Parliamentary inquiry natural gas extraction Groningen
On February 9, 2021, the parliamentary inquiry committee natural gas extraction Groningen (parlementaire enquete commissie aardgaswinning Groningen, PEAG) was installed. A parliamentary inquiry is the most serious tool which the House of Representatives can employ to investigate the actions of the government and other parties. The parliamentary inquiry committee investigates the decision-making processes regarding gas extraction in Groningen and its consequences for the residents of Groningen, from the discovery of natural gas in the province in 1959, until the present day. The earthquakes, compensation of damages and the reinforcement operation will play an important role in the investigation. The main purpose of the parliamentary inquiry is to establish the truth: how were crucial decisions made regarding gas extraction and what interests played a role in the decision-making processes? Insight into these considerations can subsequently serve as input for judgements about the decision making and for drawing lessons for the future.
The investigation and the results of the parliamentary inquiry into natural gas extraction in Groningen will play an important role in the gas case, especially when the public hearings start in late June 2022. On this page we list the most important facts about the parliamentary inquiry into natural gas extraction in Groningen to make them accessible for a wider audience. Among other sources, we draw on
available policy documents, parliamentary papers and websites, and refer to them for further information.*
Impact on the residents of Groningen
Will the parliamentary inquiry have consequences for the residents of Groningen? In a debate of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Economic Affairs and Climate (vaste Kamercommissie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat) on June 2, 2022, state secretary Vijlbrief addressed this question. In response to questions from members of the Lower House, the state secretary pledged to consider the consequences of the inquiry for residents. For example, and if necessary, additional psychological help can be offered to residents.
In February 2021, we organized a webinar on the parliamentary inquiry in collaboration with Sustainable Society. Among other things, this webinar considered the question of the impact of the parliamentary inquiry on residents. In this webinar, Prof. Dr. Charles Vlek (emeritus professor of environmental psychology and decision science), Prof. Dr. Dirk Jan Wolffram (professor of the history of government and politics in the modern era) and Prof. Dr. Herman Bröring (professor of administrative law) gave their views on the decision-making process in the gas extraction case and on the parliamentary inquiry. You can find a summary and recording of the webinar on our website.
* Please note that most of the sources are only available in Dutch.
1
Conclusions
The concerns of Groningers were structurally ignored in gas extraction. That is the main conclusion of the parliamentary committee of inquiry into natural gas extraction Groningen after carrying out fact and document research, 124 closed preliminary interviews, working visits to the earthquake area and 68 public hearings.
Where did things go wrong? The committee answers that question using ten conclusions. Here are the ten conclusions, including a brief explanation based on the committee's report (see House of Representatives, pp. 40-79):
1. An accumulation of underestimates has been disastrous for the Groningers: the seriousness of the problems in Groningen has been structurally underestimated. For example, the connection between gas production and the earthquakes has long been denied, the magnitude of the earthquakes and the harmful effects systematically underestimated, and the size and complexity of the reinforcement operation has also been systematically over-optimistic.
2. Finance was dominant in decisions about gas production. Other interests, such as the safety and health of citizens, were not sufficiently considered in the decision-making process. Even in the decision to stop gas production, financial arguments played a major role.
3. For a long time, it was said that security of supply did not allow gas production to be reduced. Eventually it turned out that there were many alternatives to guarantee security of supply in the event of lower extraction from the Groningen field. The conclusion: security of supply functioned as a smokescreen.
4. The State's financial interest has often weighed more heavily in decision-making than the precautionary principle regarding safety. The discussion about safe extraction only arose after the Huizinge quake in 2012. Safety for local residents was then not included in the Mining Act until 2017. Insecurity in Groningen lasted unacceptably long.
5. The oil companies benefit from role confusion at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. At times there were conflicting interests within the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZK), partly because some officials also held independent positions within the gas building and/or were involved in energy policy. For a long time, EZK had insufficient attention for interests other than financial ones.
6. At the start of the cooperation in the gas building, agreements were made that had a great influence on how the gas extraction case developed. The rigid and closed gas building had little regard for the interests of the outside world. The focus was on the common interests of parties in the gas building. There was no room for the interests of Groningers, and the role of the regulator was also complicated by the "culture of closedness and informal consultation" (p. 62).
