Norway's national energy company, Equinor, is confronting a colossal financial penalty totalling £53 million following a major investigation into repeated oil spills and dangerous gas leaks at its Mongstad refinery.
Years of Inadequate Maintenance Lead to 'Extensive Pollution'
The country's economic crime agency, Økokrim, initiated legal action against the state-owned firm, accusing it of 'extensive and long-term pollution' at the crucial North Sea coast facility. Officials directly linked the incidents to a sustained period of insufficient maintenance work.
The proposed penalty comprises a £16 million fine (220 million kroner) and a record-breaking confiscation order of £37 million (500 million kroner). Økokrim emphasised the gravity of the case, stating the confiscation sum was the highest ever demanded from a Norwegian company, with the fine ranking as the second largest.
Investigation Triggered by NGO Reports and Serious Gas Leak
The probe was launched in 2020 after the Norwegian environmental non-governmental organisation Bellona reported a series of oil leaks at the site. Frederic Hauge, Bellona's founder, described witnessing a 'company in deep systemic crisis' and warned it was only a matter of time before a major accident occurred.
Investigators confirmed multiple leaks occurred between 2016 and 2021. The most severe incident involved the release of 40 tonnes of gas, containing highly concentrated hydrogen sulphide. State attorney Maria Bache Dahl, who prosecuted the case, stated this leak 'represented a risk of fatal outcome for several employees' and that it was only by chance no one was seriously hurt or killed.
Equinor Disputes Charges as Case Heads to Court
Equinor has formally contested the penalty notice, setting the stage for a courtroom battle. Siv Helen Rygh Torstensen, the company's executive vice-president for legal and compliance, argued that Økokrim had failed to specify the exact nature of the alleged punishable negligence.
'We disagree that the company has failed to fulfil its duty of proper maintenance of the plant over several decades and that the company has saved cost through inadequate maintenance,' Torstensen said. The firm has stated it does not accept the penalty and will seek to clarify the matter before a judge.
