Labour’s policy to end oil and gas exploration in the North Sea will also apply onshore, the party has said.
In a speech in Leith today, leader Keir Starmer said clean energy was now “essential for national security”.
“If your energy security relies on a volatile fossil fuel market, that leaves you exposed”, he said.
The party has committed not to award new licences to explore oil and gas fields. It also said it would create a publicly-owned Great British Energy to grow future clean industries.
But it said it would not revoke licences or permissions existing at the time of the next election, which must be held by January 2025.
Onshore licences
Asked if the policy would apply beyond the North Sea, a Labour spokesperson told DrillOrDrop:
“Yes the same policy applies to onshore.”
A Labour briefing said new licences “would not offer the right answer for the economy or the environment”.
The most recent onshore licensing round, the 14th, was announced in 2015. It offered a total of 93 licences, of which 63 were for shale exploration and would potentially be fracked.
At the time of writing, 55 of the issued 14th round licences now remain. None have been fracked or explored for shale gas. There are no current planning permissions in place for exploration in the 14th round licence areas.
There are also another 66 onshore licences from earlier rounds, some of them very small. There are no publicly-available plans for another onshore licence round.
The UK has 73 producing onshore oil and gas fields. But on the most recent data, 28 of these fields did not extract any oil or gas.
UK onshore oil represents less than 2% of total UK production, while gas is less than 1%.
Offshore licences
A decision is awaited on the outcome of the 33rd offshore licensing round.
This opened officially on 7th October 2022 and closed for applications on 12 January 2023. It received 115 bids across 258 blocks or part blocks from 76 different companies.
The campaign organisations, Uplift and Greenpeace, challenged the offshore licensing round at the High Court in April 2023. The ruling on the case is also still awaited.
The existing licences, that Labour would honour, are expected to include the controversial Rosebank development west of Shetland, which could produce almost 70,000 barrels of oil a day at its peak.
Keir Starmer said today:
“If we wait until North Sea oil and gas runs out, the opportunities this change can bring for Scotland and your community will pass us by, and that would be a historic mistake. An error, for the future of Scotland, as big as the Thatcher government closing down the coal mines, while frittering away the opportunity of the North Sea.”
The Labour Party briefing said:
“Under Labour’s plans, North Sea oil and gas will continue for decades to come. We will not revoke licences. But we will also build alternative opportunities for workers that transition out of oil and gas, in decommissioning, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and renewables like offshore wind.
It continued:
“As oil and gas workers consider the future of their industry, they should be in no doubt about Labour’s commitment to prevent a transition akin to the Tories’ closure of the coal mines of the 1980s. We will not let that happen again.”
Reaction
The chief executive of Offshore Energy UK, David Whitehouse, told BBC News that Labour’s plans to move away from reliance on North Sea oil and gas would “create a cliff edge” deterring investment and heightening the risk of energy shortages.
He said 180 of the North Sea’s 283 active fields were due to close by 2030 and new licences were essential to prevent production plummeting.
This was dismissed as “nonsense” by Philip Evans, of Greenpeace UK.
Charles McAllister, director of UK Onshore Oil & Gas, told Talk TV last month:
“The facts are we are going to need oil and gas out to 2050 and beyond.
“We spent £308m a day [last year] importing energy.”
He said Labour’s licence policy and the Conservative moratorium on fracking would lock the country into “more expensive, more carbon intensive imports for decades”.
Analysis by CarbonBrief, published today, shows the UK would need less imported gas by 2030 under Labour’s pledges than under current plans by the Conservative government. Labour has also pledged to decarbonise electricity by 2030, five years earlier than the current government.
Mary Church, head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth Scotland, said:
“Saying no to new licences is an important start, but the Labour leader needs to go further and stand up to the oil and gas companies that are ripping off householders and profiting as the planet burns.
“All parties need to acknowledge that no new projects can go ahead and some existing oil wells will have to be phased down before they run dry. If Rosebank, or any other development is approved by the current UK Government, then it will have to be shut down by the next UK Government.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
“Saying no to new licences is an important start, but the Labour leader needs to go further and stand up to the oil and gas companies that are ripping off householders and profiting as the planet burns.”
