There has been the predictably hysterical response from the usual suspects to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s speech, given in Aberdeen yesterday, in which she announced that we would remove all net zero requirements on oil and gas companies drilling in the North Sea, if our party is returned to government.
This is in sharp contrast to Labour in office banning all new exploration licences.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, a campaign group which describes itself as supporting “efforts to create a rapid and fair transition away from oil and gas production in the UK”, said that Badenoch’s plans were “reckless” and would “simply mean more emissions, more environmental harm and more handouts to the oil and gas giants at the nation’s expense”.
So what exactly is Badenoch proposing? It is a call for our North Sea oil and gas sectors to focus solely on maximum extraction, and pledge to free the sector from unnecessary red tape. The proposal is to change the mandates set on the North Sea Authority, and issue just one simple instruction: “Maximise the extraction of our oil and gas.” The existing North Sea Transition Authority would be renamed as the North Sea Authority.
Kemi Badenoch would remove red tape affecting the North Sea oil and gas industry and issue a simple instruction to 'maximise the extraction of our oil and gas.'
This new mandate would replace all existing mandates that currently are holding back the sector and damaging our economic growth, demonstrated by the Office for National Statistics’ recent comment that falling oil and gas production is leading to weaker economic growth in the UK.
It would involve the removal of the current net-zero mandate affecting the industry, which requires it to take burdensome action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through electrification requirements, restrictions on venting and glaring, and forcing producers to focus on green developments such as carbon storage technologies. It would also free the sector from the strict net-zero requirements that are attached to the issuing of new offshore licenses.
Under these plans, in future there would be no requirement on operators to budget time and capital for emission reduction measures and environmental impact assessments, reversing a change made by Labour who insist that all such assessments done by producers and operators factor in downstream emissions from the eventual use of this oil and gas.
Critics of what is proposed seem to miss the key point that we will have to import more oil and gas if we do not produce it locally. As Badenoch says, we are in the absurd situation where our country is leaving vital resources untapped whilst neighbours like Norway extract them from the same seabed. The economic benefit of that extraction then goes elsewhere, while there is no reduction in our emissions.
The reality is that the UK has already decarbonised more than every other major economy since 1990, yet we face some of the highest energy prices in the developed world. This is having a devastating impact on productivity, as industries which are heavy energy users – such as steel-making and metals – are driven overseas. And it does nothing to help reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions as we just then import materials which are made elsewhere at higher environmental cost.
My Scottish Conservative colleague, Douglas Lumsden MSP, who speaks on net zero and energy for us at Holyrood, has warmly welcomed Kemi’s announcement, saying: “Maximising North Sea oil and gas extraction is crucial to both our energy security and the economy of the North East. Kemi’s call is simple common sense. She, like the public, recognises it’s madness to force up household bills by shunning a vital resource on our own doorstep.”
This announcement comes at a time when the industry accepts that it is at a crossroads. Labour’s blanket ban on new North Sea licences, together with the extension of what was supposed to be a temporary windfall tax, is having a devastating impact. It costs us an estimated 400 jobs every fortnight, and leaves us more reliant on costly imported fossil fuels.
David Whitehouse, chief executive of industry body Offshore Energies UK, has called for greater support for homegrown energy production, and highlighted how continued extraction of North Sea oil and gas can be complimentary to the development of renewable energy. He is entirely right to do so, and his views demonstrate once again the need for a balanced approach to energy policy, drawing resources from as wide a pool of technologies as possible, particularly given we are at a point when, as he says, we are now importing more energy than at any time in our history.
On all different levels, Badenoch’s proposals make sense, despite the reaction in some quarters. They will help reduce the reliance on imports, they will help lower bills, and they will ensure the continuation of jobs across the UK, particularly in North-East Scotland, that would otherwise be lost.
They contrast with Labour’s approach to the issue, which is to shut the North Sea down prematurely, losing jobs and relying on higher imports, all coming at higher cost to the consumer. And the SNP are little better, with their fence-sitting on new exploration licences. They may pay lip-service to supporting oil and gas jobs but, as their recent dalliance with the Greens proves, their hearts are elsewhere. SNP ministers’ enthusiasm is all for new wind projects, not oil and gas extraction.
So we are left with the Scottish Conservatives as the only serious party standing up for the North Sea oil and gas sector, and making it clear that the transition to net zero has to be affordable for the public. Kemi Badenoch is right in her calls, and Scotland will be better off – economically, financially and environmentally – if her policies are implemented.
Murdo's opinion piece was printed in The Scotsman on September 3, 2025.
