American power is entrenched in Europe. Yet the depth of this relationship has become a source of unease in Europe and Europeans are working to reduce their exposure to the vicissitudes of U.S. politics wherever they can.
Good info. A quarter (a bit over) provides enough leverage during “negotiations.” To examine that I picture the effect of cutting 25% of EU’s gas supply and use historical examples of what that looks like.
Here’s what import trends look like without RU and US:
There’s a bit of growth in Norway.
And here’s what US imports look like:
Qatar would be in the Other cat:
That was down prior to the US-Israel war on Iran compares to earlier years.
Would be spectacular if the US gas trend reverses direction but I wouldn’t count on it without significant indignation from EU citizens. Industry needs gas, the US provides gas, industry buys it. Individual players in the industry care about their bottom line, not whether this creates leverage for the US to use in other parts of the economy. It’s the same mechanism that created the dependence on Russian gas. The only way this process changes is through state intervention and that won’t happen unless citizens strongly demand it. Cause industry demands the opposite from the gov’t. It’s a shit predicament. I’m pessimistic but would love to be wrong in 5 years.
Russia was at half of the EUs gas supply and it was also mostly pipeline gas. For LNG it is possible to buy from other suppliers. Unless the US cuts all LNG exports, that is probably going to be a matter of paying enough.
Then the goal of the EU is to cut gas consumption. This is happening as gas boilers are replaced by heat pumps and gas power plants by wind, solar and batteries. It will take years to be really felt, but we see some of it. The key part here is that it is much cheaper to use a pipeline than LNG to transport gas. That obviously hits all LNG, but the US is the largest supplier.
Then the goal of the EU is to cut gas consumption. This is happening as gas boilers are replaced by heat pumps and gas power plants by wind, solar and batteries.
I think this is really the best way out.
Then you get mfkers be like - ‘but Midea is Chinese!’ - completely ignoring the massive difference in real dependence (lesser) created by importing heat pumps, solar, wind and batteries compared to importing and burning gas.
And the EU’s ‘agreement’ to buy energy worth USD 750 billion was non-legally binding. It is an agreement to negotiate such a volume, not to buy (just read the text of the agreement).
More importantly, the United States exported roughly USD 70 billion worth of energy products to the EU in 2024. This means that the EU would have to more than triple its U.S. imports if we calculate at prices of 2024, and even then it is highly questionable if the U.S. would be capable to deliver, because the volume would exceed the U.S. total production capacity. They would have to built new facilities to provide the volume.
All energy analysts say this so-called ‘agreement’ is complete fantasy.
At the end of Trump’s first term, he made a similar agreement for energy supply with China. I don’t remember the numbers, but it was much higher than any volume you could China reasonably expect to buy. It was no surprise then that Trump’s China-deal never materialized.
The same will happen now with the EU. This is complete out of touch. It will never happen.
None of this points to decreased dependence on US gas in the future. In case you’re confused about why I mentioned gas, check how the dependence on Russian oil & gas affected Europe’s ability to help Ukraine.
Probably not before a switch away from American LNG.
US LNG makes up about a quarter of EU fossil gas imports. That is during a time, when Qatari LNG is cut off, due to the US war against Iran and most EU members not buying Russian gas. So if there is peace in either war, this is sure to fall.
There are also signs of some deals away from the US. SEFE signed a deal for 1 Mt/year from Canada and Uniper another 2Mt/year.
Good info. A quarter (a bit over) provides enough leverage during “negotiations.” To examine that I picture the effect of cutting 25% of EU’s gas supply and use historical examples of what that looks like.
Here’s what import trends look like without RU and US:
There’s a bit of growth in Norway.
And here’s what US imports look like:
Qatar would be in the Other cat:
That was down prior to the US-Israel war on Iran compares to earlier years.
Would be spectacular if the US gas trend reverses direction but I wouldn’t count on it without significant indignation from EU citizens. Industry needs gas, the US provides gas, industry buys it. Individual players in the industry care about their bottom line, not whether this creates leverage for the US to use in other parts of the economy. It’s the same mechanism that created the dependence on Russian gas. The only way this process changes is through state intervention and that won’t happen unless citizens strongly demand it. Cause industry demands the opposite from the gov’t. It’s a shit predicament. I’m pessimistic but would love to be wrong in 5 years.
Russia was at half of the EUs gas supply and it was also mostly pipeline gas. For LNG it is possible to buy from other suppliers. Unless the US cuts all LNG exports, that is probably going to be a matter of paying enough.
Then the goal of the EU is to cut gas consumption. This is happening as gas boilers are replaced by heat pumps and gas power plants by wind, solar and batteries. It will take years to be really felt, but we see some of it. The key part here is that it is much cheaper to use a pipeline than LNG to transport gas. That obviously hits all LNG, but the US is the largest supplier.
I think this is really the best way out.
Then you get mfkers be like - ‘but Midea is Chinese!’ - completely ignoring the massive difference in real dependence (lesser) created by importing heat pumps, solar, wind and batteries compared to importing and burning gas.
You link links to a different article …
And the EU’s ‘agreement’ to buy energy worth USD 750 billion was non-legally binding. It is an agreement to negotiate such a volume, not to buy (just read the text of the agreement).
More importantly, the United States exported roughly USD 70 billion worth of energy products to the EU in 2024. This means that the EU would have to more than triple its U.S. imports if we calculate at prices of 2024, and even then it is highly questionable if the U.S. would be capable to deliver, because the volume would exceed the U.S. total production capacity. They would have to built new facilities to provide the volume.
All energy analysts say this so-called ‘agreement’ is complete fantasy.
At the end of Trump’s first term, he made a similar agreement for energy supply with China. I don’t remember the numbers, but it was much higher than any volume you could China reasonably expect to buy. It was no surprise then that Trump’s China-deal never materialized.
The same will happen now with the EU. This is complete out of touch. It will never happen.
None of this points to decreased dependence on US gas in the future. In case you’re confused about why I mentioned gas, check how the dependence on Russian oil & gas affected Europe’s ability to help Ukraine.
Your mention of gas makes no sense in this context, let alone regarding this 750m ‘deal’.
It makes great sense actually.