On 19 July 1966 started Norway’s oil history.
Then put the rig ” Ocean Traveler “the first drilled in the Norwegian continental shelf. Oil exploration was at the time described as the biggest gamble in Norwegian history.
It would take three and a half years before anything happened. Many had given up and thought it was no longer possible, but 23 December 1969 it happened anyway: It was found oil off the Norwegian coast. Ekofisk became the world’s currently largest offshore oil fields, and all Norwegians had been a Christmas present they have no idea the extent of.
Oil activities have dominated Norwegian development since Ekofisk discovery, and in 2001 production reached a historical peak of 3 , 4 billion barrels. Norway was then the world’s third largest exporter of both oil and gas.
The oil discovery in the North Sea has led to adventurous prosperity in Norway, but has not been without controversy.
security concerns
recently, the security debate going by helicopter accident at Turøy outside Bergen, but also the early years there was considerable debate about the safety of oil platforms.
in particular, two incidents stand out; Bravo blowout in 1977 and Alexander Kielland accident in 1980. Both made significant patron of politicians and helped the then Environment Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland up and up.
Bravo blowout, 1977
“it is now full alarm at the rescue coordination center at Sola, after that there are reports of uncontrolled release of oil and gas from the Phillips-owned production plat form” Bravo “on the Ekofisk field.” This Aftenposten wrote on April 23, 1977.
Bravo blowout on april 22 was the largest oil spill on the Norwegian shelf ever. Blowout lasted for over a week, and an estimated 12,700 cubic oil was discharged into the North Sea.
The first big environmental debate on Norwegian oil production was initiated. Naturvernforbundet stated that the rate of oil recovery to be muted, and that plans for drilling north of the 62nd parallel should be abandoned.
There were also questions about whether the security of the oil industry was good enough. The press concluded that the oil spill was bad too.
Dr Brundtland was environment minister under accident and gained political in dealing with it.
– Brundtland had prior to the accident stated that there was good enough uncollected on the Norwegian shelf. When Bravo accident happened, she got right, says professor and researcher at the TIK-center UIO Helge Ryggvik.
– After Bravo accident she deferred oil production north of the 62nd parallel, although it was opened for the when she became prime minister.
Alexander Kielland accident, 1980
“The impossible has happened: Residential platform” Alexander L . Kielland, “which according to experts was designed to withstand the greatest stresses, capsized in stormy weather, and were within a few minutes turned upside down. 228 people waged a tenacious struggle to survive, 139 feared dead. The accident at Edda field is the biggest disaster that has befallen our country since the Second World War, “Aftenposten wrote on March 29, 1980, two days after the accident.
” The accident Edda field is the biggest disaster that has befallen our country since World War II. “
in the aftermath of the accident there was additional questioned safety on the Norwegian continental shelf. It was suggested in some quarters that the pace of oil activities should be reduced, and that the decision spud north of the 62nd parallel have to be rearranged to ensure that the recovery rate was acceptable.
There was also questioned on safety training at home platforms was good enough.
the graph below shows the number of dead in Norwegian oil, divided into eras:
Gas power case that overthrew a government
– the 90s was the climate theme for the first time, but it got a very special expression through gas power plant issue, says historian Ryggvik.
In the 90s, dominated the question of whether Norway should establish gas to magnify their own gas. “As a political gall ailments gas power debate politicians. Controversy over power supply and jobs against the environment, haunting soon all parties, “wrote Aftenposten Agnar Kaarbø comments.
One of the main arguments for adopting gas power in Norway was that gas power could help industrialization. It was indifferent to the climate of the gas was burned in Norway and exported, or burned and converted into electricity in Europe.
Meanwhile, the Norwegian oil production under the radar. It was set ceilings on oil production of 90 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Yet increased oil production three times from 1988 to 2000.
– Greenhouse gas emissions are recognized where carbon was burned as gas power plants in Norway would lead to massive outage on our climate accounts, says Ryggvik.
– Therefore, gas power plant issue a lot more inflamed political issue than that Norwegian oil contaminated abroad.
Gas power the case eventually led to the felling of the Bondevik 1-government in March 2000, after it refused to follow the Conservatives and Labour Party demand for changing the pollution Control Act in order to facilitate gas power development.
A northern Norway to upset
the issue of oil drilling in Lofoten, Senja and Vesterålen has been among the most inflamed environmental issues domestic recent years. Despite probably rich oil and gas resources off Lofoten, Vesterålen and Senja, elected government parties sacrificing development to ensure the support of the Liberal Party and the Christian Democrats.
Ryggvik believe Lofoten and Vesterålen has formed the basis for both this government and the previous one. It was the glue between SV and Labor in the last government, and also glue between government parties and Christian Democrats and the Liberals in this game.
– It is obvious that they had started drilling Lofoten, had it not been for that left sitting in the rocker. I think even the Prime Minister admits smooth, said Trine Skei Grande earlier this year.
Still, Erna Solberg opened for oil drilling in the Arctic earlier this year, and will thus become accused of “failing in the face of the greatest threat facing humanity. “
Controversial oil money
the guideline was adopted in Parliament in 2001, and replaced production ceiling. The rule implies that it should not be used more oil money in the state budget than that corresponding to the returns we can expect to receive from the Fund.
In this way the money carefully phased into the Norwegian economy, while industry retains its competitiveness . The rule was not unproblematic, and was criticized for the opportunity to use the state budget to influence unemployment was gone.
The use of oil money from the state budget is still under intense discussion, and Finance Minister Siv Jensen was the first to beat holes in your piggy bank and take fresh money from the oil fund in this year’s budget:
the other parties were quickly on the field and criticized Jensens use of oil money.
– the Conservatives and the Progress Party has increased oil spending at a pace we have not seen before. This year is not an exceptional year, but the main rule, said fiscal spokesperson Marianne Marthinsen in Labor NTB last November.
“What will we live on for oil?”
Future large generation question in Norway is “What will we live on for oil?”. Former Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg gave the answer “ Each other work “, as in the other countries it is good to live in, but that does not have abundant natural resources.
In his New Year speech, Prime Minister Erna Solberg been in * knowledge * is what is the future of oil.
the reason for the question can be summarized in a single graph:
Just since 2001, the Norwegian oil production halved. Not since 1987 have we produced less oil.
For those who wonder why Norway did not have more innovation, the classic answer has been oil. When money can be picked, or pumped directly from the sea, it is difficult to motivate themselves to do anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment