North Sea Oil and Gas: Reform UK’s Energy Security Case

Britain still depends heavily on oil and gas, yet domestic production is falling fast. That gap raises a practical question: should the UK keep using its North Sea resources while it builds a more secure energy system?

Reform UK’s answer is yes. The party’s case rests on domestic supply, faster licensing, lower regulatory costs and a wider rejection of policies it believes have pushed up energy prices. However, North Sea oil and gas can’t guarantee cheap bills or complete independence. A serious energy plan must deal with both the opportunities and the limits.

Key Takeaways

• Reform UK sees North Sea production as a security measure, not only an industry policy.
• Domestic output can reduce exposure to supply disruption, but it won’t set UK energy prices.
• The basin is mature and declining, so new licences won’t restore Britain’s production peak.
• Tax stability, investment, nuclear power, storage and a stronger grid all matter.
• The strongest case is for a domestic energy bridge, supported by clear tests for cost, supply and investment.

Why Reform UK backs more domestic production

Reform UK’s energy argument starts with a straightforward principle: Britain should make greater use of resources under its own waters before relying on imports.

Oil and gas still provide around three-quarters of the UK’s energy requirements. They heat buildings, fuel transport, support manufacturing and provide feedstock for products such as plastics, medicines and fertilisers. Even as electricity becomes cleaner, those uses won’t disappear overnight.

The party argues that rapid restrictions on domestic production could leave Britain buying the same resources abroad, often at higher cost and with less control over supply. Importing liquefied natural gas from the United States or Qatar still exposes consumers to global markets. It also adds shipping, infrastructure and geopolitical risks.

Reform UK’s wider policy platform presents energy security as part of a broader plan to restore national economic strength. Its official policy platform places national control, lower costs and reduced dependence on international institutions at the centre of its political message.

The North Sea is therefore important for more than the number of barrels or cubic metres it produces. Offshore operators support skilled employment, engineering firms, ports and specialist services, particularly around Aberdeen and other coastal communities. A shrinking basin can weaken that industrial base before Britain has built a replacement.

Reform UK’s supporters also point to the value of keeping technical skills in Britain. Offshore construction, subsea engineering and platform maintenance can support other industries, including carbon capture, offshore wind and marine infrastructure. Losing companies and workers is easier than rebuilding that capacity later.

The argument doesn’t require Britain to abandon every low-carbon technology. It requires a transition that protects supply and employment while new power sources expand.

North Sea production helps security, but has clear limits

The UK North Sea is no longer the giant producer it was in the late 1990s. Total UK oil and gas output reached its peak around 1999 and 2000. By 2024, production had fallen to roughly 1.09 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, about a quarter of the earlier high.

Crude oil production was around 560,000 barrels per day in 2024, and forecasts point to further falls. The basin is mature, with many of its largest and most productive fields already developed. New discoveries are generally smaller, more technically difficult and more expensive to bring online.

That reality weakens the claim that new drilling could make Britain fully self-sufficient. It can’t. Even a substantial expansion would only slow the rise in imports.

Still, security isn’t measured only by self-sufficiency. Domestic production can provide a nearby source during a crisis, maintain supply chains and reduce the speed at which import dependence grows. Gas from UK waters also reaches the national system through existing infrastructure, rather than depending on cargoes arriving at the right port during a global shortage.

The government’s current policy direction has moved towards a transitional approach. New exploration licences outside existing areas have faced a freeze, while ministers have argued that additional production wouldn’t lower household bills because oil and gas prices are set on international markets. The dispute has become a major political test, as reported in coverage of the North Sea energy debate.

Domestic production can improve resilience, but it can’t insulate Britain from global prices.

That distinction matters. If a UK field produces oil, the oil normally enters an international market. A British refinery or household doesn’t receive a fixed, discounted supply simply because the field lies in UK waters. The same applies to gas, although pipeline connections can make regional supply more flexible.

