Water injection in Groningen: remedy or troublemaker?
An interdisciplinary approach to the gas extraction in Groningen and the possible solution ofwater injection in gas reservoirs to reduce seismic activity
Beeld ANP
Interdisciplinary Project 2015
Niels Klaver - 10574670Fleur van Langen - 10581316 Dion Oosterman - 10306048 Tutor: Jaap Rothuizen Expert: Alison Gilbert
Words: 6,745(excluding references & figure descriptions) Date: 18 December 2015
Abstract
This paper considers the possible solution of water injection in gas reservoirs of the Groningen gas field to reduce seismic activity caused by gas extraction. In the past years, the gas extraction in Groningen has intensified, which resulted in subsidence and, as a side effect, earthquakes. The earthquakes affect the daily life of people living in the gas extraction area and can therefore have a negative effect on people’s quality of life. A possible solution for this problem is the injection of water into the gas reservoirs in order to stabilize the soil, preventing earthquakes to occur. Since the problem covers multiple fields of science, an interdisciplinary approach is adopted which integrates the theoretical frameworks and methodologies of three different disciplines (Earth Sciences, Social Sciences and Environmental Science) with the goal of shining light on the subject from a new perspective. Besides doing a literature review, experts were approached and interviewed. Additionally, a survey was conducted among people living in the affected area to inquire about their perception of the effects of the earthquakes. The results of this survey turned out to be notably negative, showing that the Groningen population is very discontented with the current state of business. To improve public contentment, the gas extraction process needs to see change. From the consulted literature and reviews with the experts, water injection turned out to be an expensive measure. Thereby, water injection poses the risk of groundwater pollution and soil contamination. For these reasons is not likely that water injection will be implemented in the gas extraction process, however there is room for discussion.
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Interdisciplinarity
2.2 Gas extraction and earthquakes 2.3 Quality of Life
2.4 Risk Assessment 3. Methods
4. Interdisciplinary results
4.1 Gas extraction and the influence on quality of life 4.2 Water injection as a solution
5. Conclusion 6. Discussion 7. References 8. Appendix
8.1 Appendix A - Survey
1. Introduction
The fossil fuel industry is one of the largest industries in the world, leaving its footprint everywhere around the globe. The Netherlands is no exception in this, where 85.1% of all electricity is produced from fossil fuels (CIA, 2015). The Netherlands is also placed ninth in the list of countries that export the highest amount of natural gas. Thereby, total gas production of The Netherlands in 2013 was 82.7 billion m3, of which 65.3 per cent was produced from the Groningen gas field (Rijksoverheid, 2014). Profits for the Dutch government from the gas extraction were good for 9 per cent of the total state income (Rijksoverheid, 2014). This shows the importance of the Groningen gas field for The Netherlands, and the scale of the natural gas exploitation, which started in 1963 (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, 2015a), especially taking into account that the gas extraction has already been limited due to seismic activity in the province of Groningen. Only in 2015, there have been at least 111 earthquakes in the province of Groningen (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, 2015b). It is a very current problem, as can be seen when you read the newspaper or any news website. For instance, in the period from 17 November until 17 December there are 12 articles on the news website NU.nl with the keywords “gas extraction Groningen” (NU.nl, 2015). Earlier research shows that the majority of the people are not happy with the current situation (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2014). The aim of this research is to assess whether water injection is a feasible measure to reduce seismic activity, and whether it may also increase the Groningen population’s quality of life. For this, we will consult existing literature on the subjects of water injection. We have to determine what quality of life exactly is, as there are many different definitions, and how it can be influenced. This will also be done by consulting existing literature, but will be supported by conducting surveys among people living in the affected areas. Additionally, it is our aim to determine whether water injection is a responsible measure in respect to the environment. This is both of social and academic relevance, as society benefits from a better environment and the results of our research can be used for future cases where water injection is considered as a measure. To make this research more concrete and feasible, a main question is conceived that covers all the disciplines in this project:
• Can water injection in the gas reservoirs reduce the negative effects associated with gas extraction in the Groningen area and improve the quality of life for people living there?
To make sure the main question is answered completely and correctly, a couple of sub-questions are distinguished:
• How does gas extraction affect quality of life in Groningen?
- How does gas extraction cause earthquakes?
- What are the effects of the earthquakes on the Groningen population? Categorizing objective (economic) quality of life and subjective (perceived) quality of life.
• Is water injection in the gas reservoir a feasible measure to mitigate earthquakes in Groningen?
- How does water injection work and what are the costs?
- Does water injection have an effect on the quality of groundwater and open water bodies?
- Do the people in Groningen support the measures against earthquakes (i.e. is there ‘social acceptance’)?
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Interdisciplinarity
The problems resulting from gas extraction cannot be solved by approaching them from a single discipline, since the problems involves different fields of science (earth science, social science, environmental science). In this research, the social problems involving gas extraction will be investigated, as well as the environmental problems that may arise from injecting water in the gas reservoir. The technical background is essential for understanding the mechanisms behind the problem. In order to answer the interdisciplinary research question, a distinction is made between three different disciplines. The main concept of the research is quality of life. To find out how quality of life is influenced by these approaches the meaning of quality of life should be extended to all domains of the disciplines. An interdisciplinary approach is preferred above a multi- or transdisciplinary approach, since the different problems originate from one cause (gas extraction) and thus an integrated coherent solution is required (Repko, 2011).
Figure 2: Schematic overview of integrative technique of extension on quality of life.
Let us illustrate the interdisciplinary nature of the problems: in this paper, water injection is presented as a possible measure for reducing the impact of earthquakes on the quality of life of the people living around the Groningen gasfield. However, it is unclear whether the proposed solution is financially achievable. In order to determine whether it is, it should be clear how water injection actually works and if it is supported by scientific experts and stakeholders. Furthermore, it is also considered that the affected people are actually not
willing to accept this measure. In other words, it is not yet clear whether this measure will be socially accepted or not. There could be multiple reasons for this. One could be that people do not trust the current operator of the gas field as a result of past activities that caused the earthquakes that have had impact on their quality of life, or as a result of inadequate information. Thus, it shows that an interdisciplinary approach to the problems is appropriate.
