Conflict in Iran is exposing the true cost of North Sea decline
For years, Labour's proposed ban on new drilling in the North Sea has been one of the party's most eye-catching policies.
The pledge not to issue new oil and gas licences is based on 'science', according to Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, amid projections that licensing any new fields globally would be incompatible with net zero targets.
In its election manifesto, Labour also argued that allowing more extraction from the North Sea 'will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis'.
It was a premise that was questioned by some experts but won praise from others, as well as from environmental campaigners.
But now, with a fresh conflict raging in the Middle East the policy is coming under scrutiny again, with critics warning that it leaves Britain more exposed to geopolitical crises.
Energy security
It's no secret that the North Sea is in decline. Whether Labour presses ahead with a ban on new licences or not, Britain's oil and gas output will continue to fall.
But while that fall is inevitable, the rate of decline is not.
The independent Climate Change Committee estimates that there will be demand for between 13bn and 15bn barrels of oil and gas in the UK over the next 25 years.
Under current policies, less than one third of this overall demand is expected to be met by domestic production. That is equivalent to about 4bn barrels, with an estimated 3bn that could be exploited left underground.
The balance would come from foreign imports.
Mr Miliband has said boosting production would bring no material benefit to consumers because oil and gas prices are set by international markets and the output of the North Sea is too small to make a difference.
But while many economists agree up to a point, some say this argument misses the importance of energy security.
'As long as you are a big importer, it doesn't make sense to reduce your production,' says Bjarne Schieldrop, analyst at SEB Research.
'What you need to do is to reduce your consumption as fast as possible. Energy has become more politically sensitive in recent years, with Russia using energy as a weapon.
'So actually, security of supply is extremely important. It's not just about the price.'
Simon French, chief economist at Panmure Liberum, adds that if Britain and Europe produce more oil and gas collectively, they will be less dependent on supplies shipped from the Middle East in a crisis.
In a global supply crunch, it is still unlikely that the UK would be at risk of shortages given its ability to outbid poorer countries for shipments when prices rise.
However, French adds: 'Why would you leave yourself so exposed to doing that, when you potentially have the opportunity to divert your own domestic supply and give yourself more strategic resilience?'
Fiscal firepower
Producing more oil and gas domestically also brings other benefits in a crisis.
In a scenario where the Iran-Israel conflict spreads, one of the biggest worries will be the prospect of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz seizing up.
Around one fifth of the world's oil passes through this vital trade artery. 'If it's disrupted for any protracted period of time, then either global demand needs to fall substantially – which means a pretty deep recession – or the price of oil has to go up to ration it,' says French.
In such a time, Britain would face higher oil and gas prices like every other country. But as a producer, it would also benefit from higher tax revenues, giving the Government more firepower to boost the flagging economy.
For example, when the invasion of Ukraine sparked an energy crisis across Europe in 2022, the UK's tax take from company profits also jumped from £2.6bn to £9.8bn, providing valuable cash for schemes to support households with their bills.
'If the Exchequer feels that it needs to cap the price of energy, as it did previously, it rather helps if you're getting higher corporation tax receipts from the North Sea,' adds French.
Decommissioning costs
Another factor to consider is the impact the Government's windfall tax and licence ban will have on decommissioning, the process of safely retiring spent or uneconomical oil and gas wells.
Analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Stifel have both argued that Labour's policies will speed up the rate of closures.
This could make life harder for Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, because oil and gas firms can offset decommissioning costs against their corporation tax bills.
As a result, squeezing the North Sea may deal a double whammy to tax receipts by cutting output and accelerating decommissioning.
This is partly because oil and gas firms continuously drill new wells alongside old ones to improve the economic viability of their portfolios as a whole. Without the ability to keep drilling new wells, it becomes harder to continue drilling old ones economically.
'If you were to continue to licence, then that extends the life cycle of some fields, and therefore decommissioning comes later in the fiscal horizon,' says French.
'So you would start to rebuild more fiscal headroom than you might otherwise have – and one thing the Chancellor definitely needs, going into the autumn, is more fiscal headroom.'
Carbon emissions
Mr Miliband's claim that cutting domestic oil and gas production is good for the planet may also be in doubt.
This is because unless Britain also slashes demand for these fuels substantially, it will simply have to import larger quantities from abroad.
And that could actually end up generating higher carbon emissions overall, if we continue to rely on larger and larger amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US and the Middle East.
