David Whitehouse chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, spelled out the benefits of UK energy production in a stark message to the government as he launched OEUK’s flagship 2026 Economic Report to an audience of 300 energy industry specialists in Aberdeen.
See edited highlights from his speech here:
The summer of 2026 was the hottest on record. The UK experienced five widespread heatwaves and, for the first time, 40 days above 30°C. These conditions remind us that climate change is not a future threat. It is a present reality.
That demands both urgency and honesty from policymakers. Urgency in building the low-carbon energy system of the future. Offshore wind. Onshore wind. Solar. Nuclear. Carbon capture and storage. Urgency in reducing demand for unabated oil and gas over time.
But also honesty about the energy system we have today. Honesty in recognising as our report highlights, oil and gas still provide around 75% of the UK’s energy. The energy that keeps our cars moving, planes flying, homes warm and industries running.
Honesty in recognising that we have underinvested in domestic energy for decades. At the turn of the century, the UK was a net exporter of energy. Today, we import more than 40% of what we consume.
Last year alone, Britain spent £84 billion importing energy. £84 billion that left the UK economy. That represents 2.8% of GDP. An increasing import dependence transfers economic value overseas. This exposes the UK to greater geopolitical risk, widening the trade deficit and reducing jobs, investment and industrial capability.
It makes the country vulnerable.
In response to this reality, there are often two opposing views. Some argue that the transition is too difficult, too expensive or too disruptive. Others argue that climate leadership requires Britain to stop producing oil and gas from its own waters, and that projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw should not proceed.
I believe both are false choices.
There is a legitimate debate about the pace and pathway to net zero. But there should be no debate about the destination.
Equally, those who argue that climate leadership means shutting down domestic production before demand has fallen are wrong. It is wrong to sacrifice our jobs, UK industry and UK investment simply to increase imports from overseas. That is not leadership.
The question is not whether the UK will continue to use oil and gas. The question is where that oil and gas comes from, as the Prime Minister himself has recognised. Do we support our own jobs, investment, supply chain and tax revenues while producing energy under UK environmental standards, or do we import it and lose those benefits?
Rosebank and Jackdaw have become symbols of this debate. Important projects, yes. But nobody seriously argues that these projects alone determine UK energy security or the future of our sector. They should proceed through the proper regulatory process. The industry supports rigorous scrutiny and due diligence. But the case for these two projects alone is overwhelming.
£1.4 billion in tax revenues before the end of this Parliament, rising to £3.8 billion before the expected end of the next Parliament in 2034. 880 high-quality jobs sustained throughout production. At least 125 apprenticeships, helping to build the workforce required for both the North Sea and the wider energy transition. Rosebank is also expected to provide long-term work for ports, manufacturers, engineering firms, vessel operators and specialist energy businesses across the UK.
Almost 200 contracts have been placed with UK energy supply chain companies, most of them across North-East Scotland, Fife, the Highlands and North-East England. Rosebank-related activity is also supporting Lerwick Port in Shetland. People are already working offshore on those assets today.
Are we really prepared to tell them they have lost their jobs so that we can import more energy from overseas?
If you believe Rosebank and Jackdaw should not proceed, come and explain that directly to the people whose jobs depend on them.
Explain why workers already offshore should be told their jobs no longer exist. Explain it to their families and communities.
Explain why billions of pounds of investment should leave the UK economy. Explain why we should reduce tax revenues at a time when we need to invest more in defence, public services and energy security.
Explain why it is acceptable to increase global emissions by importing energy with a higher carbon footprint rather than producing it here under UK environmental standards.
There are some influential figures and politicians that oppose these projects. Please don’t hide behind open letters, press releases or social media posts.
Come and debate these issues with me. With us. We have journalists in the room today. Let’s make that debate happen.
But important as Rosebank and Jackdaw are, they are only the tip of the spear. Behind them sits a pipeline of around 110 potential projects. Around £50 billion of investment. More than three billion additional barrels of oil and gas equivalent delivered with a lower emission than imports.
To unlock that investment, we need a supportive regulatory and fiscal environment. We need the Oil and Gas Revenue Levy implemented now, not years from now, and included in the Budget on October 28th. And we need a robust approvals process that allows projects to move forward predictably and efficiently.
If we deliver these projects, we support jobs across the UK, strengthen our economy and generate around £15 billion in additional tax revenues in the next 10 years.
The Climate Change Committee estimates the UK will still require at least 11 billion barrels of oil and gas on the journey to net zero by 2050.
With the right policies, we can produce at least half of that demand here in the UK.
That means supporting jobs; supporting investment; strengthening energy security; improving our balance of payments; generating tax revenues, and reducing the need for imports.
That is not an argument against the energy transition.
It is an argument for managing it responsibly.
Building the energy system of the future while making the most of the energy system we have today.
That is the challenge before us. And that is what this report helps us understand.
So where do we stand with the new government?
The new Secretary of State visited the sector within days of taking office. That was an important signal. I welcome that. The language has become more inclusive. The engagement more constructive.
The Chancellor has spoken about the importance of British industry. In a volatile world, we must back our own industries. I agree.
The Prime Minister has spoken about a pragmatic approach. He has recognised that the question is not whether we use oil and gas, but where it comes from.
Prime Minister, words are important but now is the time for action. Time for decisions.
Prime Minister. A decision on Jackdaw. A decision on Rosebank. But time to make it clear your Government backs UK industries. UK communities. That reindustrialisation is more than words.
Prime Minister, take on the argument.
This is not climate change versus energy security.
It is not renewables versus oil and gas. It is about people and communities.
It is about building on our industrial strengths, not undermining them. It is about doing what is right.
Ultimately, this year’s Economic Report points towards a simple conclusion.
The UK has choices. We have agency.
The future of our energy sector is not predetermined. The future of our industrial base is not predetermined. The future of investment in this country is not predetermined.
The UK offshore energy sector remains one of our greatest strategic and national assets.
We should support it.
Back our North Sea. Not imports.
Back our communities. Not imports.
Back our jobs. Not imports.
Thank you
Share this article