2.2 Gas extraction and earthquakes
Gas extraction is a very clear, though fundamental concept in the research that is to be conducted. The gas that is extracted by the NAM, The Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, is located in a porous sandstone layer that is located about 3 kilometers subsurface (Van der Voort & Vanclay, 2014). This sandstone layer, being the zechstein group, is beige coloured in figure 3 (Wong et al., 2004)
Figure 3: Geological cross-section of the Northern Netherlands (Wong et al. 2004)
The Groningen Gas field covers approximately 900 km2, this being roughly 39 percent of the whole province of Groningen (Van der Voort & Vanclay, 2014). Extraction of gas from this sandstone layer leads to differences in tensions subsurface, causing minor earthquakes (Korff et al. 2014). Consequently, this has had impact on life on the surface of the earth’s crust. The changes in the stress and tension regime have caused subsidence and minor earthquakes. In recent years, the induced seismicity in Groningen has gotten more attention from the public as well as from politicians. Logically, the call for protective measures against seismicity at the surface or a reduction of the gas production has gotten louder in recent years. This trend has caused various measures to be put forward such as the strengthening of houses and a reduction of the gas production. However, other interests of the government interfere with the reduction of the gas production, mainly being independent from other countries when it comes to gas supply. As a result, this reduction of gas production is not considered a solution covering the whole problem. Another solution is put forward by the
Gas Generation Group, also referred to as triple G. This group of companies wants to overcome the problems in Groningen regarding induced seismicity by filling up reservoirs with water to maintain pressure levels and to prevent seismicity as a result of gas extraction. However, this technique is very new and therefore it is hard to say whether it is technically feasible. On the other hand, the question arises if such a measure actually has social support by inhabitants.
2.3 Quality of Life
People living in the areas which are affected by the earthquakes, notice the effects of the earthquakes in their daily lives. Therefore, it is automatically contributing to their quality of life and their perception of it. Quality of life is a concept that is used in a lot of contexts, and there are many different definitions and interpretations of the concept. Since this research integrates different disciplines, the definitions of quality of life must also be integrated so it covers all relevant used disciplines. Thereby, a clear definition must given so it is evident which interpretation will be utilised in this research. In this research, quality of life will be defined in two separate ways, one being subjective quality of life and one being objective quality of life. In order to streamline the focus of the research, the subjective quality of life is defined as people’s perception of their wellbeing, and the negative effects on it are defined as the emotional damage that inhabitants of the earthquake area suffer from the earthquakes. Emotional damage is considered subjective, as it differs from person to person, based on their personal experiences and beliefs. Objective quality of life is defined as economic wellbeing. Negative effects on the objective quality of life are defined as ‘loss of capital by the earthquakes’ and are further specified as direct damage to houses and the decline of house values in the earthquake area.
2.4 Risk Assessment
The environmental impact of water injection should be taken into account, considering uncertainties such as the effect of water injection on groundwater and open water bodies as a feasible solution for the earthquake problem should not be at the expense of risking a healthy environment. Risk assessment will therefore be clarified using the risk assessment matrix. In scientific research, Risk Assessment is used to forecast and measure the probability or impact of unfortunate events (Harding, 1998). The paper Environmental decision-making: The roles of scientists, engineers, and the public by Harding (1998) describes Risk Assessment as an important component of environmental decision-making.
Risk Assessment is helpful to measure environmental problems and is therefore of importance when looking at the environmental risks.
As water injection could be a feasible solution for the earthquake problem, the risks when leaking occurs should be made classifiable. Because there is a lack of consensus on the definition and the proper measurement of water quality, the concept needs other modelling or assessment techniques to make it quantifiable (Andreen, 2004). Risk assessment will therefore be clarified using the risk assessment matrix. From an article written by the European Commission (2010) about risk assessment, the risk assessment matrix is used as follows: ‘’A risk matrix relating the two dimensional likelihood and impact is
a graphical representation of different risks in a comparative way. The matrix is used as a visualisation tool when multiple risks have been identified to facilitate comparing the different risks.’’ In order to create a risk assessment matrix that can be used correctly, the relative
importance should be graded using a set of criteria to score the relative likelihood and the relative impact. These criteria can differ from other risk assessments found in other disciplines because the criteria should be appropriate for the hazard that is assessed. Plausible for environmental hazards are the following criteria (University of Tasmania, 2004):
Likelihood:
• Almost certain – 80 to 100 percent chances of occurrence • Likely – 60 to 80 percent chances of occurrence
• Possible – 40 to 60 percent chances of occurrence • Unlikely– 20 to 40 percent chances of occurrence • Rare – less than 20 percent chances of occurrence
Consequence:
• Catastrophic: A risk that can prove detrimental for the whole project.
• Major: Risks which can significantly jeopardize some aspects of the project, but which will not completely ruin the project.
• Moderate: Risks which will cause some problems, but nothing too significant. • Minor: Any risks which will have just a mild impact on the project, still these must be
addressed in time.
• Insignificant: Risks which do not pose any significant threat and which can be left unmediated without any fear.
In this risk assessment matrix we assume that leakage can occur in the Groningen area. First of all, the risks will be defined. Then the likelihood and consequences will be clarified and after that the risks will be classified and a conclusion can be drawn.
Figure 4: Risk assessment matrix
3. Methodology
As mentioned before, this research focuses on solving problems that involve more than one discipline. By taking an interdisciplinary approach, we are able to integrate different viewpoints. By building bridges between disciplines, ideas can be created that are able to solve broad problems. To be able to integrate the three disciplines, these are divided in two broad sub-questions. One sub-question investigates how gas extraction causes earthquakes and what the effects of this extraction are on quality of life in Groningen. The second sub-question focuses on solving the problem and investigates the three perspectives concerning water injection. To make sure the research questions are interpreted in the correct way, a
Impact Likeli-hood Catastrophic - Major - Moderate - Minor - Insigni4icant Almost certain Likely Possible Unlikely Rare Extreme risk High risk Medium risk Low risk
hypothesis is constructed. Expected is that natural gas extraction influences the quality of life of the population of Groningen negatively. Water injection is expected to diminish these influences.
For this study, both qualitative and quantitative research approaches are proposed. Qualitative research focuses on the collection of verbal data rather than measurements. This includes opinions and feelings. Quantitative research is done by analysing data brought to us by experts and literature. By combining these approaches, a mixed-methods research is created. The aim is to provide a complete, detailed description of both the observations and the exploratory data (Bryman, 2006).
For the technical background of the research, measurable data will be gathered and further analyzed, resulting in the quantitative approach of the research. Also, the ‘founder’ of water injection, Gerrit Wigger, helped us in getting more insight in the technical part of the water injection. The effects on the quality of life of the population is approached subjective and objective, explored by the use of interviews and the gathering of information from literature. We conducted the survey in a random group of inhabitants of Groningen, with people from different age groups and education. Environmental impact will be explored by consulting experts and to make it more quantitative and usable a risk assessment will be constructed. For this part of the research we got in touch with Rien Herber, professor geo-energy at the Groningen University, and Arie van Haeringen from the NAM.
Figure 5: Schematic overview of methods.
Research question Discipline Method(s) Who
How does gas extraction affect quality of life in Groningen?