This kind of talk helps noone. It just clouds the issue, which is simply the way commodity markets work. We’ve also been through fierce price increases in other commodities, lithium for example, but noone seems to talk about that being a “rip off”. And by all accounts there are a bunch of other materials that are liable to go through the roof at some point (copper for example) as the market tries to incentivise new supply to meet the needs of the energy transition.
Unfortunately, if you ban new development then should you return to short supply, which seems inevitable, then the only way the market can balance is for high prices to reduce demand. High prices are probably the best and only way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. And the vast share (75% of profits) go to government as “windfall” tax anyway.
Just a not so cunning plan to create high dependence upon expensive imported gas and oil-remember in late summer gas was $7 in USA and $47 in Europe-so that no one will then notice that new nuclear has been essential, costing £200B to build and generating very expensive electricity. “Cheap” renewables are a con. Reliable renewables are not cheap. Politicians couldn’t care less, they are gone within 5 years and their nonsense is left for someone else to sort out.
As stated by Rystad:
“Although relatively elevated for the (US) domestic market, US and European price differences are so wide producing and shipping US gas across the Atlantic , even allowing for the pricey liquefaction process is still economically advantageous.”
For the USA, not Europe!
Weren’t Labour the lot who required UK to buy diesel cars, and stated no new nuclear generation required? Now a London Labour Mayor taxing those who followed the advice from Labour!
Just look at the mess the global politicians and scientists have made of the wheat market. First it was decided maize should be grown for biofuel in USA. Soya prices rose worldwide as USA planted more maize and less soya. All animal protein reliant upon soya in feed became more expensive, so the consumer got dearer food and no cheaper fuel. Then it was doubled down to wheat in Europe, hence rampant current food inflation, and still no cheaper fuel but actually dearer fuel as efficiency of E10 petrol is rubbish. Then the “scientists” state actually growing cereals is not that good in respect of carbon footprint as first thought, and politicians start to ban the process. Meanwhile, countries dependent upon feeding their own populations with imported wheat are left wondering how they will manage. Should be a wider lesson there.
Since when do politicians, mainly recycled lawyers, have any knowledge in any commodities? Last time I saw such nonsense it ended up with the UK having to be bailed out and accepting any conditions imposed.
NO MARTIN ,
We don’t remember £200bn for nuclear energy……. I’ve asked you MANY times before to show clear and consise evidence where this money will come from…. Will it be taxpayer funded or private investment …. To date you’ve shown ZILCH . Until such time as you can show where this money is coming from , your comment is irrelevant and pointless.
No we don’t remember the $47 and $7 , so show the readers how these numbers relate to today’s prices …… Another question I have asked many times before .
MARTIN , talking about Fracked Gas , what about the toxic dangers and costs , otherwise known as THE DIRTY DOZEN ??????
Do you agree with THE DIRTY DOZEN list ????
You may be “speaking” for yourself there Jack!
I have greater faith that even the most ardent anti can read what has been available on this site, and could use their search engines to explore if they wanted confirmation. Your memory does indeed appear to have been a constant problem for you, but that is beyond me to sort. I have provided you with answers to your questions Jack, but there seems to be many holes in your bucket Jack, and even with all those trips up the hill you seem to manage to get very little back down. Not my problem, but I would just ask for you not to claim information has not been provided, when it has. That is your problem Jack, but perhaps something to avoid.
I am sorry that after all your time on this site Jack you have no knowledge about the UK energy sector and no knowledge about the world energy sector, so no I do not agree with your contrived list. Would you like me to produce one about forest fires caused by electricity distribution?
MARTIN,
Sadly you give JACK and the readers nothing, not one shred of evidence to back up anything you say . When questioned ,your comments fall apart like a house of cards .
Yet I’ve given you a DOZEN reasons, ( THE DIRTY DOZEN ) as to why Fracking is toxic, dangerous and costly to residents and yet on every occasion I’ve displayed this list , you don’t question one single thing , why is that ?????
Do you agree with THE DIRTY DOZEN Fracking list ?????
If not, then say which part you disagree with.
If your silence is an admission that you DO agree with JACKS list and are unable to question it in anyway, why are you then trying to push this toxic , dangerous industry on UK citizens ???????
I ask you again , show the readers how this £200bn cost for the new generation of nuclear energy is going to cost them as taxpayers… Prove to the readers that this money won’t come from private investment.
