You could be forgiven for thinking that oil and gas have no future in the UK, given recent name changes. OGUK (or Oil and Gas UK), has this year undergone a re-branding, and is now called Offshore Energies UK. Its website describes it as “Proud champions of the UK offshore energies industry” and mentions of oil and gas are far from front and centre. The Oil & Gas Authority is now called the North Sea Transition Authority. It seems that there’s a whole lot of transitioning taking place in the North Sea just now.

Given all this, my interest has been piqued by a seminar to be held by Westminster Energy & Transport Forum (who I have mentioned before) on 2nd September 2022 under the heading “The future for oil and gas in the UK”. It is, after all, rather an important topic, especially given worries about fuel security and about the cost of gas and electricity just now. Or, as the email sent out to advertise the seminar puts it:

It will be a timely discussion, taking place in advance of the next oil and gas licensing round – set to begin this autumn – and amid heightened concern around energy pricing, energy security, and reaching net-zero targets.

Now there’s a heady mix, and a circle that can’t be squared – achieving reasonable energy prices, energy security and net-zero targets – though it won’t stop many people, including media pundits and politicians, from continuing to pretend that these three objectives are perfectly compatible.

North Sea Transition Deal

Given that it is of fundamental importance to “the future of oil and gas in the UK”, it isn’t surprising that the seminar will discuss progress on the North Sea Transition Deal, which was signed off in March 2021, presumably in anticipation of COP 26 taking place in Glasgow later that year. Those signing it off were Kwasi Kwarteng (Secretary of State for the amusingly-named Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy); Deidre Michie OBE, Chief Executive of OGUK (as it was then called – see above); and Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who delights (or delighted) in the Ruritanian title of Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, and UK International Champion on Adaptation and Resilience for the COP26 Presidency.

The way in which the North Sea Transition Deal document saw the world is out of date already, just 16 months after it first saw the light of day:

The UK’s offshore oil and gas sector has been severely affected by COVID-19. The pandemic led directly to the global collapse in demand for oil and resulted in a roughly 65% drop in the price of Brent Crude between January and April 2020. OGUK has estimated that the UK sector responded by cutting expected capital expenditure by around 30 to 40% and operating expenditure by around 10 to 20% compared with anticipated expenditure at the start of the year, while maintaining production levels.

If a week is a long time in politics (and for Boris Johnson right now it may seem like an eternity), then 16 months is a very long time in a fast-changing world. However, the world is not changing in quite the way anticipated by those who wrote the policy document. Although the price of oil has fallen back a little this week, it is still way ahead of where it was when the document was written, and the price of gas just keeps going up. As for this:

Much of the crude oil from the North Sea basin is exported, with the UK making extensive use of strong trading links to meet domestic refinery demand. Domestic production of natural gas still met 46% of the country’s supply of gas in 2019, with the vast majority of this supplied from North Sea offshore production.

Perhaps it’s time for a re-think? Energy security anyone? For once I might like to be a fly on the wall at a WEET conference, for it is to include this: “North Sea Transition Deal: One Year On – report from BEIS evaluating the progress made in the first year of the NSTD” I wonder if the speaker’s notes will have to be re-written now?

Energy Profits Levy

The conference notes also highlight as a relevant development the Energy Profits Levy, noting “HM Treasury announcing a 25% surcharge on profits made from oil and gas extraction to help fund more cost-of-living support for UK families”. Of course, as we now know, after some speculation that it might also extend to renewable energy companies, the Government backed away from that option. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible for the levy has resigned (and the Government of which he was a member may fall, or at least be radically reconstituted), will this be re-visited?

After all, as the Guardian reported on 27th May 2022:

Shell has said Rishi Sunak’s windfall tax is a threat to investment in North Sea oil and gas as Britain attempts to ramp up domestic energy supplies…

…oil and gas insiders have reacted with surprise that the one-off levy will remain in place until “normal” conditions in the energy market return or until the end of December 2025.

A Shell spokesperson said: “We understand the worry for millions of people about how high energy costs are challenging their household budgets – and the need for support to help make ends meet.

