Without Russian gas, the European Union has committed to reducing its consumption by 15%. But in order not to run the risk of a bottleneck this winter, she has to do her energy shopping in other countries as well. Instead of the natural gas transported from the deposits of Siberia or the Barents Sea, the Twenty-Seven rely primarily on the coveted American liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is transported by boat from both sides of the Atlantic.
In France, where LNG accounted for only 5.5% of gas imports in 2020, we are preparing for these new deliveries: the purchasing power bill thus confirmed on Friday 22 July the installation of a floating LNG terminal in the port in the fall of Le Havre to preserve this precious fuel. But this alternative energy to Russian gas is causing controversy and worries ecologists and environmentalists. Franceinfo explains why.
Because its transport emits CO2
“Replacing Russian natural gas transported by pipeline with liquefied natural gas arriving by ship is not without consequences for the carbon footprint,” explains Philippe Bousquet, researcher at the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences (LSCE). Compared to its Russian alter ego, American gas requires processes and logistics “almost twice as energy-intensive and therefore more than twice as emission-intensive as transport by gas pipeline,” estimates a study by the company Carbone 4.
This carbon footprint therefore partially offsets the qualities attributed to this fossil energy, which is credited with reducing CO2 emissions by 20 to 30% compared to oil or coal. “The use of this LNG does not put us on the right track for the climate if we take into account our goals of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the short and medium term, whether CO2 or methane,” says the climate researcher.
Because it’s mostly shale gas
The gas production process chosen by the exporter is also a decisive factor for this carbon footprint. In the United States, 79% of production comes from shale gas, according to the Energy Administration. “Shale gas production produces between 1.5 and 4 times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gas production,” warns Alexandre Joly, head of energy at Carbone 4, on the Knowledgedesenergies.org website. According to him, “By integrating combustion emissions, the upper end of the carbon footprint of American LNG corresponds to 85% of coal emissions for the same amount of energy consumed”.
In the committee before the purchasing power law was discussed, the Greens MP Delphine Batho was also alarmed:
“France has banned hydraulic fracturing and shale gas exploration and production on its soil.
Delphine Batho
to the National Assembly
In fact, France will not be able to be selective. At the request of franceinfo, the Ministry of Energy Transition confirmed on July 23 that it was impossible to ensure that France would not import shale gas.
After Engie signed an agreement in 2021 with Texas-based Chenière, which produces liquefied natural gas that is shipped from a terminal near Houston and landed in France’s Montoir-de-Bretagne (Loire-Atlantique) terminal, Engie already has in an article in Le Monde that this gas “may contain an unspecified proportion of unconventional gas”.
Methane is released when it is extracted
Hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas from the rock is also a technique that promotes methane leaks, according to the study by the company Carbone 4 . However, methane emissions “contribute to almost a third of global warming,” explains Philippe Bousquet. According to the climatologist, methane leaks caused by the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil and gas combined) account for about 15% of methane emissions.
Using fossil fuels as a stopgap solution to the energy crisis is a missed opportunity for governments to address methane emission reductions. Especially since in November, for the first time, a hundred countries – including the European Union and the United States – committed to reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030 compared to 2020.
In fact, the opposite is the case, with an upward trend in the amount of methane in the atmosphere for fifteen years, according to Philippe Bousquet, part of which is due to the fossil fuel sectors.
Because demand harms the environment
In March, Joe Biden agreed to supply Europe with 15 million cubic meters of liquefied natural gas. According to data analyzed by Portal, the United States is already on track to export three times as much. In the first six months of the year, the United States exported 57 billion m2 of LNG, 39 of which to Europe alone – up from 34 in 2021. An increase accompanied by an “installation boom” in the United States.
In Louisiana alone, “12 new giant terminals, each the size of a small town,” are being studied, according to American cartographer Justin Kray, co-author of a study on the local impact of this activity. However, the Gulf of Mexico states, from where liquefied natural gas reaches Europe, are at high risk of hurricanes and floods, he explained during a presentation of the study to the press, which is still awaiting expert scrutiny.
And Justin Kray, to highlight local authorities’ concerns about exploiting this exceptional demand for gas at the expense of risk prevention, impacts on biodiversity and public health. The researcher therefore thinks it would be “wise to warn potential buyers of Louisiana gas”. Before you point out the irony that an industry is “at risk from storms and floods that it contributes to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions it produces.”