World Leader in Climate Action Plans Biggest Frontier Oil and Gas Licensing Round in Years

[oil&gas]

Aug 11, 2025

• Norway is initiating its 26th oil and gas licensing round in unexplored frontier areas to increase exploration and resources, aiming to counter an anticipated decline in production from the early 2030s.
• Energy Minister Terje Aasland stated that Norway intends to be a long-term supplier of oil and gas to Europe and needs more discoveries, especially in frontier regions, to maintain value and jobs.
• Despite its ambitious transition to electric cars, Norway acknowledges its continued reliance on oil and gas, having become Europe's largest pipeline natural gas supplier and boasting the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund from energy revenues.

Norway has started to plan its 26th oil and gas licensing round in little explored frontier areas as it looks to boost exploration and resources to stem an expected decline in production from the early 2030s.

Norway’s Energy Ministry has launched work on announcing the new licensing round for the unexplored areas soon, Energy Minister Terje Aasland has said.

“Norway wants to be a long-term supplier of oil and gas to Europe, while the Norwegian continental shelf will continue to create value and jobs for our country,” Aasland said.

If Norway is to deliver on this commitment, companies must make more oil and gas discoveries and boost exploration, including in frontier regions, the minister added.

Norway, unlike the UK, strongly supports oil and gas development and exploration for undiscovered resources on its shelf.

In recent years, oil and gas operators on the Norwegian shelf have advanced infrastructure-led exploration which allows them to fast-track the development of newly-discovered resources via tie-ins to nearby infrastructure.

However, further exploration efforts and new discoveries would be crucial to slowing the expected decline in Norway’s oil and gas production in the 2030s, the Norwegian authorities have said.

Frontier areas could be the answer to adding more resources as companies continue to search for the next elephant field in Norwegian waters.

Norway expects its oil liquids production to rise by 5.2% in 2025 from 2024, also thanks to the start-up of the Johan Castberg oilfield in the Barents Sea in the Arctic earlier this year.

Norway has become the largest supplier of pipeline natural gas to Europe, replacing Russia in 2022, and boasts the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world thanks to revenues from oil and gas.

Norway also has the highest per-capita ownership of electric cars and a most ambitious transition state. Even so, Norway has acknowledged it cannot give up oil and gas anytime soon.

Norway Plans Biggest Frontier Oil and Gas Licensing Round in Years | OilPrice.com

Norway plans its 26th oil and gas licensing round in frontier areas to boost exploration and resources and stem an expected production decline from the early 2030s, aiming to remain a long-term supplier to Europe.

oilprice.com

 

[oil&gas]

Actions speak louder than words. Rest assured our climate leaders will
respond to the urgent threat of impending global climate catastrophe in
a timely manner. Expect more licenses and permits for oil, gas and coal
drilling and exploration to be granted in Canada, Australia, Norway and
anywhere in the democratic parts of the world where climate sheeple
voters can easily be duped.

 

[Frankfooter]

Meanwhile.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954517868248199646

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1953944392630161601

 

[40micmic]

They probably should be putting more pressure on state owned enterprises in china before trying to pass carbon taxes on us first

 

[Frankfooter]

They probably should be putting more pressure on state owned enterprises in china before trying to pass carbon taxes on us first

China is already at 50% EV sales.

Trump to Xi: 'Hold our Beer' – EVs majority of Chinese New Car Sales, as Exports rocket 74%

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - Car News China reports that in the first half of 2025, consumers in that country bought 10,891,000 passenger vehicles. But here's the catch. They bought 5,458,000 EVs and 5,433,000 gasoline cars. Look carefully at those numbers. They bought more EVs than internal...

www.juancole.com

Solar companies are now bigger than most oil companies.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954880987768213752

And a reminder why your home insurance doubled over the last 5 years.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954583682934550953

 

[Frankfooter]

Good thing DoFo cut firefighters.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954328956775391640

 

[Frankfooter]

This will still be one of the coolest summers for the rest of your life.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1955281436547719605

 

[40micmic]

China is already at 50% EV sales.

Trump to Xi: 'Hold our Beer' – EVs majority of Chinese New Car Sales, as Exports rocket 74%

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - Car News China reports that in the first half of 2025, consumers in that country bought 10,891,000 passenger vehicles. But here's the catch. They bought 5,458,000 EVs and 5,433,000 gasoline cars. Look carefully at those numbers. They bought more EVs than internal...

www.juancole.com

Solar companies are now bigger than most oil companies.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954880987768213752

And a reminder why your home insurance doubled over the last 5 years.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954583682934550953

There is so much evidence debunking china's EV facade. You can use the google and search for china's zero mileage scam or china's EV graveyards. Very similar to China E bike scams.

