The environmental movement has during the past week rallied that Statoil does not electrify the Johan Sverdrup field. But a researcher at the School of Fisheries believes the "climate friends" are engaged in a near-sighted debate.
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Development. 13. In February Statoil presented its concept choice for the development of the giant Johan Sverdrup field at Utsirahøgda. Power will supply the oil field only in the first phase of the Utsira development.
The environmental movement believes that Statoil is trying to get away with a "minimum solution". Both Bellona and Zero have believed that the initiative lacks foresight and environmental awareness, and that it is not in line with the Storting's requirements. Kari Elisabeth Kaski, deputy head of Zero, believes this will contribute to high levels of emissions in Norway over the next 50 years. Bellona's Frederic Hauge has said there will be a better solution with cable with the capacity to meet the power needs of the entire Utsira height, so Statoil commits itself to electrification.
But Odd Handegård, senior researcher and former director of the School of Fisheries, is critical of the Norwegian debate on electrification of the oil shelf.
– It's firing for the crows – or seagulls in this case. This debate about electrification is a skin debate and a big joke, says Handegård to Ny Tid.
One of the features of the climate settlement, presented by the Stoltenberg government in 2012, is the electrification of the petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf. This means that petroleum installations use shore power instead of producing electricity by burning the gas that is absorbed. Estimates show that such a transition will reduce CO2 emissions by 9,4 million tonnes per year, and this has become an important policy area.
- Profit is lost
Handegård spoke earlier this week to the Grandparents' reaction online about the debate. Til Ny Tid he now says:
- It is clear that electrification has a certain significance for Norway's climate accounts, but if the gas is exported, the profit goes up in the spin, and the global consequences become zero. The debate testifies to a short-sighted perspective in the Norwegian climate debate, says Handegård.
He believes there is little point in discussing and adopting environmentally friendly solutions, and then exporting fossil energy abroad.
- Climate is global, and the global consequences are the most important. In this context, national accounts for tonnes and kilowatt-hours will be irrelevant, the emissions will in any case take place elsewhere.
Handegård claims that the whole debate is symbolic politics and that it testifies that all parties in the Storting lack the ability to act properly:
- It is about letting the fossil energy lie and finding alternative ways to deal with emissions. If not, it rages against a catastrophe. Therefore, decisions must be made to cut production on the Norwegian shelf. Only then can we show that we take responsibility, and at the same time contribute positively to the global accounts. This is the justifiable climate debate, which we unfortunately see so far too rarely, Handegård concludes.
- Inevitable development
Kari Elisabeth Kaski in Zero agrees with much of the criticism from Handegård, but points out that it is really about two different debates:
- I completely agree that a reduced recovery rate is necessary, and Zero also works for this. At the same time, it is important for Zero to ensure that the processes that are already happening are as environmentally friendly as possible, says Kaski.
She emphasizes that the oil industry is the largest emissions sector in Norway and that it is therefore important that it is followed up closely.
- We now see it as inevitable that Utsirahøyden is expanded, therefore we will work to ensure that the development takes place in a responsible manner, concludes Kaski, Zero's deputy manager.
Then the question remains, what price is the soundness? The last word in the case has probably not been said.