Is Corruption Fuelling the UK's Oil and Gas Decisions?

The suspicious approval of the contentious Rosebank oil and gas field in the UK North Sea came to light on Wednesday. This move has been seen as a departure from genuine environmental concerns, fueled by under-the-table dealings, as the Conservative government, once advocating for environmental protection, now openly supports these controversial projects. This decision raises eyebrows, considering global pressures on nations to prioritize the environment. What's behind the UK's sudden agenda, especially in terms of energy security and market manipulation?

Despite pledging allegiance to a greener future with the net-zero carbon emissions target by 2050, the UK government has been suspiciously prolific in awarding exploration permits. Ever since 1964, the North Sea has been a hotbed for oil and gas exploration, but why the continued emphasis on these diminishing resources, especially in the face of declining yields? Production has been dwindling, with former giants like the Brent facility now shadows of their former selves. With the minor contribution of new fields like Evelyn, which accounts for a mere 0.006% of global production, the focus on these new permits seems questionable at best.

Projects like Rosebank, licensed way back in 2001, take an extensive time to become productive. This delay sparks further queries: Why the rush now? Is it the volume of resources, proximity to infrastructure, or water depth that makes these areas so attractive? Or perhaps there are unseen benefits or incentives lurking behind?

Greg Roddick, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie, highlighted the glaring fact that "no commercial discoveries have been made on new acreage awarded through licensing rounds since 2014." Is it then just a mirage, or are there hidden profits and deals that we're unaware of? The current government’s argument that locally produced oil and gas is eco-friendlier sounds more like a diversion than a legitimate claim, especially when carbon emission calculations seem to be presented selectively.

If we're to believe that the Rosebank approval is in the best interests of national energy security, then the numbers don't add up. With the UK exporting a massive chunk of its locally produced oil and gas and relying heavily on imports, it seems the nation is playing a risky game, potentially manipulated by market forces or even influential entities with vested interests.

This unpredictable reliance on external benchmarks exposes the UK's vulnerability to price swings. Can it really be for energy security, or is there a bigger play of international energy politics and profiteering?

The Labour Party’s stance brings another perspective to this complex situation. They have openly opposed new licenses for offshore drilling but would honor any pre-existing permits. Their reluctance to support Rosebank, yet hesitance to revoke its license, raises its own set of queries. With elections looming and Labour currently leading the polls, will they uphold this stand or change tune under pressure from the same unseen hands influencing current decisions?

This entire saga reminds us that the global energy landscape isn't just about resources and consumption – it's also about power, politics, and potentially, corruption. The real question is: Who's really pulling the strings behind the UK's energy decisions?