The government has won a debate on its legislation to require annual licensing rounds for new North Sea oil and gas fields.
Photo: Parliament TV
In a vote of 293 to 211, the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill received its second reading.
Several Conservatives have already said they would not support the bill. There was also opposition from beyond Westminster.
Extinction Rebellion, Scientist Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Fossil Free London held a protest outside parliament earlier today.
Four Northern Mayors urged the government to drop the bill, saying it would lock the UK into decades of fossil fuel dependency.
And a report by leading economists said investment in unsustainable economies, like North Sea oil and gas, risked stranded assets.
Debate
Photo: Parliament TV
The UK energy security secretary , Claire Coutinho, has previously admitted that new North Sea oil would not bring down house energy bills. Today she said the bill would improve energy security and secure jobs.
She said it was also compatible with UK climate policy:
“If the thing that you care about is making sure that we reduce emissions, the question that everybody in this chamber needs to answer is why would you want to import fuel with higher emissions from abroad?”
She accused Labour and its energy spokesperson, Ed Miliband, of “putting the interests of extreme climate ideologues over that of ordinary workers”.
Photo: Parliament TV
Mr Miliband said the bill would be ineffective and represented “climate vandalism. He said: “[it] won’t cut bills, it won’t give us energy security, it drives a coach and horses through our climate commitments, and it learns nothing from the worst cost of living crisis in living memory”.
Responding to Claire Coutinho, he said:
“it isn’t the scale of our problems that is apparent today, it’s the smallness of their response. A risible bill that she knows is not going to make any difference to our energy security.”
Photo: Parliament TV
The Conservative MP, Alok Sharma, a former business secretary and COP president, said he would not be voting for the bill. He said:
“I do not believe, and it pains me to say this, that this bill will advance that commitment to transition away from fossil fuels”
He told the debate the “sole purpose” of the legislation was to “double down on grant funding more oil and gas production licences” and he did not “believe” that the bill would “advance that commitment to transition away from fossil fuels”.
He said it pained him to say the bill was “somewhat of a distraction” because “the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) can already grant licences annually or indeed when they think it necessary, and they’ve been doing that regularly over the past few years”.
With record global temperatures in 2023 and recent floods, he said:
“We really shouldn’t need any more wakeup calls to put aside the distractions and act with the urgency the situation demands.”
The Green Party’s MP, Caroline Lucas, said the bill was “entirely redundant”. Even the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, expressed the “unanimous view that it is not needed”.
She said any new oil and gas would be sold on the international market:
“This oil and gas in the North Sea does not belong to the government and it will not bring down prices.”
It sent a dangerous signal to countries abroad, she said, by hampering climate diplomacy.
Earlier Ms Lucas posted on X that the government’s argument that the bill would deliver cleaner energy was “simply untrue”.
“We import most of our gas from Norway, where gas production is half as polluting as in the UK & most emissions come in the burning of the gas, not its production.”
Sarah Champion, Labour, described the bill as “illogical” and called for total ban on oil and gas drilling in marine protected areas.
Vicky Ford, Conservative, said she had had sleepless nights over “leaving the planet in a better state for future generations” but she said she was still backing the bill.
Wider opposition
Outside Westminster, four Northern Mayors, Andy Burnham (Greater Manchester), Tracey Brabin (West Yorkshire), Jamie Driscoll (North of Tyne) and Steve Rotherham (Liverpool), said the bill would not achieve the Government’s stated aims of improving energy security.
It would, they said, worsen climate change and undermine the UK’s international reputation while failing to lower household energy bills.
Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, called the Bill “a distraction from investing in the future of communities across the north of England” and “a complete insult”.
He said:
“While the country grapples with the wettest winter in 130 years – with devastating floods causing untold damage – the Earth just witnessed its hottest year ever in 2023, and increasing energy costs are piling pressures on household budgets.
“New oil and gas licences will not address these issues or take Britain towards energy independence, since what is extracted will predominantly be sold on the international market to the highest bidder.”
