EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Big shale gas deal may not spark EU energy revolution

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 28 March 2013

A major UK energy firm has struck a deal hailed by Prime Minister David Cameron as a step towards energy security but as the European Commission launches discussions on 2030 climate and energy policies opinions are divided as to which direction the EU should take the unconventional fossil fuel.

Nearly two million British homes will be heated by shale gas from the United States within five years as a result of the deal between the UK-based energy company Centrica and Cheniere, a US liquified natural gas (LNG) provider, the first of its kind in Europe.

Centrica, the UK's largest gas company, will purchase the LNG from Cheniere, reconvert it into its original gaseous state and distribute it to British consumers.

The US has kept a tight lid on its shale gas exports, but the move raises the prospect of cheap and secure supplies of gas to Europe, as international conflict has disrupted conventional supply chains.

Cameron hailed the deal as a harbinger of energy security.“Future gas supplies from the US will help diversify our energy mix and provide British consumers with a new long-term, secure and affordable source of fuel”, he said.

The EU executive launched the green paper on Wednesday (27 March), setting out Europe's energy and climate aims for 2030, with Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger taking up a favourable position on shale gas.  "I am in favour of producing shale gas, particularly for safety reasons, and to reduce gas prices", he said. "In the United States, which is a big producer of shale gas, the price of gas is four times less than in Europe."

But crippling production costs, exploration closures, and government-level environmental concerns have seen the industry’s expansion in Europe waver.

US example

David Neslin, a member of the US Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, visited Brussels last week to tell EU policymakers how they could learn from the US shale gas rules, which permitted the large-scale exploitation of the fuel.

“We comprehensively updated the regulations to increase environmental protection, transparency and efficiency as oil and gas extraction expanded,” said Neslin, who oversaw fossil fuel regulation in Colorado State.

Neslin advocated shale as a stepping stone towards a low-carbon economy, showing evidence that gas produces fewer carbon emissions than other forms of fossil fuel, such as coal. “Natural gas can present a bridge to a cleaner energy future. Renewables can take some time”, he said.

But Antoine Simon, extractive industries campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, told EurActiv that the US shale boom will be short-lived and will not provide lasting energy security and cheap fuel despite the country’s underground reserves.

“It is cheap at the moment because shale companies are forced to drill and drill to maintain the same level of production”, he said. “Gas prices are three to four times lower than the simple cost of production.”

"There are figures disputing the US' hundred year energy security claims. They suggest there will be a production peak over the next two to three years and then a steep decline in one or two decades."

He added that the US had begun to seek markets for its shale gas abroad due to the failure to keep production costs within a manageable level.

Uncertainty

Last October, British Chancellor George Osbourne announced potential tax breaks for domestic shale. The same month Poland declared its push for the gas, saying it would invest some €12.5 million to develop exploration by 2020. But large-scale production has proved difficult, with European governments and major energy companies recently suspending or halting exploration.

On 12 March the director of Talisman Energy Poland, Tomasz Gryzewski, indicated that his company may withdraw from shale gas exploration in Poland. A year earlier US company ExxonMobil decided to end its own exploratory tests in the central European state, due to a lack of clarity over its shale potential.

ExxonMobil’s chief executive officer, Rex Tillerson, has said “we are losing our shirts” due to the low gas prices. “We’re making no money. It’s all in the red.”

Officials at Cuadrilla, a British energy company, also said this month it would postpone drilling in the UK for a year as it waits for environmental impact assessments.

France has a moratorium on shale gas drilling.

To Simon, a repeat in Europe of the US boom appears unlikely due to a number of factors, including a lack of equipment and pipeline infrastructure, stronger environmental regulation, geology and geography.

Geology

A recent KPMG study detailing the investments behind shale extraction has shown that production costs would be some 40% higher in Europe than in the US.

“European geology makes it more difficult to extract than in the US. Europe’s shale reserves are about 50% deeper, and so the temperatures are higher, which is a risk for equipment failure”, he said.

“This requires higher precautions which has a direct impact on the cost of extraction.” 

“Gasification factories have to be built and cost a lot”, Simon added.

These views are backed up by Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who does not believe that shale will be a game-changer for Europe like in the US. "We do not expect that it will be so easy in Europe: geological conditions are different, and so are environmental rules and the activity of soils", she told reporters at the launch of the Commissioner green paper.

