The ReVolting Podcast
The ReVolting Podcast is a series about what it really takes to challenge convention and drive transformation across the energy sector.
Hosted by Úna Brosnan and John MacAskill, each episode dives into the ideas, tensions, and turning points shaping real change - from boardrooms to offshore platforms and everywhere in between.
With candid conversations and honest reflections from industry voices, ReVolting explores why innovation so often meets resistance, and how progress demands more than new technology - it calls for courage, collaboration, and a willingness to get a little uncomfortable.
The ReVolting Podcast
Offshore Wind at a Crossroads: Scaling, Sovereignty, and the Next Five Years
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode of The ReVolting Podcast, Úna Brosnan and John MaCaskill are joined in-studio by Jonathan Cole, a veteran of the offshore wind industry with over two decades of experience spanning global development, policy advocacy, and market-building.
Together they take stock of an industry at an inflection point. From the remarkable rise of offshore wind into a cornerstone of energy systems, to the current headwinds of inflation, supply chain constraints, and policy friction, the conversation explores what’s really behind today’s turbulence - and what comes next.
Jonathan reflects on the lessons learned from scaling offshore wind globally, arguing that while technology has advanced rapidly, policy and infrastructure have struggled to keep pace. The discussion dives into the structural challenges now facing the sector, including transmission bottlenecks, supply chain concentration, and the risks of over-ambitious targets without delivery frameworks to match.
The episode also unpacks the growing role of geopolitics in shaping the energy transition. From shifting alliances and weakened multilateral institutions to the resurgence of energy sovereignty as a central driver, the conversation highlights why the transition is increasingly being framed not just as a climate imperative, but as an economic and security strategy.
Closer to home, the discussion turns to the UK and Europe - exploring the strengths of established offshore wind markets, the implications of recent policy decisions, and the delicate balance between maintaining investor confidence and navigating national security concerns.
A candid and wide-ranging conversation on realism versus ambition, the importance of infrastructure and policy alignment, and why the next phase of the energy transition may depend less on ideology - and more on execution.
Good afternoon and welcome back to the Revolting Podcast. We've had a busy couple of weeks and certainly it's it's been um an entertaining and uh reflective couple of weeks in the energy industry. Um today it's our it's our first guest in in the studio here in Edinburgh, and we're delighted to welcome Jonathan Cole. So absolutely thank you very much, uh Jonathan, for for joining us today. Um pleasure.
SPEAKER_04I didn't realise I was the first guest.
SPEAKER_00You're the first delight.
SPEAKER_04When you guys launched this podcast, I thought I want to get on that podcast.
SPEAKER_03Absolutely. First in person, yes. Another career highlight in the revolting studios. Not the revolting, by the way.
SPEAKER_00So, look Jonathan, do you want to just give us a little bit about your background for those who don't know you?
SPEAKER_04Sure. Okay, so I'm Jonathan. Cole. Uh I am been working in the energy transition for 20 plus years. Uh mostly known, I guess, for being in offshore winds. I've set up and ran two very big global offshore wind developers. Although I started my career as a lawyer in private practice working in you know big kind of infrastructure-built environment projects. I guess got quite early into onshore renewables as it was starting to get to utility scale, and then I got quite early into offshore renewables as that was really starting to take off. So I've my career's been characterised by a bit of hard work and a bit of good luck. Alongside running those um offshore wind businesses, I was also involved in doing a lot of advocacy and industrial development. So I previously was the chair of the Global Wind Energy Council, you know, doing advocacy for renewable energy at these big multilateral institutions like the UN and COP, as well as sitting on various industry boards and things like that. So the energy transition, something I'm very engaged in and passionate about. And uh still still here, still surviving.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean it's tough at the minute. Like you you've certainly you you've you've you've certainly went around the the globe, um particularly in your role in GWEC, and especially with your projects, I suppose, over the last um the last while. I mean, you've been around since the early days of offshore wind, not that I'm saying you're old or anything like that. I mean not far off yet. Um but it's a case of you know, what have you genuinely learned? And I suppose we're reflecting, I suppose at the minute we're in a very difficult position for offshore wind and and energy transition and renewables in general, but it's a great opportunity as well. And I suppose from your your career history, what have you genuinely learned and where can we bring you know that experience forward? And are we missing a trick here?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, well, so I think well, first of all, I have to say that the industry, although it's hurting a bit just now and it's struggling a bit just now, should be incredibly proud of what we have done over the past 20 years. You know, we've come from something which was a bit of a nascent idea that a lot of people didn't really believe in. And systematically, we kind of demonstrated the technology, we demonstrated you know that it could be scaled up, we demonstrated that the cost could come down. You know, we we did everything that was needed to make it now uh a backbone of loads of um energy transition plants. So loads to be proud of. I mean, it does feel a little bit like 2016, not 2026, right now, because you look at what's happening in this industry, we're sort of back in the North Sea basin with big western utilities sponsoring the industry. Um, and for a while we thought we were kind of out of that and globally expanding. So I think what what what have we learned um that's kind of took us back to there? I I think that the key thing that's that's happened for this industry is that um I guess targets move quicker than technology, technology moves quicker than policy, and policy moves quicker than infrastructure. And I think as we you know created a lot of ambition in targets because we were doing so well, and the technology was proved so effectively and so well, we started to run much faster than probably um made sense. And the truth is the policy frameworks and the infrastructure didn't keep up, and so as soon as things at the macro level started to turn against us, you know, things like interest rates and inflation and supply chain fragility, we just started to hit problems, and that's where we are right now by problems.
SPEAKER_01It showed the cracks. It showed the cracks, it's like a river where it comes down, you can see the rocks when the the level comes comes comes down. They were there, but we kind of managed around them.
SPEAKER_04And I think technology gains and cost of capital reductions during that period of expansion were papering a lot of cracks because they were m making the performance on things like cost reduction and you know economic performance probably look stronger than they ought to have been for a technology and an industry at that stage in its life. And I think then when those things turn against us, obviously you know the cracks in her follow your analogy and suddenly it starts flooding down. And so we're kind of back to the fundamentals again, we're back to the North Sea where the prop the projects and the capabilities are there, and we've got sponsors that you know really uh believe in the market and all the rest of it. And you know, I think we really rely on the next five years that being a success in those markets to do that. Because it rebuilds the foundation, rebuild the foundations and then we go again, and we will expand again and we'll hopefully learn the lessons that you know targets alone don't build projects, you need policy and infrastructure and supply chain capability.
