Climate emissions from Norwegian platforms may be higher than what the oil companies say. If so, the companies may have paid several million kroner too little in fees.
For every ton of greenhouse gas emitted on Norwegian platforms, the oil companies must pay. If they manage to cut emissions, the bill will go down.
The companies are able to measure a large part of the emissions from the platforms quite precisely.
However, this case is about the emissions they are not sure about. These emissions come from the flare system.
New figures show that the measurements of these emissions are at times very uncertain. So uncertain that they break the law.
And that means that the companies may have reported emissions that are too high or too low.
Uncertain Measurements
The emissions that the companies struggle to measure precisely come from flaring (burning excess gas) or releasing natural gas directly into the air.
That is why it is so difficult to measure precisely: the pipes in the flare systems are large in order to be able to remove large amounts of gas in a short time in an emergency. In everyday life, however, much smaller amounts of gas flow through, which is difficult for the measuring instruments to capture in the large pipes.
In Violation Of The Law
Oil companies must report emissions to the authorities and pay fees.
But since 2023, the companies have also been required to report the extent of uncertainty in these measurements. And the uncertainty is very large, NRK’s review of these reports shows.
According to the law, measurements of flaring and natural gas to air must be within a limit of 7.5 per cent uncertainty (natural gas consists mainly of the powerful greenhouse gas methane).
NRK’s review shows that 43 of 58 platforms on the Norwegian continental shelf in 2024 had more uncertain measurements than the law allows. The platforms had too uncertain measurements of either flaring or natural gas released to air, or both.
Two of the fields are operated by ConocoPhillips, three by Aker BP, three by Vår Energi and the rest are operated by Equinor.
But there are not necessarily any consequences for breaking the law: the companies can apply for an exemption from the 7.5 per cent limit.
It is the Norwegian Continental Shelf Agency that has requested the reports on uncertainty. The reason is to ensure that the companies pay the correct CO2 tax to the state.
“Deviations from the regulations are followed up and can have consequences, both financially and for the company’s reputation,” says press spokesman for the Norwegian Continental Shelf Agency, Bjørn Rasen, to NRK.
If we take the Statfjord B platform as a starting point, the great uncertainty indicates that the flare on the platform could have emitted as much as 28.5 per cent more CO₂ than reported in 2024. If this maximum level had been a reality, Equinor would have paid around NOK 6 million more in fees and CO2 quotas.
For one platform on the Johan Sverdrup field, there is a theoretical possibility that it could have emitted 640 per cent more natural gas into the air than reported in 2024. If this maximum level had been achieved, Equinor would have paid over NOK 30 million more in fees for the platform.
However, the emissions could just as easily have been much lower than reported, and then Equinor would have paid too much in fees, according to the Norwegian Continental Shelf Directorate.
The risk of these worst-case scenarios occurring is very low, the Norwegian Continental Shelf Directorate points out. These are extremes. The most likely outcome is that the actual emissions are closer to what the companies have paid for, according to the Norwegian Continental Shelf Directorate.
This is primarily a measurement challenge, says Equinor press spokesman Gisle Ledel Johannessen.
“The uncertainty in the measurements means that emissions can be both lower and higher than what is measured on each platform, and the probability is 50 per cent either way. The deviations therefore even out. We pay fees based on volume, not per centage,” he says.
Rejects Underreporting
Johannessen in Equinor also points out that one emission measurement has been made with drones on another Sverdrup platform. And this indicates that the company has probably overreported its emissions of natural gas.
Thormod Hope sees it differently. He has worked on emissions from flaring for several decades. Among other things, limiting emissions from Equinor’s platforms in the 1990s.
“When companies are unsure of how much greenhouse gases they emit, they will of course choose the lowest emission figure,” says Hope.
NRK has been in contact with the companies Equinor, AkerBP, Vår Energi and ConocoPhillips. Everyone rejects the claim from Hope and that they systematically underreport emissions.
“The reporting is conservative,” says press spokesman Ole-Johan Faret at AkerBP.
“It is important to emphasise that uncertainty does not mean underreporting,” says communications manager Elisabeth Fiveland at ConocoPhillips.
Vår Energi emphasises that they report emissions in line with current regulations, and that they cooperate with the authorities.
Press spokesperson Johannsessen at Equinor says that the company is working to ensure that the measurements are as accurate as possible.
“Our professional communities are working to develop a good model that can measure actual uncertainty in the flaring systems. And we have done this in good dialogue with the Norwegian Continental Shelf Directorate,” he says.
Johannessen further points out that the uncertainty is higher when emissions are small. On the other hand: Where emissions are high, the uncertainty is lower.
“So when we look at the figures from Equinor’s flaring overall on the Norwegian continental shelf, we calculate the uncertainty to be well under 5 per cent,” says Johannessen, adding that the most important thing to cut flaring-related greenhouse gas emissions is to flare as little as possible.
“Equinor has worked systematically on this for a long time and we are a world leader in the area,” he says.
”Few Have The Knowledge”
Thormod Hope thinks it is high time that the authorities got involved when it comes to these emissions.
“The oil companies have largely been allowed to do as they please. There are few who have insight into and knowledge of what they are doing, except for the oil companies themselves. The systems are complex. Therefore, there are also few within the oil companies who have a full overview,” says Hope.
The Norwegian Continental Shelf Directorate does not wish to comment on the proposal. Spokesperson Johannessen at Equinor, however, does not recognise this representation.
“We are subject to an extensive supervisory regime and use a lot of resources and expertise to ensure correct reporting to the authorities,” he says.
Spokesperson Faret at AkerBP follows up.
“This does not match Aker BP’s experience. Flaring is strictly regulated here, with clear rules of the road and procedures to minimise emissions, both in normal and abnormal situations,” he says.
“You can’t do anything with what you don’t measure. We have to reduce emissions. We have to know where those emissions are happening,” he says.
Scientist Daniel Franklin Krause at SINTEF is working on measuring methane emissions from platforms. He agrees that the figures are not good enough, but at the same time warns against focusing too much on them: The most important thing is for companies to do something about the emissions, he points out.
“We need to look at the big picture: is the data good enough for us to act on it?”
According to Krause, the measurements will improve in the future. The three largest companies on the Norwegian continental shelf, Equinor, Aker BP and Vår Energi, have committed to the UN’s work to cut methane in the oil and gas industry. Putting better measurements in place is part of this.
“There is general agreement that this must improve,” says Krause.
Source: NRK (in Norwegian)