Health concerns

A 2012 human health risk assessment of air emissions by the University of Colorado indicated that residents living less than a half a mile (0.8km) away from ‘fracking’ wells are at a greater risk of ill health effects than those living more than ½ mile away.

Regulators are therefore wary of advocating shale drilling, whose use of toxic chemicals has sparked fears of ill-health effects, in Europe due to its population density, which is many times higher than Colorado.

Poland - which has a relatively low population density by EU standards - has more than 10 times as many people per square kilometer as Colorado.

Colorado imposed strict regulation governing well casing and groundwater sampling, Neslin said, but leakage is difficult to avoid. A Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission study has shown that 43% of spills end up in groundwater contamination.

Friends of the Earth's Simon said 20,000 new wells are drilled per year in the US. "This is clearly not possible in Europe", he said.

Positions: 

Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, said of the deal: "In an increasingly global gas market, this landmark agreement represents a significant step forward in our strategy … helping to ensure the UK's future energy security."

Andrew Pendleton, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said of the UK's current imports: "Emergency gas shipments to maintain Britain's energy security are yet further evidence of our shambolic energy strategy. It makes no sense for the UK to rely increasingly on overseas shipments of ever more expensive gas while ministers sideline the vast potential of homegrown energy from the wind, waves and sun. It's time to pull the plug on our fossil fuel dependency and switch to a 21st century energy policy based on clean power and slashing waste."

Connie Hedegaard, the commissioner for climate change, told the daily Guardian that shale gas would not be the game-changer that it has been in the US. "We should not fool ourselves," she said. "This is not going to be as cheap as in the US. We have different geology that makes it more tricky [to extract shale gas]. We don't have the same wide open spaces. We pay more attention to what local people think."

Next steps: 
  • 2013: European Commission to unveil results of public consultation on unconventional fossil fuels, including shale gas.
Marc Hall

COMMENTS

  • I'm afraid that if Europe follows Simon's advice, it will become less and less competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. It is a pity, since the U.S. needs a European partner that will be stronger rather than weaker in the future. Simon's comments also lack any factual basis, especially his claims of the early demise of hydraulic fracturing, the spilling of waste into community drinking water, etc. Nor does he explain why CO2 levels are rising in Europe, but declining in the U.S. Fear of fracking seems to be the new fear of GMOs. Both fears increase prices in Europe and a decline in global competiveness.

    By :
    Keith Smith
    - Posted on :
    28/03/2013
  • hi Keith,

    I didn't write the article and it was obviously difficult for the author to be exhaustive considering the many arguments that need to be developed when we talk about shale gas.
    If you want to know more about the 'early demise of HF', about the spilling of waste into community drinking water', about the climate impact of shale gas, feel free to get in touch, i'd be happy to answer to your question.

    And by the way: CO2 emissions might be declining in the US, but the industry is making sure not to remind that methane is not included in these calculations.

    By :
    Antoine Simon
    - Posted on :
    28/03/2013
  • Come come guys. The US is reducing its CO2 output but it uses twice the amount of fossil fuel per person in the first place. That is easy to do.Annual carbon dioxide emissions [tonnes] per capita for USA in 2009 was 19.6, for UK was 8.5 for France was 6.1. Sorry Keith poor argument.

    By :
    Bob Taylor
    - Posted on :
    02/04/2013
  • Well we can safely ignore anything that an unelected commissioner of the eussr says anyway. We need new forms of energy creation because the fossil fuels are by definition finite, that is what we should be concentrating on, not reducing co2 emissions and using it to over tax an already overtaxed population.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    02/04/2013
  • The priority is to redue CO2 emmisions. If we do not then no matter what we do millions of people will perish. We are approaching the tipping point for climate change. We can get enough energy from the tides, the sun and wind to run this planet.

    By :
    Bob Taylor
    - Posted on :
    02/04/2013
  • More people will perish when the power runs out than c02 could ever kill, try to get a grip on reality, c02 emissions only kill if there is no o2 around.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    04/04/2013
  • Scare tactics of the power running out are laughable. People survived very well before electricity was "on tap" in houses. The fact is that we have to reduce CO2 output and that means we have to live sustainably. That in turn means that we have to reduce our energy consumption. All of this is simple and easy to do but we have to make our minds up to do it.

    By :
    Bob Taylor
    - Posted on :
    04/04/2013
  • Yes bob they did survive before electricity, they had gas which is a fossil file used to create electricity. Organic fuel is by definition finite, that is the reason for trying to find alternate fuels, not the fairy tales of the green brigade.

    By :
    Barry Davies
    - Posted on :
    09/04/2013
  • Many mention the effects of fracking on water, but one of the more serious and commonplace impacts is degradation of air quality.

    We have quite a few studies highlighting these risks.

    Here are a few for starters:
    1. A study by the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Health showed that people living within a half-mile of oil- and gas-well fracking operations were exposed to air pollutants five times above a federal hazard standard.
    Link to study: http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/setbackstakeholdergroup/Presentations/Health%20Risk%20Assessment%20of%20Air%20Emissions%20From%20Unconventional%20Natural%20Gas%20-%20HMcKenzie2012.pdf
    Link to article about the study: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20210720/cu-denver-study-links-fracking-higher-concentration-air

    2. A study by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) found Emissions from oil and natural gas operations account for more than half of the pollutants – such as propane and – that contribute to ozone formation in Erie, Colorado.
    Link to study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/120887130/Fracking-Ozone
    Link to article about the study: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/01/14/oil-and-gas-wells-contribute-fuel-ozone-pollution-cires-researchers-find

    3. A study in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment showed more than 50 NMHCs were found near gas wells in rural Colorado, including 35 that affect the brain and nervous system. Some were detected at levels high enough to potentially harm children who are exposed to them before birth.
    Link to study: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.air.php
    Link to article about the study: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20121203/natural-gas-drilling-air-pollution-fracking-colorado-methane-benzene-endocrine-health-NMHC-epa-toxic-chemicals?page=show

    By :
    GR
    - Posted on :
    11/04/2013
  • What most of the studies posted here agree on is that follow up research needs to be done in order to really substantiate any claims of serious risks to health and environment in regard to fracking. One study admits that the findings “do not definitively link gas field to the studied air pollutants” - and the issue of air pollution is not all about fracking. A recent study done by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection shows that drillings from fracking operations make up only a fraction of air pollution in the state (and natural gas production as a whole makes up a little over 3% of total emissions in the United States), and dangerous concentrations of compounds that may lead to health issues were not found in this testing. (http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Air/AirQuality/AQPortalFiles/rls-DEP-AirInventory-021213_FINAL.pdf)

    The U.S. may produce higher CO2 emissions than Europe, but the effect of shale gas on the reduction of CO2 is significant. The International Energy Agency last year reported that the decline (of 7.7% since 2006) in carbon dioxide emissions in the United States was more than any other country over the past five years. This also has to do with our decreased dependence on coal - consumption has declined by 21% since 2005. (http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/203801/friday-energy-facts-us-coal-consumption-is-down-are-exports-eroding-climate-ben)
    In Europe the demand for coal increased by 3.3% in 2011, which doesn’t bode well for the goal of cleaner air in Europe. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/europe-burns-coal-fastest-since-2006-in-boost-for-u-s-energy.html; Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:EU-27_Gross_inland_consumption_of_hard_coal_1990-2011_(1990_%3D_100).png&filetimestamp=20120710080312)

    In regard to methane emissions, the EPA recently published data in its latest greenhouse gas report that reflects a 66% drop in methane emissions from oil and gas development in 2011 than previously reported – from an estimated 215 million metric tons to 82.6 million metric tons. (http://www.energyindepth.org/epa-data-show-66-percent-drop-in-methane-emissions-from-oil-and-gas/ and http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/petroleum.html)
    A recent study done by MIT also confirms a previous overestimation of methane emissions from fracking operations based on a rather large data set: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/fugitive-methane-from-shale-less-than-thought.html.

    I wanted to give a more fact based reply, and I would appreciate it if my correspondents would identify their affiliation.

    By :
    Keith Smith
    - Posted on :
    12/04/2013
A shale gas extraction site
Background: 

On 23 March the European Commission ended a public consultation on unconventional fossil fuels such as shale gas. It intends to publish the results in 2013.

In the US, shale gas already accounts for 16% of natural gas production and some analysts predict that could rise to 50% within 20 years.

While natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than other fossil fuels, the unconventional extraction method of shale gas has drawn criticism for its environmental impact. The process - hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ - has been linked to earthquakes and requires huge amounts of toxic chemicals, which can potentially leak into groundwater sources.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Energy Supply News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Energy Efficiency Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising