Tuesday

19th Sep 2017

Opinion

Gazprom: A wolf in green clothing

People like me love conspiracy theories. This is especially true with ones involving Russia. But since the end of last year, it seems that at least one of these theories is coming true.

On 29 November 2011, the Gazprom board of directors made the unusual statement that it was concerned that "the production of shale gas is associated with significant environmental risks, in particular the hazard of surface and underground water contamination with chemicals applied in the production process. This fact already caused the prohibition of shale gas development and production in France."

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now and get 40% off for an annual subscription. Sale ends soon.

  1. €90 per year. Use discount code EUOBS40%
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • Gazprom HQ in Moscow: Russia sits on one of largest shale gas reserves in the world (Photo: Gazprom.ru)

This was a confirmation of statements made by the company's chairman, Alexander Medvedev in 2010.

Why this board's statement is unusual is that it makes Gazprom the only gas company in the world that is officially against the development of shale gas. Russia sits on one of largest shale gas reserves in the world, with at least 688 different shale formations. Why would the Russian gas export monopoly oppose its only long term development interest?

The use of the environmental argument only adds to its oddness.

Gazprom currently is building a huge pipeline through the Russian old-growth wilderness to feed its Nord Stream pipeline - with much environmental damage along the way - and is seeking to build another under the Black Sea, South Stream.

Europe is currently served by natural gas from Siberia through pipelines that are thousands of kilometres long. Because of a lack of maintenance, these Russian pipelines leak significant amounts of gas each year into the environment.

This would seem to be more worrying for the global environment than shale gas development in the heavily-controlled EU. One would think the Russians would be more interested to first look to the considerable methane emissions from their gas pipeline system and its economic costs and environmental damage before thinking about us poor Europeans.

It looks clear to me that these arguments are not based on real concern for the European environment but instead are in the defence of their traditional gas markets in Europe and Asia, which shale gas threaten. It is politics and economics in 'green' sheep's clothing.

The use of the environment as a cover for other policy issues is not new. The Russians use to accuse Poland and other EU nations os using green propaganda to oppose the building of Nordstream, despite real concerns of damage to the Baltic Sea.

It would be wise of any organisation which opposites shale gas development to be careful when accepting help and funds from non-traditional sources.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

As someone who wants an honest dialogue on shale gas, I am not somebody who believes in the hype of shale gas either being the saviour or the destroyer of Europe.

Every development has benefits and costs which must be balanced.

While I think the balance right now is in favour of the development of European shale gas, above all I believe in an open discourse based on facts and principles. Clearly, this is not the case for Gazprom, which only sees the grand political chessboard and its own short term self-interest.

It is a sad day when a conspiracy theory becomes fact. I guess that day has come.

The writer is a political advisor to Lena Kolarska-Bobinska, a Polish centre-right MEP in the European Parliament.

EU backs budget support and 2030 target for renewables

The European Commission has said the EU must establish a binding 2030 target for renewable energy, pledging to include stimulus measures for the industry in its multi-annual budget proposals (post 2013) to be published later this month.

Ukraine: NGOs need EU help

EU governments should stop Ukraine from hampering the work of NGOs in revenge against their anti-corruption work.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EU2017EEFour Tax Initiatives to Modernise the EU's Tax System
  2. Dialogue PlatformResponsibility in Practice: Gulen & Islamic Thought
  3. Counter BalanceHuman Rights Concerns Over EIB Loan to the Trans Anatolian Pipeline Project
  4. Mission of China to the EUChina Leads the Global Clean Energy Transition
  5. CES - Silicones EuropeFrom Baking Moulds to Oven Mitts, Silicones Are a Key Ingredient in Kitchens
  6. Martens CentreFor a New Europeanism: How to Put the Motto "Unity in Diversity" Into Practice
  7. Access MBAGet Ahead With an MBA Degree. Top MBA Event in Brussels
  8. Idealist QuarterlyIdealist Quarterly Event: Building Fearless Democracies With Gerald Hensel
  9. Mission of China to the EUPresident Xi Urges Bigger Global Role for Emerging Economies
  10. EU2017EEAre We Socially Insured in the Future of Work?
  11. European Jewish CongressFrench Authorities to Root Out "Societal Antisemitism" After Jewish Family Assaulted
  12. European Federation of Local Energy CompaniesClean Energy for All? On 10.10 Top-Level Speakers Present the Clean Energy Package