The UK Is on Track to Import 80% of Its Oil and Gas by 2030. Industry Says a Tax Change Could Slow That — the Government Hasn't Said Yes.

Energy Connects' 15 September report lays out OEUK's own numbers precisely: the proposal could generate roughly £15 billion (about $20 billion) in additional tax revenue over the next decade, including £2.4 billion more in industry taxes through 2035 and £12.6 billion from additional payroll taxes, on top of the headline £50 billion private-investment and 111-project figures — and separately claims the change could lift UK gas production to 288 billion cubic metres between 2025 and 2035, meeting roughly half of national demand and cutting LNG import reliance. The same report confirms the timing pressure: OEUK's ask is explicitly framed against Chancellor Healey's 28 October budget, his first since taking office alongside Burnham. Separately, Discovery Alert's July 2026 reporting on Burnham's energy policy confirms the underlying production figures (80.3 → 77.7 → 58.4 million cubic metres/day, 2024-2026) and the government's other live decisions in the same window: a VAT cut on household electricity effective 1 October 2026, and open reviews on the Rosebank (roughly 300 million barrels of oil equivalent) and Jackdaw (4.85 million cubic metres/day gas capacity) field developments, alongside a proposed Energy Independence Bill that would permanently ban new exploration licences.

Industry-side reporting attributes the accelerated decline directly to the EPL's 75% combined rate applying 'at any price above break-even with no price indexing,' which it characterizes as 'a structural investment deterrent rather than a targeted windfall measure,' and separately notes several companies — including BP, which has said it is working to exit the area — have reassessed, sold or scaled back UK North Sea activities as a result. Discovery Alert's coverage of Burnham's policy confirms the government side of the same choice is deliberate rather than incidental: the proposed Energy Independence Bill would make the ban on new exploration licences permanent, while allowing narrower 'Transitional Energy Certificates' for areas adjacent to existing licensed blocks, and cites a 2021 joint report's conclusion that government should 'end all support for new fossil fuel extraction' and 'revoke undeveloped licences' as the policy lineage behind the current approach. Rated likely rather than confirmed because the reporting reviewed here does not include a direct government statement explaining the EPL and exploration ban as a deliberate acceleration tool, versus an incidental byproduct of a primarily climate-driven policy.

OEUK's own figures, as reported by Energy Connects, are explicit about who gains from its proposal: 111 additional projects, £50 billion of private capital investment, and specific Treasury revenue gains of £2.4 billion through 2035 from industry taxes plus £12.6 billion from payroll taxes — a case built entirely around the industry and Treasury benefiting together. On the other side, the reporting on the broader coalition — Energy UK, Which? and Greenpeace jointly calling for an electricity-levy overhaul — frames the current funding model as flawed for consumers and the energy transition alike, implying that a government decision NOT to accelerate the EPL's replacement would be read as a win for that coalition's framing, even though no source here quotes the coalition celebrating a specific government commitment. Uncertain, because as of this writing the government has taken no decision — Healey's 28 October budget is still ahead — so any 'who benefits' answer describes what each side is positioning to claim, not who has actually won anything yet.

Discovery Alert's production figures alone — a fall from 80.3 to 58.4 million cubic metres a day across just two years — describe a decline that continues regardless of what happens at the October budget, since any tax change now would take years to translate into new production; the 80%-import-by-2030 trajectory cited in industry reporting is consistent with that lag. The climate-side framing, per reporting on the Energy UK/Which?/Greenpeace coalition, holds that removing or softening the EPL 'would slow down the transition from fossil fuels by enhancing the investment attractiveness of new oil and gas projects' — meaning if Healey does accelerate the levy's replacement, the position that loses ground is the government's own stated decarbonisation trajectory, at least as that coalition frames it. Rated likely rather than confirmed because the precise scale of any near-term job or investment loss under either scenario is not quantified by a single source reviewed here — the two sides' competing figures (OEUK's £50bn upside; the coalition's transition-delay warning) are both framed as consequences of a decision that, as of 17 September 2026, has not yet been made.