Technical
Literature + experts Gerrit Wigger Rien Herber Social
Objective: literature Subjective: interviews Inhabitants of the province of Groningen Environmental Literature Is water injection in gas reservoirs a feasible measure to mitigate earthquakes in Groningen? Technical Literature Gerrit Wigger Social Objective: numerical data
Subjective: interviews Inhabitants of the province of Groningen Environmental
4. Interdisciplinary results
4.1 Gas extraction and the influence on quality of life
When researching this question, another question must arise, namely why does Groningen experience earthquakes. In order to come to a reasonable solution for this controversial problem, it is necessary to determine its origin. More generalised it could be posed as: why does seismicity occur in areas where hydrocarbon resources are depleted. To get a better understanding of how to conquer the effects of earthquakes in Groningen, especially, and eventually stop them or limit their effect, it is necessary to get an understanding of how these earthquakes are induced by gas extraction or other processes related to the exploitation of resources in Groningen. In 1926 already, W.E. Pratt and D.W. Johnson published their findings on seismicity caused by the extraction of oil, gas, water and sand in the Journal of Geology. They found the maximum measured subsidence to be 3 feet for an area of 2.5 miles wide and 1.5 miles long in Goose Creek, Texas. Outside this area, subsidence was not detected according to Pratt and Johnson, whereas earthquakes were abundant throughout the area. These earthquakes were correlated to the subsidence according to Pratt and Johnson. Pratt and Johnson consequently addressed the seismicity to human action in the area as the purely local character of the subsidence could only be explained by the local extraction of resources. At a larger scale, this is also happening in Groningen. Earthquakes in Groningen are commonly addressed to poroelastic stress changes (Van Eck et al., 2006). More in general, the driving force behind induced seismicity in hydrocarbon reservoir is a stress, a force working on a certain area. A proper example of this process is the case of West Ekofisk reservoir in the North Sea. The crest of this reservoir experienced about 61 MPa of vertical stress while the reservoirs internal pressure was stated at 49 MPa, this yields a vertical effective stress of 12 MPa. However, due to depletion, the reservoir pressure decreased about 41 MPa resulting in an increase of the effective stress. An increase of over 300% causing crestal subsidence of about 3.5 metres in the period from 1977 to 1998 (Nagel, 2000).
Figure 6: The initial and final situation in the West Ekofisk reservoir.
The loss of strength of the reservoir stratum results in the compaction of that certain stratum as its strength cannot deal with the effective stress exerted upon itself. Logically, Nagel (2000) defines subsidence more elaborate: “Subsidence is simply the movement of
surface strata in response to a loss of underground support. This loss of support can be associated with hydrocarbon removal, (...). Often, the downward vertical motion of the earth's surface is the most notable aspect of subsidence.”.
Figure 8: Mohr-Coulomb representation of induced seismicity (Mulders 2003).
The image in figure 7 gives a proper, simplified overview of the consequences of reservoir depletion for subsurface seismicity and faulting. The image clearly shows the elongation of the crust, one of the factors responsible of increased stresses and tension exerted on houses and infrastructure. The elongation, faulting and seismicity are a clear consequence of the reduced internal strength of the reservoir and the resulting subsidence. Figure 8 shows the implications for a rock body when the resources it contains are depleted in terms of the the normal stress and the shear stress working on the rock body. The Mohr-Coulomb failure line marks the combinations of normal- and shear stress at which the rock will break and thus movement can be facilitated. Depletion of the resources in a rock body will lead to increased differences in the effective stress regimes and thus the Mohr-Coulomb failure line will be reached more easily.
Figure 9: Models by the NAM show bi-linear relationship between compaction and the reservoir pressure at a certain benchmark (NAM, 2013).
Furthermore, there is no historic evidence of tectonic earthquakes in Groningen (Houtgast, 1992). Whereas faults in Groningen do not seem connected to other faults on which seismicity from natural origin has been observed. Moreover, earthquakes observed in Groningen mostly occurred at a depth between 500 m to 2500 m. These events therefore happened at the top of the seismogenic zone of the crust (Van Eck et al., 2006). According to Scholtz (2002) this would mean that it is very improbable that these shallow events would trigger the occurrence of events in the deeper and stronger parts of the seismogenic zone. Consequently, the option of the earthquakes in Groningen being addressable to natural seismicity is neglectable.
In order to know what the influences of these earthquakes are on the quality of life of people in Groningen, literature from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen is conducted. The population of Groningen is directly affected by the earthquakes caused by gas extraction. Houses are damaged and their values have decreased as the region has become less attractive as a residential area. Additionally, people are experiencing increased levels of
anxiety and they enjoy living in their homes less than before. This is backed up by research from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RUG, 2014).
The same research shows that the percentage of people whose house got damaged due to seismic activity has increased from 40 percent in 2009 to 70 percent in 2013. In 2009 only one third of these people actually filed a damage claim. This number increased to 70 percent in 2013. Thereby, the percentage of damage claims that were honoured increased from 50 percent in 2009 to 80 percent in 2013. So the number of incidents where houses were damaged have increased, but the percentage of damage claims that have been honoured has increased as well. In the best case, people do not notice any difference. However, there were more cases in which people have suffered damage to their house, which cost them money or time spent for filing damage claims. It seems that the objective quality of life is decreasing as a result of the earthquakes.
For this research we created a survey (which can be found in appendix A) to inquire about the opinion of people on the effects of the earthquakes on their quality of life. The target group was the population of the affected areas. We approached this group by sending our survey to the editor of the news website Aardbevingen Groningen , who shared it with 1 their followers. Since the majority of the followers of Aardbevingen Groningen live in the affected area, hence they are interested in the subject, this group fit our target audience perfectly well. The main goal of this survey was to learn which factors people find important for a good quality of life.
In the survey, only questions were asked about factors that are directly related to the earthquakes and their consequences. The survey is divided in five different categories: general, economics, health, social and environment. At the beginning of each section, respondents indicate how important they find that specific category for their quality of life. Based on this, we applied weights to the questions in each category according to the importance people assigned to them. At the end of each section, we asked the respondents if they had any remarks. Most comments are complementing the questions in the survey, and offer insights in cases there were no questions on. We must take into account that it is very likely for our target group to have a bias regarding the topic of earthquakes and gas extraction. For this reason, we can not assume that the answers to our survey questions are entirely objective. This does not hinder our research though, since the goal of the survey is to learn about the subjective part of quality of life. However, we must not neglect it.
