Offshore energy workforce mix in the UK will change significantly in the next ten years, with roles in decarbonised energies projected to increase from 20% to 65% of all jobs in the offshore energy sector, a new report by Robert Gordon University (RGU) said.
The report indicated that around 200,000 people are likely to be required in 2030 to underpin the developing offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage as well as the vital ongoing oil and gas activities in the UK offshore energy sector. This compares to around 160,000 people directly and indirectly employed in the UK offshore energy sector in 2021.
Of the approximately 200,000 people, around 90,000 are expected to support offshore wind and 70,000 to work in the oil and gas industry.
“With the overall number of jobs in the UK oil and gas industry projected to decline over time, the degree of transferability of jobs to adjacent energy sectors such as offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen or other industrial sectors will be key to ensuring the UK retains its world class skills and capabilities,” Professor Paul de Leeuw, director of the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University and the lead author.
UK Energy Minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, added: “We have a world leading offshore energy sector in Scotland and across the UK with a proven mix of critical skills, which are essential to the success of the energy industry.
“Through our leading North Sea Transition Deal, we set out how we will make certain we have an energy skills base in the UK that is fit for the future, while our Green Jobs Taskforce will advise on how we can create the broader skilled workforce to deliver net zero by 2050.”
This report rests uneasily with the piece in today’s bulletin concerning practical ship fueling options. These announcements always have a lovely round number of jobs to be created. They are invariably wrong but always seem to get trotted out. Are they ever back checked? I suspect not by the authors.
The comments about hydrogen (years away as a credible fuel source, expensive, not green and potentially dangerous), wind (at best intermittent, costly and only viable with special financial provisions and grid access plus concerns over cable costs, attrition and maintenance) are not credible.