Deprived of Russian gas, the European Union has undertaken to reduce its consumption by 15%. But to avoid the risk of a shortage this winter, it must also do its energy shopping in other countries. Instead of the natural gas transported from the deposits of Siberia or the Barents Sea, the Twenty-Seven are throwing themselves in particular on the coveted American liquefied natural gas (LNG), transported by boat from both sides of the Atlantic.
In France, where LNG represented only 5.5% of gas imports in 2020, we are preparing to receive these new supplies: the bill on purchasing power thus validated, on Friday July 22, the installation in the fall of a floating LNG terminal in the port of Le Havre, to receive this precious fuel. But this alternative energy to Russian gas is causing controversy and worrying 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 in terms of carbon footprint”explains Philippe Bousquet, researcher at the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences (LSCE). Compared to its Russian alter ego, American gas indeed requires processes and logistics “nearly twice as energy-intensive and thus more than twice as emissive as gas pipeline transport”estimates a study by the firm Carbone 4.
This carbon footprint therefore partly offsets the qualities attributed to this fossil energy, to which a 20 to 30% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to oil or coal is attributed. “For the climate, the use of this LNG does not put us on the right trajectory if we consider our objectives of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the short and medium term, whether CO2 or methane”r the climatologist.
Because it’s mostly shale gas
The gas extraction process chosen by the exporter is also a determining factor in this carbon footprint. In the United States, 79% of production comes from shale gas, according to the administration in charge of energy (in English). “The extraction of shale gas generates between 1.5 and 4 times more greenhouse gas emissions than the extraction of conventional gas”warns Alexandre Joly, head of the energy division of Carbone 4, on the Savoirdesénergies.org site. According to him, “by integrating combustion emissions, the upper range of the carbon footprint of American LNG is equivalent to 85% of coal emissions for the same amount of energy consumed”.
In committee prior to discussions on the bill on purchasing power, the Green MP Delphine Batho was also alarmed:
“France has banned hydraulic fracturing as well as the research and exploitation of shale gas on its soil. We cannot therefore become accomplices in the exploitation of the dirtiest fossil fuels internationally.”
Delphine Bathoto the National Assembly
Indeed, France will not be able to be selective. Asked by franceinfo, the Ministry of Energy Transition confirmed on July 23 that it would be impossible to ensure that France does not import shale gas.
After having signed an agreement in 2021 with the Texan company Chenière, which produces liquefied natural gas transported from a terminal located near Houston, and landed in the French terminal of Montoir-de-Bretagne (Loire-Atlantique), Engie already recognized, in an article from Worldthat this gas could “contain an unspecified portion of unconventional gas”.
Because its extraction releases methane
Hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas from the rock is also a process more conducive to methane leaks, according to the study by the firm Carbone 4. However, methane emissions “contribute almost a third to global warming”, explains Philippe Bousquet. According to the climatologist, methane leaks caused by the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil and gas combined) represent around 15% of methane emissions.
Using fossil fuels as an emergency solution to the energy crisis is a missed opportunity for governments to tackle the reduction of methane emissions. Especially since in November, for the first time, uHundreds of countries – including those of the European Union and the United States – have committed to reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030, compared to 2020.
In fact, the opposite is happening, with an upward trend in the quantity of methane in the atmosphere, and this for fifteen years, according to Philippe Bousquet, part of which may be attributed to the fossil fuel sectors.
Because demand harms the environment
In March, Joe Biden pledged to supply Europe with 15 million m3 of liquefied natural gas. According to data analyzed by the Reuters agency, the United States is already on the way to being able to export three times as much. During the first six months of the year, the United States exported 57 billion m2 of LNG, of which 39 for Europe alone – against 34 in 2021. An increase which, in the United States, is accompanied by“an installation boom”.
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 impacts of this activity. However, the states of the Gulf of Mexico, from where liquefied natural gas goes to Europe, are highly exposed to hurricanes and the risk of flooding, he explained during a presentation to the press of this study, still awaiting peer review.
And Justin Kray to point out the concern of local authorities to take advantage of this exceptional demand for gas to the detriment of risk prevention, the impact on biodiversity and on the health of populations. The researcher therefore believes “wise to warn potential buyers of Louisiana gas”. Before noting the irony of seeing an industry “threatened by storms and flooding which it helps to create through the greenhouse emissions it causes”.