The debate over North Sea oil and gas drilling has intensified in 2026, as conflict in the Middle East and surging energy prices force a renewed reckoning with Britain’s energy future. Here, we examine the arguments on both sides.
The Case For: Drill Now
Writing in City A.M., former Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis argues that the Iran conflict and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz has exposed Britain’s fundamental energy vulnerability. Since the Strait carries around 20 per cent of the world’s oil and gas, its closure has created a surge in demand from other suppliers, including Norway and the United States, driving prices sharply higher.
Lewis contends that Britain’s dependence on a volatile international market – “shaped by wars the UK has no say in, decisions made in capitals the UK has limited influence in” – is a strategic weakness that North Sea development could directly address. He points out that the North Sea holds “proven reserves of billions of barrels of oil and gas,” and that a poll by Looking for Growth found a majority of Labour voters also support further drilling.
Crucially, Lewis frames the choice not as oil versus renewables, but as a necessary coexistence. On a “very sunny Spring day” at time of writing, 43 per cent of Great Britain’s energy needs were being met by renewables – meaning 57 per cent were not. He argues that fossil fuels will remain a necessary “bridging resource for decades to come,” and that dismissing that fact as ideologically inconvenient does not make it less true. With Labour’s own net zero targets not due to be met until 2050, Lewis warns that assuming no further energy crises will occur in a 24-year transition period is “frankly naive”.
He also points to the regional economic benefits, noting that as a former MP for Great Yarmouth he witnessed first-hand how North Sea development “brings skills, opportunities, and infrastructure” to coastal communities. Proponents echo this, with the Conservatives warning that 200,000 well-paid jobs are under threat if the sector is wound down.
The Case Against: Leave It In the Ground
Writing in Prospect Magazine, Sam Alvis argues that advocates for North Sea expansion “are trying to hold onto a world which no longer exists”. This view is supported by a broad coalition of scientists, former military figures, and energy researchers.
The central plank of the anti-drilling case is that new North Sea production would not lower energy bills. Because UK oil and gas is sold on global markets, prices are set internationally – meaning British consumers receive no direct discount from domestic production.
Researchers at the University of Oxford have found that even if the UK maximised North Sea extraction and returned revenues directly to households, the financial savings would be considerably less than those from a faster transition to renewable energy.
The energy security argument is also challenged. The North Sea is a “super-mature” basin in decline, with production having fallen by 75 per cent since its peak. The government’s own security of supply reporting states that not issuing new exploration licences is expected to have only a “marginal” impact on production, and critics note that, by the same logic, issuing new licences would deliver equally marginal security benefits. New wells coming online in the early 2030s would arrive too late to address current price shocks.
Former military figures have been explicit on this point. Retired Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, who teaches climate and resource security at University College London, has stated: “It will not lower consumer prices, nor will it provide lasting energy security. The international market dictates prices and destinations; that does not equate to energy independence”.
Research by Uplift and energy consultancy Voar found that all new North Sea licences granted by the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024 yielded only 36 days’ worth of gas.
On climate, the argument is stark: the emissions from burning reserves in existing and already-planned oil and gas fields globally would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C, meaning any new North Sea fields are scientifically incompatible with climate targets. Critics add that the UK cannot credibly urge other nations to leave their fossil fuels in the ground while simultaneously seeking to “max out” its own reserves.
Where the Debate Stands
In Case You Missed it:
The Labour government has maintained its ban on new North Sea drilling licences, with a spokesperson stating that new permits “cannot ensure energy security and will not reduce bills”.
The Conservatives, Reform UK, and the SNP have all backed further drilling, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch launching a campaign in early 2026 to reverse the ban. Even RenewableUK’s chief executive has argued for continued North Sea gas production as a transitional measure.
The core disagreement is not simply about oil, it is about what “energy security” actually means. One side sees domestic production as a pragmatic buffer against a chaotic world; the other sees the accelerated buildout of renewables, grid upgrades, and energy efficiency as the only durable solution.
