The proximity of the reservoirs is the most strategic factor for our region in combination with the high seismicity, 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙧, 𝞽𝞸 𝞳𝞴𝞮𝞲𝞭ί 𝞹𝞸𝞾 𝞹𝞺έ𝞹𝞮𝞲 𝞶𝞪 𝞼𝞽𝞪𝞵𝞪𝞽ή𝞼𝞮𝞲 𝞽𝞸 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬, the key to why we say NO to CCS Prinos. Is it a coincidence that even the originators of the technology, the Norwegians who also have huge economic benefits from CCS, are building similar facilities 150+ km from their shores?

” Of course, ifCO2 storagehad the same “lifetime” horizon as oil pumping (50 years) the risk would be limited because the earthquake is a stochastic phenomenon (its time variation is not known) and is therefore approximated probabilistically. But this is not the case in the case of the Prinos, the storage will be in perpetuity and the occurrence of a major earthquake is very likely or even certain.”

Lazaros Vassiliadis

We look towards the Tempi and we are frightened about the security rules of the Greek State!!!!!! This is why trust in the State has been lost.

State without prevention

The state seemed incapable of protecting even the most basic right: life. Citizens saw that security systems either did not exist or did not work, that warnings had been ignored for years, that negligence had become the norm.

Concealment, not accountability

Instead of an honest attitude, the government attempted to shift the responsibility to one person, the stationmaster. This move was seen by many as an attempt to cover up the systemic problem and reinforced the feeling of betrayal.

The timelessness of decadence

The case of Tempe revealed that the problem was not a momentary one. It was the result of decades of opacity, political impunity and administrative negligence, with many governments bearing responsibility.

The state as “other”

But the most painful thing was that the State appeared to the citizens as something foreign, alienated. A state that does not protect, does not hold itself accountable and does not correct itself cannot inspire trust.

Anger and assertion

The mobilisations that followed were not just expressions of mourning. They were cries of indignation from a society that can no longer bear the normality of the accident, the familiarity of the fatal. The slogan “It wasn’t an accident – it was a crime” encapsulated the moral dimension of the loss of trust.

Trust in the State was not lost in Tempe. It had already been eroded – the accident merely exposed it. And regaining it will not come through communication moves or temporary measures. It will require catharsis, truth and a radical change of mindset at every level of government.

The quantities of CO₂ destined for storage in Prinos do not only come from Greek emission sources, but possibly also from Southern European countries. Thassos risks becoming a transnational pollutant dumping ground, taking disproportionate environmental and geopolitical risks without sufficient benefits for itself. Such a scenario increases the sense of injustice in local communities, calls into question the principle of environmental justice and makes the region an unacceptable energy risk pocket for the whole Mediterranean.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology, instead of being a means to solve the climate crisis, tends to function as a pretend solution. It is used to keep the current fossil fuel-based energy model alive without addressing the root of the problem.

It is a technologically unstable and potentially dangerous method, both because of the uncertainty about the long-term safety of storage, and because of the risk of undermining the push for complete decarbonisation.

Ultimately, such “solutions” delay the sustainable energy transition, absorb public resources and reinforce the logic of shifting responsibility to the future. Every billion € investment in CCS takes away from renewable energy sources.

Here are some examples of projects that have failed or are being sold as successful while there are huge constipated operations.

Underground storage of CO₂ does not guarantee the permanence of trapped carbon. No geological system can be considered absolutely stable over centuries. The potential for leaks, micro-earthquakes or destabilisation of existing structures is real and potentially catastrophic. The management of stored quantities of CO₂ requires continuous monitoring and technological support over many decades. Future generations will be asked to shoulder the burden of maintenance or dealing with potential failures without responsibility for creating the problem. CCS introduces a new type of “perpetual cost”. Here are the systemic risks we see in Prino.

Injecting CO₂ into underground geological strata can cause significant stresses that spread over long distances. This has direct and potentially irreversible consequences for:

• the production of drinking water
• agriculture and the rural economy
• public health and health security

The protection of the aquifer is a non-negotiable public interest, and no technology should take precedence over it. The following is the general outline of pressures planned in the Prino.

The further industrialisation of the coastal zone and the possible destruction of the marine environment due to the installation of CCS infrastructure have significant negative consequences, not only for tourism.

The coexistence of the CCS project in Prinos with tourism in the region of Thassos and Kavala raises a number of disadvantages, which mainly concern public perception, environmental safety, and economic impacts, such as:

1. Negative perception of tourists – “Semantic pollution”

• The presence of a CO₂ storage project can distort the image of the region as a “clean” and “pristine” destination.
• Some visitors may be put off by the proximity to an industrial/energy project, even if there is no immediate risk.

2. Environmental fear and safety concerns

• PossibleCO₂leaks , seismicity or seismic events that the injection itself will create cause fears in the local community and visitors.
• Tourism in Thassos is also based on the image of ecological stability – a leak or even a reputation for danger can damage the brand.

3. Impact on branding of the destination

• Thassos and Kavala are promoted as “green” and traditional destinations. The existence of an industrial CO₂ storage facility contradicts this image.
• The brand “Prinos CCS” in the media is negatively associated with Thassos

4. Fall in values of tourist properties

• CCS is associated with pollution so this may lead to land and property devaluation in tourist areas, mainly near Prinos or Kavala.

5. Social tension and negative publicity

• Any protest or opposition to CCS can attract negative press, which will deter tourists.
• There is a risk that the project could be associated with a picture of social or environmental instability.

Many scientific studies highlight the risk of so-called blowouts – sudden and uncontrolled explosions or releases of CO₂ from storage tanks. These explosions are caused by a sudden increase in pressure and are extremely difficult to control, especially when storage takes place in an underwater environment. Managing and preventing such events is technically more demanding and risky at sea than on land, significantly increasing the risks to the environment and local communities.

The CO₂ storage company will be responsible for monitoring the site for approximately 30 to 40 years during the life of the project. This monitoring includes continuous monitoring for the safety, tightness and integrity of the geological formations where the CO₂ is stored.

However, the scientific community and international regulations point out that, even after the active monitoring phase has ended, the site will need to be monitored for many centuries. This long-term monitoring is necessary to ensure that CO₂ does not escape, thus preventing potentially catastrophic environmental and health impacts.

The long-term nature of this responsibility raises important issues:

• Financial burden: who will finance this monitoring after the end of the corporate responsibility?
• Legal and institutional uncertainty: Who is liable in case of future spills or accidents?
• Technical challenges: Continuous monitoring requires advanced technological tools and continuous evaluation over time.
• Environmental safety: failure to ensure watertightness poses risks of contamination of aquifers, air pollution and other impacts.

Therefore, the assumption that liability is limited to 30-40 years is misleading and insufficient to ensure the environmental safety and sustainability of the project.

The London Protocol requires rigorous monitoring and verification of the quality of CO₂ stored underwater, including:

• Verification that the stored gas is pure CO₂, free of hazardous impurities or radioactive elements.
• Compliance with predefined radioactivity limits, in accordance with the standards set by the Protocol, to exclude the risk of contamination of the marine environment.

EnEarth and the Greek government must implement:

• Systematic protocols for sampling and analysis of CO₂ before and during infusion.
• Independent audits and third-party certifications to ensure transparency and compliance.
• Continuous monitoring of radiation levels at the storage site and in the wider marine area.
• Public disclosure of results to enhance social trust and avoid complaints or disputes.

Without rigorous and transparent controls, compliance with the Protocol’s standards and environmental protection cannot be guaranteed.