We received 47 responses to our survey (which can be found in appendix B), which should be sufficient to give a general idea about how earthquakes affect people’s quality of
Their website can be found on http://www.aardbevingen-groningen.nl
life. In the survey results, the distribution of the gender, age and educational level of the respondents is portrayed in a pie chart. The male/female ratio is fairly even, as is the distribution of age. The last one is less equally divided, however it is in compliance with the general distribution in the area (Sociaal Planbureau Groningen, 2015), so it is a fair representation of the regional population. To add to this, the respondents come from a wide variety of work fields. Examples include but are not limited to: ‘housewife’, ‘agriculture’, ‘oil- gas- and chemical’ and ‘government’.
There is a general agreement on the importance of economics for personal well being. 72.8 per cent expresses that economics is moderately or fairly important. The majority (59.6%) indicated that the value of their house has decreased by at least 10 per cent as a result of the earthquakes. Only 12.8 per cent of the respondents indicate that the earthquakes had no effect on the value of their house. Additionally, 47.8 per cent of the respondents have suffered at least €10,000 of direct damage, as opposed to 8.7 per cent that has suffered no direct damage due to the earthquakes at all. 43.5 per cent said that there has been no change in employment as a result of earthquakes. On the other hand, 34.7 per cent beliefs that the employment rate has decreased or is still decreasing. Remarkably, the people who said that the employment rate had increased, left comments very often in which they unanimously stated that employment in the construction industry has increased, as the need for repairs is high.
The results reveal that people regard health as extremely important for their quality of life. 97.9 per cent of the respondents indicated so. 66 per cent stated that their sense of safety has decreased significantly. A large majority, 86.9 percent, experiences moderate to high levels of stress as a result of earthquakes. Noteworthy is the division between people that very often consider to move away and people that do not consider moving away at all (See figure 10). In the ‘remarks’ section, the people that indicate they often consider to move away explain that they would like to move away but feel like they are not able to because they are bound to their area of residence because of relatives or work. Thereby, it is often mentioned that people do not have the financial capacity to move away. This is strengthened by the fact that the value of most houses have decreased, and it is much harder for people to sell their house without losing capital.
Figure 10: There is a remarkable division between responses to the question how often people consider to move away as a result of the earthquakes.
All respondents expressed that they find social atmosphere an important factor for their quality of life. The majority (55.3 per cent) stated that the atmosphere in their residential area has not changed due to earthquakes. 29.8 per cent says that social atmosphere in their residential area has improved as a result of the earthquakes. We assume this is due to the fact that affected people are in the same situation and feel they need to unite against the NAM and the government, which are are responsible for the gas extraction. This can be inferred from communities or action groups like ‘Aardbevingen Groningen’ and ‘Schokkend Groningen’ which have, beside a website , a page on Facebook with around 5,000 and 2 3,000 followers respectively. The results show that 76.6 per cent is very discontented with the information distribution regarding gas extraction and earthquakes. In this section of the survey, we received a lot of remarks from people expressing their displeasure towards the NAM and the Dutch government. From this, we conclude that the majority of the people find transparent information very important.
4.2 Water injection as a solution
A group of companies united under the cooperation Gas Generation Group, are proposing water injection as a measure to reduce seismicity in Groningen. The costs for water injection as a measure are, according to the Gas Generation Group, estimated at 1 billion euro’s. However, scientific literature is yet to be published by the Gas Generation Group or another scientific source regarding this specific case as water injection to reduce seismicity is a relative new technique. Therefore, no argumentation is backing up the 1 billion euro estimate by the Gas Generation Group. However, founder of the Gas Generation
Websites can be found on: http://www.aardbevingen-groningen.nl and http://schokkend-groningen.nl/
2
Group, G. Wigger (2015) is finishing a white paper regarding the proposed technique.
However, for our own purpose the 1 billion euro claim will be used as a reference throughout this research. The 1 billion euro claim by the Gas Generation Group is an interesting number regarding the current situation. At the moment The State and the NAM are funding a 1,18 billion euro package of measures for the Groningen gasfield. This package as displayed in the table below will be partially covered by The State as a result of decreasing gas profits (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2014).
Figure 11: table of costs regarding the package of measures to be taken.
In this case, the costs of water injection are already lower than the costs that have to be met in the package. 1 billion euros versus 1.18 billion euros results in a net saving of 0.18 billion euros. However, this package only covers expenses up until 2018. Consequently, after 2018 there will be additional costs as the current package is apparently not a sustainable solution. Therefore, it is certain that after 2018, costs for measures will be present if gas production in its current form continues. In this case there would be ongoing adaptation to the problematic situation with ongoing costs, whereas prevention would ask for a sustainable, finite solution. In case of a finite, sustainable solution preventing the
earthquakes, the ongoing costs will not have to be covered anymore. On the other hand, the reduction of gas production will have a negative effect on the public treasury. For instance,
when the gas production had been reduced to 30 billion m3 per year this would lead to a decrease of the benefits for the public treasury of 3 billion euros. In case of a reduction to 40 billion m3 of gas production, there would have been a decrease of 1.3 billion euros.
However, it should be noted that this is not a loss, it is only a decrease of the profit.
Unfortunately, the Gas Generation group has yet to publish white literature regarding their proposed technique and its implementations. However, Gerrit Wigger, found of the Gas Generation Group, was consulted. The Gas Generation Group plans to inject the water in the lower part of the reservoir. This would prevent the water from lubricating faults and induce extra seismicity instead of preventing it. Examples of this inducement are observed in Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Arkansas. In all cases, wastewater injection is believed to be inducing the seismicity (Weingarten et al., 2015). Similar situations are observed in Twente, where wastewater injection takes place under supervision of the NAM. However, very differing opinions regarding seismicity as result of water injection are proclaimed throughout media by various leading experts (NRC, 2015). Moreover it should be noted that in the cases above, injection is not used to prevent earthquakes. Furthermore, erosion is likely to occur in the reservoir. On one hand it is likely to occur as a consequence of flowing water carrying away particles. On the other hand the dissolution of salt crystals could
contribute to erosion. Erosion this way can cause hollows to originate. These hollows have a risk of collapsing. In this way the hollows as a result of erosion can contribute to the risk of induced seismicity. Moreover, the dissolution of salts paves the way for stronger water flows.
According to The Gas Generation Group, water injection is also cheaper than another seriously considered option. Namely nitrogen injection. In case of a reservoir
pressure of 100 bar there would be only 1 m3 water needed to produce 100 m3 of gas, while maintaining the reservoir pressure. In case of nitrogen 100 m3 would be needed to replace the extracted gas. Furthermore, water will move into the reservoir by itself as a result of a static height of 300 bar while nitrogen will need to be pumped into the reservoir with a pressure of 120 bar. Moreover, the Gas Generation Group also sees potential to produce hydro-energy when injecting water into the reservoir (Wigger, G., 2015).