At today’s protest outside parliament, Joanna Warrington, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:
“The UK Government’s Offshore Petroleum Licences Bill is nothing short of deadly. Pressing ahead with fossil fuel expansion plans in the midst of climate breakdown just makes us less energy secure and fuels the UK’s freak floods as more of our coastal homes drop into the sea. The government is making the interests they serve plain – it’s oily millionaires burning our house down for profit. ”
Just Stop Oil said:
“On the day the government is voting to make it a legal requirement to licence new oil and even more dumping of carbon into our atmosphere every single year; Storm Isha is causing havoc across the UK.
“Two people have died, tens of thousands of people remain without power and Storm Jocelyn will arrive tomorrow.
“This government is intent on destroying our communities for profit. They must be removed from power if we are to survive.”
Pete Knapp of Scientists for Extinction Rebellion said:
“New oil and gas will do nothing to bring down our energy bills, or help with our energy security as most of the oil will be sold on the world market. New oil and gas is also incompatible with keeping within 1.5C. The government is either scientifically illiterate, is playing political games with our futures, or just doesn’t care, but, most likely – all three.”
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, said the government’s promise to ‘max out’ the North Sea will result in new reserves equal to just 2% of the UK’s total gas demand between 2024 and 2050.
A new report by a group of leading economists criticised government for allowing continued investment into unsustainable economies. It said:
“Too much current investment continues to be in the unsustainable economy, such as development of new oil and gas fields in the North Sea and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy-efficient or climate-resilient – this raises costly risks. These include creating stranded assets, significant financial losses in polluting and emissions-intensive sectors, and an insecure, unaffordable and unsustainable energy supply.”
DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.
DRILL OR DROP? 
So many issues you’ve not drawn out here. It’s as if you can’t imagine supporters of indigenous production as being anything other than profiteers or nutcases. Have a go! As they say, you can’t understand anyone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. You need to hear their arguments, just as much as they need to hear yours.
I actually watched the debate. The opposition were absolutely pathetic. No plan, no comprehension just a wish to throw any rubbish into the mix-including the far left anti capitalism stuff about oil, forgetting who is the world’s richest man and not giving his workers Union rights!
Lots of stuff about “UK providing a lesson to the world”!!! OMG, “we” are back in the Victorian era. I expected that nonsense to come from the House of Lords. Any observer seeing that Joker being played knows the game is lost.
Virtue signaling without any virtue whatsoever. Lies to boot. How do the well healed politicians think the energy support was generated-THAT HAS ALREADY REDUCED ENERGY BILLS? Taxation, especially Windfall Taxation.
(I suppose if lies are repeated by others they are not responsible? Yes, they are.)
Meanwhile, in the real world in the last few days Drax gets the go ahead for CCS, Sizewell C gets the “green” light and Port Talbot to go “green”-with the loss of thousands of jobs. Goodness, the rest of the world will be sleepless with admiration?? Nope, they will be laughing as they attract UK jobs to their soil as they enjoy cheaper energy.
I found an interview with an energy specialist earlier in the day more interesting. When asked why gas prices were weak in Europe he responded that it was largely due to LNG supplies coming from……..USA. Hmmm, shame about the emissions, shame that LNG is still much more expensive than piped gas, but great for taxation……..in USA! No wonder Wall Street is breaking records.
Ahh, the stranded assets!
Like Nikola trucks and Arrival vans??
Then there are the EV cars tested by What Car, many of them losing close to ONE THIRD of their range in cold weather. Imagine if a petrol or diesel was found to be that inefficient, the ASA would be inundated.
I did actually watch the debate. What an absolute load of nonsense virtue signaling with a smattering of downright lies by the opposition parties. I had my energy bills reduced, I know where the money came from-it is called taxation. Interesting those applying taxation seem to be wealthy enough not to consider such matters.
After leaving the Students Union most will take notice of taxation. Me thinks some in the House of Commons have yet to appreciate that. I also notice UK Government ie. UK tax payers, have already plonked £2.5B into Sizewell C whilst desperately searching for other financing. Goodness, there was I “thinking” a freebie from the French State was on the cards. Good job there is still some of this taxation coming from UK business, otherwise others would be paying it. However, not the US LNG suppliers that are helping to keep European gas prices down-their taxation is being kept in USA. Shame about the extra emissions and extra cost compared to locally sourced gas, but good for Wall Street.
