Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the EU energy myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
Norway’s premier has challenged Europe to decide whether it is safer to buy gas from the US and the Gulf than from the Arctic reserves of one of its closest allies, as Oslo presses Brussels to ditch its drilling ban in the High North.
Jonas Gahr Støre said the EU’s stance against new oil, coal and gas extraction in the region was “not informed”, arguing that Europe already relied on gas from the Arctic after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
“We increased our gas exports to Europe, to the EU, when the war in Ukraine broke out, and all of that increase came from the Arctic. It was LNG from Hammerfest,” he told the FT, referring to a town more than 400km north of the polar circle where Equinor restarted its liquefied natural gas plant in 2022 after a long shutdown following a fire.
“So if Europe does not want it, it goes somewhere else.”
“European countries must make their decisions,” he added. “Is it safer to buy it from the Gulf? From Qatar? Is it safer to buy it from the US?”
Norway has consistently argued since Russia’s war in Ukraine began in 2022 that it is the democratic oil and gas supplier of choice for Europe, and has stepped up that rhetoric since US-led attacks on Iran this year.
US President Donald Trump’s threats over Greenland have turned the Arctic into a security priority for Europe, while the Iran war has sharpened concerns over the reliability of energy supplies from the Middle East.
Brussels is considering dropping its moratorium on new Arctic drilling, a shift Norway has lobbied hard for as it recasts gas from the region as a strategic asset rather than a climate issue.
Støre said Brussels’ position failed to reflect Europe’s fresh security challenge. “I want the EU to have rules that correspond to the world the EU is part of,” he said.
“To say that there should be a moratorium on that, I do not think that is informed . . . I do not think that is updated knowledge.”
Norway, western Europe’s leading gas producer, has long argued that its oil and gas production and exploration in the Barents Sea, north of the Norwegian mainland and below the Svalbard archipelago, should not be treated as the classic Arctic of ice floes, polar bears and extreme remoteness.
While Norwegian oil companies such as Equinor and Vår Energi are already advancing several oil and gas projects in the Barents Sea, executives say lifting the language would make it easier to attract financing from European banks.
But the question of axing the moratorium remained politically toxic within the EU, said a diplomat from another European country. “There are huge environmental concerns around this.”
Oslo has been promoting its expertise in the Arctic to both the US and EU, arguing that its knowledge is crucial in being able to contain Russia in the so-called Bear Gap. The strategic maritime corridor between northern Norway and Svalbard is close to Russia’s Kola Peninsula, which is home to Russia’s Northern Fleet and a large share of Moscow’s sea-based nuclear forces.
Støre rejected criticism that Norway was using Europe’s security fears to protect its petroleum industry. “I think it is in Europe’s interest to get energy developed with the strictest technology and the strictest rules in the world.”
Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.
Norwegian oil executives argue that petroleum infrastructure in the High North could help Europe’s security, saying platforms and pipelines contribute to surveillance, monitoring and preparedness and help Norway to detect threats and incidents, for example from Russia.
“We have the equipment and the knowhow to deal with everything from oil spills from the Russian shadow fleet to fishermen in need,” said one executive keen for the EU to drop its moratorium.
A spokesperson for the European Commission said the strategy was being updated “in light of the geopolitical and geoeconomic context”, while climate change, environmental degradation and sustainable economic development remained “valid objectives”.
Additional reporting by Andy Bounds
