As part of my ongoing analysis on NewsBreaks artilce regarding energy policy and national resource management, Michalis Christodoulides examine here how Norway transformed its hydrocarbon reserves into a long-term national advantage — and what lessons Greece can draw from this model. The Norwegian energy success story and what Greece can learn.
Norway is widely recognised as a global benchmark for how a nation can utilise its hydrocarbon wealth in a way that benefits society as a whole rather than a privileged few.
In an era when natural-resource extraction is often linked to opaque deals, environmental degradation, or widening economic gaps, Norway has managed to build a completely different model. Its “energy miracle” is not simply the result of rich deposits, but of long-term institutional planning and smart governance. For Greece, this comparison offers valuable insights as we explore our own potential resources.
Inside the Norwegian system: How it works
Norway’s approach is built on three fundamental principles: firm state control, absolute transparency, and a strict taxation regime on oil profits. The state remains the sole owner of all hydrocarbons.
Private companies—domestic or foreign—do not purchase the resources; instead, they receive production licences through competitive tenders. They cover all exploration and development expenses, but share their earnings with the state under an exceptionally demanding tax structure.
Oil production in Norway is taxed at roughly 78%, ensuring that the bulk of the value returns to the public. Moreover, the state participates directly in the sector through the SDFI (State Direct Financial Interest), increasing its revenues not only from taxation but also from dividends.
This combination has allowed Norway to collect more than €12 billion annually from its oil industry, fuelling the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund and safeguarding the country’s long-term economic stability.
Greece: Different starting point, similar strategic questions
Although Greece shows promising geological prospects, it remains at an early stage. Several key differences stand out:
- Institutional continuity: Norway maintained long-term political agreement on hydrocarbon strategy. Greece has frequently altered its priorities, generating uncertainty for investors.
- Taxation: The Greek fiscal regime is far lighter—around 20% plus 5% royalties—which attracts companies but leaves a smaller share of value for the state.
- Public participation: Greece lacks a strong mechanism for direct state involvement in production, limiting potential public revenue if significant deposits are found.
- Revenue strategy: Unlike Norway’s sovereign fund, Greece has no long-term savings framework, raising the risk that future income may simply cover short-term needs.
Lessons Greece should not ignore
Norway’s model cannot be simply copied; it is rooted in political stability, social consensus, and decades of accumulated expertise. Still, it offers clear lessons for any country seeking to manage natural wealth responsibly:
- A stable and transparent regulatory environment is essential for attracting serious investment.
- Active state participation in key structures ensures that national resources remain under national control.
- A national wealth fund can protect future generations and stabilise the economy in the long term.
- Robust environmental oversight shows that resource extraction and environmental protection can coexist under strict rules.
Norway demonstrates that natural resources can drive national development—but only when managed with planning, discipline, and social responsibility.
For Greece, the priority is not merely discovering hydrocarbon fields. It is building the institutional and strategic framework that will allow any future wealth to become a lasting public good.
