Page added on September 1, 2012
Why would France suddenly prohibit shale gas exploration? Sure, there are environmental issues with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the methods used to extract gas from porous shale deep underground: flammable drinking water, earth quakes, cows that die, radioactive sludge in sewage treatment plants…. But French governments have had, let’s say, an uneasy relationship with environmentalists. Its spy service DGSE, for example, sank Greenpeace’s flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, in the port of Auckland, New Zealand, killing one person.
No, there must have been another reason why the government of Nicholas Sarkozy prohibited shale gas exploration in 2011, after having already issued permits in 2010. A mini hullabaloo had broken out, stirred up by the European Ecologists and The Greens (EELV), the fringe on the French left. And Sarkozy caved! Without a fight! Enthusiastically. The government of François Hollande just confirmed the prohibition when Environment Minister Delphine Batho declared: “Hydraulic fracturing remains and will remain prohibited.”
The clue: Sarkozy suddenly visited Japan on March 31, 2011, a couple of weeks after the horrific earthquake and tsunami, and the subsequent nuclear accident at Fukushima, to declare in front of shell-shocked Japanese that there was “no alternative” to nuclear power.
He’d been dispatched by the almighty state-owned nuclear industry to tamp down on the growing anti-nuclear sentiment at home. Owned by the government, nuclear power plants produce 75% of France’s electricity and export some of it. No one who wants to be politically viable is allowed to hamper the industry. If someone strays off the reservation, he or she is dragged back soon. While Hollande campaigned on a vague promise to reduce dependency on nuclear power to 50%, it was understood as one of the bones he had to toss to environmentalists. Nothing would come of it.
So when Batho, who wants to add more renewables to the portfolio, toed the party line by saying, “Nuclear power is an industry with future,” then qualified it with a “but,” it caused an outcry even among the Socialists. That’s the power the nuclear industry has over the political machines.
But now another powerful entity turned up: Russia’s Gazprom. It’s the world’s largest gas producer, gas exporter, and gas distribution company with nearly 100,000 miles of gas trunk lines and branches. The Russian government owns 50.01% of it. At home, it has to sell gas under cost, one of the Soviet leftovers. It relies on high-profit sales from Europe to make up for it. But Europe is diversifying away from its single most important supplier.
Competitors include Russia’s number two, Novatek, and Norway—the second largest natural gas exporter in the world. So, in April, Gazprom had to lower its European sales guidance for 2012. Its market share in Europe was 27% last year, and it’s shooting for 30% by 2020, but if the US shale-gas boom ever infects Europe, those plans would become a pipedream—and if the high-profit sales from Europe tapered off further, it would have to raise prices at home, a political nightmare. Hence its fight by hook or crook against shale gas in France.
Gazprom’s “underhanded tactics” and “scaremongering about a new technology” have Moscow’s nod of approval and are designed to dissuade governments from developing their own shale-gas reserves, according to a report by Platts, a global provider of information on energy, petrochemicals, and metals. Efforts include all manner of operations, online and through encouraging demonstrations, but also paying public relation firms to spread “myths and misconceptions,” said Aviezer Tucker, assistant director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas. A “European Union-wide ban” on shale-gas production, he said, would be the “holy grail.”
With France already knocked off, Sergei Komlev of Gazprom Export has been bouncing around the world in his fight against European shale gas. At a meeting in Qatar, according to Platts’ report, he gave a presentation. “Multiple Handicaps Will Retard Shale Gas Development Outside US” was the title of one of his slides. “Fortunately, it claimed, “European shale gas development faces numerous economic, regulatory, and political barriers before there are significant amounts of shale gas production, not sooner than in ten or more years.”
Breathing room for Gazprom in the natural gas wars.
In the US, natural gas may be the most mispriced commodity these days. Its price has been below the cost of production for so long that the industry is suffering billions in losses. But demand for natural gas by power producers has been booming—and it’s killing coal, one powerplant at a time. Read…. Natural Gas Is Pushing Coal Over The Cliff.
