After the earthquake of Zeerijp in 2018, with a magnitude of 3.4, one of the strongest in the region, the State Supervision of Mines (SodM) came up with advice to reduce gas extraction as quickly as possible. But for the first time, the regulator wrote that it expected that gas extraction would have to be reduced to zero in the future, because only then would it be safe in Groningen. „That was a game changerSandor Gaastra, top official of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate, told the parliamentary inquiry committee in The Hague on Wednesday.
“For the first time it was said with authority: you’d better go to zero,” said Gaastra. Shortly after that advice, he sat down with his minister, Eric Wiebes (VVD), to calculate scenarios for an end to gas extraction in Groningen. “We had to do it first and foremost because of the safety of the Groningers.”
A few months later, on March 29, 2018, the cabinet decided to stop gas extraction in Groningen before 2030. But the security argument was not enough to arrive at that decision in the Council of Ministers. “The minister was looking for arguments to convince his colleagues,” said Gaastra. For many other ministries, stopping gas extraction had ‘financial complications’. That is why the minister “also had to have a story about the finances” and the Ministry of Economic Affairs came up with calculations about the reduction in damage and reinforcement costs in a closed Groningen gas field.
So in order to gain political support, it was important to show the financial savings that turning off the gas tap for the reinforcement operation resulted in, asked chairman Tom van der Lee (GroenLinks). “Yes,” Gaastra replied.
Government ‘not so tried and tested’
In his years as a top official at EZK on the Groningen file (2016 – 2022), Gaastra often had to negotiate with NAM and its parent companies Shell and ExxonMobil. Negotiation is a daily occurrence for the oil companies. They do that every day and every hour,” said Gaastra. “That is not the case for the State.” According to him, the State “always had a backlog of experience” in the negotiations with the oil companies. It was “a disadvantage not to be so tried and tested”, according to Gaastra.
Nevertheless, the State has one important trump card in negotiations with commercial companies, Gaastra noted. “The government can make a unilateral decision, for example by changing the law. That is an instrument that you can use as a threat if negotiations threaten to stall.”
This article is also part of our live blog: Top official Finance: don’t make a fuss about the costs of damage and strengthen
#Top #official #EZK #Financial #arguments #needed #stop #gas #extraction