Speaker 1: Hello and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt. Today
Speaker 1: we're bringing you the third part in the four part
Speaker 1: mini series from Communicating Climate Change podcast host dick and
Speaker 1: Bombickstone and Norwegian nonprofit KLIMA Cool Tour The Black Thread,
Speaker 1: about Norway's conflicted identity as both an oil state and
Speaker 1: a progressive leader in the world today. Episode three challenging
Speaker 1: the narratives. Much of the ability of Norway's oil industry
Speaker 1: to maintain its influence and continue with business as usual
Speaker 1: comes from the lack of questions being asked about its
Speaker 1: ideas and about how the world works. In this episode,
Speaker 1: The Black Thread steps away from that norm and challenges
Speaker 1: industry rhetoric head on.
Speaker 2: Enjoy it.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to The Black Thread, a podcast unraveling Norway's
Speaker 3: complex relationship with prosperity, identity, and responsibility in a warming world.
Speaker 3: I'm Dickon, a climate communications expert based in Oslo, the
Speaker 3: Norwegian capital, Tracing the Black Thread oil through Norway, society
Speaker 3: and culture. Last time we delved into petroganda in Norway,
Speaker 3: hearing how critics perceive the industry's strategic use of sponsorships,
Speaker 3: advertising and storytelling work to uphold a narrative of oil
Speaker 3: normalization and acceptability. We learned how oil interests are embedded
Speaker 3: in the boards of cultural institutions, government agencies, and even
Speaker 3: the nation's schooling whilst what many consider to be faded
Speaker 3: journalistic scrutiny contributes to the erosion of public awareness and debate. Plus,
Speaker 3: we heard how oil and climate are often treated as
Speaker 3: separate issues in policy, and how this shapes the limits
Speaker 3: of public discourse. Yet both critics and industry voices agreed
Speaker 3: about one thing. Norway needs open discussions about its future
Speaker 3: grounded in facts. In this episode, we'll explore where the
Speaker 3: facts do and don't match up to the stories being
Speaker 3: told by Nory's fossil fuel industry, amplified by its government,
Speaker 3: and legitimized through a wealth of public outreach. We'll hear
Speaker 3: experts challenge some of the most familiar narratives that keep
Speaker 3: Norwegian oil and gas pumping, and industry voices will explain
Speaker 3: the logic behind their rhetoric. Along the way, we'll try
Speaker 3: to find answers to questions like was Norway really poor
Speaker 3: before oil? Will it be poor if it stops pumping
Speaker 3: fossil fuels today? What will happen to the famous Norwegian
Speaker 3: welfare system, won't. Lots of people lose their jobs and
Speaker 3: many more. As we've heard in previous episodes, oil has
Speaker 3: become important to the Norwegian identity and plays a major
Speaker 3: role in public perceptions of the country's success as well
Speaker 3: as its wealth. But Norwegian attitudes towards oil haven't always
Speaker 3: been unwavering. In the early days, there was caution and concern.
Speaker 3: Kick things off by exploring this shift in perspective. Author
Speaker 3: journalist and project leader at the Norwegian Climate Foundation an
Speaker 3: A Current Satha, explains how Norway's first oil discoveries were
Speaker 3: met with careful consideration.
Speaker 4: In the beginning in the nineteen sixties and the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 4: it was a lot of criticism actually towards this new industry,
Speaker 4: and that's not part of the story, funny enough, but
Speaker 4: people were asking, why should we do this? Isn't it dangerous?
Speaker 4: And what's actually happening? People were skeptical. I guess it
Speaker 4: was only in the eighties when we were sort of prouder.
Speaker 4: It was established as something in the Norwegian debate and consciousness.
Speaker 3: Even though oil and gas have become central to Norway's economy,
Speaker 3: and identity. It's worth noting that this influence has taken
Speaker 3: shape in just a few decades. According to our experts,
Speaker 3: Norwegians weren't automatically on board with this new national venture.
Speaker 3: To learn more, I asked bord Land from the University
Speaker 3: of Oslo's Oil and Society Research Network to expand on
Speaker 3: how the industry was first perceived.
Speaker 2: The discussions about oil and gas policy and kind of
Speaker 2: how to govern Norwegian oil and gas resources tended actually
Speaker 2: to be much more critical during the first couple of decades.
Speaker 2: And this whole kind of success story about the Norwegian
Speaker 2: only Aventa, the oil adventure, the oil fairy tale, and
Speaker 2: this whole idea that Norway has been so good at
Speaker 2: handling and managing the wealth from the oil and gas.
Speaker 2: All of these things are quite new constructs, and so
Speaker 2: the idea that oil is overwhelmingly positive to Norwegian society
Speaker 2: is something that to some extent appeared alongside the Oil Fund.
Speaker 2: The discussions about the role of oil in Norwegian society
Speaker 2: were actually much more hesitant, and you even see it
Speaker 2: in official documents. They are definitely highlighting the wealth and
Speaker 2: the prosperity that oil might bring, but there also skeptical
Speaker 2: towards the downsides and the problems and the potential tensions
Speaker 2: that might arise due to this new industry.
Speaker 3: So, according to Board, it wasn't always a fairy tale
Speaker 3: of fate and fortune, as we're often led to believe
Speaker 3: in Norway. He points out that this narrative of oil
Speaker 3: as an unmitigated success only really took shape once climate
Speaker 3: change became a core issue. Based on what we've heard
Speaker 3: in the previous episodes about industry efforts to shape public perception,
Speaker 3: even targeting young people to ensure a future generation of
Speaker 3: oil positive citizens, it's worth considering whether this story emerged
Speaker 3: organically or whether it was ceded strategically. With both Board
Speaker 3: and Anakarn claiming that the narrative around Norway's oil discovery
Speaker 3: has changed over time, we have to ask how this
Speaker 3: has happened. When I spoke to Anna Karin, she identified
Speaker 3: three myths that she says have contributed to this shift
Speaker 3: in perspective.
Speaker 4: The first is that we have climate friendly oil and
Speaker 4: gas production. We have less during extraction due to an
Speaker 4: early ban on flaring and electrification of the installations offshore,
Speaker 4: and since Nowechan oil and gas have relatively lower emissions
Speaker 4: than the average in the world. It will be good
Speaker 4: if you use nowech and oil instead of oil and
Speaker 4: gas from other places. So that's why they have been
Speaker 4: calling it climate friendly or clean oil and gas. But
Speaker 4: the thing that is not so much talked about in
Speaker 4: this area in strategic communication, you sort of put a
Speaker 4: lot of light on some parts of the story and
Speaker 4: others are put in the shade. And what is put
Speaker 4: in the shade when it comes to this is that
Speaker 4: the production counts up to something like two or three
Speaker 4: percent of the total of emissions. What counts is when
Speaker 4: you combust the oil and gas, that's like ninety seven percent.