As water is injected in gas reservoirs, environmental consequences will likely affect the quality of the water for the most part. From studies in other gas fields it is shown that water can leach from the gas reservoir through different soil layers to the groundwater and can eventually reach surface water (Oberdorfer & Peterson, 1985). This could have tremendous effects on human well-being because people have more access to contaminants (Muxika et al., 2007). In order to gain information about water injection in the Groningen area it is important to define the concept of water quality. Chapman (1996)
describes it using the term ‘quality of the aquatic environment’ as ‘’Set of concentrations,
speciations, and physical partitions of inorganic or organic substances, composition and state of aquatic biota in the water body and description of temporal and spatial variations due to factors internal and external to the water body.’’ The main goal is to conclude whether
water injection has an effect on the water quality and if this has influences on flora, fauna and soil quality.
Because water injection is not implemented in the Groningen area yet, it is difficult to conclude what the consequences of this measure are for the Groningen environment. However, water is injected in gas reservoirs in Twente, resulting in several debates between stakeholders. Water injection in Twente is not used for the same purpose as water injection in Groningen, but it is used solely as a storage. Also, water injection in Twente is different than in Groningen as the subsoil differs strongly. The subsoil in Twente is made up of mainly limestone, while in the Groningen subsoil sand peat predominates (Herber, R. 2015). So the comparison between Twente and Groningen may not be totally accurate, but the consequences that could appear show strong correlations.
As the NAM does not provide any information about the composition of the water injected in Twente, it is difficult to say what consequences will arise in Twente and subsequently what consequences will arise in the Groningen gas reservoir area. Nevertheless, scientists are opinionated about this measure, and a lot of them are against water injection. Professor environmental sciences Lucas Reijnders states the NAM injects a ‘poisonous cocktail’ into gas reservoirs in Twente. He claims the wasted water contains acidic substances such as hydrogen fluoride, radioactive strontium and hydrochloric acid. Also, in the past, two leakages have occurred which may indicate that the NAM has not thought about the application of the pipes that transport waste water (RTV Oost, 2014). Physical geographer Ko van Huissteden states ‘’Right now, waste water is injected under
low pressure, but later the pressure will increase and will cause more danger as there have been two leakages recently.’’ which clearly shows his disregard on water injection (RTV
Oost, 2014).
Unfortunately, the environmental impacts of water injection in Groningen are rarely investigated. Rien Herber from the University of Groningen is clear about his view on water injection in Groningen. He states that the water that is injected in Groningen is the same water that arises when gas is extracted. This makes it a closed system so no danger for the environment will occur in the reservoir itself. What he does emphasize is that the water has a high salt content, so when leakage occurs in the upper layers of the soil, this could have a negative effect on the environment. What might be a problem, is that we do not know when a pipe is leaking, because this is all in the hands of the NAM. The NAM states that the
construction of injection pipes makes sure leakage of injection water is impossible. Also, for the safety and monitoring of injection pipes and reservoirs the NAM provides an intensive inspection programme. If there occurs a leakage anyway, the NAM is required to make sure they clean the effects of a leakage (van Haeringen, 2015).
According to the information gained from literature and experts, the water that is injected in the ground could have tremendous effects on the environment when injected in the Groningen subsoil. In order to make more clear how these risks can affect the environment the risk assessment matrix is filled in. For this we came up with the most important risks that arise when the environment is exposed possible leaking according to information gained by talking to the experts named above. These include:
• Deterioration of groundwater quality • Deterioration of surface water quality • Deterioration of soil quality
• Negative impact on human health • Negative impact on flora and fauna
As explained in the theoretical framework, the likelihood and consequences can be clarified after the risks have been defined. The deterioration of groundwater, surface water and soil quality means that there is a degradation of the soil because of the influence of
contaminants in the water. This could have a negative impact on the flora and fauna which is important when looking at environmental quality of life of people in Groningen. Also,
deterioration of water quality can have damaging effects on human health when this
contaminated water is exposed to people in Groningen. Using these definitions the risks are located in the right places of the risk assessment matrix.
Figure 12: Risk assessment matrix with classified risks
Environment is regarded by all respondents to be very important for their quality of life. Additionally, all respondents appreciate a clear view and a quiet residential area. This is now being disturbed by the sound of drilling rigs from the NAM, as some respondents have written in the comments section. 73.9 per cent of the respondents stated that they find clean groundwater to be of extremely high importance to them. We have to take this into account when considering water injection, since this poses a risk of groundwater pollution. The research from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (2014) shows that the proportion of people who want to reduce the gas extraction or would like to see different solutions, has doubled in the period of 2009-2013. This suggests that social acceptance towards alternative measures is increasing, including the willingness to accept water injection. However, exact numbers are missing so conclusions about social acceptance are hard to make.
Impact Likelih ood Catastrophic Major Moderate Minor Insigni4icant Almost certain Likely Possible Unlikely Rare Deterioration of groundwater quality Negative impact on human health Deterioration of surface water quality Deterioration of soil quality Negative impact on 4lora and fauna Extreme risk High risk Medium risk Low risk
5. Conclusion
The gas reservoir which is situated in the deep soil layers of the province of Groningen is of big importance to the Dutch government. Therefore the gas is extracted, resulting in subsidence and seismic activity that causes earthquakes. The consequences of these earthquakes influence the quality of life of people living in the affected area. The results of the survey show that the Groningen population has a negative attitude towards the gas extraction process due to the negative effects of the earthquakes they suffer. Looking at the results of the survey, we can only conclude that the quality of life of the respondents has drastically as a result of the earthquakes. The measure of water injection in gas reservoirs seems like a fair solution, since it could possibly reduce seismic activity. This could have a positive effect on people’s objective quality of life in Groningen, as this would reduce the damage that people’s houses suffer and it may increase house values again if the affected area becomes more attractive as a residential area. It could also increase the subjective quality of life, as people could feel less overlooked by the government and the NAM when measures are taken to prevent more earthquakes. Additionally, people would experience less earthquakes and could as a result be less discontented with their situation.
However, there are several downsides to this technique. First of all, the costs of water injection are rather high. This leaves us with the question whether the costs of implementing this technique will be higher than the costs that arise from the damage to objective and subjective quality of life of people living in Groningen. Also, there is a lot of uncertainty about the consequences for the environment. Because the NAM does not make clear what substances are injected in the reservoirs, pipe leakages could have adverse effects on the quality of groundwater and soil. These consequences can affect the quality of life negatively, reversing the initial increase caused by the reduction of seismic activity. To conclude, it is difficult to say whether water injection is a feasible measure to reduce seismic activity as it depends on certain factors of which few are uncertain.