SPEAKER_00Absolutely, but I I see this as an opportunity as well, and I think you know, going exactly what you're saying, papering over the cracks with maybe those early wings on the financial side, but it gets us to go back to fit first principles as well, and I suppose taking a little bit more of a practical um opportunity to go back and develop projects as we probably should, we probably got a little bit ahead of ourselves. Um, and looking at the markets, I suppose, Jonathan, I mean the UK and China have been doing exceptionally well. We've been pushing out um uh pipelines. Don't get me wrong, it's been very difficult here in the UK. But where are you seeing globally, I suppose, with the potential? I suppose we've seen a lot of the markets pull back, like the likes of um, well, the US, which we'll touch on later, and and the the the challenges around the likes of vineyards and and wider leases being returned. But say Australia, um, you've seen some of those markets pull back, you've seen some of the wider ones. Where do you think the global markets will start to go with?
SPEAKER_04So we're thinking offshore.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, all offshore. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04Yeah. So I mean I think if you look at the the global market right now, China is clearly the leader.
SPEAKER_06Yeah.
SPEAKER_04And you know, there's a lot of things you might not like about the the the Chinese system, but you have to say that the way that they have approached the energy transition, the way that they have internalized the capability, they've created systematic capability, and they've you know they've taken control and s over the key technologies and all the rest of it. It's no surprise that they're winning on deployment and and all these other metrics. Um I I think the the the European Union is still, I think, institutionally the most capable, most promising market. I think there's a stability in the EU. People get really frustrated at how slow sometimes things are because of that stability. But that stability is, I think, a highly investable framework, and therefore I think Europe's still a really strong market. I think the UK has become the the the most capable offshore wind market around outside of China, maybe. But in terms of the the ability to deploy at scale and create the capability, there's no better market. And and I think you again living in the UK, you can be very self-critical. But the UK, in terms of policy frameworks and supply chain capability and all the achievements, it's been remarkable and something to be proud of. So it's I think that those are definitely the three markets that are leading, right? I think if you look at wide further afield, I still think that markets like South Korea, Japan have got huge potential, partly because there's a bit of an existential need to do it, but partly because a lot of the fundamentals that would make it successful are there. Um, and then yeah, Australia, I I think the state of Victoria will still come good, yeah, but it's going to be a much more modest level of deployment and it's going to take longer. And Australia is maybe an example where targets exceeded the need to be able to do that. The ability to actually deliver against and the desire to run so fast meant we were running way ahead of supply chain and infrastructure capability, and all the while the price point was slipping away from us. You know, so it's not surprising what's happened in Australia.
SPEAKER_07Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_04But it but I do think the fundamentals are still really strong. So I think those are good markets. I think really long term Brazil, I think, is going to be a great market, but the issue there is it's not really needed for another ten years, so probably won't happen for another ten years, but when it happens, it will be huge. So I think there's loads to be optimistic about. I think that the Europe and the UK and China are going to basically keep the market alive for the next five years or so. And then all those other markets around Asia and South America will start to boom.
SPEAKER_06Yeah, absolutely.
SPEAKER_04US, maybe a different story, I don't want to talk to about that. Oh, we'll get there. You've got plenty of experience. We will get there.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I we'll come back to the US because we could we could be lingering there for a while. But it's interesting what you were saying, like as in in Europe, um and we're seeing Europe and the UK, I suppose, uh really come together on the the CFD models now, and you're seeing that turn as well. So it's interesting to see that evolve, but yet we we are pushing and evolving our one as well. So it is quite dynamic, and I suppose with the with the current political environment as well and the pace on that, it's it's going to come all the more uh critical over the next few months, not a mind, years. Um I think maybe we pull back.
SPEAKER_01I mean it's been I mean we started off, but it's been an interesting couple of weeks, it's been an interesting couple of months since late February in terms of geopolitics and energy. Um now we'll dig into it, but basically, how do you see uh the geopolitics, the what's happening in the in the Middle East, the the wider ramifications, uh how do you see that impacting on the the wider renewables, you know, the transition for renewables, the renewables market?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, I mean I think geopolitics has has had a massive impact on the energy transition before the situation in the Middle East. I mean if you take a step back and look at the geopolitical landscape, I think for the past couple of years, certainly since the Trump administration came back for a second term, the uh multilateralism has been in disrepute or you know, can be undermined, systematically undermined, vandalised, dismantled, whatever you want to say. But a lot of these multilateral institutions that we relied upon for many years to help push the energy transition forward have been weakened and undermined to an extent where we can't rely on that anymore. And and I think that's gonna probably be the case for a while. Uh and maybe we should never have been so reliant on the multilateral institutions.
SPEAKER_01Maybe what they are there to do is to set ambition and some norms and standards and frameworks, some guardrails and things like that, because I d I do agree with that.
SPEAKER_04The actual getting things done should be done at a more local level. And funny enough, I I mean I I have thought for a long time that what we actually need is a more smaller coalitions of willing parties to push through the energy transition. And of course, I mean Mark Carney now has um taken that idea. I mean Mark Carney I think beautifully articulated that at Davos. This idea that what you actually need to do then is get these willing um players on the global stage to come together and work together. I think that's what the climate and energy transition movement needs, is more of that. So I think the EU, um the Canada, the UK obviously, I think Australia, Japan, Korea, some of the big you know, high population, high growth costs. Coalition of the willing Brazil to borrow a phrase exactly coalition of the willing. And that that's I think what's needed to keep driving the market forward in a collaborative way working along with China but not becoming too dominant on uh too uh reliant on China. Because I think if that doesn't happen, with the way the multilateral institutions are being weakened and the apathy that you have from the US, the only other hegemonic power really that that's out there if they still are that, th there's there's a risk then that that the the the Chinese domination becomes even more prevalent and even more uh I'm not sure that that is a risk that you I think you can only mitigate that risk and not rem remove it now, to be honest, with their dominant position in in in right across the actual tech.
SPEAKER_01But do you think that we're with the changes that we've seen in geopolitics in terms of energy transition, the words sovereign energy sovereignty beginning to become a phrase. Um you know, which is obviously growth grown from the energy security side and they've brought the sovereignty thing in, that we might be able to rely on something more robust than political will, which can be removed at any one time as we've seen in the US. So obviously in the US there was a consensus. There was a consensus and it's been ripped up. And to be honest, I thought that consensus was going to see us right through to the 2050s and things like that. We have with bumps in the road, and that's now been proven to be a lot more fragile. We're seeing markets that are still reliant on the politics and the and the and the frameworks that you've mentioned, and we're also seeing markets that are maybe Southeast Asia, Middle East, Central Asia that are actually veering into renewables, mostly onshore renewables, on a purely economic and we need to have that sovereignty. So do you think there's actually some benefit here that actually that if we can remove the need for a political shoulder to the wheel that that that that does that actually it's just pure economics? Actually, it's economics and it's sovereignty. Actually, that's why we do it. Is there a is there do you see that that's something that could be rising over the next five years or so? And it is it a positive thing?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, I I think it is a positive thing. I think the truth is if you go back in time and were given a chance to reframe this whole movement, you would have framed it that way. That way. Ever since we've been involved, this we've all been in this for decades, right? There's been three big drivers it's been climate, it's been energy security, it's been affordability. And they kind of swap over the head of the city. Depending on what the mood of the day is, right? So today it's all about energy security and energy independence. Um, but I mean the reality that's a much more solid ground to bag yourself on. You know, there was a point in time when offshore wind badged itself as being the low-cost option, and that was a massive mistake. Because now it's not.
