Essay by Eric Worrall
Fear of earthquakes is preventing Netherlands from pumping gas from a reservoir big enough to insulate Europe from the consequences of their green energy policy failure and Russian energy geopolitics.
The Massive Gas Field That Europe Can’t Use
Earthquake risks in the Netherlands have locals unwilling to plug the Russia-related energy shortfall.
By Cagan Koc and Diederik Baazil
6 October 2022 at 14:01 GMT+10Beneath the windmill-dotted marshlands of the Netherlands lies Europe’s largest natural gas reserve. The sprawling Groningen field has enough untapped capacity to replace, as soon as this winter, much of the fuel Germany once imported from Russia.
Instead the field is in the process of shutting down, and the Netherlands is rebuffing calls to pump more, even as Europe braces for perhaps its toughest winter since World War II. The reason: Drilling has led to repeated earthquakes, and Dutch officials are loath to risk a backlash from residents by breaking promises.
…
Locals, though, say the continent needs to look elsewhere. Wilnur Hollaar, 50, who’s lived in Groningen for almost two decades, is still seething over the way officials ignored his concerns. “When I bought this house in 2004, it was a palace,” Hollaar says of his home, which was built in 1926 and features stained-glass windows and detailed stonework. But like thousands of homes in the area, it’s been damaged by quakes; it’s full of cracks and the facade is sinking. “My house has turned into a ruin,” he says.
…
European Union Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said in a recent speech that the Netherlands should reconsider its decision to close Groningen, and Vijlbrief has been pressed by counterparts from other EU nations as well, but the country is holding the line for now. Prime Minister Mark Rutte won’t entirely rule out using Groningen to bolster supplies, but “only in an extreme case if everything goes wrong,” he says, and it isn’t needed right now.
…
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-06/dutch-close-europe-s-biggest-gas-field-despite-energy-crisis
The Earthquake risk in this case appears to be real. Houses in the area being extracted have suffered 1.5ft of subsidence to date, caused by the land compacting into the depleted reservoir. The gas field is that big.
Induced Earthquakes from Long-Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable-Risk Regulation
Charles Vlek
Recently, growing earthquake activity in the northeastern Netherlands has aroused con- siderable concern among the 600,000 provincial inhabitants. There, at 3 km deep, the rich Groningen gas field extends over 900 km2 and still contains about 600 of the original 2,800 billion cubic meters (bcm). Particularly after 2001, earthquakes have increased in number, magnitude (M, on the logarithmic Richter scale), and damage to numerous buildings. The man-made nature of extraction-induced earthquakes challenges static notions of risk, com- plicates formal risk assessment, and questions familiar conceptions of acceptable risk. Here, a 26-year set of 294 earthquakes with M & 1.5 is statistically analyzed in relation to increasing cumulative gas extraction since 1963. Extrapolations from a fast-rising trend over 2001–2013 indicate that—under “business as usual”—around 2021 some 35 earthquakes with M & 1.5 might occur annually, including four with M & 2.5 (ten-fold stronger), and one with M & 3.5 every 2.5 years. Given this uneasy prospect, annual gas extraction has been reduced from 54 bcm in 2013 to 24 bcm in 2017. This has significantly reduced earthquake activity, so far. However, when extraction is stabilized at 24 bcm per year for 2017–2021 (or 21.6 bcm, as judi- cially established in Nov. 2017), the annual number of earthquakes would gradually increase again, with an expected all-time maximum M $ 4.5. Further safety management may best fol- low distinct stages of seismic risk generation, with moderation of gas extraction and massive (but late and slow) building reinforcement as outstanding strategies. Officially, “acceptable risk” is mainly approached by quantification of risk (e.g., of fatal building collapse) for test- ing against national safety standards, but actual (local) risk estimation remains problematic. Additionally important are societal cost–benefit analysis, equity considerations, and precau- tionary restraint. Socially and psychologically, deliberate attempts are made to improve risk communication, reduce public anxiety, and restore people’s confidence in responsible experts and policymakers.