I just can’t work you out MARTIN , when you make a comment and someone questions what you say , you then REFUSE to present any evidence to support your own comments ……. When forum members make a valid comment, you pretend you’ve not seen it .
What’s going on old chap / lady ??????
OH and in response to your above comment , quote , ” cheap renewables are a con ” wrong again MARTIN .
https://www.snexplores.org/article/green-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-climate
JACK
I have already provided you, or someone claiming to be you, with the information.
Again, I post, when has any energy power station NOT been funded by the tax payer in the UK????? Have you been unaware of the tortuous negotiations between nuclear and Government to try and persuade them to build the stations, with promises about how much TAX PAYER money via energy bills will be guaranteed? Are you unable to discover the generation costs for new nuclear energy that is required to fund that cost? Do you really know so little about so much?
A cheap car (renewables) is not cheap if you add the cost of very expensive insurance policy (nuclear) to make sure the car can run. Obviously fooled you Jack, but not too many parents of teenage children in UK. The only thing your link proves Jack, is your continuing desire to plonk out links that don’t display what you would like them to. A previous Chief Scientific Officer for the UK made the point very well-and “we” should always believe scientists, shouldn’t we!!?? Humanity, including Jack, really does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics. Averages may be a point to focus upon. I am afraid, Jack, my grandson at two and a half years old is much better at arithmetic than yourself, already aware 47 is much, much, more than 7, and not the same as 7. His memory is also much better than yours, Jack, plus he knows the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. I think the difference is Jack that he concentrates upon information whereas you seem to focus upon the misinformation.
Two more of your fantasies Jack. Firstly, private companies are queuing up to donate £30B a pop to gift nuclear power stations to UK. Secondly, trying to deny all that new nuclear (7X£30B) is not to be taken into account to plug the gap for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. All very amusing, but far away from reality-another reason why I dismiss your 12.
MARTIN ,
You’ve provided nothing, ZILCH evidence as ALL readers can verify . You seem to forget, OTHER PEOPLE can also read these pages , they know the truth . In fact readers who contribute to the forum pages , will know first hand that your Wild Off-The-Cuff OPINIONS are always backed up with nothing .
NO , NO , NO MARTIN , What has happened in the past , is past ….. You need to provide the readers with evidence that their hard earned money ( TAX ) will be used to fund the building of a new generations of Nuclear power stations …… If you can’t produce such evidence then your insinuation that these major projects are tax funded are ” invalid ” and should be struck from the forum .
So come on MARTIN , you’ve made a comment about funding , let’s see your evidence .
What do you know about insurance policies ?????????
OH YES , or were you going to inform the readers that if they were to live in close proximity to a Fracking site , they would possibly experience difficulties in obtaining Buildings Insurance for their mortgages.
I did try and find another source of nuclear power station funding, Jack. Down at my Supermarket they did not appear to have any BOGOFF offers that included a £30B nuclear power station, and my charity shops did not offer any special deals even on used ones!
Yes, Jack, other people also read these pages. If they are able to read and have any smattering of knowledge they know how power stations are funded in UK. If they don’t they can easily check. Power supply is not a charity, Jack. The user of energy pays for it to be provided to them.
You really seem to know very little about most things. That is your choice. To display that on this forum is also your choice, but please don’t expect your offerings to then be taken seriously. Plonking out silly comments and then becoming agitated when their silliness is exposed is hardly serious.
“Possibly experience difficulties”??? OMG, you do realize in UK affording a mortgage is a major factor currently, as energy costs have eaten into household ability to fund a mortgage? However, that is Jack-“possibly” just denied geothermal from proceeding in UK, to go with all other mining activity. Just more silliness.
MARTIN ,
Everything has eaten in to households ability to pay mortgages , so what’s your point ???????? Maybe that we pile on the misery with widespread UkFracking , is that it ??????
If you need to see what, ” silliness ” and lack of knowledge looks like …… Just read your above post as usual it says and offers nothing , ZILCH ……
So MARTIN , again I ask , What about the dangers and financial costs for residents if widespread Fracking was approved in the UK ??????? What about Fracking and THE DIRTY DOZEN ???????