Speaker 4: And if you have a fossil fuel car a petrol
Speaker 4: car and you drive it on the highway, it doesn't
Speaker 4: really matter if the petrol comes from Norway or Nigeria
Speaker 4: or other countries. The emissions will be just as big.
Speaker 3: The first of Anikarin so called oil myths is that
Speaker 3: Norway's oil is climate friendly. We've heard that one before.
Speaker 3: In fact, it's a line that comes up often from
Speaker 3: all kinds of sources. But just as we found with
Speaker 3: the industry communication discussed in the previous episode, important context
Speaker 3: that would reveal the true nature of such a claim
Speaker 3: tends to be left out, but let's hear some more
Speaker 3: from Anikarin.
Speaker 4: The second one is that gas from Norway replaces coal
Speaker 4: in Europe. Since Europe can use gas instead of coal,
Speaker 4: we can contribute to lowering emissions in Europe. And the
Speaker 4: oil industry has used data showing us how much emissions
Speaker 4: will be reduced in Europe if our gas replaces coal.
Speaker 4: But that's not what's happening because there's just a little
Speaker 4: bit of the gas that is actually going into power
Speaker 4: generation and that's where they compete oil and gas with
Speaker 4: renewables and with energy efficiency. But that's not part of
Speaker 4: the story. And gas may replace coal in the short run,
Speaker 4: but it will lock us to gas infrastructure, and it
Speaker 4: will hinder the energy transition. It will sort of stand
Speaker 4: in the way for more renewables, and that's not part
Speaker 4: of the story unfortunately.
Speaker 3: So the second of Ana carn so called oil myths
Speaker 3: is that replacing coal with gas is a climate solution.
Speaker 3: But let's hear the last one.
Speaker 4: The third myth is that we must stand on the
Speaker 4: shoulders of today's petroleum industry in order to succeed in
Speaker 4: the green transition, and as with all myths, you could
Speaker 4: argue that it is some truth in it, because offshore
Speaker 4: know how from the petroleum industry is useful when we're
Speaker 4: to build offshore win like it was useful back in
Speaker 4: the days to have a maritime industry history when we
Speaker 4: started off with oil and gas. But it obscures the
Speaker 4: fact that we're standing at the crossroad and that we
Speaker 4: have to make a choice. Do we go into even
Speaker 4: more oil and gas or do we go into more renewables.
Speaker 4: It's actually a choice, and by saying that we have
Speaker 4: to stand on the shoulders of oil and gas, you
Speaker 4: sort of say that we can just continue, we can
Speaker 4: build upwards, we can just do more of the same
Speaker 4: and somehow one day wake up and be in a
Speaker 4: renewable society. It's so deep in the Norwegian debate, this
Speaker 4: last one. It's fascinating, But we can't do two things
Speaker 4: at the same time. You have a limited amount of expertise,
Speaker 4: employees and available money to invest, So there's obviously problems
Speaker 4: with all this story.
Speaker 3: The third of anakharinsarth that's so called oil myths is
Speaker 3: that the fossil fuel industry is essential to a green
Speaker 3: transition together. She claims these myths shape a story in
Speaker 3: which Norwegian oil and gas come across as not just
Speaker 3: acceptable but even good, a story that makes the industry
Speaker 3: appear more compatible with climate action than it might really be,
Speaker 3: and that helps justify continued drilling. To many, such messaging
Speaker 3: might sound too convenient to be taken at face value,
Speaker 3: But how does the industry itself explain and defend it.
Speaker 3: To explore the logic behind these narratives and the paradox
Speaker 3: of the Norwegian identity they help sustain, I spoke with
Speaker 3: and Catharine vorga climate policy manager at Offshore Norway, the
Speaker 3: organization that represents companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf,
Speaker 3: many with a direct stake in oil and gas. As
Speaker 3: someone whose role is shaping climate policy whilst at the
Speaker 3: same time advocating for the very industry that that policy
Speaker 3: is meant to regulate, her perspective is especially useful for
Speaker 3: understanding how the industry squares its climate ambitions on the
Speaker 3: one hand with its dependence on fossil fuel production on
Speaker 3: the other.
Speaker 5: My role as a climate policy manager is to give
Speaker 5: advice and input to the authorities on climate policies and regulations.
Speaker 5: When oil and gas are burned, considerable emissions are released
Speaker 5: to the atmosphere, contributing to the global warming and climate change.
Speaker 5: And I think that's why the work with the climate
Speaker 5: policy within the oil and gas industry is so important.
Speaker 5: We must both reduce emissions linked oil and gas, but
Speaker 5: at the same time we must increase the production of
Speaker 5: renewable energy also not gaz. Together with our partners, we
Speaker 5: have established very ambitious climate targets and we aim to
Speaker 5: reduce emissions from the oil and gas production by fifty
Speaker 5: percent in twenty third thirty and to near zero in
Speaker 5: twenty fifty and this will be very challenging. We are
Speaker 5: engaged in reducing emissions from the use of the oil
Speaker 5: and gas by capturing the C two and storing it
Speaker 5: or by producing blue hydrogen.
Speaker 3: Let me quickly help here. Blue hydrogen is a fuel
Speaker 3: created using methane derived from fossil gas. Now back to
Speaker 3: and Catherine.
Speaker 5: We are also heavily engaged in the development of offshore
Speaker 5: wind sector in Norway and the policy measures that are
Speaker 5: needed for the energy transition from fossil fuels to the renewables.
Speaker 5: So I wouldn't say that there are tensions between working
Speaker 5: with climate policy and working in the oil and gas sector.
Speaker 5: On the contrary, climate policies is actually a full of
Speaker 5: integrated part of shows activities.
Speaker 3: And Catherine points to efforts to reduce emissions from oil
Speaker 3: and gas production to zero by twenty fifty as evan
Speaker 3: of the industries taking responsibility for its actions. But as
Speaker 3: we just heard, only three percent of the total emissions
Speaker 3: from oil and gas are associated with their production. Even
Speaker 3: if the industry hits its twenty fifty targets, that doesn't
Speaker 3: help with the ninety seven percent of emissions released into
Speaker 3: the atmosphere when Norwegian oil is burned at the use phase.
