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.
This is just not true. The gas wells caused (and still cause) earthquakes in the Groningen province, peoples homes got damaged, this became political, now gas from Groningen is being phased out.
My opinion is that this is stupid, we have billions of euros of gas in the ground and the house damage is overblown.
The same has happened in the UK. It has gone from being a major producer of oil and gas to being heavily dependent on imports.
Great for politicians on the global speaking circuit to opine how they reduced production and brought down local carbon emissions whilst completely ignoring that offshoring industry means the emissions just happen somewhere else (typically a poorer country with lower/no environmental standards).
Hardly seems to fit with the “we’re all in this together” argument.
> Hardly seems to fit with the “we’re all in this together” argument.
It's a good job we offset all of our manufacturing to the likes of China, it's not like they have terrible environmental standards or share an atmosphere with us or anything. It's also a good job we closed our coking coal rich mines to import it from Japan instead [1].
I'm left in utter disbelief that any of this was allowed or condoned, it is nothing short of madness. The UK now finds itself in a position where it is incapable of doing absolutely anything.
No. The government should just use tax to create investment funds. Then make it a law that only 50% of profit can be used, the rest needs to be reinvested.
It’s moronic that taxes don’t always go down. The government should make money and get a job instead of living off welfare.
But be fair with us: are you holding back on investing in other forms of heating due to non-financial reasons? (I am. We use a bit less gas than you, but I am looking for another house and unwilling to transition even though I can afford it and it seems profitable.)
Currently I can't afford it tbh (it's like a couple of 1000 and only makes sense with solar panels?), but that may change soon. Still I wonder if it is cheaper? Electricity in winter is still very expensive and soon generated solar power is near worthless and we can't store it for the winter.
I admit I still have to do the exact math (for which I am in a good position with years worth of Home Assistant data).
If I had money to spare I'd be more idealistic about it really, also because I have a solar-panels + home battery shaped hole in my HA dashboard that hurts me ;)
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.
Nah filling is just dependent on private companies and they aren’t willing to pay the high prices now.
The government is now going to fill it themselves to levels required for the harshest winter in 30 years. And tax the population to fill it to this completely unnecessary level.
"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.
My parents in France replaced their 40 year old gas boiler with a heat pump 5 years ago, half subsidized by the government, then replaced their gas range with induction and got rid of gas altogether. This includes hot water (using a tank). They pay less thanks to France’s cheap nuclear power, help wean the country off foreign energy from unreliable or hostile countries and does good for the environment. What’s not to like?
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.
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.
Insulation helps with both staying warm and cool, though. After all, a big foam beer cooler is just a hollow box of insulation.
I think for a lot of Dutch houses the real issue is draftiness. No amount of insulation fixes that. Hell, the windows have required vents that can't really be closed properly installed per code. I thought the previous owners were quirky but then noticed _all_ the houses have these weird vents at the top of some windows.
Yes but... check the CO2 levels when you close the vents, and watch the water flow from your windows, and see the mold grow on the north wall.
Also, isolation keeps out the heat... Until it is inside, then it keeps it there. I agree it makes air condition more economical, but not many people have them (yet, it's booming).
> "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.
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.
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...
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.
I agree. The Dutch government still has a pretty sinister way of using divide and conquer against parts of society (NOx, Groningen / gas, Tata, ‘Toeslagen’; further back: closing of the mines, Indonesia). Our government finds it very hard to govern in compliance with the rules it made for themselves. Perhaps the nature of a complex system and also a general democratic phenomenon. But there is something typically Dutch in just not being able to fix a problem in the way the administration works.
This is so funny my own government shoots itself economically in it's foot. Then they love to complain about unfair disadvantage of other countries especially a very big Asian country. When the economic competition from Asia becomes to much to handle.
> 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. Over time will lead to leakages. A better alternative would be expansive clays like bentonite but a far more costlier exercise.
> 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.
At the same time the Dutch gas reserves are at a historic low (current somewhere around 44% of capacity) and are not expected to be filled to capacity before winter comes. It is to be hoped this will be a mild winter or prices - already high - will go through the roof.
Here's an idea for those subsiding gas wells: pump in CO2 on one side, out CH4 the other. That way the pressure is kept up and there should be fewer problems with earthquakes. Someone probably thought of this and decided it wasn't feasible or did not fit the agenda of phasing out fossil fuels like natural gas.
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.