SPEAKER_06Yeah.
SPEAKER_04Um doesn't mean offshore wind isn't now still hugely valuable because of energy security, price stability, asset preservation, investment infrastructure, jobs, da-da-da, all those benefits. But the the the cost argument has evaporated. The climate argument comes and goes. I mean, what you see from what's just happened in the past year or so in the multilateral geopolitical landscape is there was a lot of maybe less enthusiastic players who went along with the climate agenda, but as soon as they got the kind of green light from the White House to turn their back on it, they they they turned their back on it. So you know that's was never the the solid argument. Whereas I think the security, energy, independence, locking in your long-term economic future is the sensible way forward, and that's where we are um actually as a technology offshore wind incredibly strong because we can be deployed quickly at massive scale, providing reliable power, which is entirely uh within your control, um and you know, you obviously have to storage and interconnection all this stuff to balance out issues about variability, but otherwise it's within your control, and you're creating a huge amount of jobs, and it there's a loads of markets where you can create such a surplus of electricity that you then become a power exporter, or you can attract all these new modern industries like industries that that that actually will go where reliable, affordable, stable power is. So I think so that that's where the argument should always have been, uh, and it's certainly where it is now. And you know, so geopolitically that that the other thing why I really like that argument is it's it plays in to the kind of ideological principles of every part of the the the political spectrum. Yeah, except for except for the nutter ends.
SPEAKER_01Apart from the ones who are not rabbit, but but but generally it f it it brings that type of it's jobs, but it's also security.
SPEAKER_04I mean I I it always frustrated me that we got a bit too kind of pinned to the left of centre. Yeah, that's the whole agenda, right? Because actually, if look at the conservative agenda and look at what we're bringing, you know, we're we're creating massive opportunity for private capital to be deployed. We're creating jobs, we're creating private sector economic benefit, we're creating asset preservation. Yeah, um, you know, we're doing all these things that are right in line with the conservative agenda as much as they are with the you know the the kind of left of centre agenda. So I think we just get stuck in the woke bucket because that's the bucket that's under attack just now. Um and so you know that's where we got putting it.
SPEAKER_01It was the door that allowed us to open it at the time as well. I think we were sort of using the the levers we had in front of us, the the doors that we had to actually move things forward to a degree. But we just don't know.
SPEAKER_04Don't want to turn this podcast into a conspiracy theory podcast, but the reality is there are incumbent actors in that do not want the energy transition to happen quickly, or maybe not at all. And so by putting our movement into that woke bucket was they it played into all the other things that you know that kind of right wing um um I guess kind of movement was also caring about. You know, I mean we're in there alongside the LGBTQ.
SPEAKER_01To be honest, that's probably not a conspiracy because basically that's kind of really good tactics and strategy by those kind of comms strategists that would have been deployed by that. So yeah, but we uh but we allowed ourselves to be gunned.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, because we took the support where we could get it. Of course we did. And and and and uh and I think we maybe weren't strategic or long term enough. Whereas now I think we need to really play to the whole the whole um political spectrum. But so if we wind this all the way back, right, to the one of the the question which I wasn't intending to bodyspare, but you know, the Middle East issue, right? I think what what the Middle East issue has actually done, um no, not get into the the the conflict itself or the rights or wrongs of it, right? But just if you look at what's happened, um what it's done is in the immediate term it has once again weakened some of the value levers that affect the value of assets, especially development assets in in renewable energy, because it's slowed down the reduction in cost of capital or even maybe caused it to go back up. It's potentially going to cause a recession, which is never good for the power sector, it's gonna cause inflation, which again is not good, it's gonna cause some supply chain disruptions, right? So the the short-term fundamentals are being damaged again, which then means that actually assets lose value in the mere short term. In the long term, though, the strategic case for it is has never been clearer. And how many more lessons do we need to get that being so reliant on imported fossil-based energy is a bad thing because of volatility, disruptions in supply, disruptions in uh or you know, in spikes in cost. So, you know, the long term the strategic value has never been stronger. I mean, if you ever you say when's the best time to buy renewable energy assets? It's got to be right now, because the prices are its lowest, but the long-term value is never been stronger. So I think that's something which is kind of going on right now in the market on the back of the Iran situation, which is again uh um reinforcing the importance of what we're doing. And then the other thing I think is happening uh a little bit because of Iran, but let's be honest, it was happening anyway, was this discussion about the role of gas in the transition, and especially if you're in the UK, North Sea gas, which has been a real political hot potato. And that's been quite heavily debated right now. And I think the the the situation in Iran has really inflamed them.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and I think I think it's a good it's a good opportunity to kind of you know get us to look at our energy mix and we talk about the us and them quite a bit in industry, and and going back to your point actually, you know, as in were we a bit were we a bit naive on the calm side that we didn't see you know we got pushed to the left a bit, but I think we're we're coming out with a little bit more evidence-based. We're we're fighting back, we're a bit more strategic now. But on the North Sea, I think for now, I think it's taken the heat out of the culture wars. It's very much orientated around we need to work together, we need to, we can't exist, we need to be smart about how we utilize our oil and gas industry, how we work together. Net zero isn't absolute zero. You know, it's we need a little bit of everything, we just be need to be smarter about it. And um and how we draw up our policies around that, I think, is going to be really a hard conversation, but we need to take that heat out. It it's it's killing us right now, and I think it's playing to those act actors you you you referenced there.
SPEAKER_01I think I I I do think we've mismanaged the UK continental shelf. I mean it's declining, it's a declining basin. Um I think we've allowed so it's become things are beginning to move just now, but basically we've allowed it to become a them and us story to a degree. Um not so much the offshore wind industry, I think the politics around it.
SPEAKER_07Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um in which case it's allowed a flank to be attacked by, you know, offshore wind is destroying your jobs type thing story in the north east, which is fed into certain politics of reform, etcetera. And I think that personally, um I think that from a political standpoint we could have managed this a lot b uh a lot better. The offshore wind needs industry, especially the floating sector, needs service companies, um, you know, engineering companies that are in the northeast of Scotland to be able to transition, but you need to be able to have an industry to transition to. So we needed to build that sort of scaffolding and bridge. I mean, do you see things I mean you mentioned I think you you said, Jonathan, that you see things changing in that respect a little bit on terms of the dialogue around the North Sea. Or is it that you want to see more of it? Both actually.