…
The 900-km2 large Groningen gas field has been depleted from the original 2,800 bcm to less than 700 bcm by the end of 2016. This went along with a reservoir pressure reduction of originally 350 bar to less than 100 bar in 50 years’ time. Extensive gas extraction and the resulting reservoir compaction have caused almost 50 cm (1.5 ft) of soil subsidence and an increasing number of gradually more harmful earthquakes with M & 1.5 to 3.6 after 1990 and so far up to 2014.1 A critical double question for numerous Groningers and the national government in The Hague is: What seismic activity is likely to occur when substantial gas extraction would continue for the next several decades, and how would environmental safety be restored and upheld?
…
Read more: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/risa.12967
I’m sympathetic to the residents, but the EU is in such a desperate situation, thanks to their green energy policy failures, I suspect the Netherlands government will have no choice but to cave and allow extraction to continue.
I would think the subsidence is causing much more of the damage than the earthquakes. As the magnitude is not mentioned, they are probably noticeable but trivial.
Can gas extraction be offset by sea water injection?
It would be cheaper and more efficient to inject nitrogen to maintain reservoir pressure that would also recover more of the gas reserves.
CO2 for Green Brownie Points?
CO2 works for oil.
The problem for any form of gas injection is this, will the gas mix with and dilute the methane?
If you have a gas field and just let the gas flow, depleting the reservoir pressure you will produce about 90% of the gas originally in place . If you pump water into the reservoir it is liable to break through unexpectedly and invade the gas producing wells. When you do this recovery factor drops to perhaps to as low as 30%. This happened to the Frigg Field in the Norwegian North sea where indeed the field had to be abandoned after producing only 30% of the gas in Place. In that case the water breakthrough was natural.
Curiously enough if you pumped CO2 down into the field you would maintain pressure , ameliorate subsidence, and any CO2 produced could be stripped and re-injected.
There is a heavy oilfield in Texas where a gas-fired electricity plant burning methane in pure oxygen produces Carbon dioxide which is injected into the oilfield where it decreases the viscosity and increases the production of oil ,
This is to my knowledge the only half ways sensible form of CO2 removal and sequestration.
You know such a scheme in Groningen might actually work. However being a former oil company owner and executive I would like to run an economics scenario on this. People like me do this sort of economics thing unlike the The Bidens, Johnstons and Dutch politicos and their tardigrade civil servants who do not and instead preach vacuous nonsense
Pumping say 1,000bcm of gas would be a big task. The field already has a high CO2 and N2 content, which is why it produces low calorific value gas.
Probably simpler to set up a compensation fund for impacted residents.
For the 3300 demolished houses, they already have compensation fund payout , and presumably some funding for lesser damaged houses too
CO2 is more expensive to make than a cryogenic plant recovering Nitrogen. The CO2 is necessary to achieve miscibility with low gravity oil, but nitrogen can also achieve miscibility if the reservoir temperature is above 180 def F, pressure is above 4000 psi and oil gravity is 45 deg API or above. To maintain pressure in a gas field N2 is way beyond CO2 having done a project that required maintaining reservoir pressure in a retrograde condensate reservoir that also avoided the myriad of problems as the CO2 creates carbonic acid that corrodes everything.
Yes, that is probably what is going on. Quakes of less than 2.0 on the richter scale are not even something that people can feel. Between 2 and 3 barely noticeable, and between 3 and 4 they might cause ceiling lights to swing a little. No structural damage should be expected from quakes of less than 4.
Subsidence and differential settlement is the more likely explanation for the damage reported in this post. In which case, it can be resolved with standard geotechnical engineering methods, such as injecting grout or expanding foam into the subsurface below the structure, or installing pin piles under the foundation. The affected persons ought to be compensated for such damages either by the government or by the gas production companies for the costs of fixing this damage.
Duane is absolutely correct: most of the ‘earthquakes’ would be largely imperceptible to humans, and most animals.