But at the same time, we must sustain investment in securing supplies of oil and gas the UK needs today, while allocating future spend for the low-carbon energies we want to build for the future. [Blah, blah, blah].

However, in its current form the levy creates uncertainty about the investment climate for North Sea oil and gas for the coming years.

And, longer term, the proposed tax reliefs for investment don’t extend to the renewable energy system we want to drive forward in the UK and invest in very substantially. When making plans for the next decade and beyond, we need certainty.”

And “rival BP took a harder line. It said it would review its North Sea investment plans as the levy was not a one-off tax but a “multi-year proposal”.

Climate Compatibility Checkpoint

The Government (whoever forms the Government) has a dilemma: continued oil and gas production is essential for the purposes of UK energy security, yet all mainstream politicians support the “net zero” objective and heed the dire prognostications of the Climate Change Committee. The incompatibility of “net zero” and energy security derived from UK oil and gas production doesn’t prevent the powers-that-be producing increasingly desperate (and arguably deranged) methodologies to pretend that there is coherence in the country’s energy policy. The Climate Compatibility Checkpoint is the latest such gimmick.

This statement is from the consultation document:

In September 2020, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy asked officials to conduct a review into the licensing of oil and gas in the UK. The main question of this review was whether the continued award of new licences for oil and gas exploration is consistent with the UK’s wider climate objectives. These wider objectives include carbon budgets, our nationally determined contribution (NDC), and achieving net zero emissions by 2050…

…The review concluded in March 2021 and found that continued licensing for oil and gas is not inherently incompatible with the UK’s climate objectives.

But then, in the very next sentence:

However, it was acknowledged that this may not always be the case in future.

And so:

To resolve this issue, it was recommended that a “checkpoint” be introduced, to ensure that the compatibility of future licensing with the UK’s climate objectives is always evaluated before a licensing round is offered.

And just when you think that perhaps pragmatism may prevail over dogma, so that oil and gas producers might proceed with a little more confidence, we are told:

Although the onshore sector is much smaller than the offshore sector, the department is minded to include onshore oil and gas licensing in the outcome of any checkpoint. This means that a future negative checkpoint outcome would also be taken into account in relation to onshore licensing rounds. Onshore oil and gas is a devolved matter, so this would apply only to England.

No doubt the SNP government in Scotland will do something different.


The future for oil and gas in the UK remains uncertain. Our politicians and policy-makers know that we need both, but can’t bring themselves to do anything to help the industry plan with confidence. Oh for some grown-ups in the room.


  1. The Net Zero project is not compatible with the continuation of a modern, wealthy society. It seems obvious to me that ultimately a populist revolt (hopefully at the ballot box) will rebalance policy away from the third and least achievable of the three goals of energy strategy before it’s too late. As has been said many times, you can have two out of the three of cheap, reliable and Net Zero energy, but you can’t have all of them. That in terms of its effect on our daily lives and those of our fellow citizens it is “obvious” that of the three legs it is Net Zero that has to go seems indisputable.

    Today’s news is that energy bills are predicted to reach three grand shortly. Ministers bleat about “global” issues, but the fact remains that only a few countries are in the kind of trouble we are.


  2. As if in response, a DEFRA minister has now gone. Note her emphasis on climate adaptation rather than emission reduction, let alone Net Zero.


  3. Square circles (or circular squares) required. Shouldn’t be difficult to provide by a government department that believes it can achieve net-zero targets, while maintaining reasonable energy prices and be energy secure. That department should be renamed the White Queen for its belief in multiple impossible things before breakfast.


  4. Jit and Alan have nailed the basic stupidity at the heart of the UK’s current energy policy. Billions (before we’re done, perhaps trillions) of £s might well be wasted in trying to achieve the unachievable. Furthermore, net zero logically is incompatible with fossil fuel use, unless carbon capture and storage becomes a reality. That’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s possible, I suppose that the current incompatibility might change if CCS becomes a reality. Yet, in the article above, I quoted this sentence from the Climate Compatibility Checkpoint consultation document:

    “The review concluded in March 2021 and found that continued licensing for oil and gas is not inherently incompatible with the UK’s climate objectives. However, it was acknowledged that this may not always be the case in future.”