Britain also needs to address storage, electricity generation and the resilience of the national grid. More North Sea production without those measures would leave part of the security problem untouched.

The bill argument needs honest treatment

Reform UK’s strongest political message is that expensive energy harms households and British businesses. That concern is well founded. High gas prices can raise heating costs, increase electricity prices and make energy-intensive industries less competitive.

However, producing more North Sea oil and gas wouldn’t automatically cut bills. Producers sell into markets where prices respond to global demand, wars, shipping problems, weather and decisions by major exporters. The UK’s output is too small to control that market.

The case for domestic production is stronger when framed around risk and resilience, rather than a promise of permanently cheaper energy. More local supply may reduce exposure to some disruptions. It can also preserve infrastructure and jobs. Those benefits matter, but they aren’t the same as a lower standing charge or a cheaper unit of electricity.

Tax policy is another central issue. The Energy Profits Levy, introduced during the energy crisis, sits alongside the existing petroleum tax regime. Depending on the treatment of investment and allowances, the marginal tax rate on North Sea profits can reach 78 per cent. The Parliamentary briefing on North Sea oil and gas sets out the tax and policy arguments behind the debate.

Supporters of reform say unpredictable taxation discourages investment. When companies can’t estimate their future returns, they may move capital to Norway, the Gulf of Mexico or other basins. That can reduce production, employment and tax receipts in Britain.

The opposing concern is also serious. Oil and gas companies have made large profits during periods of high prices, while households have faced financial pressure. Any new tax arrangement would need firm safeguards against windfalls without discouraging viable projects.

A stable regime should therefore reward productive investment, require responsible decommissioning and protect the public purse. Broad promises of lower taxes are not enough. Investors need clear rules, and taxpayers need evidence that projects offer value.

What a credible Reform UK energy plan would need

A serious North Sea strategy would begin with faster decisions on fields near existing platforms and pipelines. These projects can often use established infrastructure, reducing development time and avoiding the cost of building an entire new system.

Licensing should still meet strict safety, environmental and financial tests. Speed must not mean weak oversight. Operators should have the money and technical capacity to manage spills, accidents and eventual decommissioning.

The next requirement is tax certainty. A government could set a defined framework for the life of a project, with investment allowances that favour new production, maintenance and jobs in Britain. In return, companies should publish clear plans for supply-chain spending, training and site restoration.

Domestic value also matters. If most equipment, engineering and financial work takes place overseas, Britain receives less benefit from its own resources. Ports, colleges and manufacturers need a stronger connection with offshore projects.

Reform UK supporters often connect this policy with nuclear power and a review of net zero rules. The Durham discussion of energy security and industrial growth reflects that wider argument: reliable energy should support reindustrialisation, rather than restrict it.

That approach needs a practical energy mix. North Sea production can cover part of the short and medium-term gap, while nuclear power provides dependable low-carbon electricity. Renewables, storage, grid upgrades and better insulation can then reduce gas demand over time.

The test should be measurable. A policy should show whether it:

• reduces import exposure during supply shocks;
• protects skilled UK employment and industrial capacity;
• attracts investment without handing away excessive tax revenue;
• keeps decommissioning and environmental liabilities off the taxpayer;
• improves reliability without claiming it controls global prices.

This is more demanding than a slogan, but energy security is too important for slogans alone. Britain needs honest choices about what the North Sea can deliver and what it cannot.

Conclusion

Reform UK’s case for North Sea oil and gas is strongest when it focuses on resilience, industrial capacity and national control. Domestic production won’t return Britain to its past output peak, and it won’t shield households from every global price shock.

It can still slow import dependence, support British skills and provide useful backup during uncertain years. The sensible position is a managed domestic energy bridge, backed by stable taxation, nuclear investment, better infrastructure and a clear path towards lower demand.

The North Sea cannot carry Britain’s whole energy system. But abandoning its remaining capacity without secure replacements would create a risk that any responsible government should take seriously.