The solar energy sector is also full of facades and fake numbers coming out of china.

 

[Frankfooter]

There is so much evidence debunking china's EV facade. You can use the google and search for china's zero mileage scam or china's EV graveyards. Very similar to China E bike scams.

The solar energy sector is also full of facades and fake numbers coming out of china.

Its too late to call it a scam, renewables are cheaper and don't kill humanity.
On top of that it takes away power from people like Putin, the Saudis and the trumps of the world.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954602638471004640

 

[40micmic]

Are new EV cars rotting in empty fields or spontaneously combusting good for humanity?

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/

The Bike-Share Oversupply in China: Huge Piles of Abandoned and Broken Bicycles

Gigantic piles of impounded, abandoned, and broken bicycles have become a familiar sight in many Chinese cities, after a rush to build up its new bike-sharing industry vastly overreached.

www.theatlantic.com

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/local-chinese-governments-promote-zero-mileage-used-car-exports-inflating-sales-2025-06-23/

 

[oil&gas]

Are new EV cars rotting in empty fields or spontaneously combusting good for humanity?

That is China's problem.

In the long run the west will have to rely on China to wean itself off
dependence on fossil fuel. Unwanted oil, natural gas and coal will be
exported to China in exchange for cheaper solar panels, EVs and other
green junks to fight climate change.

 

[Frankfooter]

That is China's problem.

In the long run the west will have to rely on China to wean itself off
dependence on fossil fuel. Unwanted oil, natural gas and coal will be
exported to China in exchange for cheaper solar panels, EVs and other
green junks to fight climate change.

The oil$gas industry is always looking for others to blame for what they did themselves.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1955253270856778038

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954893895382565102

 

[JohnLarue]

That is China's problem.

In the long run the west will have to rely on China to wean itself off
dependence on fossil fuel. Unwanted oil, natural gas and coal will be
exported to China in exchange for cheaper solar panels, EVs and other
green junks to fight climate change.

at standard temperature and pressure a gas molecule undergoes 7 to 10 billion collisions per second
greenhouse gas c02 molecules which absorb a photon are able to transfer the higher energy via
1, emission of a new photon
2. thermalization of the excited state energy via billions of collisions per second

the ratio of excited state co2 thermalizations to spontaneous emissions is 50,000 : 1
the kinetic energy is transfer to sensible heat and transported to the upper atmosphere via convection (hot air rises and cools as work(expanding volume) is done )

99.9% of the IR energy from the surface is absorbed within the first 10 meters of the surface
There is no radiation field to transport radiation through the atmosphere via a cascade of absorption and
emission
co2 does not trap heat

 

[oil&gas]

.....................................
There is no radiation field to transport radiation through the atmosphere via a cascade of absorption and
emission
co2 does not trap heat

The science of climate change and the question over whether climate
change is anthropogenic are in my view not worth the time and effort
for heated debate. It is the politics of climate change that will do more
harm to the (western) world.

 

[Frankfooter]

at standard temperature and pressure a gas molecule undergoes 7 to 10 billion collisions per second
greenhouse gas c02 molecules which absorb a photon are able to transfer the higher energy via
1, emission of a new photon
2. thermalization of the excited state energy via billions of collisions per second

the ratio of excited state co2 thermalizations to spontaneous emissions is 50,000 : 1
the kinetic energy is transfer to sensible heat and transported to the upper atmosphere via convection (hot air rises and cools as work(expanding volume) is done )

99.9% of the IR energy from the surface is absorbed within the first 10 meters of the surface
There is no radiation field to transport radiation through the atmosphere via a cascade of absorption and
emission
co2 does not trap heat

Repeating things that you think sound like science doesn't make it science, larue.
You sound more and more like Chat GPT 2.0, with half baked hallucinations based on words that science deniers say to each other.

The Greenhouse theory is 100 years old and nobody doubts its existence.
That's left to the most wacko of the science deniers, a few retired geologists who the rest of them leave alone.