    This bizarre claim turns reality on its head. It linked, in a circular way, by justification of the claim about the review’s conclusions, to this Government press release about the North Sea Energy Transition:

    Nowhere in that press release can I find justification for the claim. Did the consultation document provide the wrong link in error, or do these people not know what they are doing?


    “Gas and Nuclear Power Can Be ‘Green’ Under New EU Plan
    Lawmakers overcome environmental opposition amid fears over fuel crisis”

    “Lawmakers in the European Union voted to include nuclear power and natural gas in the bloc’s list of investments deemed sustainable, a move it hopes will trigger more funding of those sectors but that critics said would slow down the EU’s shift to greener energy sources.”

    If gas has a confused and uncertain future in the UK, perhaps reality has dawned in the EU such that North Sea gas might have a future there instead?


  5. The Government of Canada has successfully squared the circle by coming up with a wheeze that the environmental issue is simply reducing emissions during oil production. We can still get to net zero as long as our hydrocarbon development has a low carbon intensity. What buyers do with the oil after that is not our problem. Some of our federal politicians are even touting Canadian offshore production, such as the recently approved Bay du Nord project, as “clean oil”.

    “The federal government last week released a climate plan that included measures to reduce emissions from oil and gas, but stopped short of limiting plans for production.The N.L. government and proponents in the oil industry have touted the so-called “low-carbon” content of the oil that would be produced by Bay du Nord, calling the project a crucial part of a transition to renewable energy. Climate scientists and environmentalists have scoffed at the description.”


  6. potentilla, many thanks for the insights from Canada. As for selling oil to others, then accounting for the emissions is their (the buyers’) problem – under the climate agreements, that is of course true.

    It seems that as reality bites, however, and some politicians are waking up to harsh facts, they still won’t give up on their old mantra. So now they pretend that fossil fuel use is somehow compliant with net zero.


  7. It’s the same as Russia selling oil to India at a 30% discount. India refines it and sells the products to Europe. Everyone makes a profit, and everyone’s happy.

    It just shows that if there are arbitrary rules, someone will game them.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. The climate compatibility checkpoint featured in the above piece. Here’s the latest:

    “Oil and gas climate test branded a sham by environmentalists”

    A slimmed-down climate compatibility checkpoint for new oil and gas development has been branded a sham by environmentalists.

    The UK government has published details of the test which allows the go-ahead for a new round of exploration licensing in the North Sea.

    It will compare greenhouse gas emissions in the UK sector with others.

    The industry is understood to be pleased with the test but Greenpeace said it was considering legal action.

    The test has no predetermined threshold for whether an application passes or fails…

    …The proposals had included a test on the “global production gap” where the sum of all countries forecast oil and gas development exceeds the agreement to limit temperature rises to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius.

    That test has been scrapped with the government citing the “improbability of global co-operation on pro-active production cuts”.

    In August last year, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said the original proposals did not go far enough and should also be applied to new developments in already-licensed oil fields.

    This announcement is part of a package of measures from the UK government which include lifting a moratorium on fracking.

    The SNP’s energy spokesman Stephen Flynn described the move as “bonkers” and said there would be “no fracking whatsoever” in Scotland….

    …Business and Energy Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said: “In light of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and weaponization of energy, strengthening our energy security is an absolute priority, and – as the prime minister said – we are going to ensure the UK is a net energy exporter by 2040.

    “To get there we will need to explore all avenues available to us through solar, wind, oil and gas production – so it’s right that we’ve lifted the pause to realise any potential sources of domestic gas.”

    The North Sea Transition Authority, which regulates the sector, said it would launch the next round of licensing from October.

    It is more than two years since the last round, which is usually carried out annually.

    More than 100 licences are expected to be issued with a focus on expanding existing infrastructure rather than exploring for new oilfields.

    Greenpeace said it was a sham climate checkpoint voted on by oil and gas companies….

    While the Scottish Government’s energy policy continues to be stark staring bonkers, maybe – just maybe – the seriousness of the energy crisis has dawned on the new PM?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.