Comment by BVAA CEO Rob Bartlett

One of the more curious aspects of the UK's energy debate is that it often ignores a simple fact: we continue to use vast amounts of oil and gas every single day.

Oil and gas fuels our transport networks, powers global shipping and aviation, provides heating oil to thousands of homes and businesses, and serve as essential feedstocks for chemicals, plastics, pharmaceuticals and countless manufactured products. Despite political rhetoric, modern life remains heavily dependent on hydrocarbons.

The question, therefore, is not whether we use oil and gas. The question is where they come from.

Across the North Sea, Norway has answered that question with remarkable clarity. It continues to develop its offshore resources while maintaining high environmental standards and pursuing ambitious climate objectives. The result is, I’m told, Norway currently produces around 1.8 to 2.0 million barrels per day of oil and associated liquid hydrocarbons, compared with approximately 600,000 barrels per day from the UK Continental Shelf.  In simple terms, Norway is producing roughly three times as much oil as the UK from the same North Sea basin.

This is not because Norway cares less about the environment. Rather, it recognises that as long as society continues to consume oil and gas, there is a strong argument for producing them domestically under stringent regulation, rather than importing them from elsewhere.

The UK's approach, by contrast, often appears paralysed. Governments of different political persuasions have struggled to provide a consistent long-term vision for the North Sea. Licensing rounds, fiscal regimes and investment signals have all become subjects of political uncertainty at precisely the time the industry needs confidence to support multi-billion-pound investments.

For those of us in engineering and manufacturing, this matters enormously.

The UK Continental Shelf is far more than a source of energy. It is a cornerstone of a sophisticated industrial ecosystem that supports thousands of highly skilled jobs. The valve and actuator industry has been part of that ecosystem for decades. Offshore platforms, subsea systems, pipelines, terminals, gas-processing facilities and associated infrastructure all rely on the expertise, products and services provided by BVAA members and the wider supply chain.

When investment flows into offshore or indeed onshore developments, manufacturers benefit. Engineering firms benefit. Inspection, maintenance and service providers benefit. Apprenticeships are created, skills are retained and technical expertise continues to develop.

When investment dries up, those opportunities disappear.

Perhaps the greatest fallacy in the current debate is the suggestion that reducing domestic production automatically reduces environmental impact. If Britain still imports oil and gas to meet demand, production simply takes place elsewhere. The atmosphere does not distinguish between a barrel produced in Aberdeen or Abu Dhabi.

What does change is where the jobs, tax revenues, investment and industrial capability are located.

This is not an argument against renewables, carbon capture or emerging low-carbon technologies. The UK should continue to pursue them vigorously. Indeed, many of the skills needed to deliver those technologies have been developed within the offshore oil and gas sector.

But an effective energy transition should build upon industrial strength, not weaken it. Norway appears to understand that. The UK government, unfortunately, still seems unsure.

As long as we continue to use oil and gas, choosing not to produce our own is not a climate strategy. It is a decision to transfer jobs, investment and economic value elsewhere. And that is a price the UK can increasingly ill afford to pay.

Search related valve / actuator articles:   British Valve and Actuator AssociationIssue 107BVAA Comment