{"id":3509,"date":"2026-04-23T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/?p=3509"},"modified":"2026-04-22T08:08:33","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T06:08:33","slug":"factcheck-nine-false-or-misleading-myths-about-north-sea-oil-and-gas-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/en\/2026\/04\/23\/factcheck-nine-false-or-misleading-myths-about-north-sea-oil-and-gas-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas. #2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We are facing surging oil prices and rising costs for fertilisers, food and other commodities. Trump\u2019s reckless actions in Iran are pushing the global economy to the brink of an economic crisis. Many are seizing the opportunity to start drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. This Carbon Brief paper debunks the myths surrounding drilling in the North Sea.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper\u00a0appeared first in Carbon Brief<\/a>\u00a0on 25 March 2026 and was written by Daisy Dunne, Josh Gabbatiss, Molly Lempriere and Simon Evans. This text has been republished here under a\u00a0CC license<\/a>. We will publish it in five parts. Read part 1 here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

FALSE: \u2018Britain is a resource-rich nation that has chosen dependency\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One frequent false claim is that the UK has \u201cchosen\u201d to become reliant on fossil-fuel imports, as a result of policy decisions made by successive governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, import dependency has primarily increased because most of the oil and gas in the North Sea has already been used up. It is a \u201cmature basin<\/a>\u201d with falling output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Daily Telegraph<\/a> for example, Diana Furchtgott-Roth<\/a>, former climate director at the Heritage Foundation<\/a>, a US-based climate-sceptic lobby group, stated that the UK has \u201cchosen dependency\u201d. She wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c[The UK] is not a resource-poor nation forced to depend on foreign suppliers. It is a resource-rich nation that has chosen dependency through planning rules, regulatory obstruction and a net-zero framework that treats domestic oil and gas production as a moral failing rather than a strategic necessity.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It is true that the UK has become increasingly reliant on fossil-fuel imports. The country was a net energy exporter<\/a> in 2000, but, by 2010, was dependent on imports for 30% of its energy supplies. On the same metric, the UK\u2019s net import dependency<\/a> reached 44% in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is largely because UK fossil-fuel production peaked decades ago. Gas production in the North Sea fell by 74%<\/a> between 2000 and 2025, while oil output fell by 75%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gas production is set to fall<\/a> to 99% below 2025 levels by 2050 and oil is set to fall 94%, according to the government\u2019s North Sea Transition Authority<\/a>(NSTA). Even with further drilling, the NSTA expects gas output to fall by 97% and oil by 91%, as shown below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"North
North Sea oil (right) and gas production (right), million tonnes of oil equivalent, under the baseline NSTA projection or with further drilling. Source: NSTA.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Production has been in an inexorable decline for decades despite strongly supportive government policy through most of the period, including tax breaks<\/a> and new licensing<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to the narrative that rising import dependency has been a policy choice, the main reason why production is falling is that the North Sea is a \u201cmature basin\u201d. In other words, most of the oil and gas it once contained has already been extracted and burned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Simon<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

According to the thinktank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit<\/a> (ECIU), around 90%<\/a> of the oil and gas that is likely to be produced from the North Sea has already been burned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A related argument, aired on Sky News<\/a> in mid-March 2026, is that the NSTA projections have been revised downwards over time, as a result of government policy. The idea is that there is more oil and gas available, but the government has \u201cchosen\u201d to ignore it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet for gas, there is little difference between the NSTA projections published before and after the government\u2019s 2024 election win<\/a> and its decision to ban new licensing, as shown below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Past