People can argue the numerous side issues but the fundamental fact is that continued fossil fuel use is destroying the Earth’s climate. Those generations faced with the consequences of climate breakdown will see the inaction, delays and under investment by ours and previous generations as the reckless and selfish behaviour it is. The science has been evident for decades, the muddying of the waters, and withholding of the science by the fossil fuel industry is fact and has contributed significantly to the situation we are in. Had we acted when we should have the transition would have been more gradual and more affordable. Now we face more stark choices. But carrying on regardless is no longer viable. Globally, more fossil fuels cannot be the answer when the solution to the climate breakdown is less fossil fuels.
KatT, assuming you were replying to me, I hope you will read this and respond in kind. The issues I was talking about are not “side issues”. They have to do with the integrity and viability of even the best hopes and plans for the energy transition. Which (it is said) include assumptions about renewables costs and efficiencies that are not grounded in reality, and (it is said) ignore resource requirements such as storage, raw materials and even energy itself. I’m not saying they are correct but that their arguments need to be heard, because their voices do not sound to me to be insane.
It isn’t clear to me, for example, that the industrial capacity required for the transition can be maintained whilst simultaneously going on a fossil fuel diet. (Abandoning all new fossil fuel developments would be a severe diet, the natural decline rate of production being around 6% pa. That’s a decline in the rate of supply, not just remaining reserves.) There is no way we can add sufficient replacement renewable power at that rate. Fortunately people still work to find and develop new oil and gas sources around the world. If they didn’t I don’t know what sort of disasters might result, because our world is now utterly dependent on energy to drive the fabric of life.
It also seems obvious to me that if we have a remaining carbon budget of X billion tons before calamity strikes then we should devote as much of it as possible, as early as possible, to powering the industry of transition. Because otherwise we spend longer consuming the lion’s share as “overhead”, just supporting regular life in the intervening years. I think it should also be obvious that cutting energy resources whilst planning something that will require huge amounts of energy is foolish in the extreme, akin to training for a marathon while on a starvation diet.
Wouldn’t you be concerned if the intelligence you rely on began to seem flawed? Would you blindly stick to the edicts it commanded, despite the unexamined risk of even worse disaster? That’s what seems insane to me. Besides which, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Yet how long did it take for more sensible voices to be heard on subjects like nuclear power and natural gas…
I’m looking for the deeper arguments to at least be recognised by both sides before I place my trust. And perhaps I am one of a majority, that needs to be convinced with proper debate. I want a long and happy life for everyone, especially my children, and I’m too concerned that society is forgetting “what makes life worth living” to be much impressed by death threats.
Tom, I wasn’t replying to you or anyone else. I wrote my opinion on the situation we find ourselves in
My mistake. But my own comment was definitely a reply to yours, and I tried to put forward my own reasoning against the position that emissions reduction/fossil fuel abandonment is the only way forward. I’d be happy to have it demolished.
BTW I’m with you in putting the blame for policy failure and confusion on government. But unfortunately I see that as inevitable given the nature of politics these days – they exist primarily to maintain (and if possible, increase) power, not to exercise it wisely. If we want that to change we have to create the incentives, which means establishing a genuine coherence among people and a sense of collective responsibility that governments are compelled to cater to. This seems to me to start at a very basic level – gentleness, patience and civility and a ceaseless questioning and listening process. I may have no contribution to make to the power structure, but I would at least have good sense! And to my mind that is the seed of any and all appropriate action.
My common sense would suggest that anyone with a real interest in reducing global emissions, would jump at the chance of reducing stuff being produced elsewhere usually with HIGHER emissions and then transported producing even HIGHER emissions, reducing local taxation during that process to invest or support.
The absolutely nonsensical arguments made against that is not common sense, it is the wailing of a group of zealots. I have no issue with wailing zealots but to have them deciding energy policy is even worse than putting it in the hands of politicians.
Yes, I don’t understand the desire to prevent further development in the north sea. Especially if it’s cost effective and gives some additional life to the massive past investment in infrastructure. There’s a similar argument that says it’s better to keep your old car going a bit longer than replace it with a new EV.
Perhaps there’s a desire for policy to run on a simple ethical principle (“run down fossil fuels”), hence intolerance for any deviation. Nice and neat in the contemplation but an affront to common sense, whilst also being not at all how the wider world works? Which is why there is incomparably greater development going on elsewhere, all over the US and offshore Guyana and Africa for example.
