stopping the extraction of gas was inevitable, safety was paramount

• 

  Reinalda Start

  research editor

• 

  Helen Ekker

  Climate and Energy editor

With the decision to stop gas extraction in Groningen, there was no reason to fear a gas shortage. But there was not a war as expected in Ukraine, former minister Wiebes told the parliamentary commission of inquiry on gas extraction in Groningen. According to him, in 2018 there was no choice but to end the mining. “There was no alternative”.

According to Wiebes, both the safety of Groningers and the security of supply for consumers have been considered.

For Groninger’s safety, the gas extraction had to stop. But Wiebes also had to ensure security of supply. “For every cubic meter of gas we were about to extract less, there had to be an alternative. For every billion cubic meters less, we had to replace it, either by building a nitrogen plant or by limiting the export of gas.”

At the time, Mr. Blok of Foreign Affairs urged Wiebes to do a new geopolitical analysis of international gas sources. Even then there were concerns about dependence on Russia. But according to Wiebes, the analysis showed that there were sufficient sources of gas, “we were not counting on a war then”.

The loss of gas revenues played no role in the decision to stop gas extraction in Groningen, Wiebes said. The costs of the extensive strengthening operation underway in the province also played no role in the decision. “It was clear to everyone that there were serious consequences for the state treasury.”

It was previously argued at hearings that stopping gas extraction would play a role for the government as well, which would mean that far fewer homes would have to be reinforced for far less money. But Wiebes denies that that was the reason. “Security was the goal, home strengthening was the means,” Wiebes said. And that security could only be achieved by stopping the extraction of the gas.

According to Wiebes, there is still not a good idea of ​​the number of houses that need to be reinforced and how much it will cost.

Wiebel told him emotionally about a very old woman who showed him her guest room at home with cracks. He said she would stay there herself when her daughter came to visit her, because she would rather go under the rubble of herself rather than let her daughter take that risk.

Wiebes contradicted that the reinforcement operation was stopped, which was tested in Groningen. “Anyone who looks at the numbers will see that the numbers have doubled from the previous year. The estimates may have been higher, but it has been permanently.”

He said he wanted to prevent new house groups from being added all the time. That was why he had “pressed the pause button”, awaiting the opinion of the Mining Council and the experts. “My thought was: we can keep adding houses forever, knowing that reinforcements won’t arrive anytime soon. In the short term it might be a good approach, but in the long term you are a useless driver.”

Wiebes also told the committee that he did not speak to a happy resident that his home was demolished. “On the contrary, they wanted me to stop it. It was different from what the drivers told me,” Wiebes said.

According to him, the wishes of the regional administrators were one of the main causes of the delay in the strengthening operation. They wanted to combine the strengthening of the houses with the renewal of the neighborhood. Very understandable in itself, Wiebes said. “But the first priority for me was to make the houses safe and also the confidence of the residents.”