According to Rystad Energy, LNG can be up to 10 times more carbon intensive than pipeline gas. This is because while the emissions from burning it are the same, it requires energy to cool LNG to -160C and transport it by ship around the world.
The analysis, reported by the BBC, found that piped gas from Norway generated around 7kg of CO2 per barrel, compared to an average of 70kg for LNG imported to Europe.
Economic benefits
Accelerating the decline of the North Sea may mean the UK also ends up with fewer green jobs.
Academics at Robert Gordon University warned that oil and gas jobs were disappearing faster than new clean energy roles were being created as a result of the slower-than-expected deployment of wind farms.
Whereas the offshore wind sector may only generate 29,000 jobs by 2030, some 58,000 disappear from oil and gas in the worst-case scenario.
Paul de Leeuw, director of the university's Energy Transition Institute, said earlier this month: 'You have to wait pretty well to the back end of this decade before there's enough capacity in the renewables sector to take all the people coming out of oil and gas.
'It's a timing issue.'
To avoid heavy job losses, researchers said Mr Miliband needed to either attract a larger share of turbine manufacturing to the UK or reverse his ban on new North Sea drilling licences to temporarily boost oil and gas production.
For example, the report found that even if Mr Miliband hits his clean power targets, he could boost the number of green jobs in 2030 by boosting oil and gas production.
Production of 500,000 barrels per day leads to just over 150,000 jobs – whereas production of 700,000 barrels creates around 200,000 jobs.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is consulting on a plan for the North Sea and says it envisions large numbers of jobs coming from offshore wind as well as more nascent industries such as carbon capture and hydrogen production.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
15 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Meet the Blue Labour bros
Illustration by Nate Kitch Blue Labour has always been more of a collection of guys than a faction. From its beginnings in the aftermath of the financial crisis, it was Maurice Glasman and a small handful of Jons and not a huge amount more. It is now having something of a resurgence, and beginning to develop a degree of internal reality, although the reality of its actual influence remains debated. A Blue Labour group of MPs formed at the end of last year; now a parliamentary staff network has been set up. There are, I'm told, around 15 of these staffers so far, planning a roster of events and meetings and general association. Over the last few weeks, I've been speaking to some of the new staff group to try and understand them. What does this lanyard class that hates the lanyard class believe? You can paint a picture of who they are with heavy use of the caveat 'mostly but not exclusively'. They are mostly, but not exclusively, men, and mostly, but not exclusively, quite young. They mostly work for new-intake MPs; they are mostly white, and mostly from outside of London. In short, they look like any random sampling of Labour's parliamentary staff class would. Some work for members of the Blue Labour MPs group; some work for completely conventional Starmer-era Labour MPs. Their diagnosis of what is wrong with the country and what Labour should do about it is commensurate with the rest of Blue Labour in its Dan Carden and Jonathan Hinder era. One member of the staff network views Blue Labour as a project of 'realigning the party with areas it represents'. Having come into the party as a Corbynite, they say they 'used to be much more liberal on immigration', but now believe that in the country the 'Overton Window has moved' and have moved with it. One staffer talks about being the grandchild of immigrants and hearing her family and friends increasingly express concern that more recent immigrants are not well integrated – indicating, she thinks, that worries about immigration and integration are far from the preserve of racists and traditionally anti-immigration parties, but are something Labour needs to reckon with. Another staffer says that Blue Labour is concerned with people who have been 'ignored by the establishment for decades', suffering both 'economic neglect' but also being 'ignored on issues like immigration'. He reckons that the 'liberalism of Blair has dominated the party for two decades', with 'not enough focus on class'. Another thinks we have an 'economy too focused on London and the South East', and that Labour is 'not giving white working-class men anything'. 'You've got to read the way the world is going,' they say, and ask 'do we want it in a Labour way, or in a right-wing way?' However, while my impression of Jonathan Hinder is as a man of total conviction (believing among other things that universities should be allowed to go bust and that we should at least think very seriously about leaving the ECHR), the staffers seem just as animated by the process of thinking and talking about politics as they do by the positions themselves. Clearly one of the attractions is not the specific appeal of Blue Labour itself, but the space it provides to talk about things. Keir Starmer's Labour Party is not a very ideas-y place, and these are, on an intellectual level, painfully earnest young people. 