For us, the interdisciplinary approach was quite a challenge, since we all have sort of the same background. We all have a social background from secondary school, and switched to beta now as it appeals to us more. Nevertheless, this made our collaboration way more easy. We had no discussions at all and all knew what we wanted to get out of this research. The most difficult part was finding an interesting subject that we could tackle from different disciplines. By choosing a subject that needed technical research and environmental knowledge, but also subjective information that we explored by doing a
survey, we think we succeeded in creating an interdisciplinary research. For a long time our texts were only multidisciplinary, so we decided to spend some time together, had dinner, and made sure our knowledge would be integrated more to make it more interdisciplinary. In our opinion, interdisciplinary research absolutely has the future. The NAM only sees the problem from one viewpoint and so does the population of Groningen. In order to integrate information and opinions from different stakeholders, an interdisciplinary approach is important as it helps build bridges between the information resources and see the problem from another perspective.
6. Discussion
Within the conducted research there is room for improvement. Regarding the survey, it should be noted that the questions from the survey were answered by 47 people. The results could be more accurate and representative if we had more respondents answer the survey. The more people participate in the survey, the more accurate the results will be. Therefore, in order to obtain a better insight in the social acceptance of certain measures against earthquakes in the Groningen area, more people should participate. However, the current results show that the participants have a positive attitude towards a sustainable solution. On the other hand, the survey also shows that most participants consider the environment as important for their quality of life. Therefore, a careful consideration should be made between the environmental risks of water injection and the benefits for the quality of life when implementing it.
A drawback within the research is the lack of white literature regarding the measure proposed by the Gas Generation Group and its specific implementations in Groningen. Consequently, there is little to no literature backing up claims by the Gas Generation Group, due to the fact that water injection is a relative recent technique. However, through personal communication some information was obtained. However, a complete publication regarding the Groningen case would benefit the research significantly as other studies regarding wastewater or freshwater injection are hard to compare to Groningen (Herber, R. 2015). Concluding, further research should include more data regarding the technical procedures of water injection and a clear model regarding the costs. In our opinion the best way to verify whether water injection could be a feasible measure to reduce earthquakes, and in that way increase quality of life, is to do a test injection in a gas reservoir. This reservoir should be as far away from the inhabitants as possible to reduce possible hazards. In that way, more can
be concluded about the safety of the measure and whether the risks can be overlooked by the advantages of this measure.
7. References
Andreen, W. L. (2004). Water Quality Today-Has the Clean Water Act Been a Success?. Alabama Law Review, 55, 537-593.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?.
Qualitative research, 6(1), 97-113.
Chapman, D. V. (Ed.). (1996). Water quality assessments: a guide to the use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring.
CIA (2015). CIA World Factbook, retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html on 28-9-2015
Harding, R. (Ed.). (1998). Environmental decision-making: The roles of scientists, engineers,
and the public. Federation Press.
Herber, R. Professor Geo-Energy Groningen University, personal communication, 12-11-2015.
Houtgast, G., 1992. Aardbevingen in Nederland; catalogus van aardbevingen t/m mei 1992. KNMI Publication, 179, 166 pp.
Kennislink (2008), Meer zand in ondergrond, mogelijk meer olie. Retrieved from http:// www.kennislink.nl/publicaties/meer-zand-in-ondergrond-mogelijk-meer-olie on 18-11-2015
Mulders, F.M.M. (2003), Modeling of stress development and fault slip in and around producing gas reservoirs. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Muxika, I., Borja, A., & Bald, J. (2007). Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status, according to the European Water Framework Directive.Marine pollution bulletin, 55(1), 16-29.
Nagel, N. B.(2000). Compaction and Subsidence Issues Within the Petroleum Industry: From Wilmington to Ekofisk and Beyond. Phys. Chem. Earth (A), 26(1-2), 3-14
Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (2013). Technical Addendum to the Winningsplan Groningen 2013 Subsidence, Induced Earthquakes and Seismic Hazard Analysis in the Groningen Field. NAM.
Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (2015a). Aardgas uit het Groningen-gasveld. Retrieved from http://www.namplatform.nl/gaswinning-en-aardbevingen/gaswinning/aardgas-uit-het-groningen-gasveld#iframe-L2VtYmVkL2NvbXBvbmVudC8/
aWQ9Q2hhcnRzL2dhc3dpbm5pbmcvdG90YWFsLWJhc2lj on 17-12-2015
Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (2015b). Feiten en Cijfers - Aardbevingen. Aantal
aardbevingen in het Groningen-gasveld. Retrieved from
http://www.namplatform.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/aardbevingen#iframe-L2VtYmVkL2NvbXBvbmVudC8/aWQ9YWFyZGJldmluZ2Vu on 17-12-2015
NU.nl (2015). Nieuwsberichten met zoektermen ‘gaswinning Groningen’. Retrieved from http://www.nu.nl/tag/Gaswinning%20Groningen on 17-12-2015
Oberdorfer, J. A., & Peterson, F. L. (1985). Waste‐Water Injection: Geochemical and Biogeochemical Clogging Processes. Groundwater, 23(6), 753-761.
Pratt, W.E & Johnson, D.W.(1926) Local Subsidence of the Goose Creek Oil Field.
The Journal of Geology, 35(7), 577-590
Repko et al. (2011). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. 2nd edition. Sage.
Rijksoverheid (2014). Bijlage - Aardgasbeleid in Nederland: actuele ontwikkelingen. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/ 2014/10/07/aardgasbeleid-in-nederland-actuele-ontwikkelingen/aardgasbeleid-in-nederland-actuele-ontwikkelingen.pdf. on 18-12-2015
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (2014). Opvattingen van bewoners over de effecten van aardbevingen op het woongenot en de woningwaarde in Groningen. Retrieved from http://
www.rug.nl/news-and-events/news/archief2014/nieuwsberichten/rapport-effecten-aardbevingen-op-woongenot.pdf on 29-10-2015
Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management, European Commission, SEC (2010) 1626 final, Brussels.
RTV Oost, Ook hoogleraar pleit voor stopzetten injectie afvalwater Twente, 22-12-2014. Retrieved from http://www.rtvoost.nl/nieuws/default.aspx?
nid=206571&_ga=1.101563585.1776092995.1447755429 on 17-11-2015
Scholtz, C.H., 2002. The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting, 2nd edition. Cambridge Univ. Press. 471 pp.
Segall, P. (1989). Earthquakes triggered by fluid extraction. Geology, 17, 942-946.
Sociaal Planbureau Groningen (2015). Cijfers, swing bevolking. Retrieved from http:// sociaalplanbureaugroningen.nl/beleidsvelden/swing-bevolking/ on 7-12-2015
Toonen, A. (2015). Een injectie met vier miljoen liter ongenoegen. NRC, retrieved from:
http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/2015/02/02/een-injectie-met-vier-miljoen-liter-ongenoegen-1461057 on 18-12-15
University of Tasmania (2004). Risk management toolkit. Retrieved from http:// www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/30890/risk_toolkit1.pdf on 12-11-2015
Van der Voort, N., Vanclay, F. (2014). Social impacts of earthquakes caused by gas extraction in the Province of Groningen, The Netherlands. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 50, pp. 1–15.
