PM urged to review oil policy after Trump labels North Sea ‘a treasure chest'
The US president was in Scotland earlier this week and during his visit he described the North Sea as 'a treasure chest for the United Kingdom', and warned fossil fuel taxes make 'no sense'.
He also took aim at 'some of the ugliest windmills you've ever seen', referring to wind turbines off the coast near Aberdeen.
Mr Bowie has written to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer calling for a meeting in London to explore the effects of oil and gas policies.
Following his flying visit to Aberdeenshire with President Trump earlier this week, I've written to the Prime Minister urging him to heed the calls of all those he met on Monday.Scrap the EPL, overturn ban on licenses, ensure a future for our region & secure Britain's energy 👇 pic.twitter.com/uoLqNl6qFS
— Andrew Bowie (@AndrewBowie_MP) August 1, 2025
He referred to the windfall tax on the profits made from extracting UK oil and gas, introduced by the previous Conservative government in 2022 and retained until 2030 by Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
In his letter to Sir Keir, Mr Bowie wrote: 'As president Trump has said, the UK's 'very high' tax on oil and gas companies is a deterrent to investment.
'The extension of the energy profits levy (EPL), coupled with uncertainty around future licensing and investment signals, has created a climate of instability that threatens jobs, innovation and the region's economic resilience.
'President Donald Trump's remarks during your visit – calling Aberdeen the 'oil capital of Europe' and urging the UK to 'bring it back' – reflect a sentiment shared by many in the region.
'May I urge you to consider the president's call to 'incentivise' domestic production of hydrocarbons?
'Oil and gas still have a vital role to play in our energy mix and economic future; British people would rather see the UK benefit from domestic exploration and drilling than import more from Norway and Qatar.'
Mr Bowie, who is the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, added: 'Will you urgently call a meeting in Downing Street to conduct the review in partnership with industry leaders, our world-leading supply chain business, and the local workforce to ensure a coherent and sustainable path forward?'
During his visit with Sir Keir, Mr Trump posted on his Truth Social website: 'North Sea Oil is a treasure chest for the United Kingdom.
'The taxes are so high, however, that it makes no sense.
'They have essentially told drillers and oil companies that, 'we don't want you'.
'Incentivise the drillers, fast. A vast fortune to be made for the UK, and far lower energy costs for the people.'
Speaking at his Turnberry golf resort in South Ayrshire, Mr Trump said: 'When we go to Aberdeen, you'll see some of the ugliest windmills you've ever seen, the height of a 50-storey building.'
Gesturing with his hands, he added: 'You can take 1,000 times more energy out of a hole in the ground this big.'
Sir Keir at the time said oil and gas are 'going to be with us for a very long time, and that'll be part of the mix, but also wind, solar, increasingly nuclear'.
Aberdeen has been chosen by the Government to host the headquarters of GB Energy, a state-owned company set up to accelerate the rollout of renewables.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
UK pub drinkers issued warning over 'drastic change' that is coming in 2030
A study has claimed the price of a British pint will reach a eye-watering and staggering figure by 2030 due to soaring inflation. All pub drinkers have been warned A stark warning has been issued to all UK pub -goers about a drastic change expected by 2030. A study suggests that the cost of a pint in Britain could reach a staggering figure due to skyrocketing inflation. This year, summer in London has seen lots of sunshine and warm temperatures. To cool off from the hot weather, many of us have been guilty of spending an afternoon at the pub with our friends for a pint of beer. However, from spending a little over two pounds for a cold glass of drought beer, prices seemed to have gone out of hand. The report currently places the average price of a standard pint at £5.17, and £6.10 in London. It forecasts that this could rise to an astonishing £8 nationwide by 2030, and even hit £11 in cities. However, the study warns: "Touristy zones and stadiums could even see £12 to £13 pints becoming the norm." In other news, a writer claimed 'I tried butter from Tesco, Aldi, Lidl and big brands - and the winner is not Lurpak'. The research conducted by online review site PlayCasino predicts that the price of Peroni could jump from an average of £6.83 to £11.33, and San Miguel from £6.36 to £10.55, reports Birmingham Live. The report also states: "With the end of pandemic support many pubs are still catching up financially." One publican who responded to the researchers remarked: "Our energy bills have tripled, stock costs are up and we're still recovering from the pandemic. Prices are rising because they have to - or we don't survive." According to a study by Frontier Economics commissioned by the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), the average price of a pint of beer is set to reach £5.01 in April, a 21p increase. One pub patron told the Guardian newspaper earlier this year: "I think, this summer, it will get to the point where on a nice sunny day people will just sit in the garden because they can't afford to go to the pub. Without a doubt, I can feel the cost of living crisis. You go to supermarkets and you just see everything going up." "It is what it is. We go somewhere where it's cheap," stated Gary Swain, enjoying a Bud Light priced at £1.89. "It's a nice pint. You get used to what you get used to. "[The breweries] have all put their prices up now," Lisa Choppen, a pub manager, commented. She expressed that customers often fail to realise that pubs and bars have already made as many cutbacks as possible.
