Why is the UK government spending £25bn dismantling oil platforms?

An oil rig, taking up space. Image: Gary Bembridge/Wikimedia Commons.

As North Sea petroleum moves towards the end of its lifespan, the UK taxpayer is to spend some £25 billion in the next five years to pay nearly half the cost of removing the offshore infrastructure.

This might sound like the right thing to do, but as I have argued before, it is probably not the best use of public money. The environmental benefits of decommissioning are questionable. If we instead spent the money on, say, building more renewable energy, it would create jobs for longer and you would generate carbon-free power for your trouble. Others might not share this view – my point is it’s a debate we’re not having.

I have repeatedly asked the relevant government agencies to outline the motivations that support the current plans. They have never given me straight answers. My latest move has been to submit a request for information to the government’s Department for business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.

Environmental bluster

In my request, I once again expressed my concerns about value for money. I said my previous requests had been met with a stock response that offshore operators have to decommission installations at the end of a field’s economic life, and that in accordance with UK and international obligations this has to be safe, efficient and cost-effective to the taxpayer while minimising the risk to the environment and other users of the sea.

This, I told them, says nothing about the reasons behind the policy – neither the primary environmental motivation nor anything to do with society or economics. I asked for the environmental basis underpinning the policy.

I received a reply from the director of decommissioning at the department. It says:

The UK’s international obligations on decommissioning are governed principally by the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (the OSPAR convention) and in particular decision 98/3 on the disposal of disused offshore installations.

The UK is indeed one of 15 parties to the convention, all of them countries in western Europe. Paragraph 2 of decision 98/3 stipulates that disused offshore installations can’t be dumped or left “wholly or partly in place” at sea.

The competent authority can allow exceptions, but it’s quite narrow – covering certain concrete infrastructure; the base of large steel structures; and some other installations that are very damaged. It leaves little scope for what I am suggesting.

The response says that:

We seek to achieve effective and balanced decommissioning solutions which are consistent with international obligations and have a proper regard for safety, the environment, other legitimate uses of the sea, economic and social considerations as well as technical feasibility …

[The decommissioning process] entails an assessment of the environmental impact [by the operator, and] … it is one of the factors that influences the final decision [by them on whether to go ahead] … Ultimately if leaving the infrastructure in place would not have a significant detrimental effect on the environment then an operator may make a case to decommission in-situ.

None of this says anything about overriding environmental benefits in removing these structures. Decision 98/3 is silent, and none of the government reports I have read address them either.

As for the operator’s environmental impact assessment, it is not their job to consider the taxpayer’s options. It is for the government, and it’s not happening.

How does this therefore amount to the government achieving a balanced solution? Where is the evidence that the legislation is providing a positive outcome? If it can’t be provided then the legislation is not appropriate and should be challenged – however well intentioned it may be.

The response also informs me that a joint industry project called INSITE is aiming to “enhance scientific understanding of the effect of man-made structures on the North Sea and thus support decision-making [by operators]”.

I am familiar with INSITE and have met with the project manager and discussed the programme. INSITE is undertaking some first-class science but its very existence and government funding only serves to demonstrate the lack of evidence that supports removal.

The money question

The department’s response also addresses the cost to the taxpayer, which is being spent in the form of tax relief for operators who are decommissioning. It says:

North Sea operators have paid over £330bn of tax since the 1970s at tax rates significantly higher than onshore companies, therefore allowing tax relief on decommissioning ensures a fair tax system that gives companies good incentives to maximise economic recovery.

What is that justifying or explaining? Because oil and gas companies have paid due taxes on eye-watering profits in the past, the government can use taxpayers’ money for future decommissioning costs?

The response refers to these as an “unavoidable cost for industry”. Well plugging and abandonment is unavoidable, but asset removal? Witness the rigs to reefs programme in the US.


The response says the government and industry are working on reducing decommissioning costs by 35 per cent. But why spend the money in the first place? If a large proportion of costs can be removed, surely that would be a better incentive to maximise petroleum recovery?

The UK, it concludes, remains committed to OSPAR and decision 98/3 and “there are no proposals to change the decommissioning process in operation”. The taxpayer, in other words, will be running up this huge bill to follow legislation without anyone having to demonstrate the case for it.

It is time that decommissioning policy be hastily re-examined in the UK. The government needs to commission a full evidence-based report into the environmental, social and economic benefits, comparing them to other options such as building more green energy stations and even spending the money on things like health or education.