In terms of counteracting subsidence, which, it appears, is the main problem, this would be a perfect time to “re-inflate” the reservoir, either with reclaimed sea water (aren’t the Dutch masters at building dikes and enlarging their territory?), or, this is a perfect place to do a whole-lotta CO2 “sequestration”.
I am NOT familiar with this particular reservoir, but I know several methane producing areas in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming require that reservoir pressure be maintained by injecting waste water (usually briny or saline) into the producing zone(s), otherwise the flow of methane will cease; in some cases, to avoid pressure problems, producers are injecting twice the volume required. If the reservoir shuts down due to a lack of pressure, it will never produce again, so there is tremendous effort to inject the required amount(s) of replacement fluids.
Just my half-pfennig’s worth of advice, and probably not even worth that much,
Vlad
P.S. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I’m not advocating CO2 ‘sequestration’. I’m all in favor of putting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we possibly can, but for those who are “all in” on getting CO2 **OUT** of the atmosphere, here’s your chance. Gopher it!!!!
According to a BBC story from 2013, we’re looking at no more than 3.5, which according to this site would only be “Noticed only by sensitive people”
Groningen has been sinking up to 10 mm per year for decades
Another BS story cooked up to scare people
I grew up in California, and anything smaller than a 4.5 should cause no structural damage. Knocking things off shelves is not structural.
Depends on how deep?
When I lived in a volcanic area , 1.5M only a few km deep and centered nearby gave an almightily ‘noisy’ shake- very quick and sharp . Much deeper quakes would be ‘rolling’ effect but no noise.
The magnitude 3.6 which occurred in 2012 was probably noticeable, at least in the immediate vicinity of the epicentre. Remember these houses are likely already stressed by the subsidence, many of them would likely have vibrated like guitar strings.
Over 3000 buildings demolished because of the quakes/subsidence since 2012 in this region.
obviously older double brick wall buildings most affected
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/09/3300-buildings-demolished-in-groningen-because-of-earthquake-damage/
I guess the answer for Europe is do no energy development and to lower the retirement age to 50 instead of 62 (France) and skip winter by sending the entire population south for the winter. /sarc
Salute!
Any strong evidence of Louisiana sinking due to gas/oil extraction versus the very obvious and documented human effects upon the historical hydrology?
If there were an area in the U.S. that should exhibit subsidence from oil and gas extraction, it’s the land below I-10 in Louisiana and southeast Texas. However, the efforts to prevent massive floods in the New Orleans area and to keep the Mississippi from changing course are mostly blamed for the subsidence. About the only obvious visible effects of the petrochemical indutry are the miles and miles of canals that the companies built to access drilling sites. They have mostly influenced wildlife by increasing saltwater intrusion in the marshlands They also increased flooding from tropical systems as we saw with Betsy and Katrina by funneling storm surge into the city that was already sinking due to the lessening hydrological pressure.
The irony with the Dutch situation is that the agencies that responded to Katrina flooding consulted and employed Dutch folks to build the new levees and other structures that now protect New Orleans.
Gums sends…
I believe that the extraction of potable water for the large urban demands is responsible for a deal of the land subsidence.
maybe not Louisiana may definitely West Texas -permian basin
‘The team used high-resolution radar imagery from November 2014 until April 2017, along with well production data from the Texas Railroad Commission. The research, published in Nature’s Scientific Reports, concluded that the unstable ground is a result of decades of oil and gas activity in West Texas with ground movement likely extending well beyond the study area.
The ground movement, both uplift, and subsidence is a result of a number of different activities associated with the oil industry in this area according to the study:
picture of sinkhole near Wink Tx
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/03/28/massive-oil-fields-in-texas-are-heaving-and-sinking-at-alarming-rates/?sh=142735e4c8b3
Would that be the climate refugees they keep talking about
Subsidized extended stay tourism paid for with borrowed money and high-wall protectionism
Maybe this is the pinnacle of self-loathing?
The limit for fracking in the UK was set so low it could never take place – deliberately.