Speaker 3: At the same time, while she highlights the likes of
Speaker 3: CO two capture, blue hydrogen production and offshore wind development
Speaker 3: as ways that the industry is contributing to both dealing
Speaker 3: with those use phase emissions on the one hand and
Speaker 3: transitioning away from oil and gas towards renewable energy on
Speaker 3: the other, critics contend that neither carbon capture and storage
Speaker 3: nor blue hydrogen are anywhere near developed enough to make
Speaker 3: a meaningful impact. In fact, Equinor and others recently scrapped
Speaker 3: plans to export blue hydrogen abroad due to a lack
Speaker 3: of demand for fossil based fuels compared to their renewable counterparts. However,
Speaker 3: despite this demand and ambitious goals to develop Norways off
Speaker 3: shore wind capacity, earlier this year, Equinor, who are perhaps
Speaker 3: best placed to make strides in the sector, and several
Speaker 3: of their peers, also rolled back their offshore wind targets too.
Speaker 3: So while Anne Catherine claims that climate policy is fully
Speaker 3: integrated into oil and gas activities, the messaging seems to
Speaker 3: be moving much faster than the technologies it's highlighting. Next,
Speaker 3: I asked how the planned expansion of Noua's oil and
Speaker 3: gas industry could be even remotely in alignment with the
Speaker 3: international obligations set out by the Paris Agreement. It's here
Speaker 3: in Ane Catherine's response that the black thread becomes a knot,
Speaker 3: a tightly wound tangle of industry led narratives, strategies and claims.
Speaker 3: As Anakar and Sath from the Norwegian Climate Foundation told
Speaker 3: us earlier, in strategic communication, some things are brought into
Speaker 3: the light and others are left in the shade. So
Speaker 3: as we listen to Ann Catherine's answer to my question,
Speaker 3: it's worth asking ourselves what's left out? How are her
Speaker 3: claims framed to make oil gas appear more compatible with
Speaker 3: climate goals than perhaps they actually are, and which so
Speaker 3: called myths does she invoke along the way?
Speaker 5: An increase of the total oil and gas production will
Speaker 5: obviously lead to more emissions, and it is not in
Speaker 5: line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Aill oil
Speaker 5: and gas have the same amount of emissions when you
Speaker 5: use it, but emissions link to the production and the
Speaker 5: transportation of the oil and gas differ significantly, and using
Speaker 5: oil and gas from Norway instead of using oil and
Speaker 5: gas from other countries can then lead to less emissions
Speaker 5: as we have less emissions from the production side, and
Speaker 5: therefore be in line with the aim of the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 5: But also replacing coal with oil and gas will have
Speaker 5: a significant effect on emissions. So if the expansion of
Speaker 5: the oil and gas production replaces alternatives with more emissions
Speaker 5: and leads to actual total lower emissions, that is in
Speaker 5: line with aim of the Peri's agreement to reduce the
Speaker 5: greenose gas emissions.
Speaker 3: Did you catch that we just heard two of the
Speaker 3: so called oil myths, first the idea of Norwegian oil
Speaker 3: being climate friendly and second that replacing coal with oil
Speaker 3: and gas is a climate solution. As we've discussed, the
Speaker 3: climate friendly oil framing highlights production efficiency but doesn't account
Speaker 3: for the total emissions from consumption or the long term
Speaker 3: lock in effects of continued fossil fuel dependence. Similarly, replacing
Speaker 3: coal with oil and gas might reduce emissions in the
Speaker 3: short term, but it still locks in carbon intensive energy infrastructure,
Speaker 3: as Anakarr and Sather explained earlier, delaying the shift to
Speaker 3: genuinely renewable sources. But let's keep listening. Here's and Catherine
Speaker 3: Vorga again moving on to the expansion of noise oil
Speaker 3: and gas activities.
Speaker 5: The outlook for the production of the oil and gas
Speaker 5: in Norway is that in some years we will reach
Speaker 5: peak production and then we will see a significant decline.
Speaker 5: So the exploration for new resources will ensure that the
Speaker 5: downward production curve will not be steeper than the demand curve.
Speaker 5: So exploration for more oil and gas in Norway as
Speaker 5: we see today will not be an expansion from the
Speaker 5: current level. Almost all of the oil and gas produced
Speaker 5: in Norway alsold to uk and ere and the Russian
Speaker 5: invasion of Ukraine has clearly demonstrated how dependent Europe is
Speaker 5: of the energy from Norway, and EU has now decided
Speaker 5: to stop the import of oil and gas from Russia,
Speaker 5: and their main priority is of course to replace this
Speaker 5: by investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. But it
Speaker 5: takes time to build new renewable capacity, and in the
Speaker 5: short medium term the oil and gas from Russia will
Speaker 5: have to be replaced by oil and gas from other countries,
Speaker 5: and in climate perspective, oil and gas from Norway are
Speaker 5: produced with lower carbon footprint than oil and gas from
Speaker 5: other contries.
Speaker 3: In this part of her response, we hear the familiar
Speaker 3: petroganda narrative of energy security, as discussed in the previous episode.
Speaker 3: While valid in the context of Europe's immediate needs, this
Speaker 3: argument can also be read as a justification for maintaining
Speaker 3: production levels in the longer term, even when the broader
Speaker 3: climate context calls for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels,
Speaker 3: a transition we've already heard is made all the more
Speaker 3: difficult if we continue investing in the oil industry. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: on the expansion issue, my understanding of what and Catherine's
Speaker 3: saying is that we shouldn't worry too much, because she
Speaker 3: argues any such activity isn't about increasing overall use of
Speaker 3: fossil fuels, but instead about ensuring that there'll be enough
Speaker 3: to get us through the forthcoming energy transition in line
Speaker 3: with the projected decline in demand for oil and gas
Speaker 3: from the likes of Europe and the UK. However, a
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four report found that if the EU curbs
Speaker 3: demand in line with its targets, existing oil and gas
Speaker 3: projects and contracts will be sufficient to meet declining European needs,
Speaker 3: which means there's no need for more Norwegian oil and gas.
Speaker 3: But let's hear the final part of and Catherine's response.
