💥 Statement from Minister of Defence Tore O. Sandvik on reports concerning naval support 💥
(www.regjeringen.no)
WE ARE THE NEWS
Comments (14)
sorted by:
Statement from Minister of Defence Tore O. Sandvik on reports concerning naval support News story | Date: 02/03/2025
Les på norsk
No, Its NOT....I Never said it was the Government Of Norway...Don't be so eager to debunk before checking...
The nuclear submarine USS Virginia was forced to turn around off the coast of Norway after a refusal to refuel by a """""PRIVATE COMPANY""""" following the Trump-Zelensky meeting HB, one of the largest marine fuel companies in 🇳🇴 says it won’t refuel US Navy vessels from now on
Maybe a dumb question but why does a nuclear sub need to refuel?
If the U.S. Navy vessel in question was a nuclear-powered submarine, such as a Virginia-class submarine mentioned in some reports, it wouldn’t need nuclear fuel (e.g., enriched uranium) from a private company like Haltbakk Bunkers. Nuclear submarines have their reactors refueled only every 10-30 years, depending on the design, and this is done at specialized military facilities in the U.S., not during routine port calls in places like Norway. So, the fuel refused wouldn’t be for the submarine’s propulsion system.
Instead, the fuel needed would be for auxiliary systems—specifically, marine diesel fuel like NATO F-76 or marine gas oil (MGO). Nuclear submarines carry diesel generators as backups to provide emergency power if the reactor is shut down or to supplement electrical needs for onboard systems (e.g., lighting, electronics, or battery charging) while docked. These generators require conventional marine distillate fuel, which is exactly the type of product a bunker fuel supplier like Haltbakk Bunkers would provide during a port call. A Virginia-class sub, for instance, might use a few thousand liters of diesel for such purposes during a stop, depending on the duration and operational demands. Haltbakk’s refusal to supply "a single liter" of fuel would thus affect these auxiliary diesel needs, not the nuclear propulsion. While inconvenient, the sub could likely operate on existing fuel reserves for a short port visit or refuel via alternative suppliers, as ensured by Norway’s government, making the practical impact more logistical than critical.
Thank you!
👍👌🙏🏻
Diesel backuup generators, supposedly.
Not sure under what circumstances they run them. Sounds like it's somewhat routine if they need fueling outside the US.
Maybe some countries require the reactors be shut down on nuclear-powered vessels when they come in for ports of call? Or maybe they throttle down the reactors for drills often?
Be nice if we had some former Dolphins on the board who could shed light on this.
Diesel backup. Reactors need maintenance as well. JUST LIKE WINDMILLS, THAT USE THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF OIL TO COOL THE GENERATOR. NOT SO GREEN NOW, NEVER WAS.
Thanks for the clarification.
Either way, it's just "shitty" from an optics perspective, because unless people see Norway's official rebuttal AND realize it was a private company and NOT Norway govt directly, they're left to think that it was the Norwegian govt piling on, just like the recent UK/Euro "we stand with Zelenski" narrative...
👍😎
This news is a comfort. Christian Nations should not be against one another.
It was a private company...
A private Norwegian company, Haltbakk Bunkers, reportedly refused to refuel U.S. Navy vessels in Norway. This decision was made public around March 1, 2025, following a controversial meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Haltbakk Bunkers, a significant marine fuel supplier in Norway, cited ethical concerns and dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, specifically referencing the White House event as a motivating factor. The company announced it would not supply "a single liter" of fuel to U.S. military forces docking in Norwegian ports until Trump is no longer in office, urging other European suppliers to follow suit.
However, the Norwegian government, through Defence Minister Tore Sandvik, clarified on March 2, 2025, that this was a private company's decision and not reflective of official policy. Sandvik emphasized that Norway, a NATO member, would continue to provide fuel and support to U.S. Navy ships, ensuring no disruption to allied operations. While some reports suggest this refusal impacted specific vessels, like a Virginia-class submarine, the broader operational impact appears limited as the U.S. Navy can refuel through other suppliers or locations in Norway. The company's move is largely seen as symbolic, given its estimated supply of about three million liters of fuel to U.S. forces in 2024, often through intermediary suppliers rather than direct NATO contracts.
Dig into the origins and personnel of Haltbakk Bunkers. I predict some ties to Nazi Germany will be found.
Anybody know WHO was the first to announce the false story about Norway fuel???
That'd be interesting to know...
Maybe ask Grok?