The report was written on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, and was presented at an expert investigation today. According to the government, the report “is to be used as part of the factual basis for processing future development plans”. Both the Solberg and Støre governments have been promoters of new extraction projects in the Barents Sea, such as the Johan Castberg field. A total of NOK 70 billion will be invested in this one field, which will start production in 2024. Facility for receiving and processing natural gas from the Barents Sea on Melkøya. The facility currently receives gas from the Snøhvit field, through a 145 kilometer long pipeline. The plant was started in 2007. Photo: Fredrik Varfjell / NTB At the same time, there is widespread recognition among climate scientists that new oil production cannot continue if we want to avoid a climate catastrophe. – Increasing the production of fossil energy will only make things worse. It is time to stop harming our planet and invest in the abundant renewable sources around us, António Guterres said last April, after the IPCC released its third interim report. “Gas can reduce the use of coal” One of the key points Rystad refers to is that Norwegian gas production can reduce the use of far more polluting coal. “There is and will continue to be significant potential to reduce global emissions by replacing coal with gas, particularly in LNG-importing countries that also use coal,” the report states. Smoke and steam rise from a coal-fired power station. Photo: Kacper Pempel / Reuters Rystad also considers that supply cuts, i.e. fewer people producing fossil energy, will have little climate effect, while demand cuts, i.e. fewer people buying fossil energy, will have a big effect. In particular, it is increased gas production that will be decisive. Increased oil production will only have a “marginal effect”. Kårstø processing plant in North Rogaland. Photo: Cornelius Poppe / NTB Depending on different scenarios, increased oil production in Norway can lead to emission cuts of up to 26 kilograms of CO2e per barrel, while increased gas production can result in a reduction of 132 kilograms of CO2e per barrel of oil equivalent. State Secretary in the Ministry of Oil and Energy Amund Vik (Ap) speaks during a presentation of Rystad Energy’s report on the impact of Norwegian oil and gas production on the climate goals. Photo: Kristine Ramberg Aasen / news Warns of counter-report On the other side of the political spectrum, several environmental protection organizations are warning that they will come up with a “counter-report”. Firkløveren Naturvernforbundet, Greenpeace, WWF World Nature Fund and Nature and Youth asked the company Vista analysis to make their own calculations. – Here the state has commissioned a report from Rystad which already gives very little credibility. The conclusion that Norwegian oil and gas is good for the climate is completely absurd. There will be a counter-report, so the debate is not over with this, says Truls Gulowsen, head of the Nature Conservation Association. Lars Haltbrekken (SV) during a support demonstration for the campaigners in Førdefjorden. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB – It is, to put it mildly, strange that the government chooses the same company as the oil companies when they are to analyze the climate consequences of Norwegian oil and gas production, says Lars Haltbrekken, who is a parliamentary representative for SV. He believes Rystad Energy “underestimates the power of the transformation that is underway” and there is a danger that Norway “locks itself into a fossil economy” while the rest of the world cuts emissions and replaces fossil energy with renewables. – This shows again that we have a lie, a cursed lie, and then we have statistics. This is a game with numbers, reacts Ola Elvestuen (V) Oil Drilling Instruments on the Edvard Grieg field in the North Sea. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB – Does not hold water – This report shows what we have been saying all along. A controlled liquidation of the oil and gas industry is not the way to go. It will not lead to reduced emissions, and will also lead to dramatic consequences for the country’s income, jobs and welfare, says Ove Trellevik (H). Director for climate and environment in the oil industry interest organization Offshore Norway, Benedicte Solaas, welcomes the report, and emphasizes that it is established that power from land is a valuable climate contribution. – The report also confirms once again that power from land combined with exploration and production on the Norwegian continental shelf will be an important contribution both to reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases and to providing Europe with the necessary energy security Ove Trellevik (H) in the Storting’s Energy and Environment Committee is very positive about the report’s conclusions. Photo: Olaug Spissøy Kyvik / news Deputy head of the MDG, Ingrid Liland, says that the government “cannot use this as a decision-making basis for new oil fields” and that the time horizon in the report (2030) does not rhyme with the investment boom resulting from the oil tax package: – That Norwegian oil is the cleanest is, firstly, debatable, and secondly, completely insignificant compared to the enormous emissions the oil has when burned. When it is laid down as a prerequisite in the Rystad report, it goes without saying that the conclusions do not hold water. Deputy head of MDG Ingrid Liland is very critical of the professional assessments Rystad Energy has made. Photo: Nicklas Knudsen / Nicklas Knudsen
ttn-69
More Norwegian oil and gas can reduce global emissions – news – Climate
