INTERVIEWS
What does people in the oil industry and greenpeace think about the future of the oil industry and the lawsuit?
Let us explore their opinions.
Hover over the persons to get to know them better and see their longer answers to the questions.
Hey!
I am Andreas Randøy and i am currently working as climate and energy advicer in Greenpeace Norway.
I have worked toghether with Greenpeace on the lawsuit and am an activist with a passion for smart and inclusive energy policy that puts nature and humans in the centre.
Andreas Randøy
Anonymous 1
Hello!
I am Anonymous 1, i have been working in the oil sector for several years and seen the development in the industry over the last years.
I look forward to providing you with valuable facts and input, answering the questions!
Anonymous 1
Anonymous 2
Hi everyone,
I am currently not working directly in the oil industry, but am educated as a petroleum engineer and have experience in the oil industry.
Looking forward to contribute to this discussion!
Anonymous 2
What do you think about the transition to sustainable energy?
Andreas Randøy
Necessary, has to happen fast due to climate change.
Highly necessary considering the current situation linked to global warming and climate change. The transition should be quick to meet the climate goals set by the UN and formulated in the Paris agreement. We should stop exploring for new resources and use existing ones, and invest in renewable energies to support a sustainable and rapid transition, and reduce the impacts of climate change by reducing emissions and stopping global warming.
Necessary, but shoud happen gradually.
Renewable energies has a lot of potential, but has unfortunately fallen in value over the last period of time. One reason behind this is the increased demand for oil and gas due to the war in Ukraine. As the demand for energy increases, I think it is necessary to supply Europe with gas and oil, and not to do so would not be an act of solidarity. A cut in the Norwegian oil and gas industry may therefore have huge negative consequences on Europe, due to Norway’s central role as a supplier of oil and gas. Norway can be viewed as the lifeline of Europe at the moment.
All industry also has to start somewhere. It is important to work towards sustainability and use renewable energy sources where possible. This is to ensure a sustainable future and reduce emissions. However, this change has to happen gradually. The incomes from oil and gas can therefore gradually be used to build better, greener industries.
Anonymous 2
Highly necessary
The transition to renewable energies went very smoothly until the war in Ukraine started.
All policies concerning the northern continental shelf and oil exploration and extraction there has to follow directions from the EU. This includes lowering emissions of greenhouse gasses by at least 50% by 2030 in Norway as well.
30-40% of operational assets in the north goes to paying CO2 taxed in the oil industry, and it is paid 1200 NOK per ton of CO2 the oil industry emits. This number is likely to double to 2400 NOK in a couple of years.
Due to these large sums, we depend on renewable and sustainable energy sources to reduce costs. However, it is a also a question of scale, the renewable and sustainable industries have to be of large scales to meet then energy demand.
Back to the war in Ukraine; As Russian gas is no longer available, Norway becomes an important actor in delivering so-called “transition-energies” to the EU while EU develops a greener industry. As the price for gas has 10 times doubled in the last year and the price of oil has 5 times doubled, this provides Norway with large amounts of income.
This is bad for the world and climate change, but good for Norwegian economy.
Considering long-term development, the oil industry should be phased out. The abandoned platforms can be used as infrastructure for more sustainable energy production as it is important to re-use old infrastructure. Maybe wind farms?
We have to increase the green energy production to contribute to sustainability, but are facing some challenges linked to the sustainability goals of EU. EU formulated evaluation forms for emissions with different scopes. Scope 2 assesses the emission linked to the production of a product, scope 3 also includes consumption such as exports and sales. No one in the oil industry will be able to grasp a scope 3 evaluation of the industry as the emissions are so high.
Anonymous 1
What do you think about the licensing in the Barents Sea?
Andreas Randøy
We should immediately stop the expansion of the oil and gas industry into the Barents Sea.
We should stop further expansion of the oil and gas industry in Norway. There are a lot of science presenting the risks of further emissions considering climate change. There are also a lot of data suggesting the drilling in the Barents Sea will not be profitable considering a financial aspect, and that risks linked to oil spills, HMS and other factors may be more negative than the potential positives.
The licensing is also a violation of the Paris agreement, where Norway’s government promised to drastically reduce emissions to contribute to solving the climate crisis. Norway has vast resources and are not dependent upon oil, so it is time to move away from oil and towards more sustainable options.
Should continue the expansion of the oil industry.
Norway has 98% “clean energy” from renewable sources (no source found or provided)). It is unnecessary to go against the Norwegian state for the licensing of oil and gas, which we are currently highly dependent upon. Other areas should be regulate first, such as the expansion of coal industry in China and India, who are the main contributors to CO2 emissions (no source found or provided)
As Norway has a central role in the provision for oil and gas to the EU and since it is highly profitable, we should continue expanding the oil and gas industry.
Anonymous 2
Not a good idea cosidering the environmental challenges we face with global warming.
My personal opinion is that it is not a good idea at all considering the environment.
It takes years to explore for oil, do assessments and build a rig. The entire process takes around 10 years. Such investments have proven to be very good so far considering only economics.
Before the war in Ukraine, there was a lot of questions around whether investments in oil and expansion of the industry was profitable. We did not know the potential payback, especially considering the future demand for oil and gas, which was estimated to decrease over the coming years as we moved into more sustainable energy sources.
To expand the oil industry into the far north can be a very bad investment.
However, the government has something called "Leterefusjonsordningen". This is a refund the Norwegian government pays for some of the initial work being done during the licencing process, such as exploration. The incomes of the oil fields are then taxated up to 80% when the rigs are in production.
This means that the state spends a lot of money searching for oil, and the taxates the production to get payback.
