Letters / In defence of Rosebank
The heartfelt opposition from local groups to the Rosebank field presents a false choice. This is not a decision between developing the field or protecting the environment.
Isles groups urge prime minister to refuse Rosebank development
The core of the debate rests on a simpler, unavoidable fact: the UK will need oil and gas for decades to come. Denying this reality does not make it disappear. Our homes, businesses, and industries will rely on these fuels well beyond 2050. The true question is whether we meet this demand through regulated, taxed domestic production, or outsource it abroad.
Choosing not to develop Rosebank would be an act of national self-sabotage. It would not reduce global carbon emissions by a single tonne; demand would simply be met by other producers, such as Norway. The result would be tankers importing fuel – often with a higher carbon footprint – over which we have zero fiscal or regulatory control. We would effectively pay a premium to surrender our energy sovereignty.
The economic case for Rosebank is compelling. This project is estimated to generate £24–25 billion in economic value and over £8 billion in direct investment, predominantly within the UK supply chain. Most critically, it will sustain thousands of high-skilled, well-paid jobs – exactly the kind that support families in Shetland, Aberdeen, and across the UK. We are already witnessing a haemorrhage of such roles, at a rate of around 1,000 per month. Every job lost means a family’s income gone, a taxpayer removed, and a potential claimant added to the welfare system. That is the human cost of a poorly managed transition.
Tax revenues from projects like Rosebank are not abstract; they are a vital source of Treasury income. This money funds our public services – the NHS, schools, and social care – and provides the essential capital to invest in the large-scale renewable and nuclear projects that will power our future. By developing Rosebank, we could use the wealth from our own natural resources to finance our transition to cleaner energy. Leaving this wealth untapped would be to voluntarily deprive ourselves of the very tools needed to build that future.
I firmly believe in protecting our environment, but we must do so with common sense. Abandoning our domestic industry merely exports both emissions and jobs, weakening our capacity to lead in green technology. The most responsible path is to produce what we still need here, while vigorously investing the proceeds in greener alternatives.
Shetland has long been a cornerstone of UK energy security. The Rosebank project offers a chance to secure prosperity, fund our public services and energy transition and retain control over our national assets. I sincerely hope the government will proceed with this vital development.
Shane Painter
Shenzhen, China