SPEAKER_04I mean, we've seen a very prominent figure in the renewable world coming out and actually speaking quite sensibly and quite ecumenically about the North Sea, probably then being criticised from our own side for doing it. Um but but the fact I think you see more common sense around it. So I mean, one thing I would say is in in these types of political discussions, what you should not do is become too ideological and too intransigent, right? I mean, the fact is the energy transition is a dynamic process, right? Things are changing all the time, even without conflicts in the Middle East and in Ukraine and you know pandemics and all the rest of it, the energy transition was never going to be a linear, straight-line process. So if you're not willing to revisit your position from time to time and adapt and be evidence-based, and the evidence changes as things change, then you're an ideologue, you're not actually playing playing rationally, right? And so I'll be honest, I I probably have changed my own view on this because three or four years ago, uh my view was that actually the quicker we can signal the end of the North Sea basin, the quicker we can encourage the players up there to transition across into our industry. Now, I wasn't saying an overnight shutdown, but what I meant was you need quite clear political signals that actually this transition has to happen and eventually the activity there will end, and so you need to be much more engaged in what your future looks like. And the truth is, renewable is not stealing the jobs of the North Sea companies, those jobs are going to go anyway, it's a question of when, not if. And what renewables is doing is offering you a replacement. And there's loads of studies that say, in theory, the number of jobs that will be created in you know clean energy offshore in the North Sea is quite equivalent to the number of jobs currently out there doing you know oil and gas work.
SPEAKER_06Yeah.
SPEAKER_04But it's not a straight swap, day for day for day, job for job, it's a long transition with a lot of disruption. So I th I think that um I mean the reality is right right now, my view anyway is that extracting more gas from the North Sea will not change the cost of energy in this country. Right? So let's not pretend it does. Anyone who says that is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting, right? But what it does do is it creates activity and economic activity, it creates GVA, it creates tax, whatever it is. So there's some value then in actually doing it because it's an economic opportunity. But you should not be falling then into the trap of thinking that that's then means that the transition can be deferred or slowed down, or that we should slow down the deployment of renewables. What we should be doing is saying because of everything that's going on in the Middle East, because of the volatility that we see, the faster we can deploy renewable energy, the better. Yeah. Because the more we enjoy yourself. But along the way, let's make the most of all the resources we've got and make this as easy as possible for those affected by the transition. So, my my position a few years ago was maybe a little bit more ideological, which was look, let's give a clear signal that the North Sea is coming to an end, and let's then put in place fiscal measures and other incentives, proper package of measures for companies up there to transition their workforce and activities into don't just tell them tomorrow we're stopping.
SPEAKER_06Yeah.
SPEAKER_04But you'll work on a 10-year, 15-year plan to transition. That's what I thought was needed. Nowadays, I'm a bit think well, actually, being pragmatic about it, I think we just need to say we're losing a lot of political capital, we're losing a lot of um of goodwill for something that's actually not that defensible. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And people as well. I mean, uh, we we wouldn't be doing renewables here without the oil and gas experience. I I for me personally, I came across from infrastructure. No, I've I get seasick, so not the best person in the offshore environment, but I learned everything I know from the oil and gas um teammates from my old Atkins days. And you may not. You know, you know, I I I don't we need to keep prolong those um that expertise there and make sure, and we had that knowledge dying originally, and we need to make sure that we we're taking that across into renewables because you know we we need technology where the gaps are and it's knowledge that we don't want to lose, yeah, and it's located in parts of the country that need a succession plan because it's it's it it will really damage those coastal communities.
SPEAKER_04I mean, uh the same coastal communities by the way that probably voted for Brexit today. It will harm them much more if we don't have the succession plan. And so that's why I think how we frame the benefit of what we do and the time frame for what we're doing and how much we show what an inclusive movement this is, the more we get support. I don't know, did you I don't know if you guys saw that today there was there was some there was an article um in Recharge, am I like to mention recharge, um looking at loads of polling um uh sources in the US. Yeah. And what was quite the interesting take from it was it how you framed the question really affected the outcome of the poll. So you had polling by even, you know, the like the the kind of MAGA pollsters in Republican areas coming out positive to renewable energy and offshore wind. If the question was phrased in the right way about energy security and job security, if the question was phrased in the other way about climate or about taking away jobs or about pushing up prices, it or even Democrat regions were saying no, don't want it. So we I guess we just need to learn to speak in the right way and frame the question and the debate in the right way and not pick battles we don't need to pick.
SPEAKER_01Also have the right voices. I mean, I was on a comps panel at Scottish Renewables, and it a lot of the discussion there was I'm a consultant, am I really the person to be trying to sort of win an argument on renewables? To you know, it's you need someone in the supply chain. You're gonna need to have someone who's got a boat, someone who's doing that, you're gonna have to, you know, it's these these are the voices in communities that we actually need to be saying, this is a real job I'm doing, look at all, you know, that this is what my crew's doing. Um, you know, it's it's those kind of voices because I'm you know, I I I I speak to uh an echo chamber. That's what I do. It's my job is to speak to an echo chamber.
SPEAKER_04But yeah, but let's be honest, we've been so good over the years at going to conferences telling each other how righteous we are and how a great job we're doing. But the trouble is you then even I go to my own parents and they don't understand really the benefits of the water. Yeah, they don't even argue with my dad about wind energy because he reads the Daily Mail, you know. Every time I do it, it's not I mean it's definitely changing.
SPEAKER_00I mean, certainly from me at home anyway. We were laughing over some of the stats over the podcast, and there's been a spike in Ireland, and I was like, I didn't even know half my crew knew what it is. But uh thank you very much, by the way. Um but it was um you know the conversation that the dinner table is changing. It's it's changing in the pub now. Everyone's got an opinion around buying an EV, buying a you know, buying their solar. I know I certainly there's a uh my brother-in-law is after pulling up some fresh solar, um, we probably wouldn't have had that conversation if the if the pinch wasn't coming into the to the the locals' um pockets, and I think having that evidence base again is is playing into it. But going back to the comms side, that's really interesting around the poll. And I saw Liz Burdock um make some reference to that actually. And how do you think, you know, we my favourite person not in the US is the is the Mr. Orange himself. I refuse to use his name in this in this pod. Um but look look at the damage he's done to the industry. But it's it's it's interesting now to see the the communities and the and some of the you know the states have always been pressing um forward with renewables, but there's a ch uh there's a fundamental shift now because it's starting to pinch in the pockets of the of the people on the ground. And how do you see that evolving? Or do you see possible uh restructure, or could it be something positive for the US when it comes to offshore? Perhaps when his orange nest leaves.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, well the the question is then who succeeds? I well, does he leave as intended and uh and who takes over? But no, I I so I mean I I I I really want it to be the case that it comes back and that this is a cyclical, not structural problem. Uh if you look at the the data right now, I mean just in the in the northeast of the US, they need to build something like 40 plus gigawatts of new capacity. I think 90% of that, by the way, is for like data centres and AI and this kind of the economy of the future that they're really keen to capture, right? So they need new power and they don't have many other options but offshore wind to get that.