Speaker 5: The main driver in the energy market is the demand
Speaker 5: for energy. Society needs enough and affordable energy, and to
Speaker 5: limit the climate crisis, the energy must be as clean
Speaker 5: as possible, So both UK and THEY asset ambitious targets
Speaker 5: for transition of their energy mix away from fossil fuels
Speaker 5: and towards for renewables. But even in the scenarios where
Speaker 5: they reach their climate goals, they will need more oil
Speaker 5: and gas than Norway from over prognosis can deliver. So
Speaker 5: in the case where UK and E need oil and
Speaker 5: gas as a part of their energy mix, this Shurrado
Speaker 5: coom from more production in our Way than from other
Speaker 5: producing countries, and that's also from a climate perspective.
Speaker 3: Right, So then we're back to the idea that Norway's
Speaker 3: oil and gas is simply filling the British and European demand,
Speaker 3: but with the added twist that assumes Norwegian oil and
Speaker 3: gas will substitute products from other providers based on the
Speaker 3: logic of it being cleaner. It's a lot to take in,
Speaker 3: and that's kind of the point. Each of these industry
Speaker 3: narratives builds on or intertwines with the next, which, according
Speaker 3: to the industry's critics, complicates any effort required to challenge them.
Speaker 3: And while the arguments are pretty straightforward, Norwegian oil has
Speaker 3: a lower production footprint than other imports, replacing coal with
Speaker 3: gas can reduce emissions, and Europe's current energy situation makes
Speaker 3: Norwegian supply important. These strategic framings, as are experts of expan,
Speaker 3: often present partial truths or short term solutions as evidence
Speaker 3: of alignment with climate goals, but seen through the lens
Speaker 3: of the oil myths and the petroganda narratives we've heard
Speaker 3: about from expert observers and voices critical of oil industry rhetoric.
Speaker 3: Such communication seems to reinforce a story that makes fossil
Speaker 3: fuels seem necessary, acceptable, and even beneficial, while obscuring broader
Speaker 3: context and the structural challenges of a full energy transition.
Speaker 3: So we now have a better understanding of the logic
Speaker 3: behind the communication coming out of NOI's fossil fuel industry,
Speaker 3: much of which seems to rest on this idea or
Speaker 3: myth of climate friendly oil. I was curious to learn
Speaker 3: more about this, so I asked Cilia ask Lundberg from
Speaker 3: research and advocacy organization oil Change International for her take.
Speaker 6: We've had so many different slogans that are connected to
Speaker 6: how we frame it. It's like, it's the green oil, it's
Speaker 6: the climate friendly oil. Now it's the democratic oil. So
Speaker 6: it just keeps on filling it with all of these
Speaker 6: wonderful words, basically just to be able to continue to
Speaker 6: say that we should be the last country on Earth
Speaker 6: to produce oil and gas, which is like the narrative
Speaker 6: that is being built by the industry, and unfortunately that
Speaker 6: is accepted by a lot of politicians.
Speaker 3: Indeed, many politicians, including the Norwegian Minister for Climate and
Speaker 3: the Environment, have repeated these lines about climate friendly oil,
Speaker 3: and all of Anakharan's so called myths can be identified
Speaker 3: in the Norwegian government's recent climate strategy, alongside a number
Speaker 3: of Drilled media's petroganda narratives discussed in the previous episode.
Speaker 3: Tocillia's point and echoing an Catherine Vorga from off Shore
Speaker 3: Norway's position. In an interview with The New York Times,
Speaker 3: Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Garstura said, I believe that
Speaker 3: the change here will have to come from the demand side,
Speaker 3: and it cannot be by having political decisions to cut
Speaker 3: the supply side. I asked Oslo based author, journalist and
Speaker 3: climate data expert Catan Joshi what he thinks about this
Speaker 3: kind of reasoning.
Speaker 7: Something that's important to note is that countries that supply
Speaker 7: a large amount of fossil fuels to other places in
Speaker 7: the world are very emotionally centered on making sure that
Speaker 7: people burn those fossil fuels. We as a country that
Speaker 7: supplies fossil fuels, frame ourselves as passive or somewhat neutral.
Speaker 7: We just happen to have been born on top of
Speaker 7: a whole bunch of oil and gas, and it's therefore
Speaker 7: our neutral and unbiased responsibility to pick it up out
Speaker 7: of the ground and transfer it elsewhere. What happens in
Speaker 7: reality is that when you are invested in supplying fossil fuels,
Speaker 7: you will go out of your way to come up
Speaker 7: with stories and lines of argument that encourage people to
Speaker 7: burn them. A nice example, of course, has been the
Speaker 7: energy crisis in Europe. Russia invaded a neighboring country, and
Speaker 7: as a consequence, a lot of the countries in Europe
Speaker 7: that buy its gas products decided to try and reduce that.
Speaker 7: Norway stepped up and said, hey, don't worry about all
Speaker 7: the electrification and the demand reduction and energy efficiency. Just
Speaker 7: swap it out with Norwegian gas instead. We can supply
Speaker 7: it. It's all good. And then we take that argument and
Speaker 7: say we are providing energy security where the real energy
Speaker 7: security for Europe would have been reducing reliance on important fuels.
Speaker 7: And so not only are we compelled to tell the
Speaker 7: world different ways that they can feel good about burning
Speaker 7: our products, we feel proud about it. We sort of
Speaker 7: present it as if we're sort of doing a heroic
Speaker 7: thing for the rest of the world. This is the
Speaker 7: headspace of the fossil fuel exporterer. It's a line of
Speaker 7: argument that allows the maintenance of prolonged fossil fuel extraction.
Speaker 3: Katan believes that, as we've discussed in the previous episode,
Speaker 3: Norway's leaders are prone to motivated reasoning, finding any justification
Speaker 3: they can for continuing business as usual. Along with the
Speaker 3: personal and political benefits it brings. The so called myths
Speaker 3: that Anakhar and Satha described, like the idea of climate
Speaker 3: friendly oil, become particularly powerful in this context. They aren't
Speaker 3: just stories, they're convenient frames of reference, offering leaders information
Speaker 3: that allows them to defend the path they're already on board.
Speaker 3: Land from the University of Oslo's Oil and Society Research
Speaker 3: Network illustrates how this plays out. He describes how projections
Speaker 3: of falling oil and gas demand, like the ones Zan
Speaker 3: Catharine Voger invoked to reassure me that the industry is
Speaker 3: simply walking at the pace of European needs, can be
Speaker 3: weaponized by different actors to reinforce the very narratives that
Speaker 3: keep drilling going.
