MDG Joins Oil Industry’s Largest Climate Change FRP Kill

FRPs are very critical to running power cables from land to oil rigs. Now the MDGs say they share the concern.

The Progress Party wants to scrap the whole idea of ​​supplying electricity from land to the oil rigs on the Norwegian platform.

It is an expensive and uncertain climate measure, the party believes after obtaining figures from the Ministry of Oil and Energy.

The party has therefore asked the Climate Minister Sveinung Rotevatn (V) to stay away from measures to stimulate this in the climate report that the government presents before Christmas.

Now the FRP receives the support of an unknown team: the Green Party.

This is confirmed by the party’s energy policy spokesman, Ask Ibsen Lindal.

– Yes, Frp has several good points here. There is good reason to be skeptical about the electrification of the Norwegian continental shelf as it is taking place today, he tells Aftenposten.

This is what it says about:

Roughly explained, the debate revolves around how electricity should be supplied to the oil platforms on the Norwegian platform. Most oil rigs today are equipped with their own gas-fired power plants. The gas they burn produces greenhouse gas emissions. Another possibility is renewable hydroelectric power from land. But it is expensive to stretch power cables from land to far away in the North Sea.

However, the oil industry has presented comprehensive electrification plans. This is after an increase in the price of CO₂ quota in the EU quota trading system and an increase in the CO₂ tax in Norway.

This certainly translates into lower emissions in Norway. However, the overall effect is uncertain. Gas that would otherwise go to gas-fired power plants will be sold and thus generate emissions elsewhere. It relies on a mechanism in the EU quota system to achieve global effect.

Growing skepticism on the MDGs

MDG skepticism about the measure has grown as the oil industry has embraced it.

The party now believes that the current electrification of Norwegian oil production “makes it de facto green.” In it, Lindal adds that the impression of climate-friendly oil production is overshadowed by consuming the same climate-damaging oil.

– Emissions from production are approx. 2 percent of oil emissions, Lindal says.

He fears that extensive electrification plans for the oil industry will prolong the life of the Norwegian oil adventure.

This can happen, he believes, both because the oil industry strengthens its image in the public opinion, and because investments will require a longer useful life of projects to be considered profitable.

The plans will also require large amounts of energy. Equinor plans to reduce emissions from production by 40 percent by 2030 and be close to zero by 2050. It provides a need for 10 to 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more energy than today, according to the company.

MDG looks with horror at the prospect that a massive new onshore wind development will go to power offshore oil production.

– The goal should be that renewable energy goes directly to replace fossil energy, not to produce it, says Lindal.

Opinions divided internally

For the MDGs, electrification has always been the second best option after leaving oil in the ground. Today, this is formulated in the party program as if the party were for the electrification of oil fields that have been granted a permit and cannot be stopped.

The MDG agenda for the next elections has not yet been adopted. But in the draft, it has now been added that electrification will take place through “the use of offshore wind energy that will produce power for the electrical grid when the oil field stops producing.”

The program will be adopted at the national meeting this spring.

Lindal tells Aftenposten that there are now internally divided opinions on which line the party should take.

He himself is in favor of the party saying no to all electrification of oil production when this cannot be useful after the oil field has been closed. In some places there is a theoretical possibility that the cables could be used to exchange future energy from offshore wind power to Britain and the mainland.

– What separates us from Frp is that where we want to phase out Norwegian oil production, they are still at “drill, baby, drill!” I think we should demand zero emissions from oil rigs in a reasonable time, but as a general rule they are not connected to the terrestrial network. They can, for example, rebuild platforms for hydrogen operation or traditional gas operation with CO2 capture.

– You will close the oil industry by 2035. Is it then reasonable to ask the oil industry to invest heavily in hydrogen power plants? Will it be short-lived?

– On the contrary. The components can be reused later, like today. A turbine is a turbine. For us, the most important thing is that there are no requirements for zero emissions without this contributing to us being locked into an extension of the useful life of oil production.

Discussion on the end date

There is also a debate within the MDGs about whether the party should set an end date for Norwegian oil production. Lindal himself is unsure whether a politically defined end date is the most appropriate.

– End date or not, both the industry and the politicians in office must, in any case, begin to see the signs of the times and understand that the door to oil and gas is closing rapidly.