I have always been fascinated by energy—its many forms, the principle of conservation, and its central role in technological and economic development. That interest led me to study physics at Imperial College, followed by doctoral and postdoctoral research at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge and in Grenoble, France. However, when offered a permanent academic position, I realised that what really motivated me was the application of science to real-world challenges. Instead of staying in academia, I joined Shell Research in 1981.

I sought a complete change. Shell suggested I work on transport fuels, an area about which I knew nothing and therefore ticked the box. Soon afterwards, I was asked to help develop a way to phase out leaded gasoline, to enable the widespread introduction of catalytic converters and thus reduce tailpipe emissions without damaging engine performance. Being unencumbered by prevailing yet incorrect ideas proved surprisingly useful in my identification of a novel solution. By developing alternative engine protection strategies, identifying new high-octane refinery components and redefining blending approaches, I was able to contribute to initiatives that were rapidly deployed across markets ranging from Europe and the Americas to sub-Saharan Africa. It was an exciting introduction to how large-scale industrial innovation and market reach can translate ideas into globally significant solutions.

Over the following years I worked in the UK, the United States and Shell’s London headquarters on a wide variety of local and global projects.   Taking responsibility for transport fuel developments in emerging markets, including Brazil, introduced me to the country’s extensive use of sugarcane-derived bioethanol. When Shell began exploring biofuels as a potential route to reducing dependence on fossil fuels in 1999, I became the fuels technology adviser to the programme, helping establish a global R&D network and a series of academic partnerships. We recognised that biofuels could never replace fossil fuels completely, but they offered an opportunity to make a meaningful and timely contribution using existing fuel infrastructure.

Shell was keen to be a global leader in biofuel development, and I was invited to speak at major international conferences from Houston and Geneva to Stuttgart and Qingdao. The subject was often controversial. Climate change was not yet widely accepted, and proposals to expand biofuel use frequently encountered resistance from other parts of the oil industry, economic community and automotive sector. In 2010 I was invited by Ernie Moniz, later US Energy Secretary, to address a gathering of senior US oil executives and economists ahead of COP16, providing an alternative perspective to the prevailing climate-sceptical narrative.

As Shell approached its centenary in 2007, many of us were considering what the company might look like in its second century. While biofuels alone could never provide a complete answer, they represented an important early step towards a lower fossil-carbon energy system. I found it both stimulating and rewarding to be part of that debate and to help shape initiatives that sought to reconcile long-term sustainability with practical commercial realities.