The entanglement between the oil companies Shell and ExxonMobil and the Dutch government over gas extraction in Groningen turns out to be even greater than expected. This can be read in hitherto confidential minutes of the so-called gas building, which are in the hands of the NOS.
The gas building is a collaboration between the national government, Shell and ExxonMobil in the extraction and sale of natural gas. NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij), owned by Shell and Exxon, is responsible for the actual extraction of natural gas. Not only did top officials and the oil companies constantly coordinate their external communication, but both sides also tried to prevent the gas tap from closing.
In the minutes it can be read that not only representatives of the NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij), Shell and ExxonMobil had great difficulty ten years ago in responding quickly to new insights about earthquakes in Groningen. This also applied to senior officials of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. They did not immediately take advice about the growing insecurity caused by earthquakes seriously.
Shocking advice regulator
Ten years ago, on August 16, 2012, the heaviest earthquake to date in Groningen took place near Huizinge. It was the reason for the State Supervision of Mines (SodM) to come up with a recommendation that shook the gas building to its foundations.
The regulator found that earlier estimates about future earthquakes due to gas extraction were no longer correct. The earthquakes could become much more powerful, possibly resulting in fatalities. The advice of the then Inspector General Jan de Jong was to reduce gas extraction as quickly as possible.
Questions about the advice
What is striking in the minutes is that the government officials in the gas building also had difficulty with the position of the SodM. Top officials from EZ are always present at the meetings, such as Director-General Mark Dierikx. But also director Bart van de Leemput of NAM, Shell CEO Dick Benschop, director ExxonMobil-Benelux Joost van Roost and Stan Dessens of Energie Beheer Nederland.
They were all important players in the gas building because of their position. They agreed on how much gas could be extracted and when the Minister of Economic Affairs was informed. For example, it appears that top official Dierikx chose not to inform the minister about the latest information from the SodM for a while. There would still be too many questions about that.
Other expert
SodM constantly insisted on a better risk analysis of earthquakes by NAM, even with lower gas production. NAM did not make those calculations and was not forced to do so by the partnership. On the contrary, it was suggested to hire another security expert: Professor Ira Helsloot. It came with less alarming predictions than the SodM. That clearly suited the members of the partnership better.
It can also be read that options are being sought within the top of the ministry to sideline the State Supervision of Mines. “Mr Dierikx summarizes that he will contact the KNMI, that he will ask State Supervision whether it will produce a report, and that NAM will briefly indicate in a timeline what it will do and when decisions can be made. The latter is important as a counterbalance to any reporting by State Supervision”
High disagreement
The difference of opinion between NAM and SodM is so high that at a certain point, in January 2013, it is no longer possible to discuss this, according to the minutes: “The chairman (Exxon CEO Van Roost, ed.) In view of the tensions discussed between NAM and Staatstoezicht, there are still possibilities for further dialogue. The director (Van de Leemput, ed.) says he sees no more possibilities at the moment.”
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Economic Affairs embraces the conclusions of Ira Helsloot. “The ministry is trying to move State Supervision in the direction of Professor Helsloot’s vision,” the documents say.
Parliamentary inquiry
After the warning from the State Supervision of Mines to reduce gas production as quickly as possible, gas production in the following year, 2013, will not go down, but rather up. Something that led to great anger in Groningen. Many people in Groningen hope that the coming parliamentary inquiry will find out exactly what happened in that year.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs says it does not want to respond substantively, so as not to get in the way of the parliamentary committee of inquiry.
–