Sir Ed Davey has said he remains proud that he was the person who “basically stopped” fracking in the UK, despite the current energy crisis.
https://iowaclimate.org/2022/08/28/ed-davey-im-proud-to-have-stopped-fracking-despite-energy-crisis/
How low did they set it?
“Firms say regulations forcing operations to stop if they trigger tremors greater than 0.5 magnitude threaten viability”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/16/uk-fracking-review-earthquake-limits
How about some perspective?
A desk fan turned on at full power 2.855
A small pumpkin dropping to the floor 2.699
A 500ml shower gel dropping on the floor 1.978
A tin of beans dropping to the floor 1.184
http://datacat.liverpool.ac.uk/609/2/Seismic%20Context%20Measurements.pdf
Now you see why Davey is so proud.
“Earthquakes” are from geological activity, whether ‘natural’ or human activity caused, that extend over a large area. Those examples of something being dropped on the floor or the ground may produce vibrations of the given magnitude withing the house or immediate area but surely they cannot effect anything at greater distances. They would not register on seismic activity instruments even a half mile away, correct?
The point is that you can’t feel quakes of that low magnitude, just like you can’t feel a can of beans dropping on the floor. If they were to drop the whole can of worms, though, that might get noticed.
That may be the point someone is trying to make but that doesn’t mean it is a valid comparison.
Dropping a couple pounds onto a solid floor may not be an event involving enough energy to move the floor in the next room, although it might be heard in the next room, meaning there is enough energy released to vibrate the air further away from the impact, but that too seems irrelevant. The energy of that small impact is almost certainly dissipated and dampened in its immediate vicinity.
A magnitude 1 earthquake, on the other hand, that can be detected by instruments (much more sensitive than human senses) quite a few miles away from its source almost certainly involves much more energy. Comparison to events whose results are very limited in scope sheds no light on what other effects (other than tickling a seismometer) that greater energy might generate. The comparison of such diverse kinds of events seems, to me, to fit the conditions of a straw man argument.
I am not saying those vibration associated with soil or rock resettling are responsible for the damages complained about, I don’t know. However, the arguments presented here that they could not be responsible are unconvincing.
In terms of monetary value I think there is enough gas to relocate all the inhabitants somewhere else. But nou ja.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/02/10/so-who-is-speaking-for-the-people/
It at least address the issue related to homes sinking.
This world has a very long history of peoples being relocated by governments for the economic benefit of other peoples. I don’t think it is well received by the moved peoples very often.
The recommendations of that article
“So, who is speaking for the people?”are based on the idea that more wealth under the control of government is a good thing but that is, at best, a very dicey assumption.
THE GOVERNMENT is made up of people. MORE MONEY to the government means people other than those who earned the money will decide how it is spent.
IT IS NEVER better, for me personally, to let someone else decide what to spend MY money on, my better half excepted.
Antarctica has a desperate need of new immigrants.
So far no casualties but despite the minimal scores on the Richter scale the quackes are damaging which is caused by the soft top soil layers. Some villages are being completely rebuild as the houses are beyond reinforcement. As the city of Groningen may be at risk when full production continues, the odss are that the reserves remain sealed for ever.
Typical leftists.
If something makes sense and would benefit the nation,
they do the opposite. Almost every time.
They have offshore gas fields ‘ for the nation’ This would only benefit ‘the germans’
Yep, the income to the country from the gas sold to other countries would NEVER benefit “the nation”.
Its the nations choice then , since they are already rich they have chosen a bit less wealth . In the future maybe choose different
Its all bollox.
Am no expert but I don’t see land collapsing after gas extraction.
certainly and if you wanna see some **real** subsidence, take a ride around North Notts.
You will see some of the craziest things, semi-petrified woodlands, mysterious up & downs in the road, rivers that split in two, one part makes a lake, then sets off again and rejoins the main flow.