Van Eck, T., Goutbeek, F., Haak, H., Dost, B. 2006. Seismic hazard due to small-magnitude, shallow-source, induced earthquakes in The Netherlands. Engineering Geology, 87, 105– 121
Van Haeringen, A. Development Manager Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), personal communication, 12-11-2015.
Weingarten, M., Se, G., Godt, J.W., Bekins, B.A., Rubinstein, J.L. (2015). High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity. Science, 348 (6241), pp. 1336-1340
Wigger, G. (2015) personal communication on 7-12-15.
Wong, Th. E., Doornenbal, J. C., Geluk. M. (2004) Geological atlas of the subsurface of the Netherlands. Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience TNO, National Geological Survey 2004.
8. Appendix
8.1 Appendix A - Survey
8.2 Appendix B - Survey results
!
!
Wat is uw werkveld?
Ruimtelijke Ordening Financieel
- Bijstand
Docent / cultuur Media
Kapitein bouwkunde
Handhaving Binnenvaart
politiek zorg/welzijn
ambtenaar Onderzoek
Communicatie Jeugdhulpverlening Ict rug Telecom Operator Offshore Voedingsadvies metaal huisvrouw Overheid
Schrijver en docent literair schrijven
was Openbaar Ministerie Psychologie Appingedam Nvt Hgl sociale psychologie geen gezondheidszorg
universiteit/ middelbaar onderwijs Oil gas and chemical
Administratie Overheid maritiem Zorg en welzijn onderwijs Landbouw Regulatory compliance Onderwijs zorg AOW-er
Economie - opmerkingen:
Werkgelegenheid voor beperkte groep mensen. Iemand in de thuiszorg heeft bijv. niet opeens meer werk. Managers van overheidscommissies wel.
Het gevaar van de aardbevingen wordt niet serieus genoeg genomen door de politiek. Laat staan de tijd en energie die het kost om er met de nam of wie dan ook uit te komen wat de schade is. Vooral in de schade herstel en aardbeving organisaties CVW en ambtenaren gasdossier Werkgelegenheid bij advies/onderzoekbureau neemt erg snel toe
Ik woon in een huurhuis, meldt aanzienlijke schade bij de woningbouw hoor maandag niks en blijk nu onderdeel uit te maken van een pilot? Overmorgen komt iemand mijn huis in eten. Tegenover ons zijn ze al begonnen. Ik zie wat me te wachten staat en weet van niks...
Moeilijk in te schatten. Er zeen veel aannemers van buiten de provincie
Het gaat op de toestand hier op de langere termijn, er zullen minder nieuwe bewoners en bedrijven van elders zich vestigen, maar wel meer bedrijven die de schade moeten gaan verminderen. Maar de leefbaarheid en de cultuurschatten zullen er onder gaan leiden, dit wordt steeds meer een wingewest.
De schade blijft maar oplopen. Ons huis is al 2 x opgeknapt, maar bij een volgende beving zitten er weer scheuren in de muren. Dit heeft grote invloed op je thuissituatie. Je moet lang wachten voordat de schade wordt opgelost en je (t) huis veranderd in een bouwplaats. Met stof, stucloper en geen eigen plek.
De werkgelegenheid neemt alleen toe op gebied van schadeherstel.
Mensen willen hier niet komen wonen of trekken weg vanwege de gaswinning (het gaat hier om schade door gaswinning, dat is meer dan alleen aardbevingsschade!, ook bodemdaling/verzakking vallen daar onder), dat geeft minder werkgelegenheid voor de middenstand/ de (ver)bouwbedrijven; mensen hebben hier veel materiële schade, dat geeft werkgelegenheid voor bouwbedrijven.
Kortom: het houdt elkaar in evenwicht
Rare vragen, we hebben ons huis niet te koop staan, waardedaling is moeilijk in te schatten. Ook is het moeilijk om de directe schade op deze wijze weer te geven. CVW geeft 4000 euro aan, wijzelf vrezen dat het veel meer is omdat er spanning om de achterzijde van de woning is komen te staan. En de vraag werkgelegendheid: door CVW wel extra werkgelegendheid maar aardbevingen zorgen ook voor mensen die niet meer naar het noorden komen, dat is moeilijker te meten.
door de schade-afhandelingen is er meer werk.
Gezondheid - opmerkingen:
Verhuizen is onmogelijk. Alle huizen in gaswingebied staan onder water.
Onrust en vooral het voor sneeuw voor de zon verdwijnen van onze oudedagvoorziening (spaarcenten woning) waardevermindering door de mijnbouwactiviteiten. (gaswinning) Ons leven is verandert door de bevingen.
Vanwege werk en schoolgaande kinderen kun je niet makkelijk verhuizen, je zou bovendien behoorlijk verder op moeten gaan wonen. Daarnaast zijn huizen hier niet te verkopen of alleen met zwaar financieel verlies.
Ik wil niet verhuizen omdat ik geboren ben in deze omgeving, ik hou van het Hooge Land. Wij wonen hier omdat we hier willen wonen. Wij hebben een huis gekocht om hier samen oud te worden, niet met het oogmerk om deze weer te verkopen.
Niet alleen gevoel van veiligheid minder maar ook veel zorgen om de toekomst van dit gebied, het wordt een verpauperd gebied met zeer veel afbraakwoningen en opdoeken monumentale gebouwe en kerken.
Ik zou willen verhuizen,
maar huis is nu veel minder waard dan hypotheek
Ik loop al vanaf september 2014 met het plan om te emigreren naar Denemarken. Maar doordat ons huis voor te weinig geld verkocht zou moeten worden is dit niet haalbaar.
Het gevoel dat je wel weg wilt, maar niet weg kunt is meer dan onplezierig.
Ik ben economisch en emotioneel (vriendenverbanden/ familieverbanden/ werk etc,) gebonden aan de regio.
Als het te vaak voor gaat komen en er is te vaak schade in mijn huis dan overweeg ik zeker om te verhuizen. Ik ben niet van plan om ieder jaar in de zooi te zitten en alles weer op te knappen Opnieuw, rare vragen. Je kunt niet zomaar verhuizen en in Groningen blijf je dit probleem houden. Wel vraag je je af of je extra moet investeren in je huis, wel of niet een uitbouw bijvoorbeeld. dit is mijn geboortegrond, ik wel niet uit Groningen weg.
Maar ja wie wil daar wonen...