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1954088813887680986

 

[JohnLarue]

The science of climate change and the question over whether climate
change is anthropogenic are in my view not worth the time and effort
for heated debate.

this is a common response from climate alarmist who refuse to debate the scientific facts

It is the politics of climate change that will do more harm to the (western) world.

prove the bogus alarmist climate change puedo science as invalid (which it is) and the political debate and politically induced damage ends
problem solved

other than the retribution for the intentional deceit and climate profiteering

 

[Frankfooter]

this is a common response from climate alarmist who refuse to debate the scientific facts

You don't debate facts, you pull up wacko theories that have been proven nonsense again and again.
You use character assassination against 99.9% of scientists who understand what's going on and you repeat inane theories about IR absorption that you can't defend here.

prove the bogus alarmist climate change puedo science as invalid (which it is) and the political debate and politically induced damage ends
problem solved

other than the retribution for the intentional deceit and climate profiteering

Frog in the pot
You haven't noticed:
- summer forest fires becoming more massive, with smoke now covering most of the continent at times.
- home insurance rates nearly doubling over the last few years from climate increased fires and floods.
- a rise of invasive species as the climate change, from West Nile to Lyme disease.

I know you won't accept measurements in global temperature, sea surface temperatures, ocean acidity, glacial melt or any other possible metric.

For you to admit you're wrong after all these years is too much for you to handle.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1955427402227847661

 

[JohnLarue]

You don't debate facts, you pull up wacko theories that have been proven nonsense again and again.
You use character assassination against 99.9% of scientists who understand what's going on and you repeat inane theories about IR absorption that you can't defend here.

you are wrong again

at standard temperature and pressure a gas molecule undergoes 7 to 10 billion collisions per second

this is a fact

greenhouse gas c02 molecules which absorb a photon are able to transfer the higher energy via
1, emission of a new photon
2. thermalization of the excited state energy via billions of collisions per second

this is a fact

the ratio of excited state co2 thermalizations to spontaneous emissions is 50,000 : 1
the kinetic energy is transfer to sensible heat and transported to the upper atmosphere via convection (hot air rises and cools as work(expanding volume) is done )

this is a fact, it came out of the research required to develop co2 lasers

99.9% of the IR energy from the surface is absorbed within the first 10 meters of the surface

this is a fact

There is no radiation field to transport radiation through the atmosphere via a cascade of absorption and
emission

this is a fact

co2 does not trap heat

it can not trap heat if there is
no radiation field to transport radiation through the atmosphere via a cascade of absorption and emission

fact

Frog in the pot
You haven't noticed:
- summer forest fires becoming more massive, with smoke now covering most of the continent at times.

- home insurance rates nearly doubling over the last few years from climate increased fires and floods.
- a rise of invasive species as the climate change, from West Nile to Lyme disease.

insurance rates do not determine the validity of scientific hypothesis
experimental observations do

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather

I promise, you'll be utterly shocked

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather

The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

• River floods
• Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
• Landslides
• Drought (all types)
• Severe wind storms
• Tropical cyclones
• Sand and dust storms
• Heavy snowfall and ice storms
• Hail
• Snow avalanche
• Coastal flooding
• Marine heat waves

I know you won't accept measurements in global temperature, sea surface temperatures, ocean acidity, glacial melt or any other possible metric.

yeah i do not accept propaganda which intentionally seeks to deceive others

any other possible metric

this where the climate con fell apart, it tried to have co2 drive every other possible metric

For you to admit you're wrong after all these years is too much for you to handle.

too bad for you i am not wrong

you really should avoid posting about subject matters you do not understand
think of all the free time you would have

 

[Frankfooter]

you are wrong again

this is a fact
this is a fact
this is a fact, it came out of the research required to develop co2 lasers
this is a fact
this is a fact
it can not trap heat if there is
no radiation field to transport radiation through the atmosphere via a cascade of absorption and emission

None of those are facts and you'd be laughed out of any science department in any university pushing them.

View attachment 472443

That chart has been debunked here about 10 times. Its based on faulty data in US records over a few areas and ignores the reality you should see when you walk out the door in Ontario and breathe in smoke in ways that didn't happen decades ago.

Its the same way you didn't notice when Siberia started burning, when we started having fires in the Amazon and now when the Arctic is starting to burn too. Frog in the pot.

