First Oil: Grading Trump’s first 11 months for upstream oil and gas

KURT S. ABRAHAM, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF & CHIEF FORECASTER 

Well, we’re now 11 months into Donald J. Trump’s second (unconsecutive) term, and that’s just long enough for his energy policies, particularly oil and gas, to be started/implemented/rooted in. This prompts the logical question, how well is Mr. Trump doing with his upstream oil and gas moves to date? Should we issue him a report card on his performance? 

Fig. 1. It is a complicated exercise to assess President Trump’s oil and gas record over the first 11 months. Image: The White House.

The best way to evaluate the President’s overall performance is to compile a list of his wins and achievements, as well as a list of programs that are stymied and/or incomplete, Fig. 1. Accordingly, here is a list of the more significant wins: 

• Lifting the LNG export license moratorium. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to end former President Joe Biden’s “pause” on granting licenses for new LNG export projects. The Department of Energy (DOE) has since approved several export-related approvals or authorization extensions, including Commonwealth LNG (Cameron Parish, La.), Port Arthur LNG Phase II (Jefferson County, Texas), Venture Global's CP2 facility (Cameron, La. Golden Pass LNG (Sabine Pass, Texas), and Delfin LNG (offshore Louisiana). These projects should lead to significant growth in U.S. LNG export capacity in the next few years. 

• Regulatory rollbacks. Several executive orders (E.O. 14153--Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential; E.O. 14154--Unleashing American Energy; and E.O. 14156--Declaring a National Energy Emergency) were issued to direct federal agencies to roll back regulations, guidance, and policies considered to be "undue burdens" on the fossil fuel industry. These actions included streamlining environmental reviews and removing federal financial and regulatory barriers to oil and gas production. 

• Legislation and policy shifts. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA) passed by both houses of Congress in early July. It was signed into law by the President on July 4, 2025. It includes several significant provisions that affect upstream oil and gas. OBBBA mandates more federal leasing, cuts royalty rates (reverting onshore minimums to 12.5%), delays the methane fee to 2035, and allows full deduction of intangible drilling costs, along with streamlining permitting and relaxing commingling rules. 

• Expansion of offshore and onshore drilling access. The administration has crafted a new, five-year, offshore leasing program for the 2026-2031 period. It includes proposals for lease sales in previously restricted areas, such as the eastern Gulf of America/Mexico and off the coasts of California and Alaska. Executive orders were also signed to lift restrictions and speed up permitting for oil and gas development within Alaska, including reinstating leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that were previously canceled.  

• Production security. The U.S. has maintained its role as the world's largest oil and gas producer, with the nation pumping a record amount of oil in 2025 at 13.6 MMbpd. Of course, this achievement has little connection to anything that Trump and his people have done. This continued high output has been driven by technological improvements in completions and production, as well as more efficient drilling practices. 

Okay, on paper, that list of positives looks really good. But what about any key failings, so far? Here is a short list of policy shortcomings and liabilities: 

• Increased drilling and production costs for oil and gas. The same tariffs that are supposedly geared to protecting the U.S. steel industry have inadvertently increased costs for domestic operators, as steel is an ubiquitous component for so many drilling and production functions. Furthermore, the same inflation during Biden’s first two years that increased costs aggressively for consumers also jacked up what producers had to pay for a host of oilfield equipment and services. 

• Market forces over policy. It doesn’t take a genius to see that market fundamentals, such as the global oil glut that has pushed down prices during the back half of this year, are overriding some of Trump’s policy initiatives. This has limited the actual impact of deregulation on some oil and gas items, including aggressive production expansion.  

• Using the upstream industry to balance the rest of the U.S. economy. It appears to this editor that Trump has been balancing his inflation reduction efforts on the back of the U.S. upstream industry. He believes that cheap energy, even when it’s to the detriment of this industry, is the quickest way to lower costs for everything else in the economy. So much so, that he may have encouraged the Saudis behind the scenes to put more oil on the market, to lower oil prices more aggressively. But much like former President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, Trump fails to appreciate the effects this has on domestic operators, particularly smaller producers, who can’t drill much when prices fall into the $50s/bbl. If he goes too far, the effects on the domestic industry could be deleterious. 

• Promising too much during the 2024 campaign. President Trump promised voters during the 2024 election cycle that he would cut Americans’ energy bills in half during his first 12 months back in office. While he has succeeded somewhat on gasoline prices (to the detriment of producers), the same cannot be said for electricity and natural gas delivered to homes, according to non-profit Public Citizen. In fact, those costs have risen at a rate faster than current inflation. The nationwide average retail residential price for one kW-hour of electricity rose from 16.82 cents to 18.07 cents between September 2024 and September 2025, per the EIA, a gain of 7.4%. And the price of natural gas delivered to U.S. residential consumers has increased from $22.71/Mcf in September 2024 to $24.66/Mcf in September 2025, an 8.1% increase. While there are reasonable explanations for some of this, they are lost on the majority of U.S. consumers, who are not very informed and not all that bright on energy. All they know is that their costs are up noticeably, and it could have electoral ramifications down the line. 
  

