Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the for-how-long dept.

Bloomberg:

Western Europe’s biggest petroleum producer is falling out of love with oil.

To the dismay of the nation’s powerful oil industry and its worker unions, the opposition Labor Party over the weekend decided to withdraw its support for oil exploration offshore the sensitive Lofoten islands in Norway’s Arctic, creating a solid majority in parliament to keep the area off limits for drilling.

The dramatic shift by Norway’s biggest party is a significant blow to the support the oil industry has enjoyed, and could signal that the Scandinavian nation is coming closer to the end of an era that made it one of the world’s most affluent.

How will Norway pay for its social safety network without oil revenues?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:03AM (22 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:03AM (#826529)
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:51AM (21 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:51AM (#826566) Journal

    Norway has known for a long time that fossil fuels are not viable in the long term. Thus they have been divesting for years and for decades have been diversifying the investments of the funds generated by fossil fuels. They've known that petrochemicals must come to an end and have been preparing for that time in an orderly fashion. These are recognized as stranded assets by those that look more than a few quarters ahead.

    Notice that electric cars [cnn.com] outsell petro cars there. They've also made increased moves to divest from expanding oil and gas use [ecowatch.com]. They're also promoting electic bicycles [soylentnews.org] and upgrading their numerous ferries to electric power [soylentnews.org]. They've got potential for wind and tidal power to compensate, so look for investments in those areas to grow even more.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:25AM (20 children)

      What they do to be green domestically isn't relevant to how all the lost revenue made from selling oil to other nations is going to be made up. Diversified investing is all well and good but investments typically do not pay back but a small percentage of what was invested per year. That's not going to fly unless they have enough invested to buy a new country somewhere that's not balls cold and move everyone there. Not with the level of social spending their population demands of their government.

      I wonder who the progressives over here will point to when we're having to send them humanitarian aid food shipments?

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:05AM (9 children)

        by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:05AM (#826587) Journal

        Norway is only around %3 arable land and an increasing amount of that is covered by business parks, suburban sprawl, and other forms of asphalt. Their once famous fishing industry is history. Overfishing, warming ocean waters, and way too many imported crabs have killed that off. But, if they've continued to invest their oil money well then they'll be able to continue to buy their own food, assuming there is any surplus left elsewhere that other countries remain willing to sell. Depending on how much energy they can get from tidal and wind power, there might be somewhat of a future for indoor farming in the tunnels they are so good at boring.

        Even in the US, fossil fuels are a stranded asset. Even lame old solar employs more people than coal [forbes.com]. Renewables are where the money is at these days. Further, there is no ash runoff to ruin the water (and thus the fish) in the country's remaning trout streams. Placement of wind turbines is an issue though. Placed incorrectly, where birds gather or travel regularly for migration, they can act like a cuisinart for birds.

        However, there are a growing number of social problems that might take them down for good, since they look like those are being swept under the rug rather than solved.

        --
        Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 09 2019, @11:19AM (5 children)

          by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @11:19AM (#826653) Journal

          "Renewables are where the money is at these days. Further, there is no ash runoff to ruin the water (and thus the fish) in the country's remaning trout streams"

          Could you come to Canada and point this out to Trudeau and Alberta?

          Please?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:26PM (4 children)

            He'd need to make it true first. Renewables are still not going to make you any significant money at the moment. If you invest in everything now some of them will likely make you a lot of money a ways down the road but a lot of them are going to just lose you your investment entirely.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:58PM (3 children)

              by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:58PM (#826951) Journal

              I dunno: SOMEONE'S making enough money off it that they're continuing to do it.

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 12 2019, @03:24AM (2 children)

                Not really. Most green energy companies seem to lose far more money than they make and last only until the initial capital runs out they can't get any more loans. I'd be very skeptical even of the large ones that have been around a while and are producing a lot of energy at this point. It's not like no company has ever cooked the books before and someone who thinks they're doing it for the greater good is even more likely to do it than someone who just wants lots of money.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday April 12 2019, @02:23PM (1 child)

                  by Reziac (2489) on Friday April 12 2019, @02:23PM (#828603) Homepage

                  I'd like to see those books, absent subsidies (paid by taxpayers) and venture capital (often intended to be blown, as a tax writeoff). My guess would be there's actually no such thing as profitable renewables.

