The European Council on Foreign Relations

The EU and Russia's gas

By Pierre Noël - 21 Nov 08


This article appeared on Transitions Online.

Conventional wisdom has it that Russia dominates Europe’s natural gas market, and that European imports of Russian gas are growing and can only continue to grow. This supposedly places the European Union in a dangerous state of dependency and compromises its strategic position towards Russia. All sides of the debate over Europe’s Russia policy share these premises, including those “realists” who argue that dependency on Russian gas makes it irresponsible for the EU to pursue policies that antagonize Moscow.

But the conventional wisdom is wrong: Europe’s gas supply is not dominated by Russia, or, for that matter, by any other exporter.

Since 1980, and particularly since 1995, Europe has considerably diversified its sources of gas imports. Today, for the EU as a whole, gas supply diversity is not a pressing problem.

Over the past 40 years, natural gas consumption has grown steadily in Europe, and much faster than primary energy consumption. (Gas now accounts for around a quarter of energy use in Europe.) Since the mid-1970s, imports have covered all this growth. In 2007, Europe imported 300 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas, accounting for 60 percent of consumption.

Russia remains the largest exporter of gas to the EU, with total annual exports of 130 bcm today. But since the early 1980s, and particularly over the past decade, import growth from other countries has outpaced that from Russia. Since 1990, 80 percent of the growth in European gas imports has originated from countries other than Russia, especially Norway, Algeria, Nigeria and the Middle East. Accordingly, Russia’s share of EU gas imports has declined sharply, from 75 percent in 1990 to just over 40 percent today. The share of EU gas consumption covered by Russian imports grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s, peaking at 30 percent in the early 1990s before stabilizing at about 25 percent. However, as a share of Europe’s primary energy consumption, gas imports from Russia have remained stable since 1990 at around 6.5 percent. 
 
In other words, 93.5 percent of the energy consumed in Europe is covered by sources other than Russian gas – and natural gas, unlike oil, faces direct competition from other fuels and technologies.

Transport modes and routes for gas have also diversified. Until the early 2000s, most of Europe’s imports came via pipelines. But over the past decade, Europe has become a major customer in the rapidly growing market for liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is transported by sea. Since 2002, LNG from new suppliers such as Nigeria, Egypt, Trinidad, and Qatar has accounted for most of the rise in EU gas imports. The share of LNG in EU gas imports grew from 15 percent in 2000 to more than 20 percent in 2007. Even pipeline routes from Russia itself have diversified: the Yamal-Europe pipeline, which was opened in the 1990s, has reduced reliance on gas piped across Ukraine.

There may be no problem of European overdependence on Russian gas, but this is not to say that all is well on the supply front. Indeed, the solution to the Russian gas challenge lies not in foreign energy policy but in reform of the European gas market itself.

The gas markets of the EU’s eastern members are, for the most part, small but highly dependent on Russia, while the bigger western markets benefit from greater supply diversity. And while the countries that critically depend on Russia for their gas are to be found among the new member states, Gazprom’s big clients are Germany and Italy, which together account for almost half of all Russian gas consumed in the EU.

These national differences would not matter too much if there were a single European gas market. But the reality is that Europe’s gas market is segmented along national lines. There is little cross-border trading within the EU, and when supply disruptions occur – as in January 2006 at the height of the gas crisis between Ukraine and Russia, or, two months later, when a fire at the Rough storage facility disrupted the U.K. market – we see very little reallocation of supply between national markets.

The result is that Russian gas has become an extremely divisive issue in European politics. The highly dependent countries in Eastern Europe resent the German, Italian or French pro-Russian stance, which they largely ascribe to the strategic partnerships between Gazprom and importers in these countries. Conversely, Moscow’s self-declared strategic partners in the EU resent the anti-Russian approach of some eastern members and argue that cultivating good relations with Russia is essential to the EU’s energy security.

An integrated and competitive European gas market would create the maximum possible degree of solidarity between European gas consumers. It would improve collective energy security by enabling the reallocation of gas across the entire market in times of supply or demand shocks.

Finally, a more integrated gas market would render EU members’ bilateral relations with Russia largely irrelevant to the conditions of access to Russian gas for consumers.

