The Guardian, it seems is on another mission. It’s related to its overriding “climate crisis”/net zero mission, of course. This time it’s to persuade us that despite a pending (actual?) energy crisis, thanks to Trump and Netanyahu’s war in Iran, we must not, whatever we do, allow more exploration in the North Sea (or anywhere else, for that matter) for oil and gas.

On 13^th March we were treated to an opinion piece by George Monbiot (“UK energy prices are soaring – and propagandists want to sell you a false reason why – The war on Iran has put fossil-fuel prices centre stage, but don’t believe those who tout ‘maximising the North Sea’ as our salvation”). Most amusing, by the way: a media outlet responsible for daily propaganda accusing others of being propagandists.

Eleven days later it was “More North Sea drilling will put UK at mercy of fossil fuel markets, ministers say – Ed Miliband says only clean power will provide ‘energy sovereignty’ amid opposition calls for oil and gas expansion”.

On 28^th March we were given this: “Hundreds of North Sea licences granted by Tories ‘produce only 36 days of gas’ – Exclusive: Findings cast doubt on claims new drilling would help cut bills and boost energy security, researchers say”.

Then it really ramped up. Three days ago they regaled us with “More drilling in North Sea ‘not the answer’ for UK energy security, say former military leaders”. Two days ago: “Would more North Sea drilling mean lower energy prices for UK consumers? – Kemi Badenoch claims increased UK oil and gas production would cut bills by £200, but critics say plan won’t work”. And today we’re offered an opinion piece by Bill McGuire: “Of course we shouldn’t drill for more oil in the North Sea – we cancelled further exploitation for a reason – We are at a critical point in the climate emergency and already struggling to meet emissions reduction targets. The UK government must hold its nerve”.

As Albert Einstein might have said: “Why six articles? If you were right, one would have been enough”.

There is a common theme running through these articles. Basically it’s that there’s hardly any oil and gas left in our North Sea reserves, and anyway it’ll be sold abroad and/or international markets mean that any oil and gas thereby produced wouldn’t bring prices down. Mr Monbiot put it thus:

We’re told that if we extracted more gas at home, electricity would be cheaper. Hello, basic economics. The price of gas is set on international markets and dominated by conditions affecting the biggest suppliers, such as the US, Iran and Russia. The UK’s remaining reserves are especially difficult and expensive to extract….The companies sell it, as everyone else does, on the international market, at the international price. Extracting every last cubic metre from the North Sea would not shift the price by one penny. And there’s another trifling reason why “maximising the North Sea” will have no impact. We’ve used almost all of it already.

The second article doubled down on the international market/prices argument:

Miliband told a parliamentary Labour party (PLP) meeting on Monday night that there was “one overriding lesson of the crisis: while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are price takers not price makers, and we are exposed”.

The third of the six articles insisted that amounts of oil and gas available to the UK in the North Sea are trivial:

…20 new and relicensed fields that have the potential, over their lifetime, to produce enough gas to supply the UK for only six months. To date they have produced the equivalent of 36 days of extra gas….experts say the North Sea is a “mature basin” whose output has declined by 75% since its peak. They say 90% of its reserves have gone.

It also banged on again about international markets:

New licences would have no impact on bills because the price is set by the international markets.

More of the same in the fourth article:

Retired R Adm Neil Morisetti, a professor of climate and resource security at University College London, said attempting to eke out the remaining oil and gas from the North Sea was “not the answer” to the challenges facing the UK.

“It will not bring down the price for consumers, nor will it deliver long-term energy security. The international markets will determine the price and destination; that is not energy independence,” he said.

The penultimate article I cited above repeated the point (just in case you haven’t got it yet):

Oil and gas are sold by private companies on international markets, which set the price, so there is no discount or advantage for UK consumers.

It also stressed the paucity of oil and gas supplies available:

Analysis of government data by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit show that more than 4bn tonnes of oil has been extracted in the UK since 1975. Only about 218m tonnes are recoverable by 2050 from existing fields, and new drilling could yield another 74m tonnes. That 74m tonnes would be equivalent to 1.7% of the total that could be extracted from 1975 to 2050. There is even less gas left – new drilling would add about 1.1% to total production. In other words, all of the new drilling possible would only put off the end of the North Sea by a year or two.

