated a total gas-in-place estimate for the Bowland Shale Formation and Hodder Mudstone Formation between 822 and 2281 trillion cubic feet (tcf). As a comparison, the total gas consumption in 2018 in the UK was 2.98 tcf. Since then, other estimates have suggested the total gas-in-place volume could be considerably less (around 140 tcf; Whitelaw et al., 2019).
Scotland
Middle Carboniferous, organic-rich shales are also found in the subsurface Midland Valley of Scotland (Girvan to Greenock in the west; Dunbar to Stonehaven in the east) as part of the Strathclyde Group and the Clackmannan Group. There, the shales reach a thickness of about 3000 m, contain 2–6 percent organic carbon and are considered as a potential target for shale gas exploration. Monaghan (2014) suggested a total of 49.4–134.6 tcf gas-in-place for the Midland Valley of Scotland.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projects/shale-gas/shale-gas-in-the-uk/
Cat: And your point is?
‘While we are becoming slowly less reliant on fossil fuels, we are still likely to need them for at least a further 20 to 30 years. We could potentially use them for even longer while minimising the impact on the climate, if mitigation technologies like carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) are rolled out at scale. Indeed, the government has recently announced £20 billion in funding for carbon-capture development.’
These are not the thoughts of a rational man.
‘technologies like carbon capture’ – powered by what, we might ask.
OTT
Concerning the water situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant, the good news is that the cooling water is recycled.
The Russians were possibly preparing a flood to drown the contested river islands near Kherson city as the unprecedented level of the pent-up water shows:
https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kakhovka
But probably not a flood this big – with the whole dam falling to pieces!
When the water recedes, the Dnipro will be permanently diminished upstream and downstream.
Interesting graphic, thanks.
Equally odd is the very low level immediately before it rose to that unprecedented height. Of course it could well have been a simple cock-up with the occupiers being unfamiliar with the system.
“…occupiers being unfamiliar with the system.”
It was built in Soviet times, and presumably has the same system as the existing dams in Russia.
“…very low level [first].”
My hunch is that they lowered the water to make a small hole near the top of the dam and pack it with explosive charges. Then they increased the water level during the Spring spate; and, two nights ago, blew up the small hole, so as to penetrate the whole structure at a place which was now two meters below the surface. This did not produce the planned moderate flood. Someone panicked and ordered the larger charges, laid during the battle for Kherson City, to be exploded. This ‘blew the bloody doors off.’