John Milne

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. We are reaching a point where a decision must be made about Rosebank. There are arguments on either side, but not every argument is equally valid. It is not true that Rosebank will help with energy security; the oil it produces will be overwhelmingly exported. Rather, we should invest in industries that actually do contribute, such as solar and wind. It is not true that Rosebank will reduce energy prices, and it is disappointing that people still put out that message for public consumption when it is quite clearly flat wrong. It is also not true that if we do not drill this oil, the Norwegians will. It is a geologically separate field; if we do not drill there, nobody does. On the other side of the argument, drilling at Rosebank will not necessarily increase UK use of fossil fuels in absolute terms, although it would, as others have said, add to the total amount of world fossil fuel production. The international COP process is focused on reducing fossil fuel demand and not supply, and perhaps that is a problem. A further argument has been made that, although the state does not own Rosebank oil, it will benefit from taxation, but that is actually a very difficult thing to calculate. Profits can be offset against development and decommissioning costs, and depending on the exact timescale, much of the potential tax revenue might never reach the public purse.