Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
We have plenty of our own oil in the North Sea. We just need to start using it. No reason for us to be dependant on the Strait long-term. Back in the 80s, we were one of the largest producers of oil in the world. The oil is still there, so we could ramp up production once more.
The oil and gas which was easily accessible and financially justifiable to extract from the North Sea has already been extracted. There may be plenty of oil and gas left there, but it becomes increasingly difficult to extract. That's why the oil and gas companies moved out.
You also seem to completely ignore the fact that oil is a global market. "We" do not own the oil which is extracted, the oil company which extracts it does. And they- entirely understandably and entirely reasonably- are going to sell that oil on the global market where they can obtain the best price for it.
"We" could prevent this in licence conditions, yes, but see point one.
Heat pumps are still expensive to install, but other types of renewable energy are relatively cheap to install and maintain. A few solar panels on your roof and an electrically-heated hot water tank will get you a long way.
Whilst we clearly shouldn't be involved in this US-Israeli unlawful war, given how import the Strait of Hormuz is to our economy it is amazing we don't have warships in the vicinity to promote our interests.
It has certainly furthered my already strong view that we need to build nuclear plants and renewables with a view to complete electrification of the UK's transport and domestic heating.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Heat pumps are still expensive to install, but other types of renewable energy are relatively cheap to install and maintain. A few solar panels on your roof and an electrically-heated hot water tank will get you a long way.
Heat pumps have a role but with regard to new housing I'd rather see a move to mandating standards similar to Passivhaus which mean a tiny amount of resistive heating is sufficient.
that isn't true though is it? I know several people with heat pump, solar and battery arrangements on thier fairly normal homes. Yes, the initial cost is high but the benefits are also quite attractive.
The price needs to come down (as it has already) to have mass appeal but there is already a good market for these things. Sadly I don't think my house is suitable or I would look at it.
You can, of course, get solar installed and quickly start to benefit from lower bills.
“No one”? Lots of people switch to renewables. We have a renewable only energy tariff and solar panels. Just because it doesn’t work for you doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for others.
Unfortunately, a lot of this has become heavily politicised.
There are some issues with heat pumps, but there are lots of issues with traditional gas boilers too.
As the world, potentially, becomes more unstable in terms of energy, the pros of things like heat pumps become a lot more apparent and we will undoubtedly see a higher uptake.
It has certainly furthered my already strong view that we need to build nuclear plants and renewables with a view to complete electrification of the UK's transport and domestic heating.
As a medium to long term strategy I totally agree. Nuclear would give us the covering capacity if and when renewables / transfers are unable to provide for demand. Longer term we really need to make the links between renewable generation, through storage to distribution more robust to allow for expansion of generation. This might need some uncomfortable decisions made by central government to get storage and distribution networks in where there are local objections (usually around house prices). But realistically we need to be moving now for that nuclear option, and again may need some forceful decisions by government to get funding and sites identified, and get the process underway so that in 10-20 years we can dial back our oil / gas dependencies closer to zero.
We have plenty of our own oil in the North Sea. We just need to start using it. No reason for us to be dependant on the Strait long-term. Back in the 80s, we were one of the largest producers of oil in the world. The oil is still there, so we could ramp up production once more.
The problem with renewables is cost. I got a quote to install a heat pump last year and it was over £13k. Even with the £7k government loan, that's still beyond the limit of affordability. No one will switch to renewables until they become cheaper than conventional energy sources.
It depends on what people need as to what which renewal solution will work best for them.
However, for those who are looking for us to drill more oil and gas, I'm still awaiting for their answers on the number of months of total UK gas use which the 14 years of licenses from the previous government (out of a maximum of 168, I gave options for the number of months between 85% and 25% of this total to give some options for people to pick from).
Yes there data is in the public domain, so I do know the answer.
Heat pumps have a role but with regard to new housing I'd rather see a move to mandating standards similar to Passivhaus which mean a tiny amount of resistive heating is sufficient.
