Member Info for Modestus1

Energy Secretary urged by Unite and GMB to allow fresh oil drilling as local elections approach

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/06/unions-warn-miliband-his-north-sea-opposition-will-cost-lab/

Labour’s biggest union backer has warned the party it will lose hundreds of council seats unless Ed Miliband allows North Sea drilling.

The general secretary of Unite said the Energy Secretary’s refusal to permit oil and gas exploration was an act of “self-harm”.

Sharon Graham’s comments are part of a union backlash to the Government’s net zero policies amid the economic effects of the Iran war.

Rachel Reeves, Labour backbenchers and opposition parties are urging Mr Miliband to change course to shore up domestic energy supplies, cut bills and stem job losses. But he is understood to be resisting the development of Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oil field, which is estimated to contain as many as 300 million barrels of oil.......

Ms Graham said: “The Government’s energy policies in both Westminster and Holyrood are putting jobs and energy security at risk. This is an act of self-harm and Labour will certainly pay the price in the May elections.

“Unite has a clear and stark message as energy bills rocket due to the Iran war – we must keep the North Sea working and fund a concrete plan for jobs. Voters can see that it is a big mistake to let go of one rope before we have hold of another.”

At the weekend, Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB union, called for a rethink of net zero. He said it would be “shameful if a Labour government were to preside over in Aberdeen what Thatcher did to Middlesbrough in the 1980s”.

Last month, Ms Graham, who has repeatedly criticised Sir Keir’s record in Government, cut her union’s funding for Labour by 40 per cent.

She warned Sir Keir that her members were “coming to the end of the line” with his leadership.

Ms Reeves said last week that she would be “very happy” to support extraction at Rosebank and Jackdaw, while Labour MPs have also called for him to reconsider.

Henry Tufnell, the Labour backbencher, said: “Drilling in the North Sea is vital for our own domestic energy security and is good for the economy, with increased tax receipts and jobs.” Luke Akehurst, also on Labour’s back benches, said: “There’s no contradiction between developing renewable energy sources and nuclear and using our remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas.”

Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, has also called for the licences to be approved amid fears Labour could come third in May’s Holyrood elections.

On Monday, Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative leader, said Mr Miliband did not “get the basic facts” on oil and gas.

Speaking in Glasgow, Mr Findlay said: “The reality is we cannot afford to be reliant on a volatile energy market dominated by countries that are no friends of ours in many respects, and we will need oil and gas for decades to come.

Energy Secretary urged by Unite and GMB to allow fresh oil drilling as local elections approach

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/06/unions-warn-miliband-his-north-sea-opposition-will-cost-lab/

Labour’s biggest union backer has warned the party it will lose hundreds of council seats unless Ed Miliband allows North Sea drilling.

The general secretary of Unite said the Energy Secretary’s refusal to permit oil and gas exploration was an act of “self-harm”.

Sharon Graham’s comments are part of a union backlash to the Government’s net zero policies amid the economic effects of the Iran war.

Rachel Reeves, Labour backbenchers and opposition parties are urging Mr Miliband to change course to shore up domestic energy supplies, cut bills and stem job losses. But he is understood to be resisting the development of Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oil field, which is estimated to contain as many as 300 million barrels of oil.......

Ms Graham said: “The Government’s energy policies in both Westminster and Holyrood are putting jobs and energy security at risk. This is an act of self-harm and Labour will certainly pay the price in the May elections.

“Unite has a clear and stark message as energy bills rocket due to the Iran war – we must keep the North Sea working and fund a concrete plan for jobs. Voters can see that it is a big mistake to let go of one rope before we have hold of another.”