'We debate quite a lot – it's good to talk about ideas and philosophy, and all the things staffers never talk about,' says one member; another feels there is a 'frustration with the lack of ideas from the progressive wing of the party'. A third notes that 'a lot of MPs are issues-led, but not political'. When I ask for political heroes, I get Crosland and Blair: my strong sense is that in a different internal climate, these people might not have found themselves at the door of Blue Labour, and instead been scattered, ploughing perhaps somewhat idiosyncratic furrows in a variety of different factions. However, while their attitude to the government could in broad terms be described as loyalist, the ideological vacuum of Starmerism – famously unburdened by doctrine – and the government's lack of (or even decidemad uninterest in) intellectual vitality brings them here. It's not surprising that the people who are here for the debating society have ended up in the tendency which began life as (and arguably has never been much more than) a series of seminars. The staff group's convenor does sees debate as part of the programme though: he says having 'debate and discussion' is really important in and of itself, but also hopes to help flesh out the Blue Labour policy programme (answering questions like, 'what is a Blue Labour foreign policy?' for example). This desire for debate also intersects with another current dynamic in the party: the total sidelining of the Labour left. Dan Carden, the leader of the Blue Labour MP caucus, was a member of Corbyn's shadow cabinet and came up through Unite (he has described his journey into Blue Labour as being from 'left to left'). Various members of the staff network started their political lives as Corbynites, and even those who didn't are fairly ardent believers in the need for a broad-church Labour Party. I hear some variant on 'Blair never expelled Corbyn' more than once in my conversations. One staffer thinks that thanks to Corbyn's foreign policy positions and the anti-Semitism scandal, 'the entire Corbyn project was delegitimised' and there wasn't a thorough evaluation of what worked and what didn't. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe As much as one of the older members I speak to wants to stress that Blue Labour is not just a reaction to Reform and has been 'going for 15 years', the experience of Corbynism and of the loss of Red Wall seats in 2019 has clearly imprinted itself deeply on the tendency's new iteration. The new Blue Labour owes significant DNA not just to the valiant seminar-convening of Jonathan Rutherford and co., but also to post-2019 projects like the moderate 'Renaissance', the Corbynite 'No Holding Back', and the Labour Together thinking on show in 'Red Shift', the report which famously brought us Stevenage Woman. This post-Corbyn inheritance is also present in how the tendency talks about the state and the economy. In one staffer's view, Blue Labour's 'economic populism is more important than its cultural elements'; the group's convenor immediately says that it is Blue Labour's answers on political economy that most appealed to him. The staffers' views chime with the views of Blue Labour MPs Jonathan Hinder, Connor Naismith and David Smith, who wrote in LabourList last week that their agenda is 'an explicit challenge to the neoliberal, capitalist consensus, and it belongs to the radical labour tradition'. There is a reticence amongst the staffers when it comes to Glasman and some of his more recent interventions (the repeated assertion that progressives don't want you to enjoy sex with your wife; an appearance on Steve Bannon's podcast; tirades about the chancellor and the attorney general). While the group's convenor (who tells me that he first became interested in Blue Labour because when was younger he would 'watch and read stuff online, lectures and articles, by Cruddas and Glasman') says the Labour peer's connections with the Maga movement are 'realpolitik', conversations Labour needs to be open to having, others are less positive and more awkward when asked about their long-time standard bearer. They also acknowledge that Blue Labour has, as one of them puts it, a 'brand issue' within Labour, a party whose membership are in the main bog-standard left liberals. They aren't wrong: one Labour MP I spoke to about this piece called Blue Labour 'four guys who claim they do have girlfriends but that they go to another school'. It's hard to escape the impression that this MP and critics like them won't be persuaded by one staffer's arguments that Blue Labour is 'not anti-liberal, it's a critique of liberalism' or another's earnest assertion that he just wants more of our political conversation to address the 'moral plane' of people's lives. Arguments about the out-of-touch nature of the political classes are probably not best made by Westminster bag carriers – as the bag carriers well know. (There are 'too many of me in the economy', the group's convenor, a white man in his 20s with an Oxbridge degree, tells me ruefully.) Everything, however, starts somewhere. Political history is scattered with the vehicles of bright young things, some of which went places and some of which didn't. This group of earnest young people could do worse for themselves than as the staff vanguard of Labour's most discussed faction – even if not all the discussion is wholly positive. That being said, the staff network claims fairly moderate ambitions for itself and its tendency: 'Can I ever see them putting forward NPF or NEC candidates? Honestly, no,' one member tells me. In the meantime, though, there's another seminar to attend. [See also: Labour's 'old right' has been reborn] Related
South Wales Argus
18 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Abergavenny library mosque proposal decision date named