BUT, those are caused by old coal mines collapsing. Yes there are a few gas wells and oil wells, but the coal mining really did inflict some ‘landscaping’
Next, take a ride around Gronignen and you will see, UK vernacular, Fenland
Flat low lying ground, barely above sealevel (the water table is just below your feet) and composed of soils that are ‘old seabed sediments’ comprising huge amounts of clay, also organics
(Organics = where the gas came from)
They use the exact same sort of ‘drains’ as they use here on the Cambridge Fen, (its like a (new) home from home for me) and no wonder as a Dutchman put those drains there.
Triangular cross-section cuts in the ground that fill with water in the winter then slowly empty through summer. Sometimes joining into much larger ‘rivers’ with pumping stations at the far end
Then look more, at both Gronignen and Cambridge to see the agriculture
Exactly the same, the even grow sweetcorn to put in the digesters.
Intensive agriculture, because the soil is naturally fertile but also using immense amounts of Nitrogen.
And the Nitrogen is eroding the organics (creating CO2, I wonder where it goes)
But when the organics go, so does the water retention capacity of the soils – they drain faster and also dry out faster.
And when you do that with clay soil, it expands, contracts, slides around, slips, sinks and does all sorts of things.
And if you’ve planted a house, or a road or anything made of concrete, it will be destroyed. Period
And THAT is what’s wrecked that guy’s ‘palace’.
The farmers did it. Soil Erosion did it. Nitrogen fertiliser did.
It gets worse.
While on your ‘visit’ to Gronignen, you’ll see large windmills dotted around.
And, ask the British Geologic Survey, windmills make earthquakes. Windmills drive seismometers absolutely nuts.
Not that they’re very big earthquakes, me and you wouldn’t notice, but what they do is what a Concrete Poker ## does should you ever use one to make a professional job of building with concrete
## A vibrating ‘thing’ you dip into liquid concrete – it settles the mix and drives out air-bubbles
So put all that together, cohesive soils being alternately summer/winter wetted and dried, reducing moisture content and soils that are effectively floating on a water table only a few feet below the surface and ‘vibrating things’ to settle the mix.
And your house split open like an egg, the roof will slide off, it will then fall down while roads will become roller-coasters
Welcome to Gronignen
What are the odds that the guy with the ‘palace’ is a farmer and doing an immense Buck Pass.
Everybody nowadays is a liar and everything is wrong, as a consequence.
Useful Peta, thanks.
Good point about the guy being a farmer. Almost everyone in Holland is a farmer it seems.
Would evidence of nitrogen fertiliser induced subsidence be found elsewhere in Holland where there is no fracking?
Lets face it, there is a certain amount of ground movement and subsidence everywhere and being that a great deal of Holland is reclaimed from the sea how much land movement much further inland does that induce.
The more I think about it, whilst not being an engineer, the more I think that Holland is hardly an ideal model for anyone to condemn fracking over.
Yet another evil thing about nitrogenous fertilizers. Glad that the Netherlands have outlawed them.
BTW, if you want to experience earthquakes, come on over to California. We have many per day, but all lower than 3 on the Richter scale. And they are not caused by fracking.
No fracking is involved at Groningen. It’s one giant reservoir of high porosity, equalising pressures rapidly across the whole area when gas is produced. In fact, it’s because the reservoir is so porous that the cap rock easily starts to compress it, creating subsidence, as the reservoir pressure is reduced. It’s almost like a giant underground balloon.
Thanks, that’s useful to know.
“….damaged by quakes; it’s full of cracks and the facade is sinking….”
It’s much more likely that fresh water extraction by shallow water wells causing subsidence are the problem, rather than the much deeper natural gas wells. Whole communities and their politicians will galvanize against oil companies’ drilling in the hope of extracting money from them. If the oil companies paid a little for the resource extraction to landowners, it would go a long ways in swaying opinion….
Somewhat like the reduced electric rates in concentric rings around French nuclear reactor sites
That’s an excellent point. It seems a bit of a stretch to blame millimetre wide cracks in shale, a thousand metres or so deep for surface subsidence significant enough to damage a house as comprehensively as the householder claims.
