Abstract
As North Sea petroleum moves towards the end of its lifespan, the UK taxpayer is to spend some £25 billion 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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Specialist publication | The Conversation |
| Publisher | The Conversation UK |
| Publication status | Published - 11 Apr 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Tom Baxter does occasional oil and gas consultancy work for Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants. They would not stand to benefit in any way if the UK changed its policy on North Sea decommissioning.Keywords
- Scotland
- Oil and gas
- North Sea oil
- North Sea
- Offshore decommissioning
