- many renewable natural resources degraded, some irrevocably; pollution;
- communities and their relationship with the environment dislocated; and
- a lot of wasting assets (roads, bridges, buildings, services) without an economy to maintain them.
The economic costs might be deemed acceptable if oil revenue was, on the whole, remaining in the oil belt to create a viable agricultural and industrial economy: it is not. The costs might be deemed acceptable if the oil revenue was being invested outside to produce an income in the future: it is not.
If one assumes that the environmental problems that have been attributed to the oil industry are exaggerated, then the oil industry might justifiably say that it pays its taxes and thus it is up to the government, as the representatives of the local people, to use those taxes wisely. The industry could go on to say that if the tax revenue is not used wisely then the resultant local discontent is the responsibility of the government not of the oil industry.
Nonetheless, in the absence of government initiatives, it is in the financial interests of the oil industry to combat local discontent because demonstrations, strikes and civil disorder, incur three high costs to the oil industry that share-holders might reasonably question: damage to capital assets; down time; and lost production.