Speaker 2: If you look at the projections for future oil and
Speaker 2: gas production, they show a quite significant decline over the
Speaker 2: next twenty to thirty years. Those figures are used very
Speaker 2: differently by different actors in the political scene. So some
Speaker 2: would point to them and say this, I guest thing
Speaker 2: is it's not really a problem because it's going to
Speaker 2: fix itself over time, So why bother discussing phase outdates.
Speaker 2: But then at the same time, the oil industry and
Speaker 2: the Ministry of Energy are using those same numbers and
Speaker 2: forecasts to argue, Look, we need to work to keep
Speaker 2: production going. We need more exploration, we need tax incentives,
Speaker 2: we need all of these new things to avoid this decline.
Speaker 3: Board explains how some actors use these figures to downplay
Speaker 3: the urgency of policies to curb fossil fuel extraction, while
Speaker 3: others use them to justify continued exploration and subsidies, ultimately
Speaker 3: to develop the industry rather than dismantle it, which brings
Speaker 3: us to the only so called oil myth. We've yet
Speaker 3: to dig into the idea that the oil industry is
Speaker 3: vital to enabling the green transition. A key piece of
Speaker 3: the puzzle here is carbon capture and storage or CCS,
Speaker 3: the fossil fuel industry's effort to suck CO two out
Speaker 3: of the air and lock it deep underground. Let's hear
Speaker 3: from Offshore Norway's climate policy manager again and Catherine Vorga
Speaker 3: about carbon cap in storage and how it works in practice.
Speaker 5: The emissions from the use of both oil and gas
Speaker 5: are considerable and Norway has a particular responsibility for these emissions.
Speaker 5: I think a good example of Norway taking this responsibility
Speaker 5: is Norway's contribution to the development of a value chain
Speaker 5: for C two capture and transportation and storage. The Novisian
Speaker 5: state has taken a majority of the investments and now
Speaker 5: the value chain is in place. CO two is captured
Speaker 5: and transported by ships to the Northern Lights receiving terminal,
Speaker 5: and then the CO two is transported by pipeline to
Speaker 5: a reservoir at a continental shelf and its story two
Speaker 5: thousand and six hundred meters under the seabed. Norway has
Speaker 5: by this project paved the way for other CEO two
Speaker 5: capture and storage projects. The Northern Lights terminal is now
Speaker 5: actually expounding its capacity to five million ton z with
Speaker 5: finance she'll support from EU, and in addition, several storage
Speaker 5: projects are underplanning in Norway. So it's a clear example
Speaker 5: on how Norway takes the responsibility for their missions and
Speaker 5: at the same time liverageure or technolological and geographical advantage.
Speaker 3: Despite this successful depiction of the Northern Lights project, it
Speaker 3: wasn't until several weeks after our conversation that the very
Speaker 3: first volumes of CO two an undisclosed amount, were injected
Speaker 3: into the undersea reservoir associated with the initiative, So five
Speaker 3: million tons a year. I asked Doan Catherine by when,
Speaker 3: to which she answered that it would quote take some time. Indeed,
Speaker 3: in always climate and energy circles, ambition often outruns delivery.
Speaker 3: Although the country is off track to meet its existing
Speaker 3: decarbonization goals, earlier this year, Climate and Environment Minister Andre
Speaker 3: s bl and Eriksson claimed that the most important thing
Speaker 3: Norway could do for the climate was to set even
Speaker 3: higher goals. Ketan Joshi has been following Norway's progress closely.
Speaker 3: He's also been analyzing the development of carbon capture and
Speaker 3: storage for several years, and, based on his findings, like
Speaker 3: many others, believes this technology serves only to prolong society's
Speaker 3: reliance on fossil fuels.
Speaker 7: Norway is held up as a global example of ccs' success,
Speaker 7: but the percentage of our emissions that CCS avoids keeps
Speaker 7: getting smaller and smaller every year. And the reason is
Speaker 7: that CCS stays small in the amount that we extract
Speaker 7: in cell keeps increasing.
Speaker 3: Katan calls CCS a quote false promise, essentially that the
Speaker 3: idea that a single technology could erase all of our
Speaker 3: emissions is so enticing that we cling to it even
Speaker 3: as real progress remains slow. The longer we hold on,
Speaker 3: the more the incumbent powers of the oil and gas
Speaker 3: industry benefit from business as usual, all while the climate
Speaker 3: crisis grows more urgent. To me, it seems a bit
Speaker 3: like clinging to a balloon As it rises higher. The
Speaker 3: hope seems real, but the distance to the ground only widens,
Speaker 3: and you can only hold on for so long. Despite
Speaker 3: the lack of progress, though, Katan notes one benefit Norway
Speaker 3: gains from its work with CCS.
Speaker 7: That helps maintain our self image of being a green country.
Speaker 3: According to our experts, all these myths are used to
Speaker 3: justify the growth of Norway's oil industry and duplicate its
Speaker 3: people into oil positivity while boosting that self image as
Speaker 3: a green country. But critics contend that yet another myth
Speaker 3: that Norway needs oil to remain rich and maintain the
Speaker 3: welfare system plays a part here too, indeed, and Catherine
Speaker 3: Vorga explained that oil revenues help grow the Oil Fund
Speaker 3: for the benefit of the annual state budget and the
Speaker 3: Norwegian welfare system. But here again commentators shed some doubt
Speaker 3: the idea that Norway needs more oil to remain wealthy,
Speaker 3: and according to anakhar And Sather, project manager at the
Speaker 3: Norwegian Climate Foundation, the long stand notion that Norway was
Speaker 3: poor before oil and gas are two of the major
Speaker 3: misconceptions Norwegians hold about their wealth. Let's hear more from
Speaker 3: Anna Karn about Norway's economic situation before the oil boom.
Speaker 4: I think most Norwegians there are quite aware that we
Speaker 4: became richer because of oil and gas, and some people
Speaker 4: even think that we were poor before, and that goes
Speaker 4: from lots of politicians to the crown princesses and others.
Speaker 4: Talking to people abroad or the discussions in Norway is
Speaker 4: often about that that the oil and gas revenue kind
Speaker 4: of saved us. But that's not really the fact. We
Speaker 4: did become richer because of oil and gas, but we
Speaker 4: were already number ten on the list of the richest
Speaker 4: countries in the world before we found oil and gas.