A decision to grant a 30-year lease on the former Abergavenny library was approved in May before being put on hold pending review by a council scrutiny committee, which met last week, and said the decision had to go back to the cabinet within 10 working days. Just days before the scrutiny committee took place the words 'No Masjid' and crosses were spray painted on to the grade II listed building with police investigating the criminal damage as a hate crime. Masjid is Arabic for place of worship or mosque. Monmouthshire council's Labour-led cabinet will now consider the arguments made at the place scrutiny committee when it meets for its regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25 and must decide whether to stand by its original decision or reconsider it. The scrutiny committee heard from Abergavenny mayor Philip Bowyer and town council colleague Gareth Wild, a Baptist minister, who both spoke in favour of the cabinet's decision to grant the lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association. READ MORE: Banner of support draped over Abergavenny mosque graffiti Four public speakers, including Sarah Chicken the warden of the alms houses next door to the former library, a resident, and Andrew Powell landlord of the nearby Groefield pub objected to the decision, citing reasons such as parking and potential for noise as to why a mosque and community centre would be unsuitable. Cabinet member Ben Callard, who lives near the proposed mosque and represents the area on the town council though he is the county councillor for Llanfoist and Govilon, explained no planning permission is required. Community centres and places of worship fall under the same planning use as a library. But he said the community association had promised to hold a public consultation on its plans, but that was criticised by councillors who called the decision in for review, as it was 'consultation after the decision'. The review was instigated by Conservative councillors Rachel Buckler and Louise Brown, who represent Devauden and Shirenewton, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth who questioned how the decision was made. They faced criticism as Abergavenny councillors and the town council backed the original decision. The former Abergavenny Library. The three questioned the council's process and complained there had been no scrutiny of the decision. Cllr Callard said the community association's bid was the highest scoring tender, and the £6,000 a year rent similar to one of the other bids, and rejected the idea it would be practical for the council to operate as a landlord if every lease had to go through a full scrutiny process. Cllr Callard also said if councillors disagreed with it offering the building for new uses, as it was no longer used as a pupil referral unit with the library having transferred to the town hall in 2015, the decision made last November to declare it 'surplus to requirements' should have been called in for review. The cabinet will consider the scrutiny committee's suggestions a re-tender should be run with specifications including an independent valuation, a survey of the building, consideration of the building's history and importance, a public consultation and the possibility of selling the building. It meets at County Hall in Usk at 4.30pm.
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Middle East situation ‘perilous', says Lammy amid calls for more talks
The situation in the Middle East is 'perilous', the Foreign Secretary said as he urged Iran to negotiate with the US. David Lammy flew from Washington to Geneva on Friday to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi alongside his French and German counterparts as the UK continued to press for a diplomatic solution to the Middle East crisis. The talks followed US President Donald Trump's announcement that he would delay a decision on joining Israeli strikes against Iran for up to two weeks. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Lammy told reporters: 'It is still clear to me, as President Trump indicated yesterday, that there is a window of within two weeks where we can see a diplomatic solution.' Urging Iran to 'take that off ramp' and talk to the Americans, he said: 'We have a window of time. This is perilous and deadly serious.' He added that the US and Europe were pushing for Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium as a 'starting point' for negotiations. But Mr Araghchi said Iran would not negotiate with the US as long as Israel continued to carry out airstrikes against the country, and insisted his country's nuclear programme was entirely peaceful. Both sides continued to exchange fire on Friday, with Iranian missiles targeting the city of Haifa while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv's military operation would continue 'for as long as it takes'. Meanwhile, the UK Government has announced it will use charter flights to evacuate Britons stranded in Israel once the country's airspace reopens. Mr Lammy said work is under way to provide the flights 'based on levels of demand' from UK citizens who want to leave the region. The move follows criticism of the Foreign Office's initial response, which saw family members of embassy staff evacuated while UK citizens were not advised to leave and told to follow local guidance. The Government said the move to temporarily withdraw family members had been a 'precautionary measure'. On Friday, the Foreign Office announced that UK staff had also been evacuated from Iran, with the embassy continuing to operate remotely. But the Government continues to advise British nationals in the region to follow local advice, rather than urging them to leave. The US evacuated 79 staff and families from the embassy in Israel on Friday local time, according to the Associated Press. Mr Trump told reporters his national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was 'wrong' when she told lawmakers in March that US intelligence officials did not believe Iran had been building a nuclear weapon. The president also suggested it would be 'very hard to stop' Israeli strikes on Iran to negotiate a ceasefire.