HOW EXPOSED IS CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE?

Integrating Europe’s gas market would enhance the security of gas supply across the bloc, perhaps especially so in Central and Eastern Europe, because the eastern rim is the part of the bloc most dependent on Russian gas. But this is a medium-term prospect, depending on political and industrial processes over which governments in the new member states have little control. In the short term, a more direct approach is needed to address gas security issues in the most exposed EU member states.

The gas security situation in Central and Eastern European countries is probably better than it is generally thought to be, even if a few countries face serious challenges. But markets vary considerably across the 10 new member states, and there is a need for in-depth economic analysis in each of them. Such analysis would inform market-specific policies that could be implemented to improve the security of gas supply in each country.

Six of these 10 states import more than 80 percent of their gas supply from Russia. But as figure 13 shows, on average, the level of energy dependence on Russian gas – the share of total primary energy covered by imports of Russian gas – is about 15 percent (the figure for the 15 Western European members is about 5 percent). Russian gas supplies a particularly high share of total energy in only four countries – Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, and Slovakia – each of which is reliant on Russian gas for around a third of its energy use. Specific attention should be paid to these four countries.

Diversity of supply does not tell the whole story; the structure of gas consumption is another important determinant of gas security. Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, and Latvia consume virtually no gas for home heating; in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland, however, this sector represents between 25 percent and 35 percent of gas consumption, suggesting a greater need for storage capacity in these countries.

Finally, it is worth noting that, in absolute terms, gas imports from Russia amount to relatively small amounts of energy even in the four highly exposed countries, especially Latvia and Lithuania. This suggests that it may be possible for these countries to implement policies of partial substitution away from natural gas, in favour of oil products and imported electricity, given the relatively small volumes involved.

WHAT CAN THE EU DO?

In the post-Georgian-war environment, with the union divided over what approach to take in its political engagement with Russia – and with talks on a new EU-Russia cooperation agreement due to start in a few days – it is of critical importance that Europe deals with its Russian gas problem. The Czech government has made clear that energy security will be one of the priorities of its presidency of the European Council, which runs for the first half of 2009.

The EU’s Russian gas problem has two related dimensions: the political divisiveness of the EU-Russia gas relationship, and the specific risks to the security of gas supply to the highly dependent Central and Eastern European members. There are several steps the EU can take toward resolving this situation.

First, the bloc can make gas market integration a high priority. A single competitive gas market would help de-politicize gas, with major foreign policy benefits for Europe. It would also improve the security of supply for all European gas consumers, wherever they are.

Russia has a vested interest in market segmentation. Allowing Gazprom to acquire European transmission or storage assets carries the risk of reinforcing barriers to market integration. To guard against this, national energy regulators, and the proposed new Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), should screen all proposed takeover projects. The European competition authorities should also be involved.

Next, the union can help member states, especially those in Central and Eastern Europe that are highly dependent on Russia, to develop and implement national action plans for improving their gas security. This would be necessary regardless of Russia’s policy towards Europe. But in the current geopolitical context, alleviating Eastern Europe’s “energy insecurity syndrome” would also help make Russian gas less politically divisive in the EU.

This commentary has been adapted from “Beyond Dependence: How to Deal with Russian Gas,” available at: http://ecfr.eu/page/-/documents/Russia-gas-policy-brief.pdf

 


1 Comments

#1

After “Cold War” US has all the while expanded its influence post-Soviet territory with aim to guide those region’s natural resources under US companies.  As stakes have been control over the oil and gas of the Caspian Sea/Black Sea/Caucasus basin, and the control of multiple key energy pipelines criss-crossing the region.  Economical interests have been linked to political game e.g. Nato enlargement.  While EU has been more bystander Russia has during last couple of years weight down the scale in favour of its own interests by series of successful operations.

GUUAM & SRS

GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Group was founded 1999 with help of US to foster favourable conditions conducive to economic growth through development of an Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor.  GUUAM was dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, ultimately purports to exclude Russia from oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.