And here is a highly insightful interview of James Hamilton, energy economist, former visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC and other Federal Reserve Banks. Read…. The Real Reason Behind Oil Price Rises, by James Stafford.
6 Comments on "Russia’s Gazprom Tightens Its Stranglehold On Europe, France Falls: The Natural Gas War Gets Dirty"
Arthur on Sat, 1st Sep 2012 11:22 am
This is exactly how ‘The West’ will come to an end, via Moscow. Europe was destroyed and conquered by the US-Soviet alliance in 1945, an alliance that was prepared for from the minute Roosevelt got into office in 1933:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bn9-lrRMVc
Remember that in 1933 the USSR was the largest human slaughterhouse in history, but it was still under control of The Lobby and that was all that mattered to Delano-Roosevelt (Sefardic-Dutch descent).
Eastern Europe was liberated in 1991. It looks like Western Europe is going to be liberated soon as well and escape destruction as a consequence of the US-imposed multicultural ideology (preparing Europe and US for the NWO), a fate that the US cannot escape.
BillT on Sat, 1st Sep 2012 12:12 pm
Fraking in the tight quarters of European countries would be a disaster! But nuclear is also a deadly alternative. Renewables are not practical in the quantities needed to maintain present energy consumption. I guess the West will just have to contract to the new reality.
DC on Sat, 1st Sep 2012 12:58 pm
Amerikans, they figure just because they are forced to resort to fraking, then everyone else had better join in too, even if they dont need to. Russia isnt ‘plotting’ to stop EU fraking, they dont need to. People with 3 digits IQs, know fraking is a bad idea. Tuff idea for republicans and the rest of the double-digit IQers to grasp, but fraking isnt anywhere near as popular in the rest of world as it is in N.A. Russia is allowed to sell NG to anyone it wants. There is no conspiricy or double-dealing, beyond what large corporations normally do. Amerika would no doubt love to make the EU dependent on its radioactive, toxic frak gas, but I guess that will have to wait until they get that piple-line from New York to Normandy built…..
Arthur on Sat, 1st Sep 2012 1:00 pm
Yep, we in Europa will have to be satisfied with a few solar panels on the roof, a large windturbine next to every village, an ipad to watch the news on and a bicycle parked in the garage. We’ll be fine as we will be no longer colonized by a mental model of permanent economic growth and as a consequence being locked up in some stupid office, but instead can behave like Arab men and play chess with a friend in the coffee house.
Terry Stuart on Sat, 1st Sep 2012 1:17 pm
I have a plan that environmentalists should endorse. Texas used to be free of mesquite trees and other water sucking varieties that have now reduced the native grasslands of much of Texas to desert.
The root system on Mesquite is 2/3 longer than the above ground presence of the trees. They have stickers, too.
We get a boatload of forest killing environmentalists down there (most environmentalists are tree killing activists as they use a whole lot of paper in their bloviations– and have them pull those trees out by their roots.
To be environmentally friendly they should only use their hands, as tools require energy to make, mules will send particulates into the atmosphere adding to the greenhouse effect. To get there they need to walk. (Forget about any use of gas derived tools or transportation as that adds to Peak oil/energy problems.)
After they either suceed or die the trees can be burned to produce fuel. Naturally that will release carbon as will their bodies unless properly buried, preferably by digging holes with bare hands.
The problem with the desertification is a real one. Been around awhile. Have not seen much action on it by those who are concerned about environmental issues?
The cruel ideas of pulling trees up by their roots by hand is going to be what our future is unless the thinkers get together and realize that there is a need for balance in what resources we use and in what type of inevitable pollution we create–even after death.
Kenz300 on Sat, 1st Sep 2012 6:34 pm
Diversify… diversify… diversify….
Diversify sources and types of energy for greater energy security.
Wind, solar, wave energy and geothermal all need to be added to the mix.