I can’t help but wonder if this is a case like the ignitable taps (faucets) that featured in the documentary some years ago on fracking in America – which was subsequently admitted as a complete fake.
We know governments are far more responsive to emotional appeals rather than scientific/engineering/geological/pandemic evidence.
The article mentioned that the field was 3km down.
There are places where methane contamination of ground water is a known problem.
However it’s not a new problem, it’s been going on since man first came to those areas. One of those places was even given the name of Burning Waters by the native Americans.
I presume there are differences in depth of shale in different regions so used a thousand metres as a minimum example, but I’m no geologist so it was an arbitrary figure.
From memory the groundwater methane problem was one of the main things that debunked the documentary I referred to. But it does go to show what depths people will sink to……..Urgggh! Really pad pun.
I suspect the Netherlands government will have no choice but to cave and allow extraction to continue.
I have some sympathy withthe Netherlands.Parts of it are about 20ft BELOW sea level. Under those circumstances, subsidence of 1.5 ft and possible associated damage to the dykes would put me off drilling forany more gas…
I just saw the title and a comment of injecting sea water. Yes, scientists and engineers can find an injection solution. But I would start thinking on replacing CH4-methane gas with another gas, because in terms of fluids, gas is not the same as liquid. It should be a gas that 1) has a close molecular weight 2) similar molecular structure 3) similar physical properties related to temperatures, pressures, volumes. 4) should be injected at a rate similar to the extracted. I would start with a natural gas before trying one artificial. The gas should keep all physical and chemical environment similar to the environment created by CH4. This is not a “hard” project in terms of science and engineering: it’s simply removing a gas from a chamber to be replaced by another in a synchronized matter. The hard part is the implementation, which would require large equipment and expertise. It could take many investigators to study the ideal chemical candidate, the geology of the area, the environmental impact, and the full engineering process. This is for sure a nice project for PhD students.
Why not trying injecting the same CO2 in the atmosphere “creating” the exaggerated alarm of an apparent fever called “climate change”?
Dr. JBVigo
If they have already removed 3/4ths of the gas from the field, it seems that most of the compaction that is going to occur, has already occurred.
Nobody has done a comprehensive study to find where the problem is originating. The oil and gas industry is a punching bag for any problem. I doubt a gas field producing from 3 km down is going to cause subsidence at the surface. Just another target for the environmentally ignorant to place blame for something that is not well understood. The Dutch would be better off burning witches.
Perhaps the northern EU should be evacuated, as it’s too cold for sustainable human occupation, while using only “renewable” energy collectors.
And then you’d free up many hectares of land for wind turbines and solar panels.
The Netherlands government is quite happy to wage war against their farmers and destroy their lives and livelihood in the name of fatuous and totally irrelevant NO2 reductions, so I think it is unlikely to be concern for their citizens that curtails Groningen.
The Dutch are willing to buy 3,000 farms at 120% market value to reduce nitrogen, but they won’t even look at any solutions here. Hmm.
They have , 3300 buildings in affected area demolished in last 10 years , the compensation is small- some billions- compared to value of gas extracted.
A well informed background article:
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/termination-groningen-gas-production-background-and-next-steps
Geologists and reservoir engineers may find this article gives a useful description of the field:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/netherlands-journal-of-geosciences/article/geology-of-the-groningen-field-an-overview/9947C006B646623624ADF30D3C6C8CC5
Everybody has heard of getting a Perc Test when buying a property but, few people know to get a Soil Subsidence Test when buying property on former swamp land.This is why homes in the X-Burbs of Detroit end up sliding down the top of hills formed during the last glacial period.
“the Netherlands government will have no choice but to cave and allow extraction to continue.”
European politicians have always been willing to impoverish the peasants and screw the foreigners. Why do you expect the Dutch to be any different than the British or the Germans.
Their options are freezing to death or having their houses crumble from subsidence, and they still reject safe, clean, inexpensive nuclear? Stop bending to the little retarded girl who can’t comprehend the concept of people lying to her.
If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy #FissionFuture