At the weekend, Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB union, called for a rethink of net zero. He said it would be “shameful if a Labour government were to preside over in Aberdeen what Thatcher did to Middlesbrough in the 1980s”.

d by Unite and GMB to allow fresh oil drilling as local elections approach

Daniel Martin Deputy Political Editor. Jacob Freedland Scottish Reporter

Published 06 April 2026 8:59pm BST

Related Topics

North Sea oil, Ed Miliband, Net Zero, Local elections, Unite union, Scotland

4

Add us as preferred source

Mr Miliband gestures, sitting at a table and wearing headphones

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, attending a North Sea summit in Hamburg in January Credit: Morris MacMatzen/Getty

Labour’s biggest union backer has warned the party it will lose hundreds of council seats unless Ed Miliband allows North Sea drilling.

The general secretary of Unite said the Energy Secretary’s refusal to permit oil and gas exploration was an act of “self-harm”.

Sharon Graham’s comments are part of a union backlash to the Government’s net zero policies amid the economic effects of the Iran war.

Rachel Reeves, Labour backbenchers and opposition parties are urging Mr Miliband to change course to shore up domestic energy supplies, cut bills and stem job losses.

But he is understood to be resisting the development of Rosebank, Britain’s largest untapped oil field, which is estimated to contain as many as 300 million barrels of oil.

Advertisement

The Energy Secretary has also delayed a decision on a licenc

The premiums for U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude have soared in the spot market to a record high of between $30 and $40 per barrel above key regional benchmarks as Asia and Europe scramble for supply amid the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

WTI Midland is being offered for July delivery in north Asia at premiums of between $30 and $40 per barrel, depending on the benchmark against which they are marked, trading sources told Reuters on Monday.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, has raised the premium it charges for its crude to record levels as the Iran war puts strains on global energy supplies.

State-run Saudi Aramco will charge customers in Asia $19.50 on top of the Oman-Dubai benchmark for a barrel of Arab Light crude, its main oil grade, in May. Over the past 26 years, the premium has never before exceeded $10 a barrel.

Pricing for all grades of Saudi oil to every destination has been raised to record levels. Customers in Europe will need to pay $24-$30 a barrel over the Brent benchmark, which is currently trading at around $108 a barrel, for Saudi oil next month.

(continued)

While the US is protected from the oil shock by its energy self-sufficiency, it is nonetheless vulnerable to a prolonged conflict because it had the highest deficit in the developed world last year at nearly 6 per cent of GDP.

Doomsayers have been ringing alarms for decades and there is no clear threshold beyond which a deficit is likely to trigger economic trouble. This time, however, the bond market reaction sends a warning. And other signs — such as interest payments on US government debt now exceeding its defence budget — also suggest that at over 100 per cent of GDP the debt burden is an increasingly pressing concern.

Washington is habituated to spending as if there is no limit. Last year, President Donald Trump increased defence spending by $150bn, before tripling down last week. He proposed boosting the Pentagon budget by another $500bn to $1.5tn, only partially offset by cuts in other government agencies. Coming on top of new tax breaks and other drains on the Treasury, these measures could push the US deficit close to 7 per cent of GDP this year.

This is what makes the Iran shock so different from its predecessors. The global economy has experienced even sharper surges in oil prices and has become more efficient in its energy usage, which should ordinarily help mitigate the impact. Instead, any protracted increase in oil prices is likely to be magnified by the fact that governments are running low on policy ammunition to counter it. This new vulnerability will expose the global economy not only to fallout from the Iran war, but to every shock in the foreseeable future.

Governments and central banks are out of policy ammunition to contain the economic fallout

https://www.ft.com/content/2b6afabf-6193-4339-b084-a0fb927a8f1d

The outcome of the Iran war remains unclear, but the resulting oil shock has revealed a novel vulnerability in the global economy. Never has the world entered a crisis of any kind with such high deficits and debt levels. This burden will limit the ability of governments to cushion the impact of elevated energy prices.

The first post-second world war oil shocks hit in the 1970s and coincided with the dawn of a new era, when governments shifted from running budget deficits occasionally to constantly. But back then, the typical deficit in the US and other major countries was around 2 per cent of GDP. Today, the average deficit has more than doubled; as a result the average government debt level for the G7 countries has risen from 20 per cent of GDP to more than 100 per cent.

