(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
We still do not know all the meteorite strikes that will hit us in 2017, only that they will surely come. In his last weeks as president, Obama emphasized what was actually achieved during his presidency, drawing a history of hope into the future. Lame duckHe crushed his image when, at the very end of his reign, he implemented a luscious climate measure: a ban on new exploration for oil and gas north of Alaska. With him on the team, he got Canada's progressive Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who will deny all exploration drilling in his Arctic waters for the next five years. This is a battle won for unique ecosystems in the north, for the interests of indigenous peoples and for the climate as a whole.
President against science. Trump, for his part, is well underway to keep his promises and reverse Obama's actions "toward American jobs," something the oil industry supports, but here he will inevitably face some stumbling blocks on his way. He has already withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement. The regulation Obama has used in this case does not allow any future president to change the decision. The Trump camp complains that the United States "is set back as dependent on the energy of others for decades".
Obama has rejected such claims in the scientific journal Science. Here, he maintains that "clean energy is unstoppable" (though Trump has put a man who doesn't believe in climate change to lead the EPA). First, Obama argues, economic growth and climate protection are no longer the diametrical contradictions they seem to have been in the past. According to a report by the departed president's climate experts, greenhouse gases from heating, industry and transport have fallen by 2008 per cent since 9,5, while economic growth during the same period was just over 10 per cent. Furthermore, renewable energy in the US during the same period has become 41 percent cheaper. During 2015, more than twice as much money was invested globally in renewable as in fossil energy. A record to note.
Obama states: "The US president is free to formulate his own policy. However, states that have signed the Paris Agreement have the opportunity to hold countries such as China, India and Mexico responsible for their climate action. New research results are useful guides for future political decisions. No one can stop this development anymore. ” It is doubtful whether Trump reads this journal, but he may one day admit that he has promised to do something he would never knowingly and willingly: neglect the "US company" and thus his financial self-interest. But most importantly: risk the future support of their constituents. And what sitting president has not vowed to be re-elected after four years?
The oil and gas reservoirs will, by their nature, always contain undesirable substances.
A common paradigm shift. The United States is a particularly important player in the global climate policy scene, but the paradigm shift we are now facing puts us all in the same boat. For Norway, phasing out of fossil fuels will not be a decisive factor game changer. In the Norwegian debate, loss of income and jobs still plays a key role. This kind of argumentation will in all probability prove to be a mistake in the future. Instead of drilling in ever-new places, the expertise and manpower can be diverted to ending a dying industry; to win time and money while new solutions come into place. So far, 69 floating rigs have been scrapped worldwide, only one from the Norwegian continental shelf. What about all the rigs lying in dry dock awaiting better times? Rig analyst Janne Kvernland of Nordea Markets states that “age on the rig is an obvious criterion for getting on the (death) list. And the longer a rig is out of service, the more expensive it will be to get it back ”. But what will be the biggest obstacle is so-called classification; EU classification control. "This is going to be the big catalyst. If you go out of contract and have to be classified, there is very little chance that you can equip yourself to take that cost. ”
Inevitable high-cost nutrition. In Norway, we have a solid experience of building and operating offshore facilities. On the other hand, we have little experience in liquidating them, but that does not mean that we do not have guidelines. The Climate and Pollution Directorate has prepared a detailed overview in connection with the dismantling of scrapped offshore installations in the period up to 2020. The cost of dismantling the approximately 500 facilities on the Norwegian continental shelf is "uncertain", but a preliminary estimate (anno 2010) is 160 billion. Then, the removal of bottom concrete pavements is not included, because these specific costs are even more difficult to calculate. The state, ie the taxpayers, will cover about 80 per cent through deductions and ownership interests in the fields. A small price example: Large crane and freight vessels cost NOK 6–7 million a day (2010), and no storage and demolition expenses have yet begun. It may seem high time that taxpayers are aware of what the overall scenario entails and what new offshore facilities will actually entail.
During 2015, more than twice as much money was invested globally in renewable as in fossil energy.
Challenges in a row. The oil and gas reservoirs will, by their nature, always contain undesirable substances, waste and environmental toxins such as radioactive isotopes and heavy metals. Some of these substances will be deposited in pipes and other production equipment. The problem is big and offers constant surprises during the scrapping phase. In 2008, the oil and gas industry contributed about 1,8 per cent of the mercury emissions in Norway. Mercury-contaminated waste is hazardous and requires specific measures. There is little disagreement that scraping platforms and pipes in the North Sea is not about choice, but about time and order – where there are also opportunities that should be exploited. However, the environmental and health problems in the offshore industry are the part that has no mitigating circumstance in the form of new or retained jobs.
Be prepared. Björn Finke in the German daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has provided a report on the British large scale scrapping plan for the petroleum industry. Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a downturn in both production and revenue, and industry consultants from the Wood Mackenzie company estimate that all rigs and pipes will be non-conforming.
easily in 40 years. Shell has already invested $ 6 billion and expects to reach another 11 billion by 2021. Production costs in the North Sea are considered the largest in the world. Along with the low oil prices and scrap costs, this led to a sad premise in 2015: For the first time, the UK Treasury did not raise money on the industry through special taxes for the oil and gas industry, as they usually have. On the contrary, the state – that is, the taxpayers – had to pay the companies a total of £ 24 million for the liquidation. For all offshore facilities in the North Sea, the situation is such that the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes. And what is the point of an industry that is an ecological monster – and that also allows Norway to emerge with environmental political double standards by pulling investments out of coal projects while still investing heavily in fossil energy?
Norway has the means to finance the necessary innovation, which will lead to future-oriented industries and permanent jobs. Norway can thus contribute with a whole new "moon landing"; to the Paris Agreement being more than a piece of paper; to get Obama right in his optimistic forecasts.