From its part GUUAM was designed to support sc. Silk Road Strategy Act – adopted by US Cogress March 1999 -  which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire through development of an Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor.  (More about this in my previous article “War on Pipes” Sep. 2008, in my Archive:Blog - address http://arirusila.wordpress.com )

Cracks

Now GUUAM is coming to end of its short road.  Already earlier Uzbekistan withdraw from it leaving behind a stump GUAM.  Then Georgia started its aggressions with false idea of western support leading today’s situation and possibility to escalate to “small intensity war” between present Georgian leadership and separatist regions Abkhazia and South-Ossetia.

Moldova was aiming towards Nato and EU but after conflict in Georgia it started to look other alternatives.  Russia has offered its help to solve Moldova’s long term problem with Transdnistria and if a federation model will be accepted by local stakeholders it probably neutralizes Moldova’s position between US/EU and Russia.

Last weekend was also highlight of tendency where political attitudes of Azerbaijan and Russia have approached each other.  Russia again took the initiative acting as a mediator between Armenia and Azerbaijan to solve long term conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh and a common memorandum signed 2nd November 2008 is first step of solution.

The last piece of GUUAM is Ukraine, which is deeply divided pro-Russian East and pro-Nato/EU West.  When political struggle now has made cracks also inside western orientated part also this last fortress has degenerated to stagnation.

KO

Parallel with Russia’s able foreign policy the US actions have been short-sighted, weak and fruitless.  Waiting for elections and financial turmoil have took their part but in energy sector also some states in South-America have now more independent and selfish position than before.  Same time Iraq occupation is coming to end when also Alaska can keep its energy reserves when new US President takes his office the perspectives of US energy giants are more foggy than for a long time.

If one would like to see a bright side with this depression – or even knock out -  of US foreign/energy policy it could be the need to reduce pollutions and to support alternative energy solutions which at global scale could help to deal with clima change.

More my views over Balkans and Caucasus one may find from my BalkanBlog - address htp://arirusila.wordpress.com

Ari Rusila | Jyväskylä Finland | 22 Nov 08, 22 Nov 08 EST | www

Submit a Comment

Your message will be submitted to a moderator before appearing online. Name and email address are required, all other fields are optional. Your email will not be displayed.

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Remember my personal information

Latest Publications

A danger or an opportunity? Post-Copenhagen China and climate change

This latest edition of “China Analysis” looks at the response to the Copenhagen conference within China itself, as it faces the worst environment position imaginable, threatening its systems and interests. 

A global China policy

China is now a huge foreign policy challenge to the EU: it must respond with a global China policy.

Beyond wait-and-see: the way forward for EU Balkan policy

Risk of instability in the Western Balkans: the EU can no longer 'wait-and-see'.

Dealing with Yanukovych’s Ukraine

The Yanukovych Paradox: How Ukraine’s new president can be good news for Europe after all.

China shapes its post-crisis economic agenda

The latest issue of China Analysis looks at Beijing’s willingness to strengthen international economic governance, and its authors argue that much thinking in China seems to focus on the short term

China and India: rivals always, partners sometimes

The authors of the latest issue of China Analysis argue that Western concerns over “Chindia” - the emergence of a Sino-Indian economic power bloc or strategic alliance - may be unwarranted. 

Towards a post-American Europe: A Power Audit of EU-US Relations by Nick Witney & Jeremy Shapiro

Europe has the US president it wished for, but does Barack Obama have the strong transatlantic partner he wants?

Can the EU rebuild failing states? A review of Europe’s civilian capacities.

Have broken promises and treating Afghanistan, DR Congo and Iraq like Bosnia left the EU without the capacity to prevent fragile states from becoming failing states?

What does Russia think?

ECFR publishes a collection of views from key Russian intellectuals.

The EU and human rights at the UN: 2009 annual review

The EU’s ongoing loss of influence at the UN is putting lives at risk, argues the author of ECFR’s latest paper.

In the Press

Les Echos - 01 Sep 10

Thomas Klau on Germany’s linchpin role in the eurozone governance debate.

Wall Street Journal - 30 Aug 10

Ulrike Guerot on Germany's place in Europe, post euro crisis.

Radio Free Europe - 24 Aug 10

Andrew Wilson says Ukraine's greatest success has been its 'survival'.

Read more press >

Click here for ECFR's Youtube channel.

Global Calendar