> destroying them doesn't do anything for safety or the environment.
This is correct because cement is not an adequate plug for well decomissioning. Cement cracks and erodes due to groundwater aggressivity, heat stress and other stresses. A better alternative would be expansive clays like bentonite but a far more costlier exercise.
This was done for mostly ideological reasons, "green transition" and such. The Dutch economy was dependent on natural gas sales for funding parts of the welfare state. They became a net importer of natural gas and then Ukraine and Iran made the gas prices spike. So the Dutch government is now struggling to fill the natural gas store for household heating and cooking applications for the coming winter season, while also incurring these high costs. The impact hasn't fully played out or understood.
I agree with the ideological part of it. But the Dutch economy or governement was perhaps “dependant” on the revenues in the 80s (peak at >15% of gov exp), but in recent years it was more like 1%. The strategic concern is not primarily a financial concern.
I generally don’t believe in conspiracies, but not filling the strategic reserves for next winter (each year after the energy shock of a few years ago, they fill the gas storage less) looks like a way to scare the populace into making the electric transition via a government made supply shock.
As a Dutch person I can confirm this article is:
1) Roughly correct chronologically.
2) COMPLETELY devoid of the actual political reasons behind this being done.
If the local population saw more of the economic benefits, was taken more seriously when they complained about earth quake risk, and was compensated more readily when the earth quakes resulted in actual damage, then maybe they would have been more willing to allow the gas fields to exist as a strategic reserve.
As it stands the local population has little more to show for it than demolished homes and damaged monuments and having an economic disease named after them.
Didn't the decisions of past generations lead us to the climate issues we have today? Won't future generations also say the same about our decisions? Why permanently destroy assets that future generations could potentially use when they discover how to make it more environmentally friendly? Seems very shortsighted to me; like we know better than anyone else and our views will never be questioned.
"The government is demolishing the wells to prevent a future government from reconsidering its decision to stop producing gas."
As well they should. This country should be electrifying much, much faster. A place literally below sea level is more invested in stopping climate breakdown than most. Sadly the way they're going about it is really a bad hack, and encourages prolonged gas dependency by subsidizing "hybrid" heat pumps (that still require a gas boiler).
I installed heat pumps last spring and it is frustrating that they didn't qualify for any subsidy because they also happen to be air conditioning. And while I might have been able to get a subsidy for an induction hob, there wasn't much point because the one I got for <€200 has been great, and plugged in to a normal outlet. The only trade off is that I can't run all the burners on max power at the same time, and boiling water is _slightly_ slower then when I had a 6kw one.
Hot water is still an issue though. Heat Pump water heaters seem almost unheard of, and I also worry that if I rip out the radiators and the legacy CV Ketel (which I both hate) then it would affect insurability and resale.
Assuming there is no pressing reason and the wells are dormant, why would it be a good idea to destroy options? I did not fact check these claims though. Maybe there are other reasons to close them. But if it is solely do remove them from equation altogether, it is stupid.
Presumably, if technology advances to the point where it is safe to burn fossil fuels again, it will also advance to the point where cement won't stop people from accessing the gas wells.
Destroying own wells only to import gas does nothing to reduce the carbon footprint (it's actually increases it if you'll account emissions from LNG tankers). Efforts should be directed into non-carbon generation and electrification. And if it will be competitive there will be little incentives for the next government to restart the production.
The subsidies are a scam that make construction companies more wealthy, there has hardly been a drop in the price you eventually pay imho. I insulated my entire house myself... No subsidy. Ah well, it is more comfortable (though partly we are exchanging the ability to stay warm in winter with that of staying cool in summer), but to say I really notice that we use much less gas... Not really actually. Strange right? I expected much more from it.
> "The government is demolishing the wells to prevent a future government from reconsidering its decision to stop producing gas."
Should there be a reconsideration - they could of course always just drill new wells into the known, proven resource. If they mothballed the existing wells for a few years they would probably need to anyway, or spend piles of money keeping them viable.
Hopefully we get much better renewables support (and with it lower public transit fares...), fixes for the insane box 3 rules due to come in to effect, yimby reforms to let people actually build homes in cities, and the right to air conditioning enshrined in law...
> Rather than buy off the Groningers, the cabinet decided to give in to them
This doesn't seem to have been tried. We have similar conversations about e.g. pylons for renewable infrastructure and, at even more heightened levels, data centers. It doesn't seem that bribing people to shut up - sorry, sharing the widespread economic benefits of a decision with those most affected - is on the table at all.