"It would be good for the current Dutch government to prioritize the interests of the Netherlands and Europe over that of Groningen"
I mean, what the actual f*ck. I LIVE in Groningen and see the results of endless money grabbing of selling the gas of the past decades every day (Shell & the government). People stressed out, thousands of homes that are unsafe, people living in temporary housing for years.
He compares italian earthquakes with ours (we had one last week). This comparison is so wrong on so many levels. First: these ones here a man induced, which is a different category. Second: the soil here is so much different than in Italy, a earthquake with the same force (richter) has a whole different outcome.
My house has (minor) damage as well, I'm compensated for fixing it and I'm happy with the way the government handled it. But this piece of a BS blog and the conclusion are infuriating.
Did the writer even try to speak to anyone living in this region? Or did he just draw some conclusions based behind his desk that's (safely) located in the US?
Honestly, “The earthquakes they experienced so far weren’t bad enough” doesn’t sound like a good argument for “let’s keep pumping”. All it takes to make this not worth it is a single bad one.
> 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.
My opinion is that this is stupid, we have billions of euros of gas in the ground and the house damage is overblown.
Great for politicians on the global speaking circuit to opine how they reduced production and brought down local carbon emissions whilst completely ignoring that offshoring industry means the emissions just happen somewhere else (typically a poorer country with lower/no environmental standards).
Hardly seems to fit with the “we’re all in this together” argument.
It's a good job we offset all of our manufacturing to the likes of China, it's not like they have terrible environmental standards or share an atmosphere with us or anything. It's also a good job we closed our coking coal rich mines to import it from Japan instead [1].
I'm left in utter disbelief that any of this was allowed or condoned, it is nothing short of madness. The UK now finds itself in a position where it is incapable of doing absolutely anything.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp311nr7w34o
It’s moronic that taxes don’t always go down. The government should make money and get a job instead of living off welfare.
Replace Ukraine with Russia and Iran with USA
I admit I still have to do the exact math (for which I am in a good position with years worth of Home Assistant data).
If I had money to spare I'd be more idealistic about it really, also because I have a solar-panels + home battery shaped hole in my HA dashboard that hurts me ;)
The area is sinking. Literally:
"The pressure decline in the field causes compaction in the reservoir which is observed as subsidence at the surface."
https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/372/367/2015/piahs-372...
Renewable energy: yes, please. Forcing it and tanking the economy, creating poverty: absolutely not.
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.
The government is now going to fill it themselves to levels required for the harshest winter in 30 years. And tax the population to fill it to this completely unnecessary level.
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.
That being said, I do worry that that outcome of this isn't "stop using gas" but "keep using American LNG", which would be worse.
I think for a lot of Dutch houses the real issue is draftiness. No amount of insulation fixes that. Hell, the windows have required vents that can't really be closed properly installed per code. I thought the previous owners were quirky but then noticed _all_ the houses have these weird vents at the top of some windows.
Also isolation is great unless you open a window xD
Also, isolation keeps out the heat... Until it is inside, then it keeps it there. I agree it makes air condition more economical, but not many people have them (yet, it's booming).
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.
Other "fun fact" it seems the Netherlands uses gas cooktops much more than other European countries.
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.
https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/372/367/2015/piahs-372...
You just have to laugh or else you would cry..
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. Over time will lead to leakages. A better alternative would be expansive clays like bentonite but a far more costlier exercise.
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.
Here's an idea for those subsiding gas wells: pump in CO2 on one side, out CH4 the other. That way the pressure is kept up and there should be fewer problems with earthquakes. Someone probably thought of this and decided it wasn't feasible or did not fit the agenda of phasing out fossil fuels like natural gas.
Well, it does, because it reduces the chance of additional gas extraction in those areas—which was the goal of filling them with cement.
I mean, what the actual f*ck. I LIVE in Groningen and see the results of endless money grabbing of selling the gas of the past decades every day (Shell & the government). People stressed out, thousands of homes that are unsafe, people living in temporary housing for years.
He compares italian earthquakes with ours (we had one last week). This comparison is so wrong on so many levels. First: these ones here a man induced, which is a different category. Second: the soil here is so much different than in Italy, a earthquake with the same force (richter) has a whole different outcome.
My house has (minor) damage as well, I'm compensated for fixing it and I'm happy with the way the government handled it. But this piece of a BS blog and the conclusion are infuriating.
Did the writer even try to speak to anyone living in this region? Or did he just draw some conclusions based behind his desk that's (safely) located in the US?
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