7. Poor damage settlement brings harm to the Groningers. In addition to physical damage, unclear and lengthy damage settlement processes also cause uncertainty and damage to the health of residents. The expectation of State Supervision of Mines is that, even with the closure of the Groningen field, earthquakes will continue to occur for decades and thus damage will also occur. Proper damage control will therefore remain important in the future.
8. Not only the approach to damage, but also that of reinforcement has done a lot of damage in Groningen. The reinforcement operation was badly underestimated at the beginning. There have been many policy changes due to changing extraction levels and knowledge developments. As a result, residents live in prolonged uncertainty about the safety of their homes and undesirable disparities occur. This swerving reinforcement approach is crippling for affected Groningers.
9. The committee writes that "the effects of gas production [...] on the region go beyond building damage to individual properties" (p. 74). By this it refers to, among other things, the dislocation of local communities, the business climate that is put under pressure, and the threat to the appearance of villages and neighborhoods due to reinforcement. Regional administrators have focused primarily on financial compensation, but these packages do not necessarily make a difference for those affected. Regional administrators have been unable to truly represent the interests of Groningers.
10. Knowledge development about the Groningen field has been deliberately limited. Right from the early years, there was no transparent communication about the knowledge available (or not). Only around the 1990s does knowledge development slowly increase, although the research is not very systematic. Large-scale research is not set up until 50 years after the start of gas production. The committee concludes, "the closed stronghold [of the mining sector], the knowledge monopoly of NAM, and the limited space for dissenting voices led to the fact that the prevailing research paradigm was allowed to persist until 2012 [... and that] for too long there was a wicked lack of ambition to increase expertise [on the consequences of gas extraction]." (p. 79).
2
Recommendations
“[T]o ensure that the priority is where it belongs: Groningers over gas" (Parliamentary Inquiry Committee on Natural Gas Production Groningen, p. 84), the committee also makes 11 recommendations.
1. Make damage control more lenient, easier and more humane for residents
2. Give residents clarity about reinforcements sooner
3. Offer the region prospects for the future
4. Make sure there is enough money for all future costs
5. Strengthen the role of the regulator
6. Increase the role of public interest within departments
7. Strengthen the position of the House of Representatives
8. Give better shape to future public-private partnerships
9. Improve knowledge development about the subsurface
10. Focus on the spatial planning of the subsurface
11. In conclusion: invitation to the Groningers
3
What is a parliamentary inquiry?
If the House of Representatives wants to conduct its own investigation to assess government policies, the House can set up a temporary committee to conduct a parliamentary inquiry. This procedure is stipulated in the Parliamentary Inquiry Act of 2008 (Pwe, 2008). A parliamentary inquiry is the most serious investigative tool that the House of Representatives can use. The inquiry is conducted by a temporary committee of members of the House of Representatives: a parliamentary inquiry committee. Over the past thirty years, 10 parliamentary inquiries have taken place, including the investigations into the Bijlmermeer air disaster (1998-1999), the fall of the Srebrenica enclave (2002-2003), and most recently, the investigation into the Fyra debacle (2013).
The inquiry into the Childcare Allowance was a parliamentary interrogation. A parliamentary interrogation is a relatively new (and for the time being temporary) instrument of investigation for the House of Representatives. A parliamentary interrogation is of shorter duration than a parliamentary inquiry and focuses mainly on the (public) oral questioning of those involved.
One of the most well-known methods of investigation of a parliamentary inquiry is the public examination of witnesses and experts. All witnesses and experts summoned by the committee are legally required to cooperate with the investigation. In addition, they are under oath during the public hearings.
4
Parliamentary inquiry natural gas extraction groningen
On March 5, 2019, the House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of a motion by House of Representatives member Tom van der Lee (Groenlinks) to establish a parliamentary inquiry into natural gas extraction in Groningen.
On September 2, 2020, the House of Representatives established the temporary committee on natural gas extraction in Groningen to conduct exploratory research and come up with a research design for the Committee of Inquiry. This was proposed by the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Economic Affairs and Climate. The temporary committee completed its task in January 2021. It presented the research proposal to the House of Representatives on February 4, 2021.
The Parliamentary Inquiry Committee was established on February 9, 2021. A chairman, Tom van der Lee (Groenlinks), and a vice-chairman, Judith Tielen (VVD), were elected. On February 11, the committee started its work.
In order to prevent the parliamentary inquiry from delaying the compensation of damages or the reinforcement operation, the start of the parliamentary inquiry was linked to the achievement of goals in both of these processes: the parliamentary inquiry committee would not start its assignment until the processes of damage compensations and reinforcement had been properly regulated by law and had got off to a good start. However, the intended amendment of the Temporary Act Groningen, which should provide the legal anchoring of the reinforcement, has still not been adopted by the Senate and has therefore not yet entered into force. Nevertheless, the parliamentary inquiry started in 2021.
2.1 Composition of the committee
The parliamentary inquiry committee is appointed by the House of Representatives and consists of members of the House of Representatives.
The temporary committee that worked on the research proposal for the parliamentary inquiry from September 2020 to January 2021 consisted of 8 members:
Tom van der Lee (GroenLinks, chair), Stieneke van der Graaf (ChristenUnie, vice-chair), Dennis Wiersma (VVD), Roy van Aalst (PVV), Anne Kuik (CDA), Tjeerd de Groot (D66), Peter Kwint (SP) and Kirsten van den Hul (PvdA).
The composition of the current parliamentary inquiry committee differs from that of the temporary committee. This is influenced by, among other things, the 2021 elections and shifts in function or portfolio of Members of Parliament. The current parliamentary inquiry committee consists of 7 members:
Tom van der Lee (Groenlinks, chair), Judith Tielen (VVD, vice-chair), Hülya Kat (D66), Anne Kuik (CDA), Barbara Kathmann (PvdA), Peter Kwint (SP) and Stieneke de Graaf (ChristenUnie).
As Anne Kuik is on leave until 22 August 2022, she is replaced by Evert Jan Slootweg.
In addition to the committee members, a clerk is appointed, mr. M. Israel, who functions as the contact person of the committee and streamlines and signs official documents produced by the committee. A civil research staff is also established to support the committee in its research tasks. Finally, an external sounding board group has also been established to advise the committee on the methods, execution, and results of the inquiry.
5
Question, demarcation and purpose
The central issue of the parliamentary inquiry can be broken down into two main questions:
- How did decision-making on natural gas extraction in Groningen, damage control and reinforcement proceed at crucial moments?
- What effects did this have, what interests and considerations played a role and how did decision-making deal with the interests of the people of Groningen?
The research period covers a very large time span: from the discovery of natural gas in 1959 in Slochteren until the present.
3.1 Research questions and period
It is certain that both the question and the research period are extensive. Regarding the question, the research is somewhat delineated by focusing on crucial decisions. The research period can be divided into 3 periods: the period of "progressive gas extraction" (1959-1986), the period of ground subsidence and quakes (1986-2012) and the period "after the Huizinge earthquake" (2012-present) (see Figure 1). This is an exceptionally long survey period: no parliamentary survey in the past thirty years covered such a large time frame.
Figure 1: The separation in research periods (source: research proposal PEAG)
In the research proposal, the division into time periods leads to some questions that cover the entire period. These questions focus on the decision-making processes, the different actors involved, the roles these actors had and the information they had at their disposal:
-
Broadly speaking, what happened during the period 1959-2021 with regard to natural gas extraction in Groningen and the associated risks? What are milestones and defining moments in the history of natural gas extraction in Groningen and why? What knowledge was available for whom at what time?
-
How does the ‘Gas Edifice’ function? (The construction between NAM, Shell and the state on the distribution of benefits and burdens in gas extraction.) Which parties are involved in the Gas Edifice and what interests and considerations play a role? What decisions have been taken? What agreements have been made and how have they changed over time?
-
What decisions did the government take about natural gas extraction in Groningen? How did these decisions come about, how was the House of Representatives informed and at what times did the House of Representatives have influence on the decision-making process?
-
What were the roles of the government, the House of representatives, private parties, local authorities and local actors in the decision-making process? What were the consequences of their actions for the residents of Groningen? In what way were the residents of Groningen involved in the decision-making processes, what role did they play and how were their interests taken into account?
-
What lessons can be drawn from the analysis of Groningen's natural gas extraction?
(source: research proposal PEAG) (Translation Knowledge Platform)
In addition, the research proposal includes a number of sub-questions for each period that focus on the events within a particular period. These include questions about the establishment of the Gas Edifice; decisions about studies into earthquakes and subsidence when the first earthquakes occurred; considerations that played a role in the reduction of gas extraction; and the establishment of various administrative agreements about damage compensation and reinforcement. An overview of all the questions can be found in the research proposal and here on our own page.
