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

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Hedegaard: Forget US-style shale gas revolution

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 16 May 2013, updated 17 May 2013

Closer cooperation between European countries and an emphasis on energy efficiency would be more effective at lowering prices in Europe than dreams about an American-style shale gas boom, the EU's climate chief said on Thursday (16 May).

Speaking at the European Business Summit, EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard called for “clever regulation” to drive innovation and for a liberalised EU energy market to lower prices, saying renationalisation would be more costly than European-wide climate policies.

“We need efficient and also cost-efficient energy systems. We need to liberalise the energy market, a Europeanised market. It is wrong that renationalisation will be cheaper. Of course you cannot have climate policies that cost nothing,” she said.

Hedegaard was attempting to allay business concerns that the cost of EU climate policies was stunting their growth compared to other countries such as China and the United States, which have less stringent environmental regulation.

Adrian van den Hoven, deputy director general of the BusinessEurope employers' association, blamed green taxes for putting European companies at a disadvantage against global competitors.

“Looking at the 2020 to 2030 period, European Commission climate directives are creating some big costs. It would be manageable if the rest of the world also faced the same cost factors. That is not the case,” he said, adding that the EU could learn from the US’s shale gas boom, which has slashed energy costs.

“The investments going to [shale] plants are huge in terms of job creation. We need to reduce the EU-US differential.”

But Hedegaard dismissed the BusinessEurope argument as “yes [to climate action] but not now”. “Even without the climate policies we would still have a US shale gas problem," she said.

“In the European Commission we don’t mind shale gas. If the member states want to do shale gas, they can do it. Their energy mix is up to the member states," she said.

And "even if they decide to do shale gas, experts will tell you that the EU won’t get its prices down to US levels,” she added.

Different terrain

Hedegaard stressed that the geological and geographical factors of Europe shale did not make its large-scale exploitation as cost-effective as in North America. Imports of fossil fuels are no longer the answer, she said. “€1 billion of oil every day was imported [to the EU] last year. Efficiency can do our economy very well."

“Working together, that is one thing we are not good enough at,” she said, calling for greater pooling of resources.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) also has doubts about shale gas, saying increased production would only make sense if it replaces highly-polluting coal. “The optimum path would be to see more renewables, more efficiency and more low carbon technologies,” the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, told EurActiv last year.

Positions: 

MEP Reihnard Bütikofer (Green/EFA group/Germany) said at the European Business summit that shale gas in Europe was a mirage, or ‘fata morgana’.

Bütikofer, who is also co-spokesperson for the European Green party, said that shale gas could not be a game changer in Europe as it had been in the United States. He added that according to research, cheap gas in Europe would cost three times as much as in the US.

Speaking to EurActiv, Bütikofer said that in Poland, the EU country most enthusiastic about shale gas, private sector investors who wanted to do big business by developing shale gas, had taken investment decisions that this was not a profitable business and were moving out of the country.

Asked about Ukraine, a country which has plans to develop shale gas to reduce its gas imports dependence from Russia, Bütikofer said: “I don’t think that we should focus on fossil strategies to find our way ahead with regard to energy policies. If you compare energy efficiencies between Germany and Ukraine, the factor is 1 to 17. So the biggest resource of energy to live by and to make profits from is to save energy, by implementing better energy technologies.”

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

COMMENTS

  • Typical magical thinking. No amount of 'energy efficiency' will bring down the price of energy. At the same time the EU teeters on the edge of economic collapse, you have people like this trying to push it over. Energy is the master resource - every increase in energy costs, whether through taxes or regulation, decreases the standard of living of every citizen. Except for the rich, for whom nothing matters.

    By :
    MarkB
    - Posted on :
    16/05/2013
  • MarkB - Energy efficiency is part of an overall"package" which has the potential to reduce energy costs. In the case of EE one does wonder why did a number of member states (such as Germany and the UK) attempt to undermine the Energy Efficiency Directive?

    On a related note, in Germany and the UK the cost of generating energy is typically in the range 25% to 40% of an end user bill - given that generation is now highly scalable it now makes sense to generate your own, in this case using renewables. MY own calaculations suggest that many/most forms of renewables can produce energy without subsidy thus removing another contentious issue.

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    17/05/2013
  • Re Bütikofer on Ukraine: magical thinking indeed. Ukraine's industrial infrastructure - steel, coal - is antiquated, would call for untold billions in investment to upgrade. It is also not a good prospect for foreign investment and it's not going to happen. Meanwhile those industries employ hundreds of thousands, and are the major source of tax revenues for the state. Cutting the artificially high cost of energy input - presently dictated by Gazprom - by sourcing new supply is much more cost-efficient.

    By :
    citicrab
    - Posted on :
    17/05/2013
  • We in America applaud the EU's decision not to pursue shale gas. We needed the advantage. Because of inexpensive natural gas, the US economy will get the businesses, tax revenue, and jobs that might have been created in Europe.

    America ... Open For Business (despite our progressive leadership)

    By :
    randydutton
    - Posted on :
    18/05/2013
  • A very wise choice. Here's the diabolical history from the USA totally driven by lust for quick profits at great expense to environment and public health
    FRACKING OURSELVES INTO OBLIVION | @scoopit http://sco.lt/8mKlIP

    By :
    P Jacob
    - Posted on :
    20/05/2013
  • Clear vision. Clear statement. The choice is between short term money and (long and short term) life. I chose a long time ago and still have a rich life . . .

    By :
    Dick van Elk
    - Posted on :
    20/05/2013
  • The method is impossible in Germany !
    need to much area !
    Also the propability that the ground water, the drinking water and the atmosphere can be contaminated with heavy metals, radioactive substance etc is very makes this technique not acceptable !

    In Germany we have to save energy in private and industrial place (- 20 % is possible)
    and we have concentrated on alternative energy sources

    By :
    Werner Kratz
    - Posted on :
    20/05/2013
Background: 

Shale gas is an 'unconventional' fossil fuel that is found within natural fissures and fractures underground. Until recently, no method of safely transporting it to the surface existed.

It is mined via hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, the process of breaking apart layers of shale by pumping liquids and a number of chemical additives under high pressure thereby releasing trapped gas reserves.

To proponents, shale gas represents an untapped and welcome alternative energy source to traditional fossil fuels. At the moment the continent depends on gas imported from Russia, and disputes between that country and Ukraine have disrupted winter supplies in recent years.

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

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Video General Promoted 4

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising