Norway oil licences have returned to the centre of domestic politics after the government offered 57 new petroleum production licences in the annual Awards in Predefined Areas (APA 2025) round, a move that sparked a fierce backlash from three red-green opposition parties over 11 licences they say overlap with particularly sensitive nature.
Opposition parties call the decision “reckless”
The Green Party (Miljøpartiet De Grønne, MDG), the Socialist Left (Sosialistisk Venstreparti, SV) and the Red Party (Rødt) accused the government of prioritising future oil and gas activity over marine protection in some of Norway’s most valuable sea areas.
In comments reported by NRK, Frøya Sjursæther (MDG), a member of parliament, said the government’s oil policy is “completely reckless”, arguing that issuing new licences in “the most vulnerable and valuable sea areas” goes against advice from the authorities’ own experts and from Norway’s environmental movement.
SV deputy leader Lars Haltbrekken described the decision as “mad”, warning that seabirds are already under heavy pressure after years of decline linked to factors such as reduced food availability and climate change.
Rødt deputy leader Sofie Marhaug said such awards sit uneasily with long-standing principles that have framed Norwegian petroleum governance, including the idea that any oil industry must be developed with the necessary consideration for other economic activity and for nature and environmental protection.
Why 11 licences became the flashpoint
The heart of the dispute is not only the overall scale of the APA round, but where parts of it are located. Opponents argue that at least 11 production licences were offered in areas where ecological values are particularly high, and where industrial activity can add pressure to habitats and species that are already stressed.
Concerns highlighted in the debate include risks to cold-water corals, seabirds and fish stocks. In practical terms, a production licence does not automatically mean immediate drilling. It does, however, open a legal and commercial pathway for companies to map prospects and design work programmes that can later lead to exploration wells and, if discoveries are made and approved, to field development.
How Norway’s APA round works
The APA system is Norway’s annual licensing framework for what authorities describe as “mature” parts of the Norwegian continental shelf. The Ministry of Energy (Energidepartementet) offers ownership interests to groups of companies, linking each licence to a binding work programme intended to mature the acreage or return it to the state.
Officials argue the model provides predictability and encourages exploration near existing infrastructure, which can lower costs and reduce the footprint compared with more remote developments. Critics respond that “mature” does not necessarily mean “low-impact”, and that the cumulative effect of more petroleum activity matters most in the most sensitive marine zones.
Government argues Norway needs new projects
The government has framed the APA 2025 awards as part of a strategy to slow a future decline in production and maintain activity on the continental shelf. Energy Minister Terje Aasland said new projects are needed to sustain output, jobs and value creation, describing Norway as Europe’s most important energy supplier.
Supporters of continued exploration also point to security-of-supply concerns since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Norwegian gas has become even more central for European energy resilience.
What the clash means for climate and nature policy
The backlash from MDG, SV and Rødt reflects a deeper political divide over the pace and shape of Norway’s transition away from fossil fuels. One side argues that opening new areas risks locking in long-term oil and gas activity that is difficult to reconcile with climate goals and with biodiversity protection. The other argues that production should continue while emissions from operations are reduced, and that petroleum revenues and competence can support broader economic stability.
In the near term, the opposition is expected to press for clearer answers on the geographic scope of the contested licences, the environmental assessments used, and how the authorities will apply safeguards for marine ecosystems. In the longer term, the episode underlines how Norway’s oil policy, nature protection and Europe’s energy security are increasingly debated in the Nordic region, as governments balance industrial strategy, climate commitments and the protection of vulnerable seas.