I also don't understand why we aren't maximising our own resources. It's not a contradiction to think we should phase down / minimise our oil consumption, but also that we should allow the maximum use of our own production in the medium term - as long as the government isn't subsidising it and we are instead subsidising renewables. Only if/when we get to a point where we are importing zero oil does it make sense to reduce our own extraction. Otherwise we're just outsourcing our emissions, including the environmental shipping costs of oil, while harming ourselves by reducing jobs, physical resiliency to supply shocks, etc.
I'd be interested in the argument in favour as you see it, as this is one of the areas where I disagree most strongly with the current government stance.
I also don't understand why we aren't maximising our own resources. It's not a contradiction to think we should phase down / minimise our oil consumption, but also that we should allow the maximum use of our own production in the medium term - as long as the government isn't subsidising it and we are instead subsidising renewables. Only if/when we get to a point where we are importing zero oil does it make sense to reduce our own extraction. Otherwise we're just outsourcing our emissions, including the environmental shipping costs of oil, while harming ourselves by reducing jobs, physical resiliency to supply shocks, etc.
I'd be interested in the argument in favour as you see it, as this is one of the areas where I disagree most strongly with the current government stance.
The problem is that some people consider it "our" oil, that somehow ramping up exploration will ease the pressures on prices here by giving us priority. But in all likelihood that is not what happen, oil prices are determined globally as Trump is finding out, and priorities don't always go to the country of origin. We, as in the government, could of course make giving us priorities part of any new exploration licences, but it won't necessarily make it any more attractive to the oil companies. Indeed limiting the market might have the opposite effect, because new explorations are going to be more and more expensive as the easiest fields have already been done, and not being able to sell anywhere at market rates isn't going to have them funding new drilling.
We, as in the government, could of course make giving us priorities part of any new exploration licences, but it won't necessarily make it any more attractive to the oil companies. Indeed limiting the market might have the opposite effect, because new explorations are going to be more and more expensive as the easiest fields have already been done, and not being able to sell anywhere at market rates isn't going to have them funding new drilling
If further drilling wouldn't be commercially viable, then it doesn't make sense to have a government restriction on not issuing any more drilling licenses. The effect would be the same, and they would win over people like me who think the government are acting ideologically instead of pragmatically on this issue.
If further drilling wouldn't be commercially viable, then it doesn't make sense to have a government restriction on not issuing any more drilling licenses. The effect would be the same, and they would win over people like me who think the government are acting ideologically instead of pragmatically on this issue.
Oh all this is not to say the ban isn't ideological, it totally is as part of Labour's push towards Net Zero. But allowing new licences will not necessarily mean that we reduce our dependence on the global markets when it comes to buying oil. Regardless if it comes from the North Sea, or the Middle East, it'll be speculators and hedge betters that will determine how much we pay for it. So if demand goes up because a big orange numpty in the White House has a bag on with Iran, we'll end up paying more. Only if the oil producers decide to flood the market with oil from elsewhere would the prices be calmed, and they're not going to do that when they're coining it in.
We are in effect stuck between a rock and some barrels of the black stuff.
Oh all this is not to say the ban isn't ideological, it totally is as part of Labour's push towards Net Zero. But allowing new licences will not necessarily mean that we reduce our dependence on the global markets when it comes to buying oil. Regardless if it comes from the North Sea, or the Middle East, it'll be speculators and hedge betters that will determine how much we pay for it. So if demand goes up because a big orange numpty in the White House has a bag on with Iran, we'll end up paying more. Only if the oil producers decide to flood the market with oil from elsewhere would the prices be calmed, and they're not going to do that when they're coining it in.
We are in effect stuck between a rock and some barrels of the black stuff.
However, we currently tax the profits of UK oil and gas at 78%. So more being produced from our waters at high prices means more going into government coffers. Some of which could be used to alleviate the high prices being charged to end users.
However, we currently tax the profits of UK oil and gas at 78%. So more being produced from our waters at high prices means more going into government coffers. Some of which could be used to alleviate the high prices being charged to end users.
That assumes companies would want to explore new fields, especially if they both had to pay that level of tax and give the UK favourable terms over other markets. It also assumes that the government would use the funds that way....
