ONS Calls for Courage on Energy as UK Hydrogen Projects Await £2bn Budget Decision
The Stavanger conference drew its strongest US industry interest in years while UK hydrogen developers remain in limbo over a departmental savings target with no published outcome.
The Offshore Northern Seas conference in Stavanger drew what an official described as its strongest US industry interest in many years in August (2026-08-18), with diverging domestic opinions about the sector's future cited as the force behind the return. The conference itself called for "courage" to address the choices now dividing governments and industry on both sides of the Atlantic.6
That renewed transatlantic engagement is set against a deteriorating policy backdrop in London. The UK's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is seeking £2 billion in efficiency savings across its remit and has stayed silent on which projects will absorb those cuts. Hydrogen UK chief executive Clare Jackson warned in July (2026-07-06) that the situation was "incredibly challenging for investors," made worse by Prime Minister Keir Starmer's decision to fund a defence spending increase partly through reductions to energy projects.2
Jackson was specific about the damage. "Uncertainty is further exacerbated by statements from the Prime Minister," she said. Hydrogen UK added that delays in clean energy projects are "disproportionately impactful." For developers deploying capital across decade-long cycles, a budget review with no published outcome carries its own cost regardless of the eventual decision.2
The £300 million Trafford Green Hydrogen scheme developed by Carlton Power at the Trafford Low Carbon Energy Park in Carrington is one project awaiting clarity from DESNZ. It secured planning permission in October 2022, with an initial electrolyser capacity of 15-20 MW and an ultimate build-out of 200 MW. No announcement on its status has been made.2
The UK government was already under pressure on energy policy before the budget squeeze arrived. A "strongly worded letter" from a cross-industry group reached the incoming UK government in July (2026-07-14), pressing ministers to prioritise domestic oil and gas production over imports and to extend stronger support to British manufacturing. The letter's push for homegrown supply over transition pace echoes the same debate ONS convened in Stavanger.3
Across the Atlantic, US energy policy moved on its own trajectory. The US Department of Energy announced a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia in July (2026-07-22), describing it as "historic" and confirming that US companies will supply nuclear technology to the kingdom. The deal strengthens Washington's commercial energy presence in the Gulf at a moment when Middle East supply risks remain elevated.5
European officials have been unusually direct about those risks. Greek Energy Minister Stavros Papastavrou told the Atlantic Council Global Energy Forum in June (2026-06-10) that Europe must be "united" after Russia's war in Ukraine and Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz exposed how energy can be weaponized. The International Energy Agency reinforced the point in June (2026-06-16), warning that the Iran war had demonstrated how exposed Southeast Asia's power sector is to imports from a narrow supplier base.1,4
ICE Endex TTF front-month gas traded at €80.08/MWh during the September 16 (2026-09-16) European session. ICE Brent crude front-month eased 0.68% to $106.26 a barrel, with NYMEX WTI crude front-month shedding 1.57% to $101.93 a barrel, both in the September 16 (2026-09-16) session. Prompt crude weakness suggests oil markets are not pricing an acute Middle East disruption into spot barrels, even as policymakers in Athens, London, and Stavanger describe the underlying supply environment as exposed.
DESNZ's £2 billion savings review has run since at least July (2026-07-06) without producing a list of affected projects. Each additional week of silence compounds the investor confidence problem Jackson identified as already strained. The Trafford Green Hydrogen scheme and comparable UK projects now provide the practical test of whether ministerial language about energy security translates into retained capital commitments — or retreats into the kind of ambiguity that sent UK industry representatives to write letters in the first place.2,3