The ConversationIf I am proven right about which will come out on top, the UK should renegotiate terms with OSPAR. Blindly going ahead with this policy is wrong. It is time to think again.

Tom Baxter, Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering, University of Aberdeen.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

How the rise of anti-crime politics caused lasting harm to Black Americans

"I see an awareness that has developed in the Black community in the last 10 years or so about how deeply racist the criminal justice system has become," James Forman Jr. says. (David McNew/Getty Images)

The police killing of George Floyd, and the protest movement that emerged from it, has reinvigorated a national conversation around reinventing criminal justice policy in the United States.

At the same time, reports that violent crime is rising in many US cities have resurrected talk of the much-disputed “Ferguson effect,” a theory put forward by law enforcement professionals, and some researchers, who argued that police slowdowns in the wake of the first wave of Black Lives Matter protests resulted in elevated rates of violent crime. President Donald Trump is trying to weaponise this narrative, paired with images of federal officers clashing with protesters in the streets of Portland, to wage a 1968-style backlash election campaign.

“People who want to mobilise a lock-them-up style of either policing or prosecution have tried to weaponise those short-term increases,” says James Forman Jr., professor of law at Yale Law School. “Criminologists will say you have to be very, very cautious about short-term movement [in crime statistics]. We don't know whether or not what we're seeing right now [with violent crime increasing] is going to sustain itself. But the fact is, it's here and people are talking about it.”

In 2018, Forman won the Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction for his book Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America. Drawing on his experience as a public defender in Washington, DC, he traced the emergence of anti-crime politics in late 20th century Black communities. Forman showed how newly empowered Black politicians fought for policies they believed would protect and uplift Black Americans, but inadvertently contributed to mass incarceration. 


CityMetric recently caught up with Forman to discuss crime trends, where he sees reason for hope in this moment and how the Black political class’s attitude toward crime and punishment has shifted since the latter part of the 20th century. 

This interview has been edited and condensed. 

There is talk right now about a resurgence of crime and violence in American cities. We saw similar, more localised concerns after the initial 2015 Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. Do you fear this could reinvigorate the kind of politics you describe in your book among segments of the Black community and political class?

I fear that it could be reinvigorated nationally and also in the Black political class. Look at the political conversations that are happening in Atlanta right now, for example, a city that also has seen a short-term uptick in crime as it is a site of a lot of protests about George Floyd and Breonna Taylor on the national level, as well as Rayshard Brooks and Ahmaud Arbery more locally in Georgia.

I think that you can already see in some of the language of the local elected officials this idea that we have to be very careful about pulling back. [They are saying] “while the protesters may make some valid points, we can't risk returning to the ‘80s and ‘90s.” Those decades really traumatised the United States, and particularly traumatised Black communities. There's a deep fear about returning to the levels of the violence that we saw in the crack years.

You write a lot about class divides among Black Americans, where middle income and elite Black people don't suffer as much from extremely punitive policies. They also have closer ties to the politicians who are creating these policies. There are very specific groups of people, even in marginalised communities, whose voices are heard.  As a result of these dynamics, you write about Black politicians fighting for things like mandatory minimum prison sentences or against decriminalising marijuana. Is there still that disconnect between those who suffer the most from criminal justice policies and those who are actually heard in political discourse?  

Let me just say a caveat, that when we talk about class divisions in the Black community it's important to hold two truths in our head at the same time. Bruce Western and others have shown the way in which class, educational status, income can dramatically reduce the likelihood of being hardest hit by the criminal system – namely incarcerated. Middle class and upper middle class Black people get some measure of protection. It's also true at the same time that Black people of all classes are worse off relative to their class counterparts in the white community. 

One area where class is least protective is policing and police stops. The police do not know how many degrees you have. They don't know how much money you have in your bank account. I want to be very clear that in making this point about class, I'm not making the argument that race or racism don't matter in this context. 

In terms of how it plays out now, I see an awareness that has developed in the Black community in the last 10 years or so about how deeply racist the criminal justice system has become. Twenty or 30 years ago they had a consciousness, but there's levels of understanding. Many of the people I write about in the book wanted to promote the interests of the Black community. They weren't motivated by indifference or callousness. When presented with mounting evidence of how awful this system has been in Black lives, they're reconsidering and recalibrating. 

Lots of former elected officials have said to me some version of “I didn't know at the time and I appreciate that you showed us in our full complexity. I appreciate that you showed the pressures we were under. If I had known then what I know now, maybe I would have been less quick to go along with some of these harsh measures.” 

The second thing that has affected the Black political class has been the emerging movements, led by Black people in particular and led by young people. They not only educated leaders, but pressured them and made them understand that there is a political cost. If you're not moved by the moral argument, then you'll be moved by the political argument. You'll be moved by the people protesting outside the office of District Attorney Jackie Lacey in Los Angeles, for example, where Black Lives Matter LA has held, I believe, a year of consecutive protests against a Black district attorney who has had really some of the worst practices.

From what I can tell, she's been pressured by the movement to change some of her positions on important issues like prosecution of low-level drug offenders, for example, and the aggressiveness with which she prosecutes police officers for acts of violence.

What do you make of the calls to defend or even abolish the police?

What I find so compelling about abolition, initially in the prison context and extended to the police as well, is that it shifts the conversation and forces us to go through experiments in which we imagine what it would take to build that world. I think that exercise is very important, because it pushes us further than we are naturally inclined to go. Cultivating a broader imagination is an incredibly important part of this work, because as you know from my book, often it was lack of imagination that caused people to fall back on [punitive policies]. 

That's what caused D.C. Councilmember David Clarke to call the police rather than public health experts when he was overwhelmed with letters about heroin addicts in public space. He was anti-drug war, but he couldn't imagine responding to a call for help with heroin addicts with anything other than police. That's a very common move from even really good and progressive people. 

People who are for defunding, for abolition, are absolutely right about reinvesting that money into alternative structures that support communities. But the reinvestment part doesn't follow naturally from the terms. We might want to come up with a term that captures the new stuff we want to do. I think that's particularly important because one of the reasons Black communities have ended up supporting more police is that Black communities have always wanted their fair share of the resources.

Then, the evidence suggests the United States has too many police officers doing prophylactic, preventative, or stop-and-frisk style policing. The style of policing that leads to district level harassment, pulling people over for no reason. But we have too little investment in the parts of police departments that investigate unsolved crimes. I'm talking about the investigator or the detective who comes to your house after there's been a robbery, an assault, a rape, or homicide. 

As compared to European countries, in the United States we actually underinvest in those parts of our police departments. Jill Leovy’s book Ghettoside shows this in dramatic detail. She describes an LAPD that's stopping and frisking Black drivers wantonly and yet the homicide detectives are still relying on a fax machine and the fax machine is broken. They have to go with their own money to Staples to buy a printer. Meanwhile, other aspects of the department are kitted out in this ridiculous riot gear that makes them look like they're in Fallujah. 

That under investment is particularly damaging to Black communities because we're disproportionately victimised by crime. Because of racism and this allocation of resources, the police are less likely to respond in Black communities. The kids I used to work with in the charter schools in DC, we talk about no snitching, but one of the reasons they would never call the police after they'd been victimised by crime is they would say, “They're not even going to come. You're wasting time.” 

I did a Q&A with Jill Leovy too and her argument is one I've struggled to articulate in our present moment. She argues the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence in low-income Black neighbourhoods, because investigations of violence are deemphasised and crime victims or their loved ones often take retribution into their own hands.  But right now, establishing or preserving the state's monopoly on violence isn't an appealing talking point. 

Yes, this is another thing nobody's talking about. Whatever we're going to do instead of the police has to be accountable to the public. The best, most direct way to have accountability is to have the individuals be public employees. As long as we have 300 million guns in this country at least some of those state employees are going to themselves be armed. It's unreasonable to ask them to do the job without it. Not as many need to be armed as are armed now, but some of them need to be. But they can't be hiding behind union contracts or civil service protections which make it impossible to remove even the worst performing, most abusive officers. 

We can not call them police if we want to. That's semantic, but maybe symbolism matters. But those people have to be state employees. They can work with community-based nonprofits, but there are also communities that don't have as robust of a nonprofit network, and they deserve protection too. These [community] groups have to be accountable to the state and, when they don't exist, the state has to be there. 

Progressives get all the points I just made when it's applied to education. The notion that things be public and accountable to the state is understood when it comes to schools. It's exactly why so many people on the left are opposed to charter schools, because they say they don't have public accountability. They want these things to be a state function. But this point about the difficulty in removing this entirely from the hands of the state is, I think, one that liberals and progressives understand from other contexts.

Jake Blumgart is a staff writer at CityMetric.