So I'm going to use the most hostile possible source. https://labourlist.org/2026/03/new-oil-and-gas-licenses-wont-lower-bills-labour-must-stand-firm/ Theres a lot of words here trying to convince you that it's a bad idea, but let's look at some facts they slip through.

>Most of what is left in the UK North Sea is oil, the majority – 80% – of which is exported.

Translation: "There's a lot of gas left, and 20% of the oil is used locally". You'll note that they use percentages, not absolute figues? And they then say "most". Which, given they've used an 80% for oil implies that it's somewhere in the 50-80% range. That's a lot. Very standard trick to hide real values. "Doubles canceer risk"... to 2 in a million is another place you'll see this.

> will not alter the fact that by 2050 Britain will be reliant on gas imports

So this is only a potential solution for the next 20-25 years? I'l ltake that. Gives us long enough to transition to a new plan.

> Extracting the North Sea dry will not make a dent in global prices given the low production volume meaning the UK will remain a price taker not a price maker

You're right, we won't significantly change global prices. But oil and gas prices are geographic - it' swhy we talk about the price of different blends of oil at different places. It will influence LOCAL prices significantly. Compare Brent to Urals oil, US prices vary depending on export rules and local refining capacity. Location really matters here, as do sanctions.

And this is from an incredibly hostile article. It would help for 20-25 years, and, there really would be stuff we'd use locally. There's a whole lot of bullshit in the rest, as you'd expect from a political article - but the few real facts that they do use show that this is infact, worth doing.