Governments are trying to respond as they have to oil shocks in the past. From the UK and France to Brazil and India, they are introducing price controls, rationing schemes and subsidies for fuels of all kinds, from transport to cooking. But this time, they can ill-afford these relief measures and global bond markets are warning against spending hikes.

During crises, long-term interest rates typically decline as markets anticipate slower growth and easier monetary policy. The exceptions were the big oil shocks, when long-term rates rose along with expectations of higher inflation.

Today, bond yields are rising again but for a different reason. Longer-term inflation expectations remain stable, but markets fear the Iran oil shock will trigger more spending on top of rapidly expanding deficits and debt, which is resulting in a higher term premium for bonds.

Last year, driven by government borrowing, total global debt levels rose at the fastest pace since the pandemic surge, to a record $348tn, which is more than three times global GDP. That leaves very few governments in a position to roll out new stimulus.

Central banks are in a similar bind. In recent decades they have worked alongside governments to extend stimulus at the first sign of trouble, but they can’t do so easily now. The US Federal Reserve has missed its 2 per cent inflation target every month for 60 months in a row. Lately, three of every four central banks in developed countries and one of two in emerging countries have been missing their targets, too. Even if the oil shock slows economies, central banks may not be able to act as the shock also pushes inflation upward.

The most vulnerable nations are those with the highest government debt and deficits, and with a central bank missing its inflation target; in the developed world they include most prominently the US and the UK; in the emerging world, the most at risk are led by Brazil, Egypt and Indonesia.

@Cardinal3 : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/31/majority-of-labour-voters-back-drilling-in-the-north-sea/

or without paywall : https://archive.md/7nToA

(continued)

“It would be shameful if a Labour government were to preside over in Aberdeen what Thatcher did to Middlesbrough in the 1980s … We need to get on with this. We are in a very vulnerable position.”

It is understood that Miliband believes the government has already adopted a pragmatic position, and is focusing on measures to bring down bills.

Dale Vince, the Labour donor and owner of Ecotricity, told Times Radio that it would “be wrong to consent to new drilling in the North Sea”. He said: “There’s no economic justification. It won’t bring our bills down. It can’t give us energy security. It won’t even last very long if we do drill.”

A government spokesperson said: “Issuing new licences to explore new fields cannot give us energy security and will not take a penny off bills. Regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold on international markets, which set the price for British billpayers — making us a price taker.

“The only way to truly protect ourselves from these price spikes is to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets.”

Ministers, Labour donors and union leaders are clashing over whether to approve oil and gas extraction at the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/miliband-oil-north-sea-energy-vpcnv7nd8

Ed Miliband is “preparing to cry betrayal” over the government’s relaxation of its opposition to new North Sea oil and gas exploration, sources have said.

Those pushing for ministers to increase drilling over concerns about energy security in light of the Iran war believe the government is heading for a “compromise” that could allow for fresh exploration of untapped fields.

The Times revealed last week that Miliband, the energy secretary, was considering approving the Jackdaw gasfield off Scotland, although he remains opposed to Rosebank, which is the largest untapped oilfield in the UK and is thought to contain enough for up to 300 million barrels.

There is a cabinet divide between Miliband, a strong supporter of renewables, and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, who is understood to favour pushing ahead with new drilling.

One source supportive of Britain exploiting more resources in the North Sea said: “I think, like a lot of government decisions, we will get to a compromise that they will leave too late to get credit for, but Miliband is winding his people up into overdrive to try and stop it, and cry betrayal after it happens.”

Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, supports approving both fields and Reeves said she would be “very happy” to support extraction at the sites because of the positive effect on “jobs and tax revenue”.

The head of one of Britain’s most influential trade unions has also called on the government to end “dithering, debate and delay”. Gary Smith, general secretary of the Labour-affiliated GMB, said Labour would leave a “terrible legacy” if the domestic energy industry was allowed to “wither on the vine”.

Sir Keir Starmer is coming under pressure as households face higher costs and the prospect of further rises to their energy bills later this year. He said on Sunday he would “always be on the side” of British people over price rises.

“I know families across the country are concerned about the conflict in Iran and what it means for the cost of living,” he said. “We are working closely with international partners to push for a de-escalation in the Middle East and the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz. This is the most effective way to ease the pressure on the cost of living.”

However, Smith said that Starmer needed to be more “pragmatic” if he was to improve Britain’s energy security. “The truth is we don’t need political idealism in energy, we don’t need the political populism of the right either — we need hard-nosed pragmatism,” he said. “Given where we are in the world it is increasingly important, post-globalisation, that the UK needs to take more responsibility for its energy needs for its own economy. So the policy in the North Sea and the approach has just been utter madness.

:-)

(continued)

Of that total, around 1.3 billion barrels, or 230 billion cubic metres, of gas could be produced – enough to meet Britain’s entire needs for three and a half years.

In reality, about 39pc of the UK’s gas today is produced by the North Sea, with around 45pc coming by pipeline from Norway and nearly all of the rest being imported as liquefied natural gas (LNG) from abroad.

OEUK has said that Britain could reduce its dependence on foreign LNG to just 6pc of supplies by 2035, compared to around 14pc today, if domestic resources were exploited more.

A government spokesman said: “Issuing new licences to explore new fields cannot give us energy security and will not take a penny off bills.

“Regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold on international markets, which set the price for British bill payers – making us a price taker.

“The only way to truly protect ourselves from these price spikes is to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets.”

More than 50 projects rendered ‘unviable’ by windfall tax and exploration ban, report finds

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/04/05/dozens-of-north-sea-oil-and-gas-fields-blocked-by-net-zero/

Dozens of North Sea oil and gas fields are being blocked from development by Labour’s net zero policies, a new analysis shows.

There are 51 known new fields in British waters that could be feeding domestic pipes but have been rendered “unviable” by current government policies, including the windfall tax and a ban on exploration licences.

On top of these, some 60 extensions to existing fields are being held back for the same reasons, according to trade body Offshore Energy UK (OEUK).

The data emerged from a survey of offshore operators to see how they have responded to the taxes and regulations imposed by successive governments.

OEUK said the fields would be viable under “reform to the current regulatory and fiscal regime”, particularly by overhauling the windfall tax – known officially as the energy profits levy.

David Whitehouse, the trade body’s chief executive, said: “Our proposal will unlock immediate investment, secure tens of thousands of jobs and deliver more tax, not less, for essential services like schools and hospitals.​

“The future of the North Sea is in our hands. ​Our message to the Government is simple. Reform the energy profits levy in 2026 to unlock more tax, not less, support more jobs, not less and deliver more homegrown energy, not less.”

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, is under increasing pressure to relax the Government’s stance on North Sea drilling as the Middle East crisis heightens scrutiny of energy imports.

Along with the Conservatives, John Swinney, the SNP leader and Scottish First Minister, industry leaders including Greg Jackson, the Octopus Energy boss, Chris O’Shea, the British Gas chief and Tara Singh, the RenewablesUK boss, are among those who have backed more drilling.

Supporters say that maximising the North Sea’s output would generate tax revenues, preserve jobs and result in lower carbon emissions than oil and gas from abroad.

However, Mr Miliband has pushed back against the calls, arguing that it cannot “take a penny off bills”.

Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Ed Miliband’s ideological vendetta against the North Sea is making our fields unviable, which will only force Britain to import more gas from Norway – from the very same fields we could be drilling ourselves.

“Let’s get Britain drilling, and use the tax to cut bills.”

The 111 projects identified by OEUK have the potential to produce an extra 3.5 billion barrels of oil and gas, the trade body said, along with £50bn in private investment.

