83
βWe are talking about energy security for Europeβ: Norway doubles down on oil and gas production
(www.theguardian.com)
A good dealer does not consume.
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
83 points (97.7% liked)
Europe
11173 readers
538 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Norway knows that in 30 years energy will be renewable. They have to pump now to turn their oil and gas into money.
Doubling down on oil and gas infrastructure makes you LESS stable and resilient though? This just makes the problem worse.
Would you rather have your oil and gas from the US, Russia, or the Middle East? The EU is still reliant on oil and gas at the moment, and Norway is the EU's most reliable supplier by a mile. You should work hard to become energy independent, but that can't happen over night.
The EU is still reliant on oil and gas at the moment
Despite having had a literal lifetime to change that.
Strategic autonomy didn't seem like a pressing issue to me until Russia invaded the Ukraine, to be honest. I'm sure a large part of the population has been similarly complacent.
Reliance on soviet / russian gas and oil wasn't a bug, it was a feature designed with the thought that it will stabilise relations. Of course, nobody has envisioned the stupidity of current russian leadership, soooo....
nobody has envisioned the stupidity of current russian leadership
In 1997, George F. Kennan (the architect of Cold War containment) deplored enlargement as "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era," warning it would inflame Russian nationalism, empower hardliners, and inevitably precipitate conflict along Russia's borders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_opposition_to_NATO_enlargement
You should work hard to become energy independent, but that can't happen over night.
The only thing holding back alternative energy is people refusing to let go of this dogma.
So, you say if we only wish hard enough wind turbines and solar parks will suddenly spawn in all suitable areas? That's amazing!
No?
Dfq is 'alternative' energy? Hydro got memory now?
Oh, they don't actually use it themselves. So the correct thing to say is doubling down on oil and gar makes them richer, fuck everyone else stupid enough to buy
Climate change fucks them too, though. But yes, they'll be richer while getting fucked.
not if you're the one selling oil and gas
It is the logical thing to do, prices are currently high and delivering oil is indeed a matter of energy security right now. For a time, as the EU is transitioning rapidly to renewable energies.
That's bullshit. The rapid transition is a way towards energy security. This is just another way of slowing down said transition because every drop of oil we don't burn isn't making a few people richer at our expense.
Not necessarily. There is a risk for that but given how the push forces for the transition are primarily not market price driven that is not necessarily happening. I assume you are not making the crazy claim that one could stop using gas over night without massive negative economic if not systemic repercussions. Are you? If you are not, you need to secure supplies for the transition time, otherwise you have that very stop overnight.
But it never stops there. It's never just "securing supplies" during the transition time. The next step is always: But it's cheaper if we do long-term contracts. Followed by, saving money that was meant for the transition because it's obviously not a pressing issue with long-term supplies "secured" (in parantheses because it's never actually secure, just planned long-term).
Oh, there is a long-term demand? Guess then doubling down on drilling even more will work, too.
And this is literally going on for decades already.
You are ignoring the part that was about the motivations that push for the transition, which isn't about price. Those motivations are not going away, they are only getting more urgent. The rapid transition is a thing of recent years and has not been dragging on for decades.
You are also evading the question before. The only alternative to securing transition supplies is a harsh and sudden lack of supplies with lack in alternative capacities with severe impact on economy and might even necessitate emergency shutdowns. If you oppose the one thing you are necessarily in favour of the latter or evading reality.
No one is talking about a sudden stop, but a normal transition out of fossil fuels... oh, wait. That was fucking 30-35 years ago. But instead we chose to believe the lie that it's just not possible right now but some technological advances will just magically apear soonβ’.
But at some point 15 years ago the pressure (hello inceasing extreme weather periods and natural disasters...) to do something grew and so we needed to run the next fairy tale how we actually don't need to anything if we just plan to put extra fees on fossil fuels that pay for the transition. Not now of course, that could cost us money so maybe in 10 to 15 years.
But then 5 years ago those fees were starting to not look like some imaginary far away future and so we needed -again- yet another narrative why it's not possible to start and suddenly we got flodded by stories of how those plans are actually bad because they don't work and increasing fossil fuel costs would just damage our industry, and it's all useless anyway as nobody else is caring for climate change anyway so our own decisions are meaningless. Why hurt ourselves when "the whole world" (not some real one, but propaganda doesn't care about reality) happily burns the planet down.
Guess what... wars and otherconflicts managed to increase those fossil fuel prices anyway. So we now are finally forced to start that transition. Right? No, we instead cry about those costs and how it hurts economies and really, really need to be brought down by subsidies and long-term contracts. Yes, of course we will start the transition, just not now because... Maybe we should look into nuclear again that is economically failing for decades or wait for fusion that will be ready very soon. Trust me bro...
And in 50 years idiots will still tell the story of a proper transition... sometimes in the future -any day nowΒ©-, just not right now as we obviously can't and need to prioritize our energy security first.
Oh well. What an easy and completely pointless polemic to talk about what should have been done 35 years ago, when there was no feasible alternative available for electric mobility and photovoltaic and wind power were still miles away from the technological maturity they are now. As a matter of fact the oil crises did have a lot of beneficial consequences. The Netherlands for example reversed course almost 180Β° and instead of turning their country into a fully US style car only hell hole, they initiated the transformation that put them in a position where they have their mobility needs in many baskets. Also Austria was getting serious about hydropower back then etc. But of course much more could and should have been done also in the 90s for example.
I am talking about recent times and the future. You are calling me an idiot simply for pointing out that we need to cover fossil fuel demands during the transition as we'd otherwise face an economic crash and harsh consequences for common people too (energy limitations, maybe outages etc). Yet you are not even denying that those resources are needed also in a transition that is happening as rapidly as possible.
I am not sure in which alternative reality you are living in which there is no meaningful transition happening in Europe. Photovoltaic and wind power, especially also the much more reliable off-shore wind power output has been expanded rapidly in recent years, substantially changing the energy mix in the EU. EV adoption is more of a mixed bag while there has been counterproductive lobbying by some future Nokia companies we are moving ahead, unlike the US for example. Even if slightly trailing China.
I would not stop Norway's oil export as long as European countries still rely on Russian oil at least.