To what extent was the decision to go off the gas led by the problems in Groningen with earthquakes by gas extraction? Did it play a role?

It played the main role. [1[2[3

Let’s put it first: nobody is going to be obliged to go off gas.You will only have to do it without the cheap Groningen gas. You may use ‘ ambient foreign gas ‘ (more expensive in consumption, you may have to drag with bottles), you may use propane as in the rest of the world and the Dutch outside area (you will have to place a tank yourself, new gas cooker and new Boiler), and there is even talk of making hydrogen possible in the existing natural gas infrastructure (many times more expensive in consumption and installation and you will have to buy a new gas cooker and new boiler).

Let me start in the background:

Mandate up to the note.

The Dutch are easy: you have a mandate until you present an account.A Dutchman is quick to convince of good intentions and pious ideals, but once you come up with something that has a price on it, that mandate is as good as disappeared. In previous years, public opinion was still behind the Groningers and the Groninger soil movement, now they are being put away respectively as climate drammers and ‘ part of the climate mafia ‘.And that, of course, is not fair, after all:

NAM: Shared gains, shared risks

It is the NAM who has to compensate the damage (in any form), and that costs money.The problem, however, is that we are all shareholders of the NAM. And that is to say that this account comes to us all at the left or right once. And then the miserly Dutchman wakes up, and changes “We must help the Groningers” In “Ho ho, let’s not run too hard of pile”.

And then it will be counted.Is it cheaper to keep on pumping natural gas than the alternatives? That depends entirely on how we want to give this damage-handling shape. The cheapest version is the so-called Japanese method:

  • An area where there is a lot of risk of earthquakes is to declare earthquake area.
  • This means that all buildings must meet certain minimum building standards.
  • One of these standards is that buildings of certain constructions have to be rebuilt every 30 years (as: demolished and rebuilt from the ground up).
  • This means a virtually complete rebuild of the housing stock in the area.
  • The first time is funded by the NAM (the state, CQ. We all), the following times the real estate owners have to close a mortgage themselves.

In theory, we could continue pumping that cheap Groningen gas (something that some political parties are a great supporter of), including re-drilling and trying methods like fracking .However, the geologists still see some bears on the road: more pumps could increase the earthquake area. In Such a case, the Japanese method could also become more expensive than the alternatives to Groningsgas.

This uncertainty, plus the uncertainty of the political direction in the coming years (not only in terms of handling of the damage, as well as the continuing or even stepping up of gas pumping), makes that both political and business bodies seem to steer on The scenario: Please be sure that the end of cheap Gronings gas is in sight.

Footnotes

[1 off the gas… How then?

[2 gas extraction to zero?The Groningers don’t let the corks pop up yet

[3 The Netherlands may already be in 2025 of the gas-Maria Bode

Leave a Reply