I find it intriguing that so many in the UK are prepared to dive headlong into de-industrialisation policies which have already impoverished so many in the UK. Do they not realise that our electricity prices are already ridiculously more expensive than our competitors (twice that of France and 5 times USA) or perhaps they think impoverishment is a price worth paying. Perhaps they think that if we run our country into the ground that the Chinese will take pity on us and decide not to open the hundreds of coal fuelled power stations that they open every year ?
Do they not realise that the earth has been hotter than it is now on many occasions in the past.(see the link) That the numbers they have been shown have been purposely started from the beginning of an ice-age to sell their cruel hoax. As we come out of an ice age, what way do you expect temperatures to go ? I believe that humanity’s best chance will come from real scientific breakthroughs (eg nuclear fusion) but if we commit economic suicide there will be no UK scientific teams.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-heat-pump-fiasco-will-cost-us-all-dearly/
My point is that we should enhance our economic security by aiming to have the cheapest most reliable electricity amongst competitor countries. At the moment this means fossil fuels but they are finite so a reliable alternative is required. Time to get creative with our ridiculously inefficient nuclear regulations ? How about, design one, build many. Build them on MOD land to avoid Nimbyism ?
GRAEME,
The LINK you provided from Climate Change skeptic , Paul Homewood ……. Let’s be honest the former accountant can hardly be acknowledged as a beacon of knowledge on the subject….. His ” OPINION ” throws as much weight as MARTINS….
You might as well ask next doors CAT for an OPINION on Climate Change , than that of an ordinary , run of the mill , ex accountant
https://www.desmog.com/paul-homewood/
I think I’ll stick with what the highly qualified people at NASA have to say regarding Climate Change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Climate Change warnings from NASA
Let’s be honest, Graeme, Jack doesn’t like anything that is different to his own selected links, to support his OPINION that 2020 was a “normal” year! Which upon very little examination of the FACTS actually showed the opposite.
Perhaps I should add a link from Noah, identifying how long climate change has been around??
Never mind Mr.Kerry, as an ordinary politician there is your income stream down the pan. As for Greta-well, sorry-never even educated to be qualified for anything!
It is par for the course, Graeme. Not as extreme as suggesting a previous Chief Scientific Officer would have had a post death conversion reversing what he had published previously but just as desperate. Then, the nuclear is admitted as required, then there are certain individuals who then claim (Jack) it will be supplied free by the French, who just happen to have warned only yesterday about escalating costs at Hinkley Point. Jack’s preferred links would like to deny that too.
It is indeed a FACT the earth has been much hotter than it is now (see dinosaurs) and it is a FACT it will be much hotter still in the future (see solar activity, the need to explore space and the reason why NASA exists!) If there are those unable to use the Internet to become informed there are still Encyclopedias.
A little question to keep people occupied.
What is the change in climate change? What is climate “supposed” to be? Has it EVER been static? The answer is NOT the lazy one of switching the term to Global Warming.
MARTIN ,
Once again thank you for your OPINION.
As per usual , it’s only your OPINION , backed up with zero evidence. ( Wild Off-The-Cuff Collywaffle )
THANKS FOR NOTHING
Oh dear Jack! So you are unable to deal with the reality so go back into activist nonsense. Sorry Jack, as an activist you are rubbish. Such mechanisms are now too over used and there are very few left who are unaware of them.
Activist scoring: Jack must do better, and read past page one of the manual.
So, you were too lazy to check the FACTS about Hinkley Point and the previous chief Scientific Officer so reverted to what? DENIAL.
No thanks from me for your laziness Jack. There are still Encyclopedias-well, there are here in the UK Jack.
Sorry KatT, I usually find your posts reasonable, but that offer was nonsense and even worse than included within the debate.
UK has NOT under invested, there has been masses of action. How much coal is UK using today???There is a lot more happening, only this week with announcements about CCS at Drax, “green” light for Sizewell C and the closure of two blast furnaces in Wales-but you may be wise not to gloat about that in Wales.