                  --
                  And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 12 2019, @06:43PM

                    Hard to say. Depends on if they feel the need for insane growth at the expense of staying in the red. I'm certain it can be done profitably but I wouldn't trust anyone who's in the business because of the word 'green' to make any significant decisions or handle the money.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:30PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:30PM (#826705)

          Warming waters (by less than a degree) killed off the fish. You have to be an idiot to believe this stuff.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:49PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:49PM (#826892)
            That's the nice thing about science, it works whether you believe it or not.
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:40AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:40AM (#827284)

              I've got experience with reef tanks, there is no requirement to keep the temperature within 1 degree the optimal on average.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by quietus on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:59AM (5 children)

        by quietus (6328) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:59AM (#826597) Journal

        Their investment fund is worth $1 trillion. Norway's social expenditure stands at about 25% of GDP, which was $398 billion as of 2017. All this combined means they'll need a 10% return year-on-year, presuming ordinary Norwegians do not pay taxes for social security.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:32PM (4 children)

          Yeah, and ten percent is asking a hell of a lot from your investment manager if losing your principle has to be avoided at all costs. Also, population growth and GDP growth would need to remain in lockstep, which is not remotely going to happen while they're getting so many unskilled refugees (who may or may not work at all) in as new population. It doesn't look good for them.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:23PM (3 children)

            by quietus (6328) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:23PM (#826975) Journal

            With that scale of investment fund, a yearly return of 7 - 8 percent would be on the conservative side.

            Note that we assumed, superficially, that all of that return would be spent on social security. Given that Norway's personal income tax rate runs at about 38 percent, of which slightly more than half is directed towards social security [tradingeconomics.com], it looks like that's not the case.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 12 2019, @03:33AM (2 children)

              The thing is, "on the conservative side" isn't good enough when you're investing money that you can not afford to lose under any circumstances. As for the further math, you're right in that it needs considered but I'm too exhausted to think tonight.

              I notice you didn't address the fairly speedy influx of unskilled, low-earning immigrants though. As a general rule, unskilled immigrants tend to be a net drain on the economy for at least one generation, usually more but it is heavily dependent on a given demographic's cultural factors.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday April 12 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)

                by Reziac (2489) on Friday April 12 2019, @02:26PM (#828606) Homepage

                Per the most recent stats I've seen, 4 out of 5 working-age males of the current migrant influx are on welfare. Plus their families (sometimes several of 'em apiece, four wives ya know), since naturally none of the women or children work.

                --
                And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 12 2019, @06:48PM

                  Depending on the numbers, that could indeed be a serious problem, yes. Dollars to donuts that the "yay Scandinavian welfare" folks, who also happen to be the "yay open borders" folks will still be calling for both here in the US even if they get to watch first hand how it can bankrupt a nation though. Facts are apparently a social construct now. Or possibly racist.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 09 2019, @08:09AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 09 2019, @08:09AM (#826605) Journal

        What they do to be green domestically isn't relevant to how all the lost revenue made from selling oil to other nations is going to be made up.

        Note the emphasis

        withdraw its support for oil exploration offshore the sensitive Lofoten islands in Norway’s Arctic, creating a solid majority in parliament to keep the area off limits for drilling

        So, no new oil wells, they didn't close the old ones, the revenue is still there as long as it lasts.

        Besides, if they have enough revenue from other sources...

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:36PM

          Oil wells are diminishing profit sources. They start slowing down and eventually stop producing entirely. Exploration is necessary to not have your yearly income fade down to nothing. Even more is necessary to offset inflation. Even more is necessary to offset population growth if you're using them as magical free money for social programs.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:08AM (1 child)

        by legont (4179) on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:08AM (#827274)

        Perhaps it's Norway's way to participate in OPEC production cut to support the prices and save the reserves for future shortages? The US wants to sanction all of them for doing so, therefore Norway needs a good excuse.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday April 10 2019, @07:50AM

          by quietus (6328) on Wednesday April 10 2019, @07:50AM (#827346) Journal

          Norway's investment fund has been doing this [further diversifying out of oil and gas] for the past 3 - 4 years.