90% Of UK North Sea Oil Is Already Gone, But Reform UK Lying That Developing Rosebank Will Lower Fuel Prices

[hatrack]

Scores of Labour MPs have urged the prospective prime minister Andy Burnham to rule out the “tin-eared” and “deluded” development of the Rosebank oilfield in the North Sea, which new research indicates would produce as much carbon dioxide as the UK does in 10 months. Estimates seen by the Guardian show that Rosebank, which mainly contains oil, would produce about 250m tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. That is the equivalent of about 70% of the UK’s annual emissions.

Last week’s record-breaking heatwave, which may return next week as the weather turns hotter again, showed the folly of exploiting the field, according to many MPs, who argue it would not bring down the price of fuel and would do little for the UK’s economy.

EDIT

However, the world’s leading energy economist, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, told the Guardian that Rosebank and other new fields under consideration would not reduce the price of oil or gas and would have little economic impact. Nigel Farage and others have repeatedly argued that increasing production of North Sea fossil fuels could reduce prices; in fact oil is traded on the international market and the price is set there. Supporters argue that exploiting the fields will generate new jobs. However, this is unlikely to offset continued losses, as the North Sea is a rapidly declining field of which more than 90% of its reserves have been extracted. Jobs in the North Sea sector have been in steep decline for more than 15 years, with an estimated 100,000 lost while the Conservatives were in office.

Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent West, said: “Drilling more won’t stem the loss of jobs in oil and gas, they have been falling for years despite attempts to prop up the industry. I ask my colleagues – whose side are we on? Donald Trump, the climate denier, who wants us to ‘drill, baby, drill’, and the oil and gas companies who have made billions [in the last two energy shocks], or ordinary people who are dealing with rising energy bills and are worried about weather that gets more extreme every year?”

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/30/labour-mps-tell-burnham-ignore-deluded-calls-more-north-sea-drilling

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Sounds like Alaska to me

If we could just drill in Alaska, all of our problems would be solved.

https://time.com/6332304/arctic-refuge-drilling-distortions/

The Arctic Refuge Has Always Been a Case Study in Weaponizing—or Worse—Science for Oil

by Finis Dunaway / Made by History
FEB 8, 2024 11:00 AM ET

In September 2023, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland canceled the remaining fossil fuel leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, auctioned off during the waning days of the Trump administration. Denouncing the oil and gas leasing program as “seriously flawed,” Haaland emphasized the “insufficient” environmental review conducted by Trump’s Interior Department. Interior officials had sold off drilling rights to the Arctic Refuge while willfully ignoring scientific evidence about the potential impacts of fossil fuel development.

…

Among the things they studied was caribou biology. Government scientists sought to understand why the Porcupine caribou herd—one of the largest in the world—always migrates to the Arctic coastal plain to have their young. They found that the area contained three features that caribou mothers and calves needed at birth: abundant plant life providing high-quality nutrition for nursing mothers; winds from the Beaufort Sea reducing the constant, even deadly, harassment from insects; and relatively few predators.

…

In 1987, when President Reagan’s Interior Department submitted to Congress a hefty report about the Arctic Refuge, many FWS scientists were shocked to find out how much the final version differed from their findings. Downplaying the dangers of development, the report recommended that the entire coastal plain be placed on the auction block.

Casting aside years of research, Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel claimed that “drilling activities would generate only minor or negligible effects on all wildlife” in the area. As for the Gwich’in people, who had stewarded and relied on the Porcupine herd since time immemorial, Hodel insisted that the “subsistence effects” on their villages would be “minimal.” The administration chose to disregard and distort the information provided by its own scientists.

…