I’m a concerned resident who wants to discuss these 12 serious issues with you , a person who tries to promote this toxic industry….. Why don’t you want to discuss these 12 serious issues with JACK and the readers , don’t you care about the health and well-being of others ???????
Finally MARTIN , if a BOGOFF at your local supermarket is the best response you can offer , when I challenge your comment on nuclear power funding …… Well readers of the forum, I’ll let you amuse yourself and pick the bones out of that pile of Collywaffle.
Nope, Jack it was you who ventured off into the fantasy world with silly comments. Very familiar but please do enlighten me on the subject of new UK nuclear why you believe nuclear power stations will NOT cost the UK tax payer, as they have always done?
I can save you the time. It is just you wanting to add to the fake news platform that “cheap” renewables doesn’t require them. Well, Jack that is fake, always has been and the politicians have tried to hide it away. I don’t mind new nuclear, it was always going to be needed to get Net Zero to add up. What I do mind are individuals, and politicians, trying to hide that FACT from those who will pay for it. Not only that, but by so doing it has put everything out of sync. and with a new station costing around £30B and taking 25-30 years to bring on stream all the extra unreliable wind and sun being called for just means greater risk, which has been shown last winter already.
Keep on with the daft arithmetic Jack, to support the daft claim, but not everyone is daft. I certainly don’t assume that of DoD readers, let alone the wider public or UK industry.
MARTIN ,
You make your Wild-Off-The-Cuff comments and when challenged offer NOTHING.
This clearly is displayed in your above Collywaffle….. All you ever give is an OPINION which is never supported with evidence.
You clearly DO NOT care about the health and well-being of UK citizens as you continually push for the highly toxic , climate changing, environmentally damaging, dangerous to human and animal health process otherwise known as Fracking.
Fracking also devalues homes wherever it rears it’s ugly head it also leaves an ongoing toxic financial burden for future generations..
PLEASE NOTE ………How MARTIN never , NEVER wants to debate any of the above with JACK , instead he/she chooses to totally ignore my comments on the dangers of Fracking .
Therefore you MUST take that MARTIN does NOT care about the well-being of you and your family…… He/she is happy to expose you and your family to DANGER.
UKOG man says “we spent £308 million on importing energy”.
Is he trying to imply that “British” oil would be free? or cheaper?
If he is, he’s misleading.
WE (the consumers) pay prices dictated by global markets. And we will continue to do so, even for oil that is extracted from under British soil.
BTW, we spend TWICE that amount on importing food.
Alex, when you import stuff it has an impact upon balance of trade, that then impacts currency. Oil is priced in $s. See the first problem yet? UK currency weakened, so all costs of other imported items more expensive, as are things like foreign holidays. See the second problem yet? Stuff that is produced in UK is taxed in UK, hence the ability to apply a windfall tax, but not too much to Shell as they have already moved most of their investment out of the UK. See the third problem yet? High energy prices in UK mean that industry moves elsewhere where there are lower energy costs, or other UK tax payers subsidize them to keep in UK. See the next problem yet? I could go on, and approach a bakers dozen, or more but I fear those who are unaware of the basics would not be that interested. Labour have always had a problem with how the UK economy functions, always get it wrong and always ignore that companies shed staff when their taxes are inevitably hiked up to try and balance the problem, so even when youngsters are plonked into Uni., to remove them from unemployment figures, the unemployment level still rises and as a result up goes the benefits outlay.
WE in the UK pay gas prices way above that applied by other gas producers to their consumers, as WE import lots of LNG which is a costly form of gas, which does mean that when gas is $7 in USA it is $47 in Europe. WE in the UK have our oil costs reduced via a high level of taxation made upon UK production and used for all sorts of things, but basically to reduce the burden of even higher taxation upon the individual. Yes, the Golden Goose is fed with some subsidy to try and keep it from flying away, as are all other much smaller goslings nothing to do with oil and gas.
BTW we are spending on importing food, much of which could be produced in UK. However, some idiots have decided it would be better to cover good farming land with solar panels and creating a wheat shortage by using it for fuel. Goodness, we even subsidize agricultural diesel to help farmers do it, whereas the intention was actually to help the UK consumer get cheaper food!
I notice you managed to miss the “per day” off your quotation. Careless, or deliberate?