SPEAKER_01And some states are bringing in a lot sort of laws to stop construction of AI data centres.
SPEAKER_04Well, yeah, we're maybe come back to that in a minute because I think there's a real issue there about the AI industries getting an absolute free pass on what they're doing to the power system. But we'll maybe we'll come back to the code. Yeah, no, that's too many enemies in this podcast. But the um so but it's a you know the and then if you look at some of the auctions that have been happening in in the northeast, the prices are going up. And then if you look at just generally what they feel at the pump and all this stuff, a big kind of um um you know, kind of political bellwether issue in the US, it seems clear, right? But the butt the the problem is structurally the US, the market is such a long development cycle with so many local, state and federal interventions and so many opportunities for intervention that can dis disrail, disrupt, delay. So when you then have a a development cycle like offshore wind, that's so long cycle, so capital intensive, so sensitive to delay, it's really difficult to convince, I think, investors that it's a safe market again. I was just gonna say, and even if there's our Democrat back in the White House and a couple of minutes. If you only get four years and then it's swinging back, if the pendulum is swinging like that, yeah, then and the development cycle goes much further than that. And what we've seen in this administration is a willingness to stop projects that are you know 90% of the way through construction, to completely confound uh invector expectations, almost make retroactive measures that undermines the investable case. So I I think there's a lot of work to be done to convince international investors that this is a cyclical, not structural problem. Um now, not saying it can never turn round because if we win these arguments about security and affordability and we get enough um you know kind of cross-party support, maybe it can come back. But I just think that the US is such a complex market, and what's happened has cost so many companies that I think it's going to be quite difficult to see it coming.
SPEAKER_00So it I I mean, I'm looking at it from the the East Coast perspective and you know, looking at what Nova Scotia is doing at the moment, it's a great opportunity for them and and possibly Mark Kearney getting a nice one over again. Um but it's a case of Yeah, I mean if you it particularly on that cyclical side, if you could get uh if you could get an interconnector down to the Northeast where they're they're screaming for power, in particular the likes of New York, it could be a real opportunity for the likes of Nova Scotia and others to stabilize that political front, which is overseas out width, but yet they can if they can get that buy-in, it would it would semi protect the investors.
SPEAKER_01It'll be the the f it'll be if it needs a federal permit, it'll be a risk as well, because that's the issue with some of them, I think, up there. Yeah, on the cables as well.
SPEAKER_04I think has brought a lot of um Canadian renewables down into Yeah, it's Massachusetts Bill, yeah, it has quite a bit on hydrogen. It's been done and it could be done. I mean, yeah, I guess we would hope that in you know administrations to come people see once infrastructure's in place it should be left in place and should be allowed to do its job. But so yeah, but maybe that's uh at least in a solution in the in the meantime.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_04So I mean I I would hope, right, eventually in the US the benefit of Oshrowin starts to become a kind of cross-party realisation and you start to see it come back. Um but I do fear that what's happening right now is really quite shocking to the to international investors. Absolutely. And the fact that the political cycles are much shorter than the development cycles, and there's this willingness to have this massive pendulum. I mean it's it's hard to um I think overcome that.
SPEAKER_00So bringing it back to the policy side, you know, where are governments um where is the disconnect between the governments actually setting the policy and then um delivering on it? Are we missing something in there? Or what what do we need to get across to our governments to make sure that we push through these then the noise right now and the messiness and and hit that next next generation of of offshore or renewables?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, I mean I think most markets have the same sort of concerns or the same challenges when they're developing the policy landscape. So one is you're trying to bolt these new policy initiatives onto an existing industry and framework, right? So there's a lot of incumbency in the market that needs to be protected because it's been invested in. So you can't um um just completely radically change you know the the the the the whole uh electricity sector overnight to suit the new technologies. Um so but those botons become as you scale become harder and harder to justify and more and more disruptive. And you can see that with negative pricing and all these other kind of issues. So I I I do feel for policymakers and regulators it's not easy to do. But the the reality is what what what has happened in every market, I kind of touched on this earlier, that targets come first and they're easy and quick to put in place, right? Then the technology that responds to the targets gets demonstrated at small scale, and then that starts to get scaled up, and that tends to move quicker than the policy framework and then keep up. And what always eventually slows it down is the infrastructure, the enabling infrastructure. And I think the issue in every market is not putting enough attention into the infrastructure enablers in policy. So I mean look in the UK, the leading market for offshore wind outside of China without a doubt. But look at the frankly, the mess we've got right now with our transmission process and what it's doing to the Scottish projects, the delay it's causing to a lot of English projects, uh the issues it's causing with consentability. There's a whole load of issues that come out of just not getting a coherent long-term strategic plan in place for that transmission network and allowing anticipatory investment. So I think that that the issue with a lot of policy makers, I think, is that they try to bolt competitive price-led processes onto the existing system that are too inflexible, and then when things change they fall into disrepute, and that's what happened when prices and costs started going up, and that they don't move quick enough on the other pieces of the puzzle, the enabling infrastructure. Part of the big issue with that, I think, in auto markets, was because we were the disruptor coming into the market, we had to solve all our own problems. We had to prove that you know, from an environmental perspective, we were appropriate, we had to prove that we could integrate ourselves into the electricity system, we had to build our own grid connections, we had to create our own supply chain, we had to invest in our own ports, you know, everything had to be done by the developer of a project. And actually, that not only is that um probably not the most efficient way to do it, I mean it's it's the mo it's it's probably a much more expensive way to do it. Because you're using the kind of capital that should be used for building generation assets to build long-term port infrastructure or to build a lot of work. What you should be using exactly is the right capital and the right capability for the right bits of the market at the right time. And then you'll get a much more logical build-out in a much more efficient way.
SPEAKER_00So the question is do we have enough uh uh commercial experience embedded within the governments to understand the dynamics? Because I I I suppose you you talk about the ports and the investment investment from the developers there. That was an expectation, it still is an expectation that the developers will build out the ports, and that's not quite right. And I suppose how do we how do we make sure that we is it more open collaboration? I know we're certainly trying to push that in the in the floating sector to give a little bit more visibility on the commercial aspects, but I mean, from past experience on the development side, the Achilles heel, I suppose, on where there have been market failures in in some of the emerging markets, has been that lack of commercial experience. Is that is is that something you've you've come across over your your career where maybe the policymakers they they have the the fundamental elements that they're targeting, but actually the conversion when it comes to is that investable, is this something an investor would go from? I'll give you an expert. I suppose the the one closest to me was the the Irish market and understanding the fundamentals around getting those auction um elements right and not necessarily it was it's something I could take to my board or take to my investors to get say an auction um business case over the line because there was a disconnect between the grid being separated and there was too much risk there, or it was something.