Past and projected North Sea gas output, million tonnes of oil equivalent, under the NSTA baseline or with new drilling. Left: 2023 projection. Right: 2026 projection. Source: NSTA.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While the NSTA projections for oil have shifted more noticeably between 2023 and 2026, this largely relates to output from existing fields, rather than the potential from new drilling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are a variety of other reasons why the NSTA projections have changed, notably including the economic viability of North Sea production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until the recent Iran war<\/a>, UK oil<\/a> prices had been declining steadily since the highs seen in the wake of Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This will have eroded the economics of North Sea production, particularly as the cost of extraction<\/a> has gone up by roughly 40% since 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A final claim relating to government policy choices is that the UK has, in the words of a recent Sun<\/a> editorial, become \u201cheavily dependent on imported energy because of unreliable wind and solar, and the government\u2019s obsession with net-zero\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This makes no sense \u2013 it is the opposite of the truth. Wind and solar<\/a>generated more than 100 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in the UK last year, meeting a third of total demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carbon Brief analysis shows that generating the same electricity from gas would have required around 200TWh of fuel, equivalent to three-quarters<\/a>of UK imports of liquified natural gas (LNG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, without its fleet of what the Sun calls \u201cunreliable wind and solar\u201d, the UK would have needed to nearly double its LNG imports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FALSE: North Sea is \u2018best way to protect us from volatility and provide energy security\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered the worst energy crisis<\/a> since the 1970s and has reignited debate over how best to ensure the UK\u2019s energy security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many politicians, newspaper editorials and comment articles have argued that getting more oil and gas out from under the North Sea would cut UK fossil-fuel imports and boost energy security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some have gone so far as to argue that the North Sea is the \u201cbest way\u201d or \u201cthe\u201d answer to ensuring UK energy security. This is clearly false. So too is the idea \u2013 promoted<\/a> by the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform party \u2013 that the UK could become \u201cenergy independent\u201d by expanding North Sea production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch wrote a comment piece for the Sunday Telegraph<\/a> under the headline: \u201cDrilling the North Sea is the answer to the energy crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, Enrique Cornejo, energy policy director at North Sea industry trade association Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), told the Times<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cCurrent events demonstrate that the best way to protect us from volatility and provide energy security is to maximise our homegrown energy resources.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The potential for extra oil and gas output is disputed, but not even the North Sea oil and gas industry claims that it could reverse the decades-long decline in production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis<\/a> by the National Energy System Operator<\/a> (NESO) shows that the transition to clean energy would boost UK energy security by significantly reducing fossil-fuel imports. In contrast, it says that imports would rise if the UK boosts domestic oil and gas production but fails to decarbonise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UK has been increasingly reliant on energy imports since 2003<\/a>. This is because UK oil and gas production from the North Sea has fallen by roughly three-quarters since 2000. (See: FALSE: \u201cBritain is a resource-rich nation that has chosen dependency.\u201d<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UK\u2019s reliance on fossil-fuel imports is set to increase even further, as North Sea production continues to decline. The NSTA says oil output will fall to 94% below 2025 levels by 2050 \u2013 or 91% with new drilling. For gas, the figures are 99% and 97%, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OEUK and other advocates for the oil and gas sector dispute these figures, claiming that higher production would be possible if there are changes in government policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, a report<\/a> commissioned by OEUK put forward a \u201chigh case\u201d for North Sea production over the coming decades, predicated<\/a> on what it calls \u201csignificant changes to tax, licensing and regulatory approvals\u201d. Notably, this still showed steep declines in output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"North
North Sea oil and gas production under an industry-backed \u201chigh case\u201d, thousands of barrels of oil equivalent per day. Credit: Westwood Energy<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The OEUK-commissioned report also looked at an even more optimistic \u201cno constraints\u201d case for higher North Sea. However, the report authors, consultancy Westwood Energy, described this as \u201cbeyond realistic assumptions\u201d. It said<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe \u2018no constraints\u2019 case is considered to be beyond realistic assumptions given the current regulatory and fiscal conditions and investor sentiment. For this case to be realised, major industry change would be required.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, OEUK has published<\/a> a scenario for North Sea gas production that it calls \u201cupside potential\u201d, in which output is held close to current levels for the next decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has used these scenarios to argue that the decline in North Sea gas output is \u201cnot inevitable\u201d. However, the details behind these claims are opaque.