Only One Party in Norway Is Eager to Drill Oil in the Arctic Ice Zone
The Progress Party, Norway’s largest opposition party, supports exploration up to the ice edge, but is skeptical of opening areas north of this limit.
“I think we have to work our way north latitude by latitude,” says Kristoffer Sivertsen, a member of parliament for the Progress Party.
He makes no secret of the fact that his party sees the Barents Sea as Norway’s most important strategic focus area in the years to come.
“Increased oil activity in the Barents Sea is security policy. Now that the international focus on the Arctic is increasing, it is absolutely necessary for Norway to take a clearer responsibility and open up for exploration for oil and gas further north,” says Sivertsen.
In addition to increased exploration and activity, he and the Progress Party want to also open up for exploration in new areas, namely in the northern Barents Sea. The other parties have not expressed this.
The Ice Edge Is a Highly Disputed Boundary
There, oil activities are closed due to the ice edge zone.
The ice edge zone is an area in the Barents Sea, where it has been decided that oil and gas exploration or extraction will not be allowed.
The reason for the protection is that the area is particularly important for a number of fish and animal species—including endangered species.
Since the ice cover in this sea area varies in extent from year to year, the Storting has adopted the following definition based on expert recommendations:
The ice edge is where there is a 15 percent daily chance of more than 15 percent ice in April. April is used as the target, since this is the month when the ice has moved furthest south.
Like the oil and gas industry, the Progress Party wants a so-called dynamic ice edge—and believes that the ice edge should go “where the ice is at all times.”
It is estimated that over 60 percent of the undiscovered resources on the Norwegian continental shelf are located in the Barents sea, according to the Norwegian continental shelf directorate.
Security Is the New Main Argument
It is in this area that the probability of making new major discoveries on the Norwegian shelf is greatest, but it is also where the uncertainties are greatest.
Before, the debate was about money. Now the argument has shifted to national security.
The Threat from Russia Is Now Used as a Main Justification for More Exploration and Drilling
The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party argue that empty sea areas are dangerous sea areas, because they can be exploited by others.
In January 2026, the Conservative Party, the Progress Party and the Centre Party (and finally the Labour Party) voted to force a new petroleum report.
The government actually wanted to wait, but the majority in the Storting (led by the Conservative Party) put their foot down. They are demanding a plan that ensures predictability right up to the 2040s.
All Parties Have Their Own Opinion on This Matter
Lars Haltbrekken believes the Progress Party is turning the concept of security on its head.
“What the Progress Party has not understood at all is that the climate crisis is a significant security risk with increased extreme weather, greater refugee flows and destruction,” thunders Haltbrekken.
Haltbrekken points out that for several decades Norway has ensured a presence in the north through the coast guard, fisheries and research, completely without oil platforms.
“Opening up for this now will only increase the risk of serious climate change and oil spills in extremely vulnerable sea areas,” he says.
Sofie Marhaug (Red Party) fears it will come at the expense of traditional industries such as fisheries.
“The pressure to open up increasingly vulnerable areas far away testifies to a policy where one is willing to take ever greater risks at the expense of other industries, infrastructure, climate and nature,” says Marhaug.
Grunde Almeland (Liberal Party) highlights the technological risk of drilling in frozen waters:
“There is no technology that can effectively clean up large oil spills in frozen waters. In the event of an accident in the dark, we risk an environmental disaster that will have enormous consequences,” he warns.
Frøya Sjursæther (Green Party) says there is no reason to believe that oil drilling in the Arctic will contribute to peace or a strengthened foreign policy position in Norway.
“Progress Party’s proposal is completely frivolous,” she believes.
“It is clearly a good security policy. At the same time, it contributes to increased oil and gas production, which strengthens Europe’s energy security,” says Geir Pollestad (Centre Party).
At the same time, the Centre Party is skeptical of exploration beyond the ice edge. Pollestad points out that it is poorly studied and economically demanding.
Conservative Party’s Aleksander Stokkebø emphasizes that settlement and activity are Norway’s best defense:
“By maintaining jobs and activity throughout the country, we assert Norwegian sovereignty and strengthen total defense. Stable energy supply from Norway is the foundation for European security.”
The Conservative Party wants to explore more in known and new areas.
Mani Hussaini (Labour Party) believes that the Norwegian Progress Party is late when it comes to talking about the Norwegian continental shelf and security policy.
“The proposal for TFO2026 opens up exploration almost all the way up to the ice edge,” says Hussaini.
However, he sets a clear limit at this edge:
“The Labour Party will open up exploration where there is interest in exploration. The industry does not demand the areas north of the ice edge,” says Hussaini.
The Christian Democratic Party believes that future oil projects should be limited to already existing production in mature areas.
“We are in favor of Norwegian oil and gas production, but not northeast of the Barents Sea,” says energy policy spokesperson Hans Edvard Askjer.
Expert Says Oil Platforms May Be Vulnerable to Attack
Aage Borchgrevink is an advisor to the Helsinki Committee, an expert on Russia and has written books about both Putin and Equinor.
He believes Norway must show muscle and be present in the North.
“If we allow ourselves to be threatened by the Russians, it will not make us more secure. It is better to be clear than cautious.”
He is nevertheless skeptical about starting more exploration and activity in the Barents Sea now.
“This will have large costs that must be taken into account before we start. We must have a well-thought-out attitude to how the expenses will be paid. The industry itself must help cover parts of this infrastructure,” he believes.
He believes oil platforms in the Barents Sea could be attractive targets for the Russians.
“The risk is increasing due to the security political picture with sabotage and cyber attacks across Europe. Building new infrastructure in the north will be exposed in many ways. It will cost large sums to have a surveillance regime and the necessary insurance in place,” he says.
Source: NRK (in Norwegian)