SPEAKER_01Well, I was just going to say the disconnection is that it's the sequencing, it's not just the commercial lack of commerciality, it's the fact that a lot of this needs to be you know sequenced and the departments are not designed for that, or in terms of their their the departments are looking at certain sort of things, they've got certain agendas, they've got certain policy areas. I mean, is that is it is it commercial and also the fact the way the governments are structured sometimes that actually restricts their ability to sort of you know to keep the policy at the pace it needs to be.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, I mean I I I think it's less about the commercial expertise within the individuals in government and more about the the freedom they have to make quite courageous decisions at times to solve these problems. So I mean the the fact of the matter is most politicians are not subject matter experts in our industry. And most career bureaucrats are not subject matter experts, or at least they might they probably are fairly expert actually, but they're not they don't have commercial experience in the private sector, they're career bureaucrats, right? But that I I don't think that matters as long as they're willing and able to take advice and listen to the right people. One of the big problems they have, of course, is they're being lobbied constantly and they're seeking opinion constantly from people who ha who will argue in their own interests, and not everyone has the same interest. You know, so a big utility has a different interest to a small IPP, even in the same technology sector. You know, a grid operator has a different interest to a wind farm operator, an oil and gas company is a totally different interest, you know, etc. etc. So that it's it's actually quite different and then you get disruptors who come in, you know, people like octopus and all the rest of it who are you know kind of I guess talk uh arguing for things that you know maybe makes a lot of sense to them, but to a lot of the rest of the market, they're not so that if you're in government, it's quite hard, I guess, to filter all that and think what's the right decision to make. And so we've always had this all of the above energy strategy, and the government doesn't pick winners and all the rest, but actually in the reality, if you're setting out an effective policy framework for something as fundamental as this energy transition, you need to be willing at times to put a bit of political capital behind some big strategic bets and go for them. I mean the the the the planning, you know, the holistic market design exercise is quite an interesting one, and I really feel for them because they're trying to plan out a world where you may or may not have loads of Scotland offshore projects, you may or may not have nuclear, you may or may not have nuclear as SMRs, you may or you know and you're trying to design a network that somehow caters for all of that in your design. That's a really difficult task to develop. And meanwhile, you've got all these different players and actors coming, yeah. Don't worry, we'll definitely be there, no doubt.
SPEAKER_00Oh, I told I totally sympathise, and particularly when you've got like you know, billions now going into the back of supply chain, and if one of those dominoes fall, uh that's that's actually right down through your supply chain very quickly. Um, you know, we we've seen that come to the forefront quite a bit.
SPEAKER_04So I think the a lot of the issue is about having political cover and political um capital to spend on making some big decisions and then people understanding then that they might you know not always be the optimal decision, but it was the right decision at that time to try and take the you know the the market the way you thought it needed to be taken. And I think that's the the trouble is in I think in a lot of governments is there's a lot, and that's not a UK thing, there's a lot of inertia and caution because nobody wants to make the big bold decision. Yeah, which will be immediately criticised by those who are disadvantaged by it, and if it doesn't come true, it looks like a a stupid you know white elephant decision.
SPEAKER_01Well they've made a rather large decision in the last couple of weeks. So what decision was that, John? Well the um the uh the the decision about using Ming Yang turbines, because obviously they haven't said that you can't use Goldwyn or anything else, but they've said that you can't use Ming Yang turbines in in UK offshore wind. That was a relatively sort of large and impactful decision that the government made, um which uh which dictates which dictates a number of things in the market. It dictates uh commercial impact on projects, um the availability, the what was a relatively narrow market has become tighter in terms of turbines OEM. So I mean Was that expected? I mean we've been expecting something for for for months and months and months, but it came rather sudden. Um but uh what's your view on the on the implications of that?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, I mean it's it's i i it was a big decision uh and I think it does have some quite significant implications. Um let's try and go back a bit on some of that. So first thing, I I know it's been framed as a sort of Ming Yang decision. I'm not sure how specific the decision is to just Ming Yang or whether the logic could apply to others because they haven't articulated the logic. Correct. Um I I also think the way it was sort of framed in in the time and more recently is in response to developers asking about Ming Yang, this is the position we've taken. But I don't know if it's a specific Ming Yang thing, by the way. It might be more general.
SPEAKER_01It was the only decision they could make.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, but I think to me uh it's hard to see uh the uh whether this is the right decision or not without seeing the the working that went underneath it. I I say today or yesterday, by the way, that the Energy Minister has then written to the First Minister of Scotland to say, I'll show you my working, I'll show you my logic because you know I think the Scottish Government has been very critical of the decision because it has a really big impact, negative impact on Scotland because of the the the it it takes away potentially a £1.5 billion investment in 1,500 jobs in a part of the country that that would have been transformational for. So I can see why that's such a massive decision. But I think if you look at the the the the detail of the decision first or what was said, talking about national interest or national security, which I guess is cyber is what we're talking about. Now most people I think in the industry would say that actually the cyber risk is a technical risk that can have a technical solution if you're willing to treat it as a technical risk. And there are other aspects of our economy that have Chinese networked equipment, which is being cyber roompence. So you know it's not true that it's it was an insoluble risk in itself. And then the other thing was about supply chain resilience, which I found slightly counterintuitive because um I think that we weren't talking about certainly Mingyang becoming the only supplier to the end, they were talking about becoming a third supplier in in the industry. We're talking about them actually coming into the UK and investing in the sub-supply chain around them, not just importing everything from China. So they're actually going to invest in and grow the local supply chain, not defeat it. Um and I th I think that the market would be more resilient with a third turbine uh this is offshore either third turbine um manufacturer, whether that's Chinese or not, but I just absolutely I think received wisdom that you need three big players for a market like this one to be competitive. And so if you don't have it, your supply chain is less resilient, and eventually that starts to have an impact on cost and risk and program. So I th I I genuinely think decisions like this in the very long term, if they hold, will uh potentially make the energy transition last longer or take longer and cost more money. Um now what what I I think is probably in a way you won't even notice the impact of this decision for the next four or five years. Because for the next four or five years, most of offshore wind is going to be happening in and around the North Sea basin by the big Western utilities who've already got really strong relationships with the two big European OEMs, who are already giving them everything they need to deliver their programmes, and probably that's all that was going to be going on really noteworthy in the next four or five years. If you're a smaller player or if you're a smaller technology or newer technology like floating, then I think the decision is a bigger blow because actually you're then probably being deprived of access to something that would have been quite important for you because you're going to struggle to get by without it. So I I mean I think if you look at the the supply-demand curves for supply chain, I think we can cope through the next five years with what we've got, but then we start to if deployment marks up as the same euro, it starts to become an issue. And and at that point then you start to see either either what you need to do is really support the two big OEMs and growing their own capacity and trying to keep their own um costs down, or you're going to see problems happening five, six years from now. So I don't know how permanent this decision is, or whether this decision can be revisited, if the underlying circumstances can be changed. But I would hope so, because I think if not, it's it's a decision that favours the big incumbents. But it doesn't favour the growth and scale of the market. And so it could have a negative impact uh if it's either if it's left as it is, or if it's not backed up with a lot of reinforcement and fiscal measures to try and build the European supply chain so that five years from now we don't have that crunch because we've created the capacity locally in the room.