But here’s the thing. While insisting that North Sea oil and gas reserves are trivial, and so insignificant as to be unable to support jobs for long and certainly unable to offer the UK any energy security, the Guardian also insists that they are so significant that CO2 emissions from them mean that they must not be exploited. To do so would be catastrophic. A Guardian article written almost three years ago assured us very solemnly:

New oil and gas licences for the North Sea that the UK government has approved in the past two years will produce as much carbon dioxide as the annual emissions of nearly 14m cars, or the entire yearly emissions of Denmark, analysis has shown.

This amount – about 28m tonnes of carbon dioxide over the lifetimes of the fields – will be increased more than eightfold, if potential licences under consideration are also granted, according to data from public sources analysed by Greenpeace….

….The three largest approved since the IEA report are Jackdaw, Abigail and Talbot, the emissions from which are the equivalent of seven coal-fired power stations, according to Greenpeace.

If Rosebank and Cambo, two other large fields under review, are approved the total will rise to about 240m tonnes of CO2, equivalent to running 64 coal-fired power plants for a year, or the annual emissions of Spain.

So which is it? Are North Sea oil and gas reserves so insignificant that they aren’t worth exploiting because they won’t make any difference whatsoever to UK energy security? Or are they so huge that exploiting them will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases? It can’t be both, but apparently Guardian journalists are capable of believing both these things at the same time.

Today’s article by Bill McGuire doubled down on this. He apparently also believes both of these mutually contradictory ideas:

More sensible heads have argued that the North Sea basin is a field that is way past peak production, and that has only limited amounts of oil and gas left, and that energy security can only be reached if we move further and faster on renewables.

Yet:

The UK is already struggling to meet a 2030 emissions reduction target of 68% compared with 1990 levels, and is off track to achieve net zero emissions in 2050. Any renaissance of homegrown fossil fuel usage would blow a hole through these already shaky ambitions. [my emphasis – sounds pretty dramatic, doesn’t it?].

He also stresses a message the Guardian has repeated ad nauseam for many a long year – the need to set an example to the rest of the world:

Doubling down on the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas now would make these numbers even bigger, and would send entirely the wrong message to the rest of the world.

I wonder if Professor McGuire reads the Guardian? If he does, he might have noticed this from a couple of days ago: “Asia ramps up use of dirty fuels to cover energy shortfall triggered by Iran war”.

Governments across Asia are ramping up their use of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel…

…South Korea said it will delay the shutdown of coal-fired power plants and has lifted caps on electricity from coal, while in Thailand the government has increased output at the country’s largest coal-fired plant. The Philippines, which has declared a “national energy emergency” as a result of the war, also plans to boost operations of its coal-fired power plants.

In South Asia, India, which relies on coal for nearly 75% of its power generation, has asked its coal plants to run at maximum capacity and avoid planned outages, while Bangladesh increased coal-fired power generation and coal-fired power imports in March.

Governments are racing to overcome shortfalls, especially in the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which has been promoted as a bridge fuel in the transition from coal to cleaner energy – though research has shown exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas than coal.

Many countries in the region rely on LNG to generate electricity, as well as for industries such as fertiliser manufacturing. Demand in Asia had been forecast to double in the next 25 years.

Germany is also considering ramping up its use of coal power, despite the fact that the share of electricity produced with fossil fuels in Germany increased by ten percent between January and the end of June 2025. In short, Professor McGuire, the rest of the world has been taking no notice for quite some time of the “example” being set by the UK, and now that reality is biting, it definitely has it’s fingers in its ears and isn’t listening to anything you or Mr Miliband might have to say. It seems it has more important issues than the “climate crisis” to worry about.

As for the relentless stream of propaganda issuing from the Guardian, I suggest we heed the BBC’s advice and note that “[r]epetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda”.