A new study, entitled “On Thin Ice: Norway’s Fossil Ambitions and the EU’s Green Energy Future”, published on 21 February, by the NGOs Zero Carbon Analytics, WWF Norway, Oil Change International, Transport & Environment and Greenpeace, analyses that, in three different scenarios of future EU gas demand, further gas exploration in Norway’s Arctic region is not necessary, as there is a risk of oversupply.
Norway is the main supplier of fossil gas to the EU and, according to the study, the Norwegian government “has consistently claimed that it needs to expand its oil and fossil gas production in order to meet demand from the EU”, particularly as it phases out the use of Russian fossil fuels.
Vulnerability of the Arctic region
Since 2010, the country has distributed 141 exploration licences in the Arctic part of the Barents Sea. However, the EU has previously expressed concerns about the continued expansion of oil and gas activities in Arctic regions.
Invited to comment on the content of the study at an event at the European Parliament on 21 February, MEP Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA, Germany) explained that “if we want to stay truthful to the Paris Agreement and the 1.5 degree goal, there cannot be (...) new oil and gas exploration anywhere. Norway has also committed to the Paris Agreement so they should be truthful to this goal”.
Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finnish), for her part, warned of the loss of biodiversity caused by gas and oil production and deep-water mining exploration in a “specifically vulnerable” Arctic region.
An end to Norwegian gas imports possible by 2035
According to the study, in a ‘net zero’ scenario in 2050, EU domestic production from existing projects and gas already under contract will exceed demand in the 2030s, and almost double the demand in gas by 2040. This means that, in this scenario, the EU could end all imports of Norwegian gas in 2035, when its current gas contracts come to an end.
“In the long-term, pipeline and LNG imports beyond what has already been contracted are only needed in a scenario where the EU fails to meet its climate goals and does not introduce any further climate policies”, the study explains.
It also states that the demand for gas to be used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to produce blue hydrogen in the EU is not justified, as hydrogen production from renewable electricity will be more competitive.
A necessary reduction in supply
Niels Fuglsang (S&D, Danish) reiterated that new gas and oil projects in Norway made no sense and should be stopped. He also insisted on reducing demand in the EU and Norway, but also on reducing supply. “Even though some of us try to reduce demand, there might be some countries that just don’t care and you can always supply to these countries and that is not a morally right way to go”, he explained.
On the Commission’s side, Matthew Baldwin, Deputy Director General of DG Energy, pointed out that, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “Norway increased its production during the crisis, at our request”, but that this was in no way a contradictory message to the desired reduction in gas in the short term.
He also explained that, for the time being, no commitment would be made by the Commission against gas exploration and production in general, but that the debate was well under way on how the EU envisages its exit from fossil fuels.
To see the study: https://aeur.eu/f/axm (Original version in French by Pauline Denys)