(continued)

He said to me then, “It is only because my political career is over that I can do this.” He recognised how at Westminster it was sacrilegious to question the Act. Those (such as Theresa May) appalled by Badenoch’s apostasy pronounce, à la Miliband, that this would forfeit the UK’s “global leadership” in the fight against climate change. Yet no countries look at what’s happened in the UK and say: there’s an example we should follow.

(continued)

That, however, is the perverse logic of the UN’s carbon accounting convention, of which this country has been an unquestioning acolyte. As the paper Premeditated Industrial Destruction, whose lead author is the economist Catherine McBride, last week encapsulated it: “The sum total of the UK’s pursuit of net zero CO2 emissions has been to offshore energy intensive industrial production at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs [and] billions of tax revenues”.

That last point is what stirred the chancellor last week to urge Miliband to change his implacable stance and licence the development of two oil and gas fields in the North Sea (Rosebank and Jackdaw), from the second of which, the company running the project told The Times, “we could technically be ready to start producing gas from this October”. Neil McCullough, its chief executive, pointed out: “Jackdaw is a straightforward proposition: bring more North Sea gas onshore through existing infrastructure and onwards to UK homes and businesses.”

Yet in Milibandland, it’s not just more virtuous to import the gas from the Norwegian sector of the same hydrocarbon basin, where exploration is booming: even the much more carbon-intensive business of importing liquified natural gas (frozen to minus 150C and shipped here by diesel powered tankers) is preferable. He has classed it as “zero carbon” because that whole industrial process occurs outside the UK’s borders.

Even if Miliband does back down, it’s actually not straightforward. After the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields were approved by the then Conservative energy secretary Claire Coutinho in 2022 and 2023, Greenpeace helped mount an appeal claiming the developments were not compatible with our annual “carbon budgets” statutorily enforceable under the Climate Change Act. In 2025, the Court of Session in Edinburgh agreed. This was on the basis of so-called “Scope three” emissions — that is, the court said the government had taken account of those generated by the North Sea development but failed properly to do so over the emissions when the gas was burnt in our homes and factories (the vast majority of UK North Sea gas is used domestically).

This debacle is, in part, why Kemi Badenoch has now said the Conservatives would revoke the Climate Change Act. It is a far cry from what happened in 2008, when only five Tory MPs voted against the measure. My father, the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, the following year founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation, in an effort to challenge the overwhelming consensus: he did not deny the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but was scandalised by the failure of the British state to assess the merits of adaptation rather than attempted prevention.

It is starting to dawn on Britons just how badly we need more oil and gas

Dominic Lawson

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/ed-miliband-climate-change-p5q8hvjck

Ed Miliband must have thought this would be his vindication. In recent years scarcely a week has gone by without him intoning — or tweeting — that “as long as Britain remains exposed to the rollercoaster of global fossil fuel markets, we will be vulnerable to energy price rises over which we have no control. Our clean energy mission is the only way to take back control.”

So when Iran closed the straits of Hormuz, retaliating against President Trump’s hubristic war of choice, and global hydrocarbon prices soared, the secretary of state for energy security and net zero presumably expected public acclaim for his policy of ostracising the oil and gas industry, while developing wind and solar power at breakneck pace.

Far from it. Polling conducted in the last week of March by Merlin Strategy for the campaigning organisation Looking for Growth shows the public mood has actually hardened against Miliband’s agenda. Only 15 per cent of voters expressed themselves as “opposed to drilling for oil in the North Sea”. Even among Labour voters, over half said they supported more North Sea drilling, with just 21 per cent opposed. Most strikingly, more of those identifying as supporters of the Green Party backed new North Sea oil and gas exploration (38 per cent) than opposed it (33 per cent)........................

Any conventional account for this switch would assert that concerns about “the environment” diminish at times of economic hardship, especially among the least well-off: something along the lines of what the furious gilets jaunes said to President Macron during the 2018 protests against his taxes on petrol and diesel — “You are worried about the end of the planet. We are worried about how to get to the end of the month.”

