Rosebank: It’s not just about oil good or oil bad

Aberdeen-based engineering firm chief and economist James Bream explains the complex impacts of the UK Government’s decision to give the go ahead for new oilfield and it’s implications for the local community as well as the transition away from fossil fuels

Katoni Engineering chief executive James Bream. Picture by Abermedia/Michal Wachucik

I am writing this piece sitting in the Northeast of Scotland. I am the CEO of an engineering company which supports the offshore industry and I’m an economist.

All of these things may point you to someone who’s probably been put up to write a pro-oil piece and also paint a picture of someone who couldn’t know anything else.

The less visible part to this author is that I wasn’t born in Scotland, I have had more of my adult life out of Aberdeen than in it, and I never imagined I would work in or near the oil and gas industry.

I am also actively working to create a business which gives a future to young people and, at the same time, reduces the impact on the environment of the oil and gas industry. Finally, I have a team which supports me with these aims. Things are never as clear cut as they seem.

Up here in the frozen north I write a column (for another paper) largely focused on economics but covering many aspects of being a normal person.

I been part of debate shows on the BBC, been on other media outlets and faced scrutiny in Parliament. What has struck me is that saying anything publicly leads to a bit of abuse and a loud contrary view.

Vocal opposition now comes quickly on social media, whether you’re talking about oil or the Tattie holidays. The ability to receive “feedback” so easily means that what’s non-controversial to many can be made controversial through a loud or passionate minority.

For many living in the Northeast, the decision to approve Rosebank is probably not a big deal. Rosebank is just another project somewhere in the North Sea. For those outside the region, it is hard to comprehend what it is like to be in Aberdeen and the Northeast.

The business community, the local community and villages are all intrinsically linked to the oil industry.

However, what is also true is that the region and its people are accepting and supportive of change and the decarbonization of the oil and gas industry – as well as its inevitable decline.

That community view is not a totally selfless position as people feel that way because change and the expansion of new energy requirements around the globe will create jobs and support families. If we can manage our own UK energy industry properly, then we can create world-leading business as energy demand increases. That is good for Aberdeen.

What I cannot do is trivialise the Rosebank decision. The decision is controversial because it’s not a small minority who are against the oil and gas industry.

In fact, it is a very large proportion of the population. However, within that large group there are smaller groups and each of those has different views.

What is important for me is a sense of balance, calm and reason – things which are often lost when one holds an entrenched position and that is the case for those both for and against this project.

The project brings tension and, for some, a narrative that the UK wants to continue to pump oil and gas. However, this misses an opportunity which is that we can drive environmental change as part of a wider process driven by government and the NSTA (the offshore regulator).

My starting point for my “reasoning” is that we need energy. There is a lot of talk of energy transition, but global energy demand is growing.

It is technically possible to stop oil and gas almost immediately but the consequences for the economy, infrastructure, health, tax, jobs and energy supply are all so significant that this is not a practical possibility.

Even in the most aggressive of “stop oil” scenarios, we will still need oil and gas in the UK which will either be provided domestically and/or through international purchases.

I’ve previously worked in a regulatory role and the nature of these positions is that balance and a sense of steadiness is important. This is where I think the first opportunity lies.

The regulator has a fantastic opportunity to use Rosebank and new fields/developments as exemplars for low-emission production. I accept that is not what some want but it is good for industry and innovation and will support the growth of a UK supply chain which can operate (and does already) internationally.

The regulator can use Frontier Regulation to press for change across the basin in the UK. What I mean by that is that it can create “high-performing” new fields and use incentives to either drive performance from older fields or use disincentives if they do not comply. This is a very normal regulatory approach and one the offshore regulator will already be thinking of. However, it should make that more visible to the public.

There are other things in the good/bad argument that merit consideration. If we need hydrocarbons for even 10 or 15 more years, then it is a genuine concern where they will come from. The economics and environmental impact of importing fuel does not stack up. Layering on the national security argument, it makes sense to have some domestic production, if nothing else to protect ourselves as a nation.

One area in which the Government, whoever is in power, needs to take more care, however, is how these decisions are viewed and how they are presented. While few will have sympathy for the “fat-cat” oil workers (wink) the industry and those workers have been kicked from pillar to post in the media.

Many of the people working in the industry work hard and do important jobs. The two major parties in the UK have done nothing to take care of these people or understand how their flip-flopping media statements and policies impact investment and new (clean) energy sources. I’ve focused on these parties because they govern the sector, others are culpable, too.

I wrote recently about how Keir Starmer had not communicated well on Labour’s intentions on energy.

I think the same is true of how the current Government has dealt with new energy and oil and gas as well.

Labour is against new fields but have said they will not change the Rosebank decision. The Conservatives, under different leaders, have given narratives which are wholly unclear and verging on contradictory.

Energy policy should be like education and transport, it should be set in place for decades and followed with consistency and a sense of stability.

Wildly changing policies and approaches are only likely to stoke the flames of groups which have strong views. Changing policies increases feelings of marginalisation whether they are people for or against oil, gas or any other energy source.

Believe it or not, there are even sub-groups who feel just as strongly about things like Hydrogen, Solar, Onshore Wind, Tidal, Offshore Wind and more. And, unsurprisingly, none of those debates are dispassionate either – a sign of the times.

For me the decision on Rosebank isn’t about oil good or oil bad, it’s not about business versus the people, it’s not about environmental progress or stagnation either. Unfortunately, in a world where want debate in 145 characters and binary choices,​ Rosebank has been set out as a game of true or false, when the answer is more akin to playing with a Rubik’s Cube.

Those for will claim it as a win, those against will see is as a crime against the globe.

However, as far as I am concerned, the Rosebank approval should create a platform (no pun intended as it will be a floating vessel) for a better quality debate about our energy mix, growth in energy demand and the roles all energy types and generation in that future.

It is time to stop debating single projects and start focusing on what actually matters for our collective future.

​

James Bream is the Chief Executive Officer of Katoni Engineering and a former director at Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. He previously worked in economic and management consultancy and is chair of Developing Young Workforce, a group which tries to ensure young people have a work relevant educational experience.