Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 1, 2012
The US obsession with energy imports and why Europe doesn’t sweat it
It’s almost as if these politicians want to sew red, white and blue “Made in USA” tags onto hydrocarbons.
Europe couldn’t be more different. Consider BP’s recent prediction that EU countries will import 80% of the natural gas they consume by 2030, despite having significant shale gas potential. “Often Americans ask me, ‘Why are these Europeans so sanguine about their imports? Why don’t they worry?'” Christof Rühl, the economist behind the 80% stat, said today at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Rühl, BP’s chief economist came to town to explain the company’s 2030 energy outlook after releasing the figures in London two weeks ago. (New Yorkers can catch a similar presentation Tuesday at the McGraw-Hill building.)
For Europeans, the idea of having to depend on foreign countries to produce more than three-quarters of the natural gas they burn just isn’t “that big an issue,” Rühl said, as long as major suppliers like Russia keep the pipelines flowing.
“There’s a very long history of a bunch of small countries with very open borders that have generally benefited from trade,” Rühl said. “It’s not the case to the same extent as it is in the US that people are worried about having to import something. The worry keeps up, of course, if supply is being cut. There have been decades and decades, even dealing with the Soviet Union, where supplies have been extraordinary.”
Now here’s where Rühl might get in trouble with his fellow countrymen: He also chalked up the European stance on imports to the continent’s tendency to accept contradictory positions.
“We don’t want coal — it’s dirty and we phase it out,” Rühl said. “Then of course it gets imported from somewhere else. Shale is exactly is that kind of tradition. We don’t want this; it’s poisonous and so on. Then you import gas from somewhere else. A slightly twisted approach to energy questions in that sense.
“I see that continuing: a desire to be clean at home and then import whatever you need,” he continued, “and a desire to focus on efficiency improvements and end-use rather than how to produce more and cheaper.”
The 80% stat would cause even less concern if the US and other shale barons start exporting more LNG.
“It will be possible to import more as markets become more global, more integrated,” Rühl said. “From an economic fuel point, having a high ratio of imports of something is not necessarily a bad thing. It would only be a bad thing if you are better at producing it that someone else.”
10 Comments on "The US obsession with energy imports and why Europe doesn’t sweat it"
BillT on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 5:33 am
1. Fuel use in Europe is less than half that of the US.
2. They have an excellent public transport system and don’t need to rely on a car.
3. Europe simply has a lower fuel concern factor than living a good life. See number 1.
BeyondThat on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 5:41 am
Bill, beyond the valid points you make is the fundamental orientation: The US is obsessed with “independence”, while the rest of the word is mostly quite comfortable to live within the web of mutual interdependence that it always has. We try very hard to leave ourselves out in the cold…if we ever fully succeed, we’ll be the worse for it.
thylacine on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 6:37 am
Europeans: smug, self-satisfied and deluded. They still use plenty of energy, just not as much as in the US. Yet again the Europeans have their heads up their arses and can’t see the new energy constrained future looming before them. The Russians have got them by the short and curlies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/russia-gazprom-exports-idUSL5E8CV5C920120131
cephalotus on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 8:21 am
“…We don’t want this; it’s poisonous and so on. Then you import gas from somewhere else. A slightly twisted approach to energy questions in that sense….”
Better to use environmental friendly conventional gas from Russia than poisoning your ground water at home with fracking. In the end we will make methane out of wind at home.
“…a desire to focus on efficiency improvements and end-use rather than how to produce more and cheaper…”
What’s wrong with that?
If we want some climate protection carbonhydrat resources MUST be kept in the ground. We have no control about the coal in China or gas in Russia and the US, but we can leave our coal and shale gas in the ground.
Lisa on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 10:19 am
thylacine :
What bolox. European settlers across the pond insist on ignoring past and present realitites of Europe. Russia IS Europe – 78% of Russians live in European part of Russia. Looking at EU countries, we use less than half kWh/capita than the U.S – I don’t suspect that to be higher if you include non-EU nations. Most importantly, we typically don’t need a car to get to a grocey store and rely less on pre-processed/fast food.
dorlomin on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 10:53 am
And Europe is in the process of changing its energy structure, too slow to be true but it is already along the road.
And Europe has a high quality intercity rail network.
Far from perfect but moving in the right direction.
thylacine on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 2:20 pm
Lisa, I was just trying to point out that Europeans might per capita use a fraction of that used in the US, but they still use plenty of energy. That energy is increasingly coming from a European power that doesn’t necessarily have the best interests of the EU at heart. Russia IS on the European continent, but they’re not your friends! Your friends for the last century have lain over the sea to the West. Although, now that things are getting tougher there even that friendship won’t last forever. For what it’s worth, I too am European and know full well that an awful lot of Europeans drive cars, shop at out of town hypermarkets and eat sh*t.
cephalotus on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 4:48 pm
Russia has more interest in a wealthy and well doing Europe than the USA.
Kenz300 on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 6:47 pm
Every individual, business and country that imports energy needs to develop a plan for greater energy self sufficiency. The risks of a supply shock or a pice shock are too great to ignore. Economic security and national security require energy security.
Cabra1080 on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 9:13 pm
Going down the backside of the energy curve isn’t as exciting or romantic as going up the frontside but down we go, like it or not, irregardless of what the politicians or think tanks or Big Brother says…Got quite a way to go until we hit bottom and some countries will be impacted harder than others initially but in the end we will all be back to 15th century energy levels – for good.