Yet I think something else has become clear to millions in this country. They have now grasped what some of us have been saying ever since, in his first stint as energy secretary, Miliband introduced the 2008 Climate Change Act: that a policy which penalises, through carbon taxes and “climate change levies”, all domestic industrial energy users, while much larger countries such as China place no such burden on their own industries, is a recipe for the extinction of our manufacturing base.

The latest victim is the 217-year-old Derbyshire pottery firm Denby, employing 600 people, which last week went into administration, its boss blaming in part our industrial energy prices (the highest in the world). In the field of commodities, by replacing, for example, aluminium or steel once made here with the same products from countries that still have coal as their dominant source of energy, the policy increases rather than reduces global carbon emissions.

Miliband expected to block North Sea oil drilling

Energy Secretary said to be unwavering in his opposition despite impending fuel shortages and surging oil prices

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/03/miliband-expected-to-block-north-sea-oil-drilling/

Ed Miliband is expected to block fresh oil drilling in the North Sea despite growing pressure to resume production to combat the energy crisis sparked by the Iran war.

The Energy Secretary is understood to be resisting the development of Rosebank, the UK’s largest untapped oil field, estimated to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil.

He is against new drilling licences despite concerns over impending fuel shortages, surging oil prices and diminishing stocks.

Despite growing pressure from opponents and his own Cabinet, including Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, Mr Miliband has also delayed a decision on a licence to drill at the Jackdaw gas field, which it is estimated could produce the equivalent of 6 per cent of the UK’s future gas supply.

The move delays the decision until after the May local elections, which could trigger a Labour leadership battle where he has been mooted as a potential contender. On Friday, Mr Miliband’s aides dismissed as “unfounded” suggestions that he was minded to approve Jackdaw.

...................................

The policies of Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves push us to rely on imports just as war, inflation and global instability demand self-reliance

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-must-feed-and-fuel-itself-but-labour-would-rather-attack-wealth-nt9m3hj09

If it wasn’t obvious before, recent weeks have rammed home the imperative of having our own energy and food production here in the UK. National security in an increasingly volatile world can come only from maximising our resources, yet the government chooses to do the opposite.

Sir Keir Starmer talks about acting in Britain’s national interest but is pursuing policies that force us to depend on unreliable imports for our most vital resources: energy and food.

Labour has been incredibly slow to act on North Sea gas drilling and continues to block oil drilling and fracking while recklessly buying energy from other countries. This is folly. As President Trump likes to remind us, the US has its own energy so can survive without the Strait of Hormuz being open, while Britain, under Ed Miliband’s perverse destruction of our energy assets, cannot.

We have further huge reserves of gas and oil in the North Sea and untold quantities of gas under our land that can be quickly extracted through fracking. There is no possible justification for not making the UK self-sufficient.

Kemi Badenoch’s proposal to scrap carbon taxes is a step in the right direction. There is no point in boasting about leading the world on renewables while shipping carbon into the UK at prices demanded by others. It’s the most inefficient and anti-aspiration energy policy imaginable and we still risk being starved of the oil and gas we so obviously need, as rising prices hit families and businesses hard.

.........................

The world has changed. We need to be more independent and self-sufficient. We should be encouraging start-ups, not bleeding them dry of aspiration. We should be encouraging private firms to employ more staff, not lay people off because of Labour’s tax on jobs.

This government is doing its best to destroy anything or anyone who wants to be innovative and productive to secure our future in a volatile and uncertain world. Instead of punishing investors and job creators we should be encouraging them with an economy that stands on its own two feet in a nation that is secure with its own reliable energy and food resources.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymUysw9cWX4

WTI trading almost $3 higher than Brent oil. ???????????????????

Baffled myself too about share price's poor performance....Maurel & Prom, French E&P with assets in more "risky" African jurisdictions Angola and Gabon up over 6% today, over 1 year 125%, over 5 year 437% return. Market cap over 2 Bn Euro with 37 000 Boepd.