Evening Standard
25 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Starmer has ‘made a mistake' with plan to recognise Palestinian state
Steve Brisley from Bridgend, Wales, whose sister and nieces were murdered on October 7 and his brother-in-law Eli taken hostage, said: 'As British families of hostages and victims, devastated by the ongoing suffering of our loved ones, our emotional torture has been exacerbated by the suggestion that the UK may recognise a Palestinian state without securing the release of the hostages as an absolute precondition.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘One in, one out' is a realistic plan to deal with migration – let's give it a chance
The biggest problem with home secretary Yvette Cooper's plan to stop the boats is that it sounds unconvincing. One in, one out… how does that help? Especially when it is more like 17 in, one out? What kind of deterrent is that? But it is the start of a plan to tackle Britain's migration crisis – Home Office figures indicate that last Wednesday, almost 900 people arrived in boats in one day, bringing the total for 2025 to more than 25,000 – and one that could possibly work. It is, genuinely, the only policy that any government, Labour or Conservative, has devised so far that has a chance of doing so. The key to it is that the French government has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel. The deal that has been published today is only a pilot scheme. It does not even say how many people will be returned, although the target is understood to be 50 a week, which is a small fraction of the average 850 arriving each week. But the point of a pilot scheme is that it allows the mechanics of a return scheme to be tested. It has already passed one test that the naysayers said it would fail: it has been approved by the European Commission. Now comes the hard part: showing that it is possible to detain and process arrivals, defeat the legal challenges and then put them on a plane and deliver them to France. Of those, the legal challenges are likely to be the bottleneck: hence Cooper's announcement of a fast-track asylum appeals procedure to try to ensure that migrants can be turned round within a few weeks. If that works, then the aim is to 'build', as Cooper put it on the Today programme this morning. If Britain can send back 50 a week, then there is no reason why we couldn't return all or nearly all arrivals. The Home Office estimates, and this seems about right, that if it can send back 80 per cent of arrivals, that will have a big deterrent effect, and few crossings will be attempted. Of course, there are reasons for doubting that this can be achieved. Will the French allow us to increase the numbers? Will the French even extend the scheme beyond the initial 11 months to which they have signed up? It is bound to take longer than that to start to get the numbers up. Maybe it will not work, but the point about a pilot scheme is that it allows Cooper the chance to try out, at a small scale, the elements of a scheme that plainly could work. No one else has even proposed a plausible and humane alternative. That said, the voters' frustration at the slow pace at which the government is moving is understandable. Labour has been in power for more than a year; the number of crossings is higher than last year; Cooper is only now announcing the plan; and the plan itself looks underwhelming. No wonder Nigel Farage carries all before him. But let us avoid the trap set by social-media bores of assuming that there are easy or quick solutions that two governments, desperate to escape the fury of the electorate, have wilfully refused to adopt. It took time for Keir Starmer to persuade Emmanuel Macron to accept the key that could unlock the solution: that France will take some migrants back. I didn't think it was possible, because the losses are more obvious than the gains for the French president. Yes, there is the distant prospect of clearing the tent cities in the Pas de Calais, but in the meantime what is France to do with the migrants who are sent back? I don't know what Macron got in return, but that was a negotiating triumph on the part of our prime minister. And it will take more time still to crank the British bureaucracy into action so that it is capable of taking the next, decisive step towards an effective deterrent. Meanwhile, Farage will score points by pretending the problem is simple and the solution is easy. His 'solution' is to destroy our relationship with France by trying to return migrants without French permission; to tear up not just the European Convention on Human Rights but the Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea; and to detain all arrivals indefinitely in huge prison camps at undisclosed locations. And still he wouldn't be able to deport migrants if other countries will not take them. If there is a better way, would it not be worth trying that first, even if it might take some time?
