Trump Declares Burnham Will Open Up North Sea Oil as UK Investors Wait on Fiscal Terms
Donald Trump's public endorsement of the new UK government's North Sea plans adds international pressure on Burnham before details on approvals and tax treatment are set.
President Donald Trump said during an Oval Office event on Wednesday (2026-07-29) that Prime Minister Andy Burnham would "open up North Sea oil," calling it "one very good thing" and adding that Britain would become "a wealthy country" if Burnham acted reasonably. Energy Voice reported the statement, which arrived less than two weeks after Burnham took office on Sunday (2026-07-20) and immediately set a high-profile benchmark for how the new government's energy intentions are being interpreted in Washington.8
Burnham's team had already moved quickly on the domestic side. Rigzone reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that civil servants were asked to draw up new energy and water policies capable of announcement as soon as the week of 2026-07-20. Oilprice.com named the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank as among the projects under consideration. Montel reported that the approach involved advancing existing projects rather than opening new licences, preserving Labour's pledge against new exploration rounds.4,7,6
The distinction between advancing approved projects and issuing new licences is commercially significant. Jackdaw is a gas field; Rosebank predominantly an oil asset. Both carry long development timelines and require committed capital. Approvals without accompanying fiscal clarity leave operators in an uncertain position.6,7
That fiscal environment has been the central constraint on North Sea investment for years. Britain's effective tax rate on North Sea production stands at 78%, among the highest for any offshore basin globally, according to The Economist — rates high enough to have deterred capital in a region where ageing infrastructure has already pushed production costs well above those of competing basins. North Sea revenues peaked at approximately 3% of UK GDP in the mid-1980s; the basin now produces a fraction of that economic weight.2
ICE Brent crude front-month stood at $91.04 per barrel at Friday's close (2026-08-01), with markets shut over the weekend. At those crude prices, project economics in the North Sea remain constrained by the tax burden, and operators assessing new development commitments would need clarity on any potential rate adjustment before final investment decisions become viable.2
The coalition behind a North Sea expansion is less unified than Trump's endorsement implies. Labour MPs and climate campaigners had been pulling back from resistance to a new North Sea gas field ahead of Burnham's accession, E&E News and Energy Voice reported, but said fighting would continue over a second, more contentious oil project. Trump's public backing may complicate Burnham's room to manoeuvre with the elements of his parliamentary base most resistant to expanding oil production.3,5
For comparison, Norway is executing what the UK has not yet committed to: funded, scheduled expansion of North Sea capacity. On Tuesday (2026-05-19), Norway's energy ministry approved development plans for three gas fields — Albuskjell, Vest Ekofisk, and Tommeliten Gamma — in the southern North Sea, targeting a return to production in the fourth quarter of 2028 after around three decades offline. Montel reported that ConocoPhillips, the operator, expects daily output of 5.7 million cubic metres, roughly 1.5% of Norway's average daily gas production. Total investment across the three fields is approximately EUR 1.8 billion, with expected output of 90 to 120 million barrels of oil equivalent, mainly gas and condensate.1
Norway's commitment shows what planned capital deployment looks like against a stable licensing and fiscal backdrop. The UK is further back: a new prime minister signalling openness, an American president declaring intent on his behalf, and no published detail yet on whether the 78% effective tax rate will be adjusted to make the economics viable for developers.1,2
When Burnham's government sets out specific project decisions and the fiscal terms attached to them, that will be the first substantive test of whether the North Sea opening Trump described reflects actual policy or transatlantic political framing.8,4