It looks as though Andy Burnham is going to approve new oil and gas developments in the North Sea: Jackdaw (gas) and Rosebank (mainly oil). Oxfam is circulating a petition to stop their development. Who is right? Well, all sides are overstating their case …

Burnham argues that we “can’t ignore” North Sea oil and gas, that the issue isn’t whether or not we will burn oil and gas in future – we will – but rather where the stuff comes from. This speaks to a widespread misconception. People think at least it’s British and close to home – but crude oil isn’t used in its raw form, it needs to be refined. The bulk of the oil that is extracted in the North Sea is shipped off in tankers to refineries in other countries.

Another misconception is that because it’s British, we have first dibs on it and it will lower energy bills. That might be true in a different world where the oil companies were state-owned, a world where the oil and gas was actually British. (If we were at war, and had forcibly nationalised reserves in British waters, for instance.) But the oil companies operating in the North Sea – Equinor and Shell, in the case of Rosebank and Jackdaw – are not state-owned. (Or rather … Equinor is largely state-owned, but that state is Norway!) By and large, oil companies are owned by institutions and individuals; and they will sell the oil and gas on the international market. The volume of oil and gas concerned will be minuscule in international terms, so the impact on oil and gas prices – and hence domestic fuel bills – will be minuscule. In fact, it will be unmeasurable. So no measurable benefit to home owners, alas.

A further misconception – which can easily tip into xenophobia – is that North Sea operations are better and cleaner than production further afield and therefore the carbon emissions will be significantly less. In reality, the vast bulk (circa 90%) of greenhouse gas emissions are released when the stuff is used (burnt), not when it is produced. So even if the North Sea operations are cleaner than alternative supplies – which may or may not be true – the benefit in terms of reduced greenhouse gases is inevitably marginal.

On the other hand … Oxfam are also guilty of overstatement. The development of Rosebank and Jackdaw will not have a measurable effect on the total global consumption of oil and gas. We cannot say with any confidence that overall GHG emissions will be higher if Burnham were to give Shell and Equinor the green light to proceed.

And there is an argument that because we are so dependent on oil and gas, the best course of action is to keep developing new reserves but put our efforts into carbon capture and storage – i.e. keep burning the stuff but work out how to stop the associated emissions from escaping into the atmosphere.

Carbon capture and storage is still at a very early stage in terms of implementation. It applies to a minuscule percentage of overall production. While that is the case, it does seem – on balance – irresponsible to sanction new developments. There needs to be pressure on oil companies either to stop drilling, or to clean up the stuff that’s produced.

So – on balance – Oxfam is right and this petition should be supported.