The ongoing geopolitical tensions and conflict involving Iran, specifically an Iranian attack on a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Qatar, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz (through which about 20% of global oil passes), and broader Middle East instability, have driven sharp spikes in global oil and gas prices.

This exposes vulnerabilities in relying on imported energy, particularly LNG from distant or unstable regions.

In The Telegraph Claire Coutinho (a former Conservative Energy Secretary) criticizes Ed Miliband (UK Energy Secretary under the Labour government) for policies that she claims are “shutting down” the North Sea oil and gas sector, including:

• Banning new oil and gas exploration licences.
• Imposing high effective tax rates (over 100% in some cases via windfall taxes and other measures).
• Prioritizing net zero targets over domestic fossil fuel production.

She describes Miliband as a “dangerous fantasist” sacrificing British production “on the altar of Net Zero,” leading to falling domestic output, increased reliance on higher-emission imports, job losses, and exposure to volatile global markets and supply chain risks.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Iran crisis shows folly of Ed Miliband’s North Sea plan

The Energy Secretary is a dangerous fantasist hell-bent on destroying our oil and gas industries

It shouldn’t have taken an Iranian attack on the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Qatar for us to realise the benefits of being able to produce our own oil and gas.

As the world becomes more dangerous, we must ditch fantasy net zero thinking and prioritise our own energy resilience. The Telegraph has the story.

This week, the conflict in the Middle East means the Strait of Hormuz – one of the most important shipping routes for oil and gas – is out of action.

Qatar has shut down production, taking a fifth of global LNG supplies out of the market in a single day and sending gas prices to three-year highs.

All of this has shown up our luxury belief that we in Britain are better off keeping our own oil and gas in the ground while making ourselves more reliant on Qatari LNG imports.

First, let’s get the worst of the climate change lobby’s arguments out of the way.

Destroying our own oil and gas production does not mean we will need any less oil and gas. Even the captured Climate Change Committee acknowledges that we’ll need oil and gas for decades to come.

The biggest advocates of electrification, such as Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, have said we should back our own oil and gas production because it makes no difference to how much we consume.

If we are going to need it, then, of course, we should get as much as possible from Britain. That is just common sense.

Instead of maximising our own production, we have been sleepwalking into disaster. We’ve allowed the powerful green lobby to demonise an industry that is vital for our national resilience.

Rachel Reeves missed an opportunity on Tuesday at the Spring Statement to reverse the damage that has been wrought on the North Sea.

Read the full story here.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

For balance, Mad Miliband and the UK government have responded (e.g., in Commons statements and factsheets) that:

• The UK is a “price-taker” in global markets—new North Sea licences wouldn’t meaningfully affect prices or supply (the basin is maturing, <0.7% of global production).
• Existing production remains important and pragmatic support (e.g., tiebacks to current fields) continues.
• Diverse supplies (North Sea, Norwegian pipelines, LNG terminals, interconnectors) provide robustness.
• The crisis reinforces the need to accelerate “clean, homegrown power” via renewables and nuclear to reduce exposure to fossil fuel volatility and geopolitical risks.
• Long-term, climate change is the bigger “threat multiplier” to security.