However, we currently tax the profits of UK oil and gas at 78%. So more being produced from our waters at high prices means more going into government coffers. Some of which could be used to alleviate the high prices being charged to end users.
Assuming that the valuing of tax hasn't reduced since the £3.19bn in 2023/24 (note that this value is lower than the 2022/23 value) and that the total is used solely to reduce gas, electric, petrol and diesel costs the average saving per household would be £110.
However, the government would still be out of pocket by £3.19bn as they money would have being used for other purposes.
Also, whist that sounds like it might be helpful, it appears that average petrol prices have increased by around 14%, so someone doing 6,000 miles a year who was previously paying 15p per mile would now have additional costs of £126 just from their petrol costing more.
(Yes that's just one example and others with lower milage and/or more efficient cars might be better off, however 6,000 miles is below average for cars and many homes have more than one car)
I also don't understand why we aren't maximising our own resources. It's not a contradiction to think we should phase down / minimise our oil consumption, but also that we should allow the maximum use of our own production in the medium term - as long as the government isn't subsidising it and we are instead subsidising renewables. Only if/when we get to a point where we are importing zero oil does it make sense to reduce our own extraction. Otherwise we're just outsourcing our emissions, including the environmental shipping costs of oil, while harming ourselves by reducing jobs, physical resiliency to supply shocks, etc.
I'd be interested in the argument in favour as you see it, as this is one of the areas where I disagree most strongly with the current government stance.
Figures 6 and 7 spell it out the clearest. Should we drain the North sea dry, or keep some in the ground for a worse situation than today?
Also important to note that while north sea crude oil is generally low sulphur, its sulphur content does vary, and so must be sent to a mixture of refineries for processing different sulphur contents, not all of which are available in the UK.
Coincidentally just in time for the Wall St open, from Trump's feed on (vomit) Truth Social,
Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!! President DJT
Yes, I’m glad someone made the point. I think people are giving Trump too much credit, this war would have IMO happened regardless of whether Trump was in power of not.
It’s the only reason why I like Trump, he says the quiet part out loud. This is a bipartisan issue and has a very obvious media bias so this isn’t just the actions of a rogue President but rather something that Israel have been planning for decades.
Just a few examples of media bias, my bold for emphasis:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Another Charlie Kirk clip which I’ve only just discovered. Out of all the Charlie Kirk clips that have gone viral, you’d think this would be up there but this is the first I’ve ever seen it and I’ve been following Charlie Kirk for a while even well before he was assassinated. According to the uploader, this video keeps getting her banned from TikTok. I suppose it shifts the narrative from Charlie Kirk being an Israeli martyr to actually being anything but.
Transcription of the above video
I'm going to continue to ask the question, a 20 hour response in a country the size of New Jersey. That that begs a big explanation. And more importantly, America is significantly underwriting the Israeli government, $4 billion a year. We as American taxpayers deserve answers to this. We deserve answers. Also, if we're going to get into a regional or world war based on an intel failure. So, um I mean, we pay for this. What are we buying? Right. I got smeared as a Jew hater, an anti-semite, and conspiracy theorist because I said exactly what I just said. And I refused to back down despite all the smears thrown at me because I learned during COVID. I learned when they told us that it came from a bat in the Himalayas. I learned when they told us the vaccine was safe and effective. I learned when they told us that Ivormectum was horsepaced that you better keep asking questions because it's the only thing that keeps us free. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Surely the problem with renewables is that they cannot, at present anyway, replace everything for which oil is used; The things made from oil, eg plastics, fertilisers?
Surely the problem with renewables is that they cannot, at present anyway, replace everything for which oil is used; The things made from oil, eg plastics, fertilisers?
That's the reason to stop burning them. Keep oil solely for things where there is no alternative. For powering stuff, other than aircraft, there are alternatives.
Agree, but that means we will still need oil! In which case, regardless of how it affects the cost of the product, it is surely better to extract it from our own sources rather than from countries and regions subject to the kind of disruption happening now? Not to mention the cost, financial and environmental, of transporting the stuff thousands of miles, a process also subject to disruption.