> The remaining reserves, some 500 billion cubic metres, are worth around €200 billion at current wholesale prices – enough to pay every single resident of the province €150,000 as compensation and still have 110 billion euros.
So... not enough to buy them homes in Amsterdam and move their factories/schools/jobs? Good thing the citizens fought this. The activity is not economical without seriously endangering your home. I'd bet that if you were willing to give them a good enough deal, most/many people will take it. But there is no good deal here. It's just a collection of wealth (gas) at the expense of the Groningeniens.
It's specifically to prevent the wells being re-opened and thereby raise the cost of re-exploiting the field. Of course, it would always be possible to drill new wells.
I thought it was mostly to demonstrate that they are REALLY never to be reopened, after many years of your typical lies and empty promises from politician.
The writer of this hasn't even talked to any of the local population who have been subjected to these earthquakes that destroys the local populations' houses.
Historically, the Dutch government has done extremely little to compensate the Groningers' damage. The Dutch are considered a bad example with regards to how the government is handling the proceeds of fossil fuels. So subjecting anyone to another round of house-destroying earthquakes is surely going to be well compensated this time. /s
The point of the article is to not let the “loser” minority overrule the needs of the majority. On the one hand, greater good. On the other hand, i sympathize with the “losers” who are effectively suffering unjust taking.
This is correct because cement is not an adequate plug for well decomissioning. Cement cracks and erodes due to groundwater aggressivity, heat stress and other stresses. A better alternative would be expansive clays like bentonite but a far more costlier exercise.
I generally don’t believe in conspiracies, but not filling the strategic reserves for next winter (each year after the energy shock of a few years ago, they fill the gas storage less) looks like a way to scare the populace into making the electric transition via a government made supply shock.
As it stands the local population has little more to show for it than demolished homes and damaged monuments and having an economic disease named after them.
As well they should. This country should be electrifying much, much faster. A place literally below sea level is more invested in stopping climate breakdown than most. Sadly the way they're going about it is really a bad hack, and encourages prolonged gas dependency by subsidizing "hybrid" heat pumps (that still require a gas boiler).
I installed heat pumps last spring and it is frustrating that they didn't qualify for any subsidy because they also happen to be air conditioning. And while I might have been able to get a subsidy for an induction hob, there wasn't much point because the one I got for <€200 has been great, and plugged in to a normal outlet. The only trade off is that I can't run all the burners on max power at the same time, and boiling water is _slightly_ slower then when I had a 6kw one.
Hot water is still an issue though. Heat Pump water heaters seem almost unheard of, and I also worry that if I rip out the radiators and the legacy CV Ketel (which I both hate) then it would affect insurability and resale.
Assuming there is no pressing reason and the wells are dormant, why would it be a good idea to destroy options? I did not fact check these claims though. Maybe there are other reasons to close them. But if it is solely do remove them from equation altogether, it is stupid.
Because pouring millions of tons of concrete to the ground is very environment friendly.
Should there be a reconsideration - they could of course always just drill new wells into the known, proven resource. If they mothballed the existing wells for a few years they would probably need to anyway, or spend piles of money keeping them viable.
You’re just spending money to feel good.
This doesn't seem to have been tried. We have similar conversations about e.g. pylons for renewable infrastructure and, at even more heightened levels, data centers. It doesn't seem that bribing people to shut up - sorry, sharing the widespread economic benefits of a decision with those most affected - is on the table at all.
Well, it does, because it reduces the chance of additional gas extraction in those areas—which was the goal of filling them with cement.
CAES is I think now no longer competitive with batteries, which are a much simpler setup and being widely, quietly, deployed.
So... not enough to buy them homes in Amsterdam and move their factories/schools/jobs? Good thing the citizens fought this. The activity is not economical without seriously endangering your home. I'd bet that if you were willing to give them a good enough deal, most/many people will take it. But there is no good deal here. It's just a collection of wealth (gas) at the expense of the Groningeniens.
Still a waste of resources to sabotage pipes that could just as well serve other purposes.
Historically, the Dutch government has done extremely little to compensate the Groningers' damage. The Dutch are considered a bad example with regards to how the government is handling the proceeds of fossil fuels. So subjecting anyone to another round of house-destroying earthquakes is surely going to be well compensated this time. /s