  Fig. 2. Sir Ian Wood. Image: The Wood Foundation.

So, looking at Trump’s overall energy performance in his first 11 months, what grade should we assign to him? Just looking at the list of positive achievements/factors, one might give him an A+ or A. But then we have the shortcomings and liabilities list. They are significant enough, this editor believes, to knock his grade down a full level to a B, overall. 

Titans of British business speak out against Energy Profits Levy. As you, our faithful readers, know from previous World Oil issues, this editor has pounded the administration of Prime Minister Keir Starmer repeatedly for stubbornly refusing to eliminate the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) or even knock it down some. Apparently, Starmer and his bunch are so wedded to their ideology (particularly anti-oil and gas), that they can’t see common sense when it slaps them in the face. The deleterious effects on the UK North Sea be damned, in their minds.  

Thus, it is refreshing to see two executives of great stature in British business come forward and call for the elimination of the EPL. In late November, Sir Ian Wood (formerly of Wood Group), Fig. 2, and Martin Gilbert (formerly of Aberdeen Standard Investments), Fig. 3, issued a joint statement on the subject. We think it is important/worthy enough to be repeated in its entirety, as follows. 

“In our previous careers,” stated Wood and Gilbert, “we have both been extremely fortunate to lead successful, globally recognised businesses, Wood Group and Aberdeen Asset Management, both proudly established in our home city of Aberdeen. It is an achievement that simply wouldn’t have been possible without a resilient and talented local workforce that were instrumental in building the blocks for rapid growth and success. 

Fig. 3. Martin Gilbert. Image: Bloomberg.

“It is that very same world-class skills base that the city, and wider region, is in serious jeopardy of losing, if decisive action is not taken. There is no doubt that North East Scotland, given its renowned subsea engineering prowess and its proximity to an unrivalled pipeline of projects, is ideally positioned to be a genuine global leader in the commercialisation of offshore renewables when they, in time, become available. That is a future that should excite us all. But it is a future that can only be realized, if we have a critical mass in companies located here, to deliver them and, right now, we are losing them, and the people they employ, at an alarming rate.  

“This is, by and large, due to the punitive fiscal and regulatory regime endured by the oil and gas industry which is hemorrhaging investment in the North Sea, with the UK relying ever more on carbon and costly imports from overseas.  

“Given we are projected to need oil and gas in our energy mix up to and beyond 2050, a point recognised by the government themselves, it is surely common sense to incentivise the production of our own domestic supply. And yet the Windfall Tax has achieved the exact opposite whilst simultaneously delivering a massive decline in revenues for the Treasury, compared to what it was intended to raise.  

“Put bluntly, the current position is economically and environmentally incoherent. We therefore urge the Chancellor to take three key steps in the upcoming Budget and the days that follow: bring an end to the unjust windfall tax in the next financial year, approve shovel-ready projects in the UKCS in the coming weeks, and reverse the position on its ban on oil and gas licensing immediately.  

“These measures would inject much needed economic growth in the UK economy and deliver the fair and just transition that has been promised for the very same workers who will be critical in achieving the UK’s energy security for generations to come.  

“We must act now.” 

Congratulations to both gentlemen for showing a bit of courage and taking on the ridiculous stance of the UK government. We can only hope that enough people listen and demand action. 

IN THIS ISSUE  

Special focus: Well Control & Intervention. Within the lead section, we have five articles on various related topics. In one feature, dynamic kill operations in a legacy Texas oil field are discussed by a Wild Well Control author. In a feature from the Well Control School, the author describes a new playbook for geothermal integrity. Meanwhile, a TechnipFMC expert explains how riserless coiled tubing intervention cuts time and cost by half. In a fourth article, authors from Halliburton Boots & Coots describe how a well control auditing platform reduces risk and downtime. Finally, authors from Vertechs Group and PetroChina Well Control Emergency Response Center present a case study on enhancing well control training effectiveness through integration of AI and virtual simulation technologies. 

Drilling rig innovations. Three companies have provided articles in this section. For their part, an H&P author discusses how the firm’s robotic rig made its field debut in the Permian basin. Meanwhile, a Nabors Industries expert describes how flexibility and modularity enable tailored solutions for challenging shale plays. Last, but not least, an author from Viasat Energy Services explains how space technology can help autonomous rigs become a reality.  

Industry leaders’ outlook 2026. As occurs every year at this time, our core group of advisors on World Oil’s Editorial Advisory Board have attempted to sort out what has occurred in the global E&P industry over the last 12 months while also doing their best to measure what may happen in the coming year. You will notice that there continues to be far less focus on ESG and sustainability topics, and considerably more on operational issues and regulatory concerns.