Preparing to fight fires in Nunavik | The Narwhal

In northern Quebec, Nunavik’s fly-in communities are training to fight wildfires in hopes of avoiding evacuations and the need for outside support

thenarwhal.ca

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1955550347856056459

insurance rates do not determine the validity of scientific hypothesis
experimental observations do

Insurance companies are very conservative and change their rates based on what they see as increased risk of climate change damage.
They change their rates based on what is happening.

yeah i do not accept propaganda which intentionally seeks to deceive others
this where the climate con fell apart, it tried to have co2 drive every other possible metric
too bad for you i am not wrong
you really should avoid posting about subject matters you do not understand
think of all the free time you would have

You accept propaganda which intentionally seeks to deceive others, all of these posts use 'science' that is funded by the oil industry as misinformation. You know that but have declared that only oil funded 'researchers' are trustworthy and not those funded at arms length in over 100 countries by conservative and liberal governments over decades.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1955434507575890244

 

[JohnLarue]

None of those are facts and you'd be laughed out of any science department in any university pushing them.

wrong again

AI Overview

Air molecules experience a very high number of collisions per second, on the order of billions or trillions. At room temperature and atmospheric pressure, a typical air molecule undergoes approximately 5-10 billion collisions per second

a fact

AI Overview

When a CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon, it enters a higher vibrational energy state. This increased vibration can then be transferred to other molecules through collisions, effectively converting the photon's energy into kinetic energy (heat) in the atmosphere.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Absorption:
  CO2 molecules have specific vibrational modes that can absorb infrared photons. When a photon's energy matches the energy required for a particular vibrational transition, the molecule absorbs the photon and transitions to a higher vibrational energy level.
  
  
• Vibration:
  The absorbed photon's energy causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate more intensely. This increased vibration is essentially the molecule holding the energy from the photon.
  
  
• Energy Transfer:
  This increased vibrational energy can then be transferred to other molecules through collisions. In the lower atmosphere, collisions with other gases like nitrogen and oxygen are frequent. These collisions transfer the vibrational energy of the CO2 molecule into kinetic energy of the colliding molecules, effectively warming the surrounding air.
  
  
• Re-emission:
  While CO2 can also re-emit the absorbed energy as another photon, this is less common in the lower atmosphere due to frequent collisions. The re-emitted photon would be infrared radiation, and it could be reabsorbed by another molecule or travel out into space.

a fact

AI Overview

The statement is accurate. In the Earth's atmosphere, the ratio of CO2 thermalization (where energy is transferred to other molecules via collisions) to spontaneous emission (where energy is released as light) for excited state CO2 molecules is indeed about 50,000:1. This means that for every CO2 molecule that emits a photon, approximately 50,000 will transfer their energy to other molecules through collisions

again a fact

AI Overview

In atmospheric convection, kinetic energy is indeed converted into sensible heat and then transported upwards. This process involves warm air rising due to its lower density, carrying heat with it. As the air rises, it expands and cools, doing work against the surrounding atmosphere. This cooling is a result of the air doing work on its surroundings as it expands, converting some of its thermal energy into mechanical work

once again a fact

AI Overview

Yes, a large portion of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface is absorbed close to the surface. Specifically, at sea level, with typical atmospheric conditions, 99.94% of infrared radiation at the 15 μm wavelength is absorbed within the first 10 meters of the atmosphere

once again a fact

now lets ask AI to pull it all together

AI Overview

What you're solving for


The problem describes the absorption of infrared energy in the atmosphere and its implication for radiation transport.


What's given in the problem

• 
  99.9%
  of infrared energy is absorbed within the first
  
  10
  meters from the surface.
• This absorption implies no radiation field for transport via absorption and emission cascade.
  
  

Helpful information

• Infrared radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
• Atmospheric gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation.
  
  

How to solve


Analyze the given statement to understand its implications for atmospheric radiation transport.

1. 
   Step 1 . Understand the absorption of infrared energy
   
   • 
     99.9%
     of infrared energy is absorbed in the first
     
     10
     meters.
   • This means very little infrared radiation penetrates beyond this layer.
   
   Step 2 . Relate absorption to radiation field
   
   • A radiation field requires the presence of radiation.
   • High absorption means the radiation field quickly diminishes.
   
   Step 3 . Conclude on cascade transport
   
   • Without a significant radiation field, a cascade of absorption and emission cannot effectively transport radiation through the atmosphere.

Solution


The high absorption of infrared energy in the lower atmosphere prevents a significant radiation field from forming, thus hindering radiation transport via a cascade of absorption and emission.

A fact

therefore co2 does not trap heat

That chart has been debunked here about 10 times. Its based on faulty data in US records over a few areas and ignores the reality you should see when you walk out the door in Ontario and breathe in smoke in ways that didn't happen decades ago.

debunked by you and that clearly means NOTHING as you have repeatedly proven yourself to be

• uniformed/ ignorant of scientific principals
• biased
• completely lacking in integrity and completely untrustworthy

you are your own worst enemy
it is not my fault you have destroyed your credibility


A fact