The Dutch are filling gas wells with cement

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.

"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.

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.

It's not just earthquakes, the area is literally sinking below sea level.

https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/372/367/2015/piahs-372...

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.

You just have to laugh or else you would cry..

> 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.

This article is so biased I can't even.

> Destroying the wells does not change the likelihood of additional earthquakes.

Well, it does, because it reduces the chance of additional gas extraction in those areas—which was the goal of filling them with cement.

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?

Without knowing anything about these gas wells, couldn't they be used for compressed air energy storage?

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.

Is this to try and prevent subsidence and tremors? It would make sense in a country which is often beneath sea level.

€150,000 as compensation seems damn low if the biggest investment of median citizen is paying for a house taking far more than that.

Still a waste of resources to sabotage pipes that could just as well serve other purposes.

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