Deliberately decided to abandon the profitability assessment of the Southeastern Barents Sea – NRK Norway – Summary of news from different parts of the country

– These are not the bad authorities who are going to extract oil to harm people. It is the authorities who weigh basic social considerations. More than 90 percent of the Storting supports Norwegian oil policy.

That’s what government attorney Fredrik Sejersted said when the climate lawsuit had its final day in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

He and lawyer Anders Wilhelmsen spent a lot of time arguing that the information was kept secret from the Storting.

Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom accuse the State of procedural errors when the Storting opened the Barents Sea southeast of oil drilling.

The idea is that the Ministry of Oil and Energy delayed an assessment that showed that the maritime zone could become unprofitable if the price of oil falls 30 percent.

Conscious evaluation

It is almost impossible to assess the value of resources in an area where nothing has yet been found. A valuation should be done only after one has searched for and found oil, Wilhelmsen argued:

– The operational phase has not yet arrived, so the exploration permits in the 23rd licensing round cannot be declared invalid. And even if oil prices fluctuate, there is no reason to reconsider opening the Barents Sea to the southeast. We are talking about investments that are 10-15 years old. And then you will reassess profitability.

The prosecutor also showed the court how the Petroleum Law provides for a new environmental and profitability assessment for each new step in the process against oil production.

– The system is manipulated so that unprofitable resources are not extracted.

It was prosecuted

Previously, the plaintiffs’ lawyers had shown the judicial communication between the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate and the Ministry of Petroleum. Professional economists in the Directorate expressed frustration at the ministry’s interference in their professional evaluations.

Management was instructed from the outset that an appraisal “should clearly state that we should open.” And they were told to “ensure that the Barents Sea in the southeast is not lowered.”

The prosecutor defends the ministry. He says they wanted to go to this area, because they wanted to find out if there were resources there. He does not think the disagreement between management and ministry is sensational.

– The disagreement shows precisely that the ministry has carried out an evaluation and made a professionally justified decision.

The Ministry decided not to share the assessment with the Storting, because the figures would be perceived as more certain than they are. They thought it gave a false picture of income potential. They also believed that profitability analyzes based on an unknown resource base were worthless.

– The opening message also says that a lot of oil has to be found if extraction in the area is to be paid for.

I would not change the result

According to the State, no one, neither at the Storting nor in the consultation rounds, requested a profitability assessment of the kind that environmental organizations believe was kept secret.

The prosecutor regrets that the profitability assessment did not appear until now. At the same time, you think it says something about how little weight it has been given.

Greenpeace believes the state downplays how the information has been kept secret.

– It is a scandal that essential information has been deliberately withheld from the Storting and two courts. That taxpayers could lose billions in oil extraction is, of course, relevant. The state’s attempt to dismiss procedural errors as unimportant is part of a long series of shameful and terrifying proposals from that side, says Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway.

If the Supreme Court finds that there has been a procedural error, the state will have to re-investigate the opening of the Barents Sea to the southeast. Sentence is expected in the case just over New Years.