If you are implying all the action UK has already taken has not made a jot of difference globally, then perhaps some might consider whether any more will make a jot of difference. Especially the children, when the parents simply state, “sorry, you can not have the same trainers as Jim as this household is spending £6k/year EXTRA to get to Net Zero in your name, and apart from rich MPs children that will leave you with NO inheritance when you are grown up, so you need to get used to managing with bare feet.”
Local production of oil and gas does nothing to local demand for countries such as the UK. Those exporting to UK will not be drilling more wells for UK/European supply if UK/Europe stop signing contracts for the importation of those products. Just a little advice, which should not be needed, contrary to views expressed on this site, companies who export do NOT continue to produce/manufacture for a market that has moved away to getting their supply locally.
Martin, we and globally are not cutting emissions quickly enough. That is fact.
CCC projects we may well miss or next carbon reduction targets and is very concerned about the path the government is now taking.
If you look at how long governments have known about climate change, how long have governments known that our nuclear reactors and facilities have needed replacing/updating? You can see again and again the can has been kicked down the road.
I am not anti industrial, far from it, but to stay a leading country we should be at the forefront of new industry and technology, when we all too often are not.
As for revenue, tax or otherwise, look at the other countries that are placing their turbines off our shores!
And yes we have largely rid ourselves of coal. But when did Mrs T close our pits, how long have we imported coal?
Now we import more gas, leaving us exposed to fluctuating prices and geopolitics. How long have governments known the UK, including if they had ever fracked, and assuming it had even been viable etc etc, known the UK could no longer be anywhere near self sufficient on gas? And let’s use the more realistic later estimates of ReFine and BGS please not the industry hype.
How long have governments been aware the grid needed major investment and updating? So we wouldn’t be in a situation that we have to turn off turbines producing energy and to allow us to manage increased demand and supply for the low emission future we must have.
We don’t even make the most of onshore wind or solar.
Had we done far more we would have cut our reliance on fossil fuels sooner. And our energy bills.
Billions have been spent on other things, many I personally disagree with. Billions have been wasted on out of control poorly managed and failed projects, useless PPE, unnecessary subsidies etc.
There has been no coordinated energy strategy in my opinion. A lack of investment in new industry and infrastructure.
Governments make their choices on how the nation’s money is spent and often not wisely.
KatT, I did write a longer post but it disappeared.
Sorry, I disagree with most of what you have stated. Energy policy has indeed been messed up by Governments for a long time but your alternative looks even messier.
Basically you are confirming that what has been done by UK AND ALL THAT INVESTMENT has not made a jot of difference. Blaming everyone else whilst doing so, and calling for more.
I find that pretty soft sand to try and build an even more expensive house upon. Politicians do that all the time on all sorts of things, but if you were a politician putting forward such a proposition, sorry it will not get my vote.
As I said to my local Green candidate who wanted my vote but tried to divorce himself from Green economic policies, sorry things need paying for and your economic policies don’t allow that to happen. Remember chicken and egg.
Cutting waste and increased productivity and HOPE. That is what is going to convince? Not me.
However, enjoy the current situation because if Trump is back in the White House I suspect US gas will be somewhat limited to the rest of the world and Nato members will need to spend a lot more money on defence. I have a feeling those sort of considerations will become the priority.
Please support this Greenpeace campaign to encourage!!! Prospective Parliamentary Candidates to listen to their voting public……. https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/
I suspect they have already heard there is only ONE Green MP in the House of Commons and the result of the Uxbridge by election.
Sounds a bit like the encouragement that was supposed to get Jo Swinson into No.10, leading a progressive alliance. Whatever happened to her?
Never mind, when it all fails then the voting system will be blamed, even though the voters were the ones who when push came to shove wanted the current one kept.
Not sure either that Rwanda could hold so many migrants if the voting public across the UK and Europe were listened to.
Ask the question alongside “do you want to pay an extra £6k/year/household to get to Net Zero” and I suspect the answer would not be too encouraging.
Maybe the answer would be for Greenpeace to put forward their own candidates?
MARTIN , ,cut the Collywaffle
Here is the POSITIVE news for going NET ZERO from the London School Of Economics.
The financial , environmental and health gains outweigh those of continually using fossil fuels …
London School Of Economics
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/costs-and-benefits-of-the-uk-reaching-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-the-evidence/
I suppose you’ll have a negative , wild off-the-cuff OPINION on the matter