SPEAKER_00We could, in essence, have projects moving to the right if we don't see that, as you say, third third um supplier coming in. Do you have, and I'm I'm saying this off the cuff, um do you have any uh sight on any uh potentials that could, whether to be maybe outside of China but maybe more on the Asian side, or is there anyone on the onshore side that we could possibly see come across? Is there anyone that has come across your radar? Or is it better as a possible possibility to come into to offshore, maybe to to give that little bit of tension, or is it still too early?
SPEAKER_04I think the only credible third players right now would come from China. Yeah. Interesting. Um and so I think this was uh yeah, the the only option for a third player in the meantime. So it's either you need to really reinforce the two you've got.
SPEAKER_07Yeah.
SPEAKER_04And by the way, I mean I'm not speaking against those two. I think they're fantastic companies, and the energy transition relies on them hugely and offshore wind, utterly relies upon them, and they've done a brilliant job so far, and I hope they continue to thrive. But I do think that um uh the overall the market would have been stronger with a third player. And so we'll we'll see I guess how that evolves. I mean the other thing, if you think right now, where we're at in in the market right now, we are looking at in in Europe anyway, kind of capital discipline and uh being very selective about investments and profitability and keeping the technology as tight as possible, which is good for the next five years. But actually, what the energy transition will need again is expansion and scale and going beyond that. And the only players right now that are thinking in those terms are the Chinese. So again, you're sort of taking the market to a mindset which is conducive to getting done what you need to do in the next five years, but not getting done what you need to do in the next 15 years. Lack of policy vision then. Possibly, but again, a lot of politicians you think, well, you have to make decisions based on what the immediate short-term priorities are in national security, is seen as an immediate short-term priority. So I mean I I as I say I hope that this is not an all-time you know ideological decision that can't be revisited if the right evidence comes in to say this came up to. Other than that statement to Parliament, which was nothing's been said publicly. I would assume that maybe some of the players who are directly involved have been um given a bit more information. And obviously the offer is now there for the First Minister to be given more information. But other than that, and not don't know enough about what was behind it.
SPEAKER_00It's certainly something we need to lean into and I suppose understand as an int industry because as you say, the next we need to be ready for that next three, four, five years, particularly around the floating side. Yeah. Because there's investment right now that that looking at business.
SPEAKER_01I mean, there's projects that are considering AR8, and they might not actually have a turbine for AR8 now, because they might have been having conversations on on Ming Yang. So now do they go ahead with a an estimated line item on on their cost model or do they now go back well depending.
SPEAKER_04I mean, I think if you're talking about the big fixed foundation projects with the big utilities, they're they're all right, right. If you're talking about the floating or the more kind of smaller private equity back players, they might be a bit more concerned. I mean I I I would suspect most players have been quietly asking when are Mingyang going to be allowed into the market or are they going to be allowed in, and were ready to start moving forward if the answer was yes. Now the answer is no. Some of them can quite quickly just put that to the side and move on with the two that are there. Others will not. And I think the flo there's a lot of floating projects probably who were really thinking that to change the you know their project fundamentally they needed something like a minion. And that's either because they're not getting the attention from the existing OEMs or because the price point wasn't working and they needed to try and do something like that.
SPEAKER_01It's probably a combination of both. And there's actually maybe an issue if we had time to discuss around the you know, is the m is it a healthy market when you needed to have that price differential on a turbine to get that project over the line at this point when you know it because actually it's not massively sustainable because if you're gonna start supplying them from eventually a Scottish-based factory, that price differential will start to reduce between a Mingyang turbine and a and a Siemens turbine and a Vestas turbine, because you're talking about Western costs.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, I mean I agree. I think that's exactly a good point. I I don't think it was ever the case that Mingyang was going to be massively cheaper undercutting those because of the fact that they were putting a lot of their costs inside Europe. I think it was just that it was going to be a third player with more capacity, with a bit more than willing to space the technology envelope a bit quicker again, etc. etc. It was more that than just about undercutting price.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. It's hard to justify, especially with the geopolitical side now at the minute and the cost of shipping and and fuel as well. You know, look even looking at the components coming from the Far East, it's going to be difficult to compete with the Europeans. It's a great opportunity to invest here now and get that business case. Um it won't be that much cheaper to bring them in, you know. So I think having a I agree, um, up the north of Scotland, having something there would have been, you know, we won't we might not have seen that much of a differential at all.
SPEAKER_01So briefly talking about AR8, uh Jonathan, I mean AR7, I think the industry really welcomed it. AR8's coming along hot off the off the press. What's you know, what what's your sort of uh what are you looking for in AR8 and where do you think that what what might we be seeing when it gets announced when eventually the awards are post?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, so I I think it's great actually that AR8 was announced quickly. I think there's a big effort made in Westminster to be fair to do it quickly, um, you know, given what was going on in the Middle East and all the rest of it. So I think so AR7 was great for a number of reasons. Obviously the volumes were brilliant, better than expected. Yeah, you know, the way the budget kind of shenanigans went on, maybe looking back you could have seen it coming, but brilliant. I think the price point was uh really good uh in that it came in below the magic £94 number, which is sort of neutral on the consumer bill, um, but still enough to make a good profitable project for the developers, so that's good. Um, and I think you've got credible winners to deliver the project.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, deliverable.
SPEAKER_04Let's be honest, maybe a bit of concentration risk because Ardo Weed had such a phenomenal outcome, but they're a really capable organisation, and I'm sure they'll um manage to deliver. So that was all good. I think the bit that was a bit surprising maybe was the Scottish ring fence that was designed to give Scottish projects a higher strike price had the opposite effect. And let's be honest, I think a lot of Scottish projects were probably a bit disappointed at that outcome because they have a different situation to SSE and Berick Bank, which is a very specific type of grid connection. Um, and so I think that hasn't addressed a lot of the concerns in Scotland, and so that's something to think about. I think looking to ERA, to me, I this is a continuity from ER7. There's a lot of big players and big projects that just missed out in ER7, some of whom had already got their supply chain motoring and committed a lot of money. So I think they'll be really keen to try and win and keep that on track. Um, and so I what I I think and I think there's enough projects there to still be in the same sort of range in terms of price point, which is you know good for the the the you know the overall messaging. So I think what AR8 to me is like a continuity to build on to R7, address any disappointment and make sure that that supply chain ramp up that's gonna come can you know can really see another couple of years beyond that. Yeah, I think that's what AR8. I'm not looking for some magical floating outcome or anything spectacularly different.