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cupside potential\u201d scenario is based on what OEUK describes as \u201cdata provided by OEUK members\u201d and it assumes that the government immediately scraps the \u201cenergy profits levy\u201d (EPL, known as the windfall tax, see below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OEUK claims that this scenario is \u201cnot speculative\u201d and that it \u201cclearly demonstrate[s] that the decline in potential supply indicated by NSTA forecasts is the result of policy choices\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this point, it is worth reiterating that the NSTA forecasts for gas barely changed in response to the election of the current government in 2024, as illustrated above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, while it is clear that most of the oil and gas that was once under the North Sea has already been burned, significant resources do remain<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key question is how much of this remaining oil and gas is both technically and economically recoverable under current policies and prices \u2013 and if policies were changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OEIS\u2019s Jack Sharples tells Carbon Brief that the North Sea is a \u201cvery mature basin\u201d and that \u201cnobody\u2019s talking about increased production versus current levels\u201d. He continues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEven if licences were to be made available for further exploration and production, that would result in a little bit of extra supply over the next 12 months, let\u2019s say, but obviously not a huge amount\u2026We\u2019re just talking about slowing down the rate of decline.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Sharples adds that, nevertheless, he thinks it is \u201cworth maximising whatever we can produce in the North Sea\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent Carbon Brief<\/a> analysis found that expanding clean-energy supplies would have a larger impact on UK gas imports than an increase in North Sea drilling, as shown below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(This analysis was based on NSTA projections of possible extra North Sea gas output, which amounted to 16TWh in 2030. If the OEUK \u201cupside potential\u201d scenario could be realised, the extra gas would amount to further 108TWh, equivalent to around 90 LNG tankers.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The
The number of LNG tanker deliveries of gas that could be avoided in 2030, either due to clean technologies replacing the gas or by additional North Sea supplies replacing the imports. See below for methodology. Sources: Carbon Brief analysis of data from the North Sea Transition Authority and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An additional aspect to this relates to timescales. It takes an estimated 28 years<\/a> for new licenses to result in new oil and gas production, according to official figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The industry says<\/a> fields that already have licenses, such as Rosebank and Jackdaw, could be developed more quickly, if they receive planning consent. The previous Conservative government had consented to these fields being developed, but this was overturned<\/a> in the courts. The Labour government is in the process<\/a> of considering whether to approve them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(The new wind and solar projects from the latest renewable auction<\/a>, which concluded in February 2026, are set to be operating by or around 2030.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a March 2026 note<\/a>, the UK Energy Research Centre<\/a> (UKERC) said that drilling for oil and gas \u201cwill not reduce bills or deliver energy security\u201d. Instead, it said that \u201cdemand reduction should be a core focus of UK gas security\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the longer term, the National Energy System Operator<\/a> (NESO) says that meeting the UK\u2019s net-zero target would cut<\/a> the country\u2019s dependency on imported gas to 78% below current levels, whereas failing to decarbonise would see imports rising by a third as production falls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a recent parliamentary hearing<\/a>, Miliband told MPs that this illustrated why \u201cdecarbonisation is essential for energy security\u201d. He added that turning away from net-zero would leave the UK \u201creally, really exposed\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Octopus boss Greg Jackson said in a recent government press release<\/a>: \u201cEvery solar panel, heat pump and battery cuts bills and boosts Britain\u2019s energy independence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We are facing surging oil prices and rising costs for fertilisers, food and other commodities. Trump\u2019s reckless actions in Iran are pushing the global economy to the brink of an economic crisis. Many are seizing the opportunity to start drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. This Carbon Brief paper debunks the myths … Lees verder<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":3515,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":true,"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[106],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-untold-news-that-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3509"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3518,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3509\/revisions\/3518"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientistrebellion.nl\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}