However, exploration and production of oil in the Arctic is highly uncertain considering payback and profit. This is due to financial risks and other risks such as oil spills and potential damage due to more extreme weather in arctic areas. A solution may be to develop more satelites around already existing platforms instead of entirely new platforms. These satelites take shorter time to build and may provide income already after 3-5 years.
After Ukraine: Norway is an important distributor and supplier of oil and gas in a transitioning period in Europe, when we move towards sustainable energy. 10% of the supply of gas to EU comes from Norway. Therefore, considering short-term, one should continue the oil extraction and production, but phase out and use income from oil and gas to build out renewable energy sources.
Anonymous 1
How much have you heard about the lawsuit against the Norwegian state and oil drilling, and what do you think of it?
Andreas Randøy
I fully support the lawsuit.
Since I was a part of formulating this lawsuit in my previous job, I know quite a lot and think it is highly important. I fully support the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is a radical, fundamentalistic approach.
The lawsuit is important and good to increase awareness around cutting CO2 emissions. However, it is important with corrections in the lawsuit as well as debate. The oil industry provides Norway with financial, social and industry related safeties. It is important to have a robust system as a safety in case something happens, and the oil industry is central as such a safety. A sudden over-night cut in the industry is not a reality, it is a radical, fundamentalistic approach.
It is important to have discussions around the aspects they bring up in the lawsuit, but not do too radical and hasty actions, although they have good intentions.
Norway must be a part of the shift towards sustainable energy sources, but we are not at all the “bad guys” considering climate change. When the statisticians look at the right parameters, Norwegians has a large carbon footprint, but this may only be because these people want the Norwegian carbon footprint to be that high.
Also, there is something negative about absolutely all ways to produce energy, criticising only the oil and gas industry may have a too narrow approach.
Anonymous 2
I understand the reasons behind the lawsuit and it is an important discussion.
I understand the reasons behind the lawsuit, but do not know too much about it. It is also a trade-off that should be considered regarding workplaces and industry in the relevant areas. Also, the challenge is not only linked to the oil and gas industry, but all kind of energy production that threatens the environment in different ways. All types of energy extraction have some effect on the nature in some way, the level of acceptance has to be measured for all types of production. One needs to balance several factors including development, demand, trade-offs, consequences. This balance also depends upon the interest of stakeholders.
It is important to hear the voices of all involved parties, but also to conduct good analysis.
Anonymous 1
Are you concerned with climate change?
Andreas Randøy
Highly concerned
I am very concerned; we are already in a climate emergency. People have lost their homes, their place of work, and people have already lost their lives, and it's probably going to get a lot worse.
Every cut of every ton of carbon matters and makes a difference to ensure a sustainable future and reduce the impacts of global warming.
Anonymous 2
Absolutely, we need to stop emissions, but this should happen very gradually.
(No longer answer provided)
Anonymous 1
Yes, very much
(No longer answer provided)
Where do you see the oil industry in 30-40 years?
Andreas Randøy
Hopefully all gone.
EU will probably not demand oil and gas anymore as technology and innovation shifts towards renewable energy sources and hopefully a more circular process than we have today. If Norway is still dependent upon oil, then, we will have a financial problem.
Hopefully we see a shift in the industry in not too long and can invest in other industries as well, so we are not so highly dependent upon the oil and gas industry.
Anonymous 2
Uncertain, but it is most likely highly present
(No longer answer provided)
Probably some production left, hopefully mostly phased out.
Probably some gas production left, but I do not think that there will be a lot of production of oil and gas due to a shift in energy production towards renewable energies. There will still be some demand for oil for some products, but hopefully we have a better recycling solution that can reduce that need drastically.
I also hope that the existing infrastructure and facilities standing in the sea and on land can be re-used for other, positive purposes.
Anonymous 1
Challenges with oil drilling in the Barents Sea?
Andreas Randøy
Emissions causing climate change.
The main concern and challenge with oil drilling in the Barents Sea are emissions causing climate change, human rights, security linked to the health of people but also the environment and problems around potential oil spills. The bad weather in the far north also makes the risk for oil spills higher, which increases the risk of chemical pollution and negative effects on ecosystems.
Risks linked to oil production
Uncertain, but several risks that the industry must account for. However, these must be weighted towards the positives to find the best outcome.
Anonymous 2
Environmental concerns and high risks linked to production of oil in the Barents Sea.
The main and most relevant issue is long term environmental consequences. The ice edge is important for several species, considering the ecological aspect. Institute of Marine Research conducted research trying to estimate the consequence of an oil spill. A potential spill and its effects would impact the cod population for several years. However, the model estimated the likelihood of an oil spill to be around 1-100%, and that is a large gap. But would we take that risk either way?
There are also several other projects that are investigating the potential risks of an oil spill, and there is great uncertainty around the effects of an oil spill.
As long as the potential effects and damage to the environment is not fully understood, we should be highly cautionary. This is especially considering the higher risks for events causing negative impacts in the high north.
Anonymous 1
Opportunities with oil drilling in the Barents Sea?
Andreas Randøy
Jobs in the oil industry
The opportunities mainly concern the oil industry. Drilling in the Barents Sea will provide jobs and it is well paid.
Workspaces in the oil industry, innovation.
Workplaces and new industry, as well as people coming to nearby areas as settlers.
One can also see that in areas where the oil industry is present, there is a high presence of innovation linked to renewables and technology as well. People and industries can use increased incomes and competence from the oil industry to develop other industries.
Anonymous 2
Workplaces in the oil industry
Work areas. However, this is uncertain as it is dependent upon the development of the oil and gas industry and the demand for oil and gas in the future.
Anonymous 1