SPEAKER_01I think it's gonna be about just doing trying to get the same good outcome as because it's too it's too close for a really different approach to uh to the floating pot. I mean the the the the the the strike price will have cannot be any different. It's six six months of engineering is not gonna do that. So I think this is very much looking at the at fixed bottom that large body of projects that just missed out.
SPEAKER_04And there's still a lot of big projects residual projects from the early rounds, round you know, extensions and then some of the faster movers in the round four that can I think get into ER8 and actually do something similar to what RWE does.
SPEAKER_00As you say, like with that supply chain, there has been gaps off the back of AR5 as well, and it's about if we we keep the pace in behind them because we number one.
SPEAKER_01We haven't learned up till now. It seems to have learned it, which is trying not to have that gap, it's that kind of continuity, almost almost really prime the pump, put some pressure on it. That can that that is quite different. Yeah, sort of done.
SPEAKER_00But having AR9 right in behind this is the I think it's just as important as having you know AR eight going at the minutes. Well otherwise it will and I would hope we would see you know the the consultation come out for AR9 pretty sharp after the the results or maybe even before the results of Aquin.
SPEAKER_04I think that's right. But I I think by the time you look at the landscape for projects in AR9, it's a bit different. Yeah, and there's a lot more Scottish um participation, which means that Scottish Tenuas question has to be addressed. Or ER9, I think, will struggle. So that I think ER9 hope it comes soon, but I really hope that the Scottish Tenors position is then solved for that.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, absolutely. I think that's going to be absolutely key key key and game changing for this. Um we've had a pretty heavy uh conversation today, I suppose. Go back, Jonathan, just um on your career, is it you know, looking at you know what was the most rewarding for you? You've had quite a dynamic career across um offshore wind, looking at you've you've looked at global markets. I mean, looking back and I suppose just kind of reflecting on it, um, is there what was the most rewarding moment for you so far?
SPEAKER_04Well there's other single moments I don't know. I I think that honestly, that I could never have imagined at the start of my career that I would have a role to play in such an amazing transformational movement as the offshore wind space. Uh and I you know I look back on that and I will always be incredibly proud of what we all achieved.
SPEAKER_06Yeah.
SPEAKER_04Um, you know, taking something which was you know quite novel, quite nascent, a lot of doubters, and turning it into something spectacular that spread around the world, that created jobs and opportunity, that transformed communities, that you know became the cornerstone of energy um policy and strategy. So I think I I'm so proud of that. And you you know sometimes you go to some of these coastal communities, especially in the northeast coast of England, and you see the difference that has been made to those reports because of what we did. That's when you really see something that you can be super proud of. So I I mean I I think that it's been an incredibly rewarding experience being part of something that you can really identify with personally as well as professionally.
SPEAKER_00I love when we go abroad and you know we get we get invited on we've all been on one at the the um UK trade events where you're you're giving example or a case study, and I I think my most popular one actually is the is Hull and Grimsby. It keeps on coming up and up and up every time, and it's it's brilliant to be able to reflect that back, or the north of Scotland and sharing that no matter where you go, even I'm seeing it in other jurisdictions now, they're referencing these locations um as far as field as you know, South America, Australia. It's it's it's it's a great I I think they said it about oil and gas as well. It was hard to it was hard to work in a project when I first came into uh to offshore wind, they were making the reference that you always hit a scot somewhere globally because you can't go anywhere, and this is coming from an Irish woman who there's freaking passports everywhere. But I think it it is a credit to the the expertise and the capability that comes particularly out of Scotland because of that heritage and that pedigree in the oil and gas side. And you know, again, if that's the legacy we can we can continue through offshore wind, I think that's really really important. But we're we're starting to grow the population. There's a few more, maybe Irish in there, uh French even. You left them in. I'm not going to give it the Americans, sorry, Americans, but you're not getting it yet. So um I suppose to to sign it off today, um, John, uh you you usually uh give us a good one, a good challenge. Have you got any challenges for for Jonathan on what he's listening to right now?
SPEAKER_01Um yeah, well, uh whilst we dig something out for for Jonathan. Jonathan, what so what's on your your playlist at the moment? What's on the what vinyl? I mean, do you are you a vinyl guy? Are you a CD?
SPEAKER_04I'm good enough to be a vinyl guy, but I'm not a vinyl guy. I mean, John, you I it's not heavy metal. I'm sorry to tell you that. It's not not yet giving me a recommendation. I so to be honest, I but well this will horrify you. So I I'm more of a bit surprised that more of a festival bangers kind of guy, you know. That I've always enjoyed music more in crowds and company than on my own. Uh although what I listen to most of I've got two young daughters, right? So most of what I listen to is musical theatre playlists. So, sticks and book of mormon and all that, which I think is in its own right entertaining. So it's not nowhere near your.
SPEAKER_01No, but the thing is there's good heavy metal festivals. There was that one I was at one. I was reading your uh blog. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well in Glasgow? Did I mention the severed head? Yeah. I got fake blood. I I had to go back into a hotel covered in fake blood because I was at the barrier, and then the basis came a bucket and I saw the top of what I I thought that's a severed head. So he picked up the severed head and I thought, and he stood on the barrier and I thought, I know what's gonna happen. So I was sort of sort of standing a little bit further away, and I still got it down, part of my face, my hands, my camel shirts, and you know, all good fun, but I had to walk in to a hotel just off the cannon in the street looking like I'd just been knifed.
SPEAKER_02Putting on the bit we've got to take them for me.
SPEAKER_01Let's see what we got. It's a Romanian death metal band called Putrid, and uh so I thought I needed something really heavy metal.
SPEAKER_04I'm not sure about what I should take from the fact that we given a death metal maybe, so thank you very much. I should win that with pride.
SPEAKER_00We won't be expecting He's gonna be drinking, I'm getting dragged and dumping to uh to a gig.
SPEAKER_03Are you going to Wind Energy Island?
SPEAKER_01I haven't planned yet, but the programme, I've heard the programme's gonna be really, really interesting over the two days. And we're doing a revolting night out to a rock and roll band called Clutch. Okay. So the sort of like uh Zeppelin style rhythms, hard sort of stuff, but you know, so it's it's ha a hard rock band. But they're in it they're at the Dublin Academy.
SPEAKER_04I'll be the if I'm if I'm in Ireland, I'll be wearing the putrid t-shirt.
SPEAKER_01We shall have the fucking non-heavy metal gonna even take the name I was just thinking of a really heavy metal teacher coming.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, that's like uh the offshore one.
SPEAKER_00Absolutely. Well, Jonathan, thank you very much for you for coming here today. Coming from the non-metal person, um, or John Covert and but thank you very much for for coming today and sharing your thoughts. And um, I'm gonna just do my usual and hand over to John. I cannot do justice on this sign-off.
SPEAKER_01Thank you, everyone. Oh, Jonathan, thanks again. So, everyone out there, see you soon. So keep the rotors turn and the heads banging and see you soon.