We have plenty of our own oil in the North Sea. We just need to start using it. No reason for us to be dependant on the Strait long-term. Back in the 80s, we were one of the largest producers of oil in the world. The oil is still there, so we could ramp up production once more.
The idea that the UK can simply “use its own North Sea oil” and end dependence on foreign supply is not supported by evidence.
Around 90–93% of all extractable UK North Sea oil and gas has already been produced, leaving only a small fraction remaining.
Output has fallen 65–75% since the late‑1990s/2000 peak, showing the basin’s severe depletion. Even aggressive licensing would produce only 1–2% more by 2050, and hundreds of recent licences have delivered only 36 days of gas so far.
With domestic output declining, the UK will import two‑thirds of its gas by 2027 and 94% by 2050, making independence from choke‑points like the Strait of Hormuz unrealistic.
With domestic output declining, the UK will import two‑thirds of its gas by 2027 and 94% by 2050, making independence from choke‑points like the Strait of Hormuz unrealistic.
Except one way - stop burning gas. It's not necessary; we can start a move towards the use of electricity for heating instead, and towards generation of electricity via nuclear and renewables instead of gas.
The idea that the UK can simply “use its own North Sea oil” and end dependence on foreign supply is not supported by evidence.
Around 90–93% of all extractable UK North Sea oil and gas has already been produced, leaving only a small fraction remaining.
Output has fallen 65–75% since the late‑1990s/2000 peak, showing the basin’s severe depletion. Even aggressive licensing would produce only 1–2% more by 2050, and hundreds of recent licences have delivered only 36 days of gas so far.
With domestic output declining, the UK will import two‑thirds of its gas by 2027 and 94% by 2050, making independence from choke‑points like the Strait of Hormuz unrealistic.
Indeed. I recently saw a news report where a commentator was arguing with (former MP) Geoff Hoon about supply and the UK not issuing further licences for drilling in the North Sea. The lady had no argument about the statistics, and our supply from countries like Norway.
I've found a recent report that provides some detailed figures on supply from other countries and our own production.
Norway keeps the UK running, providing 47.1% of our gas from its state-owned reserves.
That’s 69.5% of the gas we imported in 2025, continuing a streak that’s seen the Scandinavian country supply the majority of the UK’s gas imports for 24 of the past 26 years.
Indeed. I recently saw a news report where a commentator was arguing with (former MP) Geoff Hoon about supply and the UK not issuing further licences for drilling in the North Sea. The lady had no argument about the statistics, and our supply from countries like Norway.
The commentator may be Laila Cunningham, Reform’s London Mayor candidate, on GB News. A report I saw suggested that she didn’t have a clue and was just parroting (sorry, parrots) the standard Reform anti-Net Zero and its ‘ours’ line.
The idea that the UK can simply “use its own North Sea oil” and end dependence on foreign supply is not supported by evidence.
Around 90–93% of all extractable UK North Sea oil and gas has already been produced, leaving only a small fraction remaining.
Output has fallen 65–75% since the late‑1990s/2000 peak, showing the basin’s severe depletion. Even aggressive licensing would produce only 1–2% more by 2050, and hundreds of recent licences have delivered only 36 days of gas so far.
With domestic output declining, the UK will import two‑thirds of its gas by 2027 and 94% by 2050, making independence from choke‑points like the Strait of Hormuz unrealistic.
For context that 36 days (1.2 months) of production is the result of around 170 months of licencing (i.e. the 14 years of the Tories forming the government).
Whilst it may well take time for them to get to production and time for production to scale up and so it may not be the full amount, it would need to increase by a factor of 14 to even get to the point of producing 10% of our needs and anything new issued is likely to result in smaller outputs than this.
The commentator may be Laila Cunningham, Reform’s London Mayor candidate, on GB News. A report I saw suggested that she didn’t have a clue and was just parroting (sorry, parrots) the standard Reform anti-Net Zero and its ‘ours’ line.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
