Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • 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.
    by phyzix5761
  • €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.

    by psychoslave
  • This article is so biased I can't even.
    by ppasotti
  • 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.

    by Leonard_of_Q
  • I'm sure that'll work with gases
    by tosti
  • > 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.

    by pjc50
  • > 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.

    by lukeify
  • "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?

    by bartkappenburg
  • People are also stressed because of high gas prices, cold swimming pools and offices (19 degrees), industries closing down (chemical sector declined 20% 2022-2023). And not just in Netherlands either
    by yread
  • It's not just earthquakes, the area is literally sinking below sea level.

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

    by skylurk
  • 50cm by 2080! Campi Flegrei next to Naples had 1.5m uplift since 2005.
    by yread
  • > 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.

    by csomar
  • 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.
    by apexalpha
  • Which are? (Brit here asking though curiosity)
    by _joel
  • Then, please, tell us what you think the political reasons are behind this being done??
    by serial_dev
  • 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.
    by mahrain
  • How is the green transition ideological?
    by CalRobert
  • This was done for mostly ideological reasons, "green transition" and such.

    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...

    by frm88
  • 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.

    by rikkert
  • Can you please replace Ukraine with Russia?
    by deely3
  • I think it was a Russian (or American?) psy op. Europe would be almost self-sufficient with the Dutch and Norwegian fields so they had to be shutdown. All while the storage is at historical lows

    https://ned.nl/nl/gasopslagen-nederland#:~:text=Verloop%20va...

    by yread
  • While everyone knows that welfare state should be dependent on taxing the absurdly rich instead of on gas sales.
    by 28304283409234
  • The impact for me is double gas prices compared to a couple of years ago. About 300€ a month, year round.
    by teekert
  • 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.

    by Kognito
  • "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.

    by CalRobert
  • > As well they should.

    Because pouring millions of tons of concrete to the ground is very environment friendly.

    by rebolek
  • 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.
    by citrin_ru
  • I have a heat pump system, the hot water works alright.

    The only minor issue is during winter months, if the daughter and the wife shower one right after the other, it takes some 40 minutes for the boiler to have hot water again.

    by surgical_fire
  • > "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.

    by blitzar
  • 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.
    by teekert