Cut to energy bills for businesses is ‘short-term fix', industry boss claims
David Whitehouse, the chief executive of Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) issued a stark warning over the UK's dependence on imported fuels.
With 'global tensions rising' the industry chief insisted that the UK relying on imports for almost 40% of its total energy needs left the country 'exposed'.
Mr Whitehouse said: 'In a volatile world, relying on others for our energy is not a position of strength.'
Calling for action he insisted that the production of 'homegrown' oil and gas must be prioritised over imports.
However the OEUK conference in Aberdeen where he was speaking saw protests from climate campaigners Extinction Rebellion, who accuse oil companies of 'greenwashing and fossil fuel lobbying in Scottish politics'.
Activists there were dressed as Daleks who were 'holding petrol nozzles as exterminators'.
The demonstration came as Mr Whitehouse claimed that while plans announced by the UK Government on Monday to reduce electricity bills for more than 7,000 manufacturing businesses would 'provide much-needed respite', these would also be a 'short-term fix'.
Instead he argued that the UK needs the 'homegrown dividend' that could be provided by investing in both North Sea oil and gas and renewable power.
The secure energy supplies this could give could help the UK's manufacturing sector to thrive, he insisted.
Mr Whitehouse said this 'means accelerating the build-out of our renewable energy alongside the responsible production of our domestic oil and gas'.
New analysis shows the UK could meet more of its energy needs from home – which could help cut imports, protect jobs, meet government climate targets, and boost economic growth.
Read the study here: https://t.co/5YALlmgq6z
Read our Press Release: https://t.co/jC1sImElzk
— Offshore Energies UK (@OEUK_) June 23, 2025
He told the conference that the issue of fossil fuels and renewables was 'not an either/or', stressing both forms of power are needed.
Mr Whitehouse added the decisions to be made by the UK Government in the coming months would 'shape the future of the North Sea'.
He stressed however: 'This should not be a choice between tackling our emissions versus economic growth. We can deliver both.
'This should not be a choice of renewable energy versus domestic oil and gas. We need both.'
But he made clear the UK should choose 'homegrown energy' over imported fuels.
The OEUK chief executive said: 'This is a choice between backing our workforce, our supply chain companies, value in our economy over importing the solution.
'It is the choice between a homegrown dividend over a dependency drain.'
But here he said the UK was 'not on track', telling the conference: 'In a country that relies on 75% on oil and gas for its energy, we are not seeing the investment we need in our domestic oil and gas sector.'
Mr Whitehouse also noted that while there had been 'important announcements' from the UK Government on green energy 'we are not seeing renewable projects being advanced at the speed originally envisaged'.
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: 'As the Prime Minister has said, the clean energy mission is in the DNA of this Government – because it is the route to energy security, lower bills, and good jobs for our country.
'Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be with us for decades to come, and we will deliver a fair and prosperous transition by managing the existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan.
'We have already taken rapid steps, with the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and carbon capture and storage clusters.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
US strikes ‘only set Iran's nuclear programme back by few months'
US military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the country's bomb programme and only set it back by months, an intelligence report has found. The strikes on the heavily fortified enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz did not do as much damage as US officials hoped, according to an initial assessment. The early findings, produced by the Pentagon, found much of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strike. The bombings sealed off the entrances of the target nuclear facilities and did not succeed in collapsing the underground buildings, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) found. After the US bombing mission and days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the agency estimated Iran's feared nuclear programme was delayed by less than six months. The early findings are at odds with Donald Trump's claims that Operation Midnight Hammer 'completely and totally obliterated' Tehran's nuclear enrichment facilities. The White House said the assessment was 'flat-out wrong' and that it was leaked by an 'anonymous, low-level loser'. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean president Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear programme,' Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. 'This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' Mr Trump dispatched seven B-2 stealth bombers from American soil to drop massive bunker-busting bombs on the Iranian enrichment facilities on Sunday. The US pummelled Iran's nuclear programme with 14 GBU-57 bombs, each weighing 30,000lbs, while a US submarine launched a further two dozen Tomahawk missiles, also striking the Isfahan atomic site. In a televised address to the nation, Mr Trump hailed the mission's success, adding: 'This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.' Iran launched a retaliation for the attack on Monday, firing missiles at America's largest and most fortified military base. Experts have disputed the claims that the heavily fortified facilities and the stockpile of enriched uranium were 'obliterated'. Two people familiar with the classified assessment told CNN the stockpile of enriched Uranium, the key component for making a nuclear weapon, was secretly moved and not destroyed. 