Speaker 4: We had timber. We had hydropower, shipping, huge marriage sector,
Speaker 4: growing industry, lots of other activities that actually made us
Speaker 4: fairly rich before we found oil. So that's a problem
Speaker 4: with the perception among most Norwegians, I think, and that
Speaker 4: legitimize further exploration. Unfortunately, so in contrast to the mainstream
Speaker 4: notion that Norway was poor before it struck oil, Anakaran
Speaker 4: claims the country was actually pretty wealthy. The rags to
Speaker 4: riches story, though, which ties wonderfully into the sense of
Speaker 4: Norway being the clever underdog from those folk tales we
Speaker 4: discussed in episode one, is now deeply entrenched and according
Speaker 4: to our experts, it shapes people's fears about and even
Speaker 4: their inability to consider the end of Norwegian oil and gas.
Speaker 4: Let's hear a bit more from Anna Karan and the
Speaker 4: gap between the perception and reality of Norwegian wealth. We
Speaker 4: did a study among Norwegians and we found that two
Speaker 4: out of three think we have to do more exploration
Speaker 4: in order to have a proper welfare system. Where our
Speaker 4: work now in the Norwich Climate Foundation, we got some
Speaker 4: really good economists to do a study for us, and
Speaker 4: we ask them what will further exploration for more oil
Speaker 4: and gas mean for the welfare system in the years ahead,
Speaker 4: and they said, after this long report, not really much,
Speaker 4: because we have the oil fund and that will grow
Speaker 4: almost no matter what. The oil fund now is just
Speaker 4: as much money money as oil money, and we only
Speaker 4: take out a few percent each year, so it doesn't
Speaker 4: really matter. They say that the place we would have
Speaker 4: been in twenty forty nine, we can be in twenty
Speaker 4: fifty when it comes to welfare without further exploration. But
Speaker 4: this is a surprise to Norwegians. And when we have
Speaker 4: this Semini in Stavangna presenting this study, there was even
Speaker 4: one guide saying that I don't believe this number. I
Speaker 4: don't believe this study. But that doesn't really matter because
Speaker 4: it's the facts.
Speaker 3: To Anakharin's point that Norway doesn't actually need new oil
Speaker 3: revenue to remain wealthy. Yence Stoltenberg, current Norwegian Minister of
Speaker 3: Finance and former head of NATO, confirmed in an interview
Speaker 3: with NRK, the National radio that oil money isn't actually
Speaker 3: spent at all. He said, quote, I often say, and
Speaker 3: many others say, that we use oil money. The truth
Speaker 3: is that we don't really spend oil money. We have
Speaker 3: spent zero oil money since two thousand and one. What
Speaker 3: we use is financial income, the return of the oil
Speaker 3: revenues we have saved, and as long as we stay
Speaker 3: within that then this fund can last forever end quote.
Speaker 3: So Norway's wealth isn't at risk even without new oil.
Speaker 3: If we reflect on the petroganda narrative of having to
Speaker 3: choose between the economy or the environment, then we see
Speaker 3: how Norwegians may be being presented with a false dilemma. Yet,
Speaker 3: earlier this summer, the Norwegian government opened for the largest
Speaker 3: ever offering of potential oil and gas areas, with an
Speaker 3: emphasis on the Arctic waters of the Barren Sea. In
Speaker 3: the face of such continued expansion of the industry, anakhar
Speaker 3: and Star that explains that whether fossil fuel companies, politicians
Speaker 3: or the Norwegian public want to acknowledge it or not,
Speaker 3: rising risks, regulatory pressures and the worsening impacts of climate
Speaker 3: change are coming, and they won't wait for the narratives
Speaker 3: to catch up.
Speaker 4: So that are also some facts that they have to
Speaker 4: get used to.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, with the growing sense that norways entrenched dependence on
Speaker 3: oil and gas is approaching its limits, the question becomes
Speaker 3: not if, but how the country will navigate this challenge.
Speaker 2: Much of the political approach at the moment is to
Speaker 2: just keep saying that we want to develop the industry,
Speaker 2: we want to maintain it into the future.
Speaker 3: That's Bored Land from the University of Oslo, again reflecting
Speaker 3: on politicians' reluctance to prepare for the end of Norwegian
Speaker 3: oil and gas.
Speaker 2: That's problematic whether it succeeds or not, because if it succeeds,
Speaker 2: it's of course prolonging the oil age, and that's problematic
Speaker 2: for climate reasons. If it doesn't succeed, then we're kind
Speaker 2: of fooling ourselves into not dealing with the problems that
Speaker 2: we're facing when this industry is declining. One thing that
Speaker 2: would help a lot would be to get a more
Speaker 2: widespread acceptance that we are nearing the end of the
Speaker 2: Norwegian oil and gas age, that we are on a
Speaker 2: declining path.
Speaker 3: Board argues that if efforts to sustain production succeed, it
Speaker 3: extends the oil age, harming the climate, while if they fail,
Speaker 3: it delays confronting the challenges of a declining industry. He
Speaker 3: suggests a more realistic acknowledgment of this decline would shift
Speaker 3: policy towards managing a planned phase out of the industry
Speaker 3: rather than trying to maintain it indefinitely.
Speaker 2: We need a strategy for the final phase of the
Speaker 2: region oil and gas production.
Speaker 3: A clear strategy could not only guide noway through this shift,
Speaker 3: but also help prepare the oil industry workforce for the future.
Speaker 3: As we noted in the first episode, many Norwegians personally
Speaker 3: know people working in the industry, and commentators point out
Speaker 3: that one of the industry's regular defenses against phasing out
Speaker 3: operations is the perceived size of the workforce and the
Speaker 3: number of jobs that could be lost. To explore this issue,
Speaker 3: let's hear from Cillia ask Lundberg from Oil Change International.
Speaker 6: For those people working there, that of course will be
Speaker 6: a very big thing, but that is not an excuse
Speaker 6: to not do anything, and you can meet that if
Speaker 6: you plan for it. You can meet that with policies
Speaker 6: so you can shift them or transition them into other jobs.
Speaker 6: But one of their old big issues in Norway is
Speaker 6: that there is no will to try to plan for this,
Speaker 6: or to even try to start imagining a world without
Speaker 6: out continued Norwegian oil and gas production.
