– Culture in the Ministry of Petroleum – NRK Norway – Summary of news from different parts of the country

– There are several cases where I think I can test the culture in the ministry and the lack of information to the Storting and policy makers, said Rolf Wiborg, former director of resources at the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD).

In a hearing at the Storting on what happened when the Barents Sea in the southeast was opened to oil exploration, he made strong accusations of an oil bureaucracy that leaks information and a ministry that he says actively manages the professional processes in the direction.

The Storting should receive much more complete information, especially about the chances of losses when opening new areas, he believes. However, he believes that calculations that the Storting did not see when the Barents Sea opened in the southeast would not change the outcome of the case.

– I mean, no. It would give a clear recommendation to start looking at the possibilities, he said.

– That the opening of an area can generate losses for the state, where we take both of the bill, but also a large part of the profit if you find something, it is obvious.

The Storting could not see the calculations.

The hearing comes after NRK reported that the Oil Ministry knew that oil exploration in the southeastern Barents Sea could be a lossy project, but withheld the calculation for the Storting.

The area was inaugurated while Ola Borten Moe (Sp) was Minister of Oil and Energy. Before the inauguration, the management had carried out the so-called present value assessment of the area’s resources in collaboration with the Ministry of Oil and Energy, which the Storting was never able to see.

The Storting’s control committee now wants an answer on whether they should have received these calculations and why they were not allowed to see them.

Former oil director Bente Nyland emphasized in the query that the new calculations had never been ordered as part of the basis for evaluating the opening of the Barents Sea to the southeast.

– The analysis was intended to be included in the NPD resource report for 2013. This is a report that the NPD publishes regularly and includes the entire Norwegian sock. The assessment was not an order from the MPE in the impact assessment (from the Southeastern Barents Sea, journal.anm.), But the MPE was familiar with the work, he said.

Previously, the Ministry of Oil and Energy told management that they did not want to include the present value assessment in the resource report.

Uusimaa and current oil director Ingrid Sølvberg were asked about situations where the ministry has proposed changes to management reports. Terje Breivik (V) referred, among other things, to an email from a senior NPD economist, where he wrote that he felt “incipient nausea” because the MPE had edited one of his reports.

Sølvberg responded that the NPD often solicits input and comments from the ministry along the way, which she experiences are generally good and help improve her work.

– At the same time, it is a prerequisite that the NPD, as management, must provide independent professional advice. This means that we have the right and duty to present professional objections and objections to the ministry. This does not mean that we have the right to make an impact. The important thing is that they are delivered. It is up to the ministry how the NPD professional advice is used. My impression is that it works well, he said.

The then Minister of Oil and Energy Ola Borten Moe (Sp) will participate in the hearing today. He has always said that he believes that the Storting received all the relevant information in the event that the Barents Sea in the southeast was opened for exploration. He has said he never saw the calculations, which he refers to as an internal memorandum at the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

I think it costs to notify

Rolf Wiborg described what he believes to be a culture in the Ministry of Oil and Energy where it is difficult to report.

Eva Kristin Hansen (Labor Party) asked Wiborg if the Petroleum Ministry actively controlled professional processes at the NPD.

– The answer is a resounding yes. This is something that sparked conflict and eventually active ministry actions. But in my time, when I was a director and also just a senior advisor, I was not in that. So the ministry continued to interfere, so there were open notifications if it was necessary for the Storting to get the information it wanted.

Five oil bureaucrats who had been summoned to the hearing chose to decline the invitation. Sølvberg says that each individual employee decides whether or not they want to participate.

According to Wiborg, there are several people at management who share his opinion.

– I had a lot of support while I was still active, and also afterwards. But unfortunately we see that the costs of being a whistleblower and dealing with conflicting material is very high, and it has also been in the NPD. It goes back well as a message that it was nice that you could allow yourself to do what you did, Rolf, but we can’t.

– I met the oil wall

Åslaug Haga (Sp), who was Minister of Oil and Energy from September 2007 to June 2008, emphasized in the audience that she has great respect for the Norwegian public administration. But she said it was challenging to arrive as a minister who wanted to focus more on renewable energy.

– In my time, it was clear that the MPE had extreme experience in oil and gas, and little experience in renewable energy, and not least in new renewable energy. In practice, it was an oil department.

Haga also pointed to what he called an axis between the civil service in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Oil and Energy and the Ministry of Finance, where the dominant attitude was that oil and gas should take priority.

– Going from there to saying that there was malice, information was withheld and so on, is very difficult to say. But it was not an environment that provided the right for there to be any innovation. It was frustrating. You felt like you ran into the oil wall in this.