'So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,' one source said. Satellite images of convoys leaving all three sites in recent days appeared to support Iran's claims that it moved its 400-kg stockpile before the attack. The DIA report supports the claims, indicating that the sites were not damaged as much as hoped and that Iran still controls almost all of its nuclear materials. In which case, Tehran could still make a nuclear weapon relatively quickly. Onboard Air Force One en route to The Hague for a Nato summit, Mr Trump said it was an 'honor' to 'destroy' Tehran's nuclear capabilities.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
US strikes did not destroy Iran nuclear programme, says Pentagon assessment
The US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the country's nuclear programme and probably only set it back by months, according to a Pentagon intelligence assessment. The Islamic Republic's stockpile of enriched uranium was not eliminated in the bombings, sources familiar with an evaluation by the Defense Intelligence Agency told the BBC's US partner White House said the initial damage assessment was "flat-out wrong" and "a clear attempt to demean" President Donald Trump. The president has said the air strikes "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. More to come. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Ex-Rangers chief Murray ordered my agent to leave then asked me what it would take to sign – here's what I told him
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SIR DAVID Murray was known for splashing the cash when he was the main man at Rangers. And one former Ibrox star has opened up on the moment he ordered his agent and his dad OUT of the room when he was in talks to sign for the club - before he made a demand of his own. 5 Sir David Murray at his desk during his time at Rangers Credit: PA:Press Association 5 Peter Lovenkrands has opened up on the negotiations he had with Murray 5 He made a huge demand of Murray to seal his deal to Ibrox Credit: Alan MacGregor Ewing - The Sun Glasgow When Murray bought Gers for £6million in 1988, he set about ensuring the Glasgow giants became the dominant force in Scottish football. The Light Blues won nine league titles in a row in the nineties but Murray wanted to make an impact in Europe too and by the turn of the decade the spending was out of control. In their heyday Rangers attracted the likes of Paul Gascoigne, Mark Hateley and Brian Laudrup to Govan. And it was the latter's star turns at Ibrox that played a huge part in compatriot Peter Lovenkrands coming to Gers. Murray famously vowed "For every five pounds Celtic spend, we will spend ten," and when he was trying to convince Lovenkrands to choose Rangers over Newcastle of the Premier League, he showed he was prepared to open his wallet. Lovenkrands - who actually supported Rangers growing up because of the Laudrup link - sat down for talks with Murray, his agent and his dad as they prepared to thrash out a deal. But Murray shook things up when he demanded to speak to the player alone to talk finances. And the young striker decided to test the water by asking for a whopping £100,000 signing on fee. Murray relented - but still offered him a HUGE five-figure sum. Lovenkrands recalled the incident on the Open Goal podcast, saying: "I went to meet David Murray the day after I toured Ibrox and he immediately asked what was happening. New Rangers chiefs Andrew Cavenagh and Paraag Marathe's first interview "'Are you signing?' he asked. "I hummed, and then this is the funny story. "He said to my agent and my dad 'I need you two to walk out, I need to talk to Peter.' "So they walked out. And this is where the ruthlessness in my head comes from. "He looked at me and asked me what it would take to sign. "In my head, the deal was already great and I had no idea what to do here. "I said 'Give me a hundred grand signing on fee, I'll sign'. "His face dropped. "As soon as I said it I wanted to catch the words and put them back. "He looked at me and said 'I don't have to give you anything, but I'll give you 50 (grand). "So I shook his hand and said 'Deal!'. "That was the deal done and I then went off to do the medical." When Lovenkrands told his counsel what he said, they were shocked. He said: "I told them what I did and they said 'Are you serious? Did you say that?!' 5 "Looking back I think what was I doing, but it worked. "That was my thought process back then, I was just different." Of course, little did Murray know just how much Rangers meant to Lovenkrands and his dad. Indeed, his parents used to fly from Denmark to Scotland to watch Laudrup in action for Gers and would regularly holiday in the Scottish Highlands. After seeing his son sign on the dotted line, Lovenkrands Snr became emotional. "My dad was crying in the tunnel when I had the scarf above my head," he revealed. "It just meant so much to us." 5 Lovenkrands and fellow 2000 signings Kenny Miller, Fernando Ricksen, Allan Johnston and Paul Ritchie Credit: News Group Newspapers Ltd Keep up to date with ALL the latest news and transfers at the Scottish Sun football page
