By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Whilst the government is pursuing a pragmatic approach to the North Sea, we have to accept the geological reality that North Sea gas production has declined by 74% since its peak in 2000 and we have been a net importer of gas since 2004.” – UK Government Report (below)
The United Kingdom represents less than one percent of global CO2 emissions. Yet the political class, including academic experts, will not be deterred from social injustice for consumers and self-annihilation of its economy. UK energy statism is tears-in-the-ocean–and for the wrong cause.
The latest report from the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, titled “Gas System in Transition: Security of Supply (Interim Response),” tries to square the circle between decarbonization and economy. “The UK must decarbonize because of volatile, higher oil and natural gas prices, yet energy affordability is important too.” Such, in the words of UK energy analyst Richard Lyon, is where “the small print stopped agreeing with the press line.”
Consider in three parts the Ministerial Foreword under the UK Minister of Energy, Michael Shanks. It begins:
When we published the Gas System in Transition: Security of Supply Consultation in November 2025, we were clear that the only way to ensure our ongoing energy security, and to protect households from volatile fossil fuel prices, was to accelerate our move to low-carbon energy sources. This was independently verified by NESO, the energy system planner, in their Gas Security of Supply Assessment last year.
The global impact of events in the Middle East this year have further evidenced the urgency and importance of decarbonising our energy system. We have an alternative available to us in the form of home-grown, low carbon energy, and these events have underlined why we must stick with our long-term plan to move to clean energy and away from the price volatility associated with fossil fuels.
And as our country decarbonises, the amount of gas we use will decline, meaning gas will have a decreasing influence on our energy bills, increasing our energy independence and economic security, and protecting consumer bills.
Comment: This summary is disingenuous. A liberated home-grown fossil-fuel sector would offer more, locationally advantaged supply. Buyers can contractually lock-in prices and other terms with local providers, avoiding force majeure risk with international supply. Furthermore, domestic (UK) producers would benefit from the price uptick that otherwise goes to producers everywhere, such as those in the Permian Basin in West Texas.
Supporters of UK policy could respond by saying these benefits are de minimis. But so is the futile quest to decarbonize an economy that contributes so little to global emissions.
Consumer Hedge
“However,” the next thought begins, “because gas is a global commodity, with prices set on the international market, we have all had to pay more to attract the unaffected supply.”
With diminishing output from the North Sea over the past decades, any gas produced from the UK Continental Shelf represents a tiny fraction of global demand and so will not lower prices nor materially boost supply. We have therefore taken measures to help protect British families from the volatile gas market and break the link between gas and electricity prices.
The assets that form our gas system – geological storage, LNG terminals, interconnectors, North Sea infrastructure and the networks that connect them – will all help to make GB more secure and resilient throughout the transition. The aim of this consultation, and the wider ‘gas system in transition’ work is to ensure we are tackling the long-standing challenges and not ignoring them for the next generation.
We set out some of these challenges in our Update to Market 2025 and Gas in Transition consultation alongside our plans to address them. NESO’s GSSA also highlighted risks to our gas security of supply from 2030, driven by the structural decline of the North Sea basin, and pointing to the need for market intervention or investment in the system.
Comment: No, diminished domestic production is political, not geological. Yes, natural gas infrastructure is essential for the UK to limp along and spare, to some extent, energy deterioration.
3. North Sea Discussion
“Whilst the government is pursuing a pragmatic approach to the North Sea,” the third and final thought of the Foreword begins,
we have to accept the geological reality that North Sea gas production has declined by 74% since its peak in 2000 and we have been a net importer of gas since 2004. The North Sea can therefore no longer be relied upon to meet our energy needs and we will become more reliant on our import infrastructure.
Comment: The North Sea discussion falsely blames geology rather than government intervention for the decline in North Sea production. Back in the 1970s, the U.S. self-sabotaged its domestic oil and gas industry on the false notion of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. Today, UK energy planners want to shift blame from Net Zero policies to the natural market.
Will the UK wake up? Will voters say enought to high bills and a landscape littered with “green” machinery? One can only hope so.