Speaker 3: Interestingly, in connection with the oil price drop between twenty
Speaker 3: fourteen and twenty sixteen, many thousands of workers left the
Speaker 3: Norwegian oil industry, but according to Christopher Berger, senior advisor
Speaker 3: at Statistics Norway, most found jobs in other sectors within
Speaker 3: a year. My understanding then is that a well managed
Speaker 3: transition could ease the impact on the workforce. Yet with
Speaker 3: little planning for a final phase of oil and gas,
Speaker 3: the government risks failing the very people as long celebrated
Speaker 3: as heroes. Meanwhile, public opinion is moving ahead of politicians.
Speaker 3: Sillier notes that polls show how Norwegians are increasingly supportive
Speaker 3: of measures to limit fossil fuel expansion, a shift that
Speaker 3: leaves policymakers.
Speaker 7: Playing catch up.
Speaker 6: We are seeing that that realization is beginning to happen
Speaker 6: to more and more Norwegians, more and more borders are
Speaker 6: starting to ask for more restrictive policy for the oil
Speaker 6: and gas industry.
Speaker 3: Cilia shared that according to recent polling, more than half
Speaker 3: of Norwegian voters are against oil and gas production in
Speaker 3: areas that are important for the fishing industry and against
Speaker 3: oil and gas production in Arctic waters, and even believes
Speaker 3: that Norway should stop looking for more oil and gas.
Speaker 3: Despite this rising public opposition to new oil and gas activities,
Speaker 3: especially in sensitive Arctic areas like the Barren Sea, which
Speaker 3: we just heard was central to the recent government exploration offering,
Speaker 3: the government continues to push for expansion.
Speaker 6: The major obstacle in Norway are the major political parties.
Speaker 6: If you look at the Labor Party, the Conservative Parties
Speaker 6: and the Progress Party, those three parties are very much
Speaker 6: a favor of continuing to explore for more oil and gas,
Speaker 6: so they are at odds with the majority of Norwegian borders.
Speaker 3: Cilia believes the issue is Norway's politicians, who she claims
Speaker 3: remain under the spell of the industry.
Speaker 6: I think this shows how strong a grip the oil
Speaker 6: and gas industry have over Norwegian politics and how implemented
Speaker 6: those narratives that we've been talking about are also in
Speaker 6: the minds of the politicians. Europe needs energy now, but
Speaker 6: Europe is on a path of getting rid of their gas.
Speaker 6: They're starting with the Russian gas, but they're not ending there.
Speaker 6: Norway is now planning on expanding and producing way more
Speaker 6: than what the EU is asking for.
Speaker 3: Just as bord Lain explained earlier, Cilia shares how Norway's
Speaker 3: political leaders are incapable of even addressing the idea of
Speaker 3: a Norway after oil, fixated instead on the rhetoric of
Speaker 3: the industry, much of which we've heard throughout this and
Speaker 3: the previous episode.
Speaker 6: If you try to talk to a labor politician or
Speaker 6: a conservative politician about trying to plan for Norway post oil,
Speaker 6: the conversation just stops. They are not interested at all,
Speaker 6: and I think what drives them is fear. They are
Speaker 6: afraid because that would mean that they do something a
Speaker 6: bit new and unheard of in Norway, which is stand
Speaker 6: up to the oil and gas industry. So then it's
Speaker 6: easier to just do nothing.
Speaker 3: According to Cilia, the disconnect between political decisions and the
Speaker 3: majority of view is not only frustrating for a growing
Speaker 3: number of citizens, it's also affecting how Norway is perceived internationally.
Speaker 6: When you have international criticism of Norway asa oil and
Speaker 6: Gas major, if the Financial Times write about it or
Speaker 6: the Guardian, that ends up being headline used in Norway
Speaker 6: as well in terms of like, wow, we're getting criticized.
Speaker 6: Governments in other nations have been very afraid to criticize
Speaker 6: governments like Norway, but it looks like that might be
Speaker 6: starting to shift a bit.
Speaker 3: Governments of other countries might be warming up to the
Speaker 3: idea of criticizing Norway, but citizens around the world are
Speaker 3: already on the case. Campaigns like Fight for the Bite
Speaker 3: in Australia mobilized thousands against Quinor's plans to drill in
Speaker 3: a highly sensitive marine area, attracting international media attention and
Speaker 3: ultimately prompting the company to withdraw. Similarly, the Stop Willow
Speaker 3: campaign in Canada has sought to halt Equinor's development of
Speaker 3: oil in Arctic waters, raising concerns over environmental impact and
Speaker 3: indigenous rights, and in the UK, the ongoing Stop Rosebank
Speaker 3: campaign challenges Equinor's plans to exploit the country's largest undeveloped
Speaker 3: oil field. While outrage from the energy town game discussed
Speaker 3: in the previous episode only adds to the negativity, these
Speaker 3: high profile campaigns and criticisms call out both Equinor and
Speaker 3: Norway directly, increasingly framing the country as a climate offender
Speaker 3: rather than a climate leader. Anakhar and Satha from the
Speaker 3: Norwegian Climate Foundation agrees that Nou's reputation in the international
Speaker 3: scene is suffering.
Speaker 4: I think our reputation has gotten pretty much worse, especially
Speaker 4: since Russian full scale invasion of Ukraine in two thousand
Speaker 4: and twenty two, because now people start talking, at least
Speaker 4: in Brussels and EU countries, that we have been profiting
Speaker 4: from the war and the high gas prices, and when
Speaker 4: people in Europe they've had an energy price crisis and
Speaker 4: someone took those money that they have been paying out
Speaker 4: of their pockets and that was us. So we're not
Speaker 4: that big a hero any longer, I think.
Speaker 3: As Norway faces scrutiny on the international stage in response
Speaker 3: to Equinor's activities, the government and industry often respond by
Speaker 3: emphasizing the careful planning, strategy and adherence to facts that
Speaker 3: underpin their actions. Framing their conduct in this way ensures
Speaker 3: it appears rational and evidence based, even as critics point
Speaker 3: to the widening gap between words and outcomes. And Catherine
Speaker 3: Vorga from Offshore Norway reflects this approach, highlighting the importance
Speaker 3: of grounding decisions in evidence and demonstrating tangible action.
Speaker 5: That laws, regulations and policies are established based on facts
Speaker 5: and the deep understanding of the different aspects and the consequences.