Sociale sfeer - opmerkingen:
Goed dat er sites zijn en facebooks als Aardbevingen Groningen, Dwarshuis.com en dergelijke Informatievoorziening is gekleurd. Dat krijg je als NAM alles dicteert.
Overheid de Staat verschuild zich te veel achter allemaal bedrijven en is hoofdverantwoordelijk voor alle ellende hier in Groningen. Ze moet het beestje bij de naam noemen.
Zoals eerder gezegd. Daarbij wordt er gegoocheld met getallen en is nam en ez die het eindoordeel hebben. Het gaat niet om ons welzijn, het gaat ze om de poen.
Te veel tegenstrijdige informatie. Daarnaast zijn de onderzoeksrapporten wetenschappelijk geschreven. Als je dat vakgebied niet kent is het zeer moeilijk te begrijpen. Ook moet je bijna jurist zijn, om de gevolgen van genomen besluiten te kunnen overzien.
Er zijn er veel organisaties die zich hiermee bezighouden, ik zie door de bomen het bos niet meer. Mensen krijgen nu dezelfde problemen (mijnbouwschade) en helpen elkaar. Een daaruit ontstane doel en een gemeenschappelijle "vijand" zorgt voor een groeiende eenheid.
Informatie door wie? De Nam en de overheid traineren en doseren slecht nieuws zodat we hier langzaamaan gaan wennen aan een beleid dat toch levenszekerheid voor alles laat gaan. Het oldboysnetwerk is nog volledig in stand. We krijgen wel betere informatie van allerlei organisaties uit de samenleving hier.
De nam vertelt toch alleen wat ze kwijt willen
De informatie is zeer eenzijdig, komt meestal van de NAM. Ik vraag me vaak af of er onderzoek wordt gedaan door een onafhankelijke partij. (Iemand die niet betaald wordt door de NAM, de Staat of andere bedrijven die beter willen worden van de mijnbouwschade)
Ik ben tevreden over de verbondenheid die de schade door gaswinning onder de bewoners van de regio veroorzaakt; ik ben zeer ontevreden over de misleidende/ foutieve informatie/ non-informatie van de overheid/ de Nam.
Vanuit de nam zeer ontevreden
Voorzieningen door NAM, CVW en overheid slecht, maar GBB en eigen groeperingen, vrienden en kennissen zorgen voor betere informatie.
het zijn mooie woorden van de instanties, maar er is een grote groep mensen die niet geholpen worden.
Dat betreft vooral de informatie van officiele instanties als CVW, gemeente etc.
Milieu - opmerkingen:
NAM-locaties produceren veel laagfrequent geluid.
Woon hier voor de rust en ruimte en schoonheid van de natuur Ik woon niet voor niets in noord Groningen
En vergeet niet het bewaren van de cultuurschatten en een levendig en innovatief klimaat. Ik hoor regelmatig een monotone bromtoon die in verband wordt gebracht met gasboringen.
Dit geluid is altijd aanwezig. Het is niet heel luid maar wel heel vervelend. Als het heel stil is ( bv als ik wil slapen ) dan is het geluid zo sterk aanwezig dat mijn oren er pijn van doen.
Uitzicht en rust zijn zaken die je min of meer zelf kunt beïnvloeden door de keuze van je woning; voor milieu / schoon grondwater ben je afhankelijk van derden.
Uitzicht heeft iedereen. Ik denk dat het belangrijker is dat er niet zoveel inkijk is, dus privacy. We wonen in de stad en werken in Appingedam. De grond trilt, de windmolens buiten de stad verstoren het uitzicht en de kolencentrale Eemshaven braakt de hele dag door wolken met kwik uit.
Heeft u nog overige op- of aanmerkingen?
Kan de UVA juridische faculteit een onderzoek starten naar de wettelijke aansprakelijkheid van Mijnbouwschade op grond van de mijnbouwwet en het BW (6.162 t/m 6.180) en Rv 150? En dat toepassen op de huidige gang van zaken in Groningen met schadeprotocollen van de
schadeveroorzaker?
Doe vervolgonderzoek IN Groningen. Praat met gedupeerden. Het is een beerput. Trek die open. Het wordt tijd dat de mensen echt ontzorgd worden en dat het vernietigen van ons kapitaal ruimschoots vergoed wordt. De overheid moet nu eerst de gegijzelde bewoners mijnbouwschade gebied hun vrijheid terug geven.
Wij zijn sinds een jaar uithuis geplaatst i.v.m. mijnbouwschade(dit is de term i.p.v.
aardbevingsschade) behoorlijk sociaal ontwricht en vertrouwen in de overheid is heel erg sterk afgenomen. Kom eens langs
Met deze vragen gaat u niet tot de kern komen. Daarvoor moet u daadwerkelijk in gesprek met mensen alhier. Hetgeen de bevingen op individueel niveau met mensen doet , het wantrouwen in voorheen respectabele instituten. Het is een ramp in slowmotion die zich hier voltrekt. Als er nu een beving komt, terwijl ik dit typ is er een reële kans dat mijn schoorsteen instort, mijn voorgevel het begeeft met alle gevolgen van dien. Niet alleen bij mij, bij de hele straat. De rijtjes huizen zijn in slechte staat. De gestapelde en hoogbouw gaan ze nu pas echt naar kijken.
Succes met jullie onderzoek. Bezoek onze provincie ook eens. Het beeld van de beschadigde huizen in stutten zegt soms meer dan woorden.
Daarnaast zijn er mensen die vanwege gevaarlijke situatie uit het huis gezet zijn. Is misschien een interview waard. Als ze tenminste niet bij de NAM hebben moeten tekenen, dat ze niks mogen zeggen. Dat gebeurt namelijk ook. Als ze zich wel uitspreken krijgen ze geen financiële compensatie.
Ik begrijp niet dat al deze vragen ook maar iets te maken hebben met de invloed van aardbevingen Wie financiert dit onderzoek? Ik vraag dit omdat er weinig rekekening is gehouden met vragen over de leefbaarheid van de mensen voor de roekoms en de zorg voor cultuurschatten en het milieu. I De strijd die we bij iedere schade moeten voeren is stressverhogend
Ik ben benieuwd wat jullie met de enquêtes doen. Aangezien dit al de 7de enquête is die ik heb ingevuld. Het zou mooi zijn wanneer mensen buiten gaswinningsgebied eens door zouden hebben hoeveel impact het gaswinnen heeft voor de Noorderlingen.
Graag voortaan spreken over 'invloed van gaswinning/ mijnbouwschade'. Wat ons woongenot en onze veiligheid en gemoedsrust beïnvloed is meer dan alleen de aardbevingen, die slechts een van de (vervelende) gevolgen vormen van de gaswinning.'
