Trump’s North Sea wealth promise goes far beyond Jackdaw forecasts

Developer Adura — a joint venture between Shell and Norway’s state-owned Equinor, according to STV News — forecasts 27 new direct jobs and the safeguarding of 273 existing Shearwater jobs that would otherwise be lost. Those employment benefits matter to the workers and supply-chain communities affected, particularly in north-east Scotland, as the minister’s decision acknowledges. [11] [2]

The decision also cites the developer’s estimate of roughly £2.9 billion in gross value added during operations. That is a measure of economic output, not cash for the Treasury or a comprehensive calculation of net national benefit. The developer supplied no tax-revenue figure for Jackdaw alone, and the minister gave potential tax receipts negligible weight because of uncertainty over profitability, allowances and future tax policy. [2]

On energy security, the assessed gain is “small but meaningful”, including support for existing processing infrastructure as North Sea production declines. But the decision expects Britain to remain a net gas importer throughout Jackdaw’s life and concludes that the project would not materially affect energy prices or consumer bills, which are driven by international markets. [2]

A much larger extraction programme would need its own economic case. The benefits forecast for Jackdaw cannot simply be scaled up into a promise of national wealth.

The wind-cost claim

Government estimates offer no blanket support for Trump’s description of wind power as costly. For installations entering service in 2030, they put average lifetime generation costs at £103 per megawatt-hour for fixed-bottom offshore wind and £147 for a new gas plant assumed to generate 30% of its maximum possible annual output. Both figures are in 2024 prices. [8]

Those figures are not a verdict on the cost of the whole electricity system. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s technical report excludes wider system costs and benefits and stresses that technologies with different operating characteristics complement one another. Network and balancing requirements still matter, so a lower generation-cost estimate does not establish that every additional wind project makes the system cheaper. [7]

Wind technologies also differ. January’s renewables auction produced contract prices for floating offshore wind more than twice those for fixed-bottom projects — a separate measure from lifetime generation costs. None of these comparisons establishes an economic advantage from dismantling existing turbines. [8] [7]

Trump’s opposition to turbines in the Aberdeen area predates this announcement. His golf company challenged consent for a windfarm about 3.5km from its Aberdeenshire resort. The Supreme Court judgment records the company’s concern that the development would diminish the resort’s amenity; it dismissed the appeal on 16 December 2015. [10]

The announced British policy also differs from Trump’s prescription. Ministers asked the regulator to consider urgent developments in already explored areas near licensed fields, ahead of legislation on new production certificates. But the government said it would not issue new licences to explore new fields, and announced an initial £2 billion Energy Wealth Fund to invest in renewable and low-carbon energy. [9]

That is selective continued gas development alongside clean-energy investment. Jackdaw’s forecasts do not establish the national wealth revival Trump predicts, nor do the generation-cost figures justify his demand to tear down wind turbines.