TRICKY DECISION TO BE MADE….

Sunday, November 15th, 2026 at 11:30am

Protestors hold "Stop Rosebank Oil Field" banner with red smoke near Parliament

Protestors hold “Stop Rosebank Oil Field” banner with red smoke near Parliament

There comes a point in the career of any new politician when the honeymoon period quickly ends and you have to make tough decisions that will likely make you unpopular with a lot of people. Andy Burnham is getting closer to that point.

Giving the green light to allow drilling for 300 million barrels of oil at Rosebank, (about 80 miles north of Scotland) would be greeted with wild celebrations for some people (especially all the North Sea workers that rely on it), but wildly condemned by others for the negative impacts it would have on climate change.

Broadly, the decision boils down to three aspects, Energy Security, (reducing our reliance on importing oil and gas), the economic benefits, (tax revenues, jobs and investment) and climate change.

I have been researching how significant the oil reserves at Rosebank are in the context of the global demand for oil. It is pretty insignificant. Global oil consumption is about 100 million barrels a day. Rosebank would be able to meet that demand for a maximum of four or five days before running dry.

Of course, politically it would be damaging to our reputation internationally. Britain has been one of the strongest advocates for taking action against global heating and has found that it is by no means immune to its’ effects. It would be embarrassing to be telling other countries that they must switch to renewables whilst we continue drilling for oil.

Governments of all colours are desperate to get the economy performing well. Voters are inclined to express concerns about the environment whilst voting mostly for more immediate concerns such as the cost of living and taxes.

If Rosebank cannot materially improve global energy security, cannot significantly influence international oil prices, and much of its production may be exported, is the relatively limited economic benefit to Britain sufficient to justify the additional carbon emissions?

I acknowledge that it is a tricky decision, either way.

If I was the Prime Minister I would come down on the side of not giving a license. There are some fantastic developments right now in the field of generating energy through renewable means, including a Hydro power system developed in Devon. We could become a world leader in exporting this technology. I suggest a national challenge is that we could benefit from is replacing jobs lost in the North Sea with new jobs created in renewables.