3.2 Purpose
The purpose of the parliamentary inquiry into natural gas extraction in Groningen has been formulated as follows:
The purpose of the investigation is to establish the truth and to obtain explanatory insight into the decision-making process regarding natural gas extraction, damage control and reinforcement in Groningen. This will allow for the formation of an opinion about the entire period and to draw lessons, thus contributing to the future prospects for Groningen and the development of future policy. (source: research proposal PEAG) (Translation Knowledge Platform)
Restoring the trust of the residents of Groningen in the government was an important motivation for the initiators of the parliamentary inquiry. In the research proposal, the temporary committee therefore pays attention to the restoration of trust. But, the committee states that the parliamentary inquiry alone will not be sufficient for the restoration of the trust of residents, more is needed for that. Therefore, while the temporary committee expresses the hope that finding the truth will contribute to acknowledgement, it has not explicitly mentioned the restoration of trust as an objective.
6
Method and schedule
The research for the parliamentary inquiry into natural gas extraction in Groningen began with the temporary committee's exploratory investigation. To draw up the research design, the committee studied relevant literature and previous (parliamentary) investigations. On December 4, 2020, the temporary committee paid a working visit to Groningen to talk with affected individuals and stakeholders. The committee also had several technical briefings and discussions about the gas extraction case and research methods: with stakeholders from Groningen; with those involved in previous parliamentary inquiries; and with scientists and researchers. The temporary committee also used a reflection group with external experts to co-discuss a draft of the research proposal in one meeting. A complete list of all persons the temporary committee spoke with is included in the appendix of the research proposal.
With the establishment of the parliamentary inquiry committee in February 2021, the investigation began, following the format proposed by the temporary committee. The investigation has several phases ( see Figure 2).
1. The parliamentary inquiry began with document research in February 2021. For this, the committee requested documents from the parties involved. These were not only the governments and NAM involved, but also civil society organizations. The Groninger Gasberaad, for example, had a considerable job of supplying all the documentation it had accumulated over the past few years. The committee was working on the file investigation until December 2021.
2. From January through May 2022, there were closed preliminary interviews with stakeholders. The preliminary interviews built on the document research. The preliminary interviews gave the committee the opportunity to review insights from the document research and to expand on them.
The private preliminary interviews were a preparation for the public hearings. These hearings helped the inquiry committee to identify which decisions, considerations or moments particularly deserved attention during these hearings. During a closed preliminary interview, the witness or expert is not under oath.
3. Public hearings took place from late June through October 2022. During the public hearings, the inquiry committee questions experts and witnesses under oath. Witnesses and experts can be criminally prosecuted for perjury if they do not tell the truth. Those summoned for public questioning are required to cooperate.
The public hearings are the most well-known part of the parliamentary inquiry. The hearings can be followed live. They are often widely reported in the press. Witnesses and experts are often questioned by the press after the questioning.
4. As of November 2022, the inquiry committee expected to work on drafting the final report. The final report includes all the information gathered from the file research and interrogations.
5. After presenting the final report to the House of Representatives, a debate with the House of Representatives took place. The House of Representatives was able to ask the committee (written) questions and engaged in debate with the committee.
Figure 2: Schedule for the parliamentary inquiry (source: PEAG)
7
Sources
The text contains hyperlinks to the webpages where relevant information can be found. In addition, we list some important sources below.
'Groningers over gas' report.
Lower House of the States General (2023). Report parliamentary committee of inquiry on natural gas extraction Groningen: Groningers over gas. Available online via [Last accessed July 12, 2023].
Website of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee
Tweede Kamer (geen datum) Parlementaire enquêtecommissie aardgaswinning Groningen. Available online at <https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerleden_en_commissies/commissies/peag> [Last accessed 9 June 2022].
Research proposal of the temporary committee
Tijdelijk commissie aardgaswinning Groningen (2021) Onderzoeksvoorstel parlementaire enquête aardgaswinning Groningen. Available online at <https://www.tweedekamer.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/onderzoeksvoorstel_voor_een_parlementaire_enquete_over_de_aardgaswinning_in_groningen.pdf> [Last accessed 9 June 2022]
Motion by Van der Lee
Tweede Kamer (5 maart 2019) Gewijzigde motie van het lid Van der Lee c.s over parlementaire enquête inzake de gaswinning in Groningen, Kamerstuk 33529-559. Available online at https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2019Z04109&did=2019D08692 [Last accessed 9 June 2022].