Speaker 5: For me, it's the most important thing is actually what
Speaker 5: we do and to demonstrate what we do, to have
Speaker 5: a clear strategy and set the clear targets. And that's
Speaker 5: why we have a strategy on a climate target now
Speaker 5: to reduce the emissions, but also to contribute to more
Speaker 5: offshore bind and reduce emission from the use of oil
Speaker 5: and gas. So for me, in my position, the most
Speaker 5: important thing is the actions.
Speaker 3: Yet after listening to the wider picture, Norway is ongoing
Speaker 3: oil expansion, growing public opinion against new drilling, international campaigns
Speaker 3: calling out the country and its flagship companies, the glacial
Speaker 3: progress of technological solutions like CCS and blue hydrogen, and
Speaker 3: rollbacks of offshore wind targets by the industry's biggest players.
Speaker 3: We have to ask whether tangible action is really taking
Speaker 3: place here. But the real question, according to Catan Joshi,
Speaker 3: is not where the plans exist or targets are set.
Speaker 3: It's where the Norway is actually showing ambition, honesty and
Speaker 3: giving its absolute best effort to achieve real world impact.
Speaker 3: For him, climate credibility isn't a technical exercise. It's a
Speaker 3: test of a country's metal, its intent, and its integrity
Speaker 3: on the global stage.
Speaker 7: There's been a really loud and somewhat nervous debate in
Speaker 7: the climate community around targets. A country will set a
Speaker 7: target and they kind of have to nominate what level
Speaker 7: of the world heating up that they're aiming for, even
Speaker 7: though the country alone doesn't decide it. You have to
Speaker 7: kind of figure out the future that you're aligned to.
Speaker 7: And what happened is in twenty fifteen around the Paris
Speaker 7: Climate Agreement, a lot of country is decided that they
Speaker 7: wanted to align with a planet that heats by one
Speaker 7: point five degrees relative to what it was before the
Speaker 7: industrial age, and this was sort of calculated as being
Speaker 7: the highest ambition that you could have based on what
Speaker 7: we knew at the time. In twenty fifteen, it's very
Speaker 7: likely that we're going to pass that target level, and
Speaker 7: there's been this almost anxious debate about what the next
Speaker 7: number is going to be. Do we kind of just
Speaker 7: do like a point five increment and go to two.
Speaker 7: I like one point five zero one myself, But it's
Speaker 7: a silly debate. What was really trying to be expressed there,
Speaker 7: And when you go back and look at the statements
Speaker 7: from the nations, particularly the small island Pacific Nations, that
Speaker 7: were the ones pushing for that target. Is they weren't
Speaker 7: talking about a number. They were talking about the strength
Speaker 7: and the will of action and the need to protect
Speaker 7: human survival. They don't talk about emissions and global atmospheric modeling.
Speaker 7: They were talking about something much more material, which is
Speaker 7: whether or not people are trying their hardest to reduce emissions.
Speaker 7: Is the line going up or is it going down?
Speaker 7: Actually need to look at a country and determine whether
Speaker 7: it has that feeling in its heart, is it actually
Speaker 7: trying as hard as it possibly can to reduce emissions?
Speaker 7: And you can actually determine this type of thing. Are
Speaker 7: they cheating, are they using tricks? Are they being honest?
Speaker 7: Are they being transparent? Are they taking risks? Are they
Speaker 7: actually having successes that are surprising? All of these things,
Speaker 7: With time and effort, you can cage and determine. It
Speaker 7: takes accountability into this completely different space, a very emotional space.
Speaker 7: But I think it's actually really important. And you compare
Speaker 7: that with all of the calculations and the charts that
Speaker 7: you want, right, because that's what I do, is that
Speaker 7: I like doing, but I like to pair it with
Speaker 7: an assessment of whether or not the hardest effort is
Speaker 7: being applied.
Speaker 3: To the problem, With politicians openly discussing the irrelevance of
Speaker 3: oil to always continued wealth, failing to align with a
Speaker 3: growing public discontent with fossil fuel activities, missing targets for
Speaker 3: domestic climate measures, and bringing no clear strategy for the
Speaker 3: final phase of Norwegian oil and gas to the table.
Speaker 3: It raises serious questions about whether the Norway's leaders are
Speaker 3: responding effectively to the concerns and long term interests of
Speaker 3: their citizens. Reflecting on Catan's question, is the hardest effort
Speaker 3: being applied to the problem in Norway's case, the evidence
Speaker 3: seems to suggest that the answer is known. In this episode,
Speaker 3: we tested the stories and the rhetoric against the facts.
Speaker 3: What did we learn well? For starters, Norway wasn't poor
Speaker 3: before oil and gas and is unlikely to be poor
Speaker 3: after it. We heard how what might sound like common sense,
Speaker 3: climate friendly oil colld to gas substitution economic and energy
Speaker 3: security unravels under scrutiny, exposing strategies that risk driving fossil
Speaker 3: fuel dependence for decades, and that while the industry promotes
Speaker 3: actions over ambitions, it also puts its faith in as
Speaker 3: yet unproven technologies to justify its worldview, which is then
Speaker 3: amplified by Norway's politicians acting against the wishes of the
Speaker 3: public majority. But these lines aren't just rhetoric in isolation.
Speaker 3: Our experts argue that they provide the underlying logic that
Speaker 3: politicians and the industry rely on to defend continued oil production.
Speaker 3: They shape public understanding, influence policy debates, and reinforce the
Speaker 3: idea that Norway can be both a major fossil fuel
Speaker 3: producer and a climate leader, a paradox that continues to
Speaker 3: guide communication strategies and political decision making. Next time, in
Speaker 3: the final episode of The Black Thread, we'll look forward
Speaker 3: into Norway's future. We'll explore the pressing need for imagining
Speaker 3: how Norway and its people could support a truly green
Speaker 3: and just energy transition, to create spaces for genuine, good
Speaker 3: faith discussions about oil and climate, to realign the nation's
Speaker 3: actions with its values, and potentially safeguard its international reputation
Speaker 3: on climate related issues before it's too late. Thanks for listening,
Speaker 3: and catch you next time. The Black Thread is a
Speaker 3: collaboration between Communicating Climate Change and Klimaculetur. It was written
Speaker 3: and narrated by dickon Bonvicstone produced and edited by lever
Speaker 3: Solid Schulearud and the executive producer was vigdis Bonvickstone artwork
Speaker 3: is by Anya Jimushkevich. For more information see the show
Speaker 3: notes