Why does Europe need at last to open its eyes to Russia’s intentions and to believe that the Turkish Stream project will be realized?

Global intelligence company Strategic Forecasting Inc. (Stratfor) certainly could not be suspected of loyalty to the Russian initiatives and projects. Stratfor makes economic and geopolitical outlook for large corporations and the US government agencies on the basis of information gathered from official sources and through their own channels. Their analytical information, naturally, intended for the needs of their main customers. So anyone would hardly doubt that Stratfor' work is definitely committed to the interests of the country, in particularly, aimed at restraining Russian energy projects in Europe by any means.

However, recently Stratfor probably has surprised everybody with a degree of objectivity of their analytical article about the Russian-Turkish relations and the Turkish Stream gas pipeline project posted on their website under the title “Russia Carries On With Turkish Stream Pipeline”.

The main arguments of Stratfor analysts lead to the fact that Russia and Turkey will be able to obtain substantial benefits by building a new gas pipeline in spite of all possible political tempests that are likely to be created by Brussels and Washington to prevent further the construction of this gas pipeline.

Stratfor analysts give particular attention to a firm position of the Russian energy company Gazprom, which plans to start constructing the underwater part of the Turkish stream pipeline in June, regardless of whether or not the project will be able to overcome the political obstacles in Europe. In relation to such a prospect, Stratfor notes that Russia has resumed a contract with Germany's company Europipe for 150 thousand tons of pipe for the project. In May, Gazprom  also notified a subsidiary of Italian energy company Saipem, that it could begin laying pipes for the planned pipeline in the Black Sea.

Two giant energy construction vessels Castoro sei and Saipem 7000 passed through Bosphorus to the Black Sea already at the end of last year to take part in the South Stream project, as shown in the photo. It is important that the underwater part of the Turkish Steam will run mostly along the same route as the proposed South Stream project, which was scrapped last December after the EU objected on the Third Energy Package grounds. Thus, the resources attracted by Gazprom for the South Stream with the minor costs are to be redirected to the Turkish stream.

Stratfor analysts also reminded that Gazprom had informed Europe about the plan to cease using its current export route through Ukraine in 2019 and would shift those natural gas supplies to the Turkish Stream pipeline. “But the Europeans – as indicated in the article - believe Russia will not follow through with its plans if Europe does not build the infrastructure necessary to deliver gas from Turkey to the markets currently serviced by the Ukrainian route”.

Actually, it is high time now for Europe at last to believe that the Turkish stream capacities will be in demand even if Brussels is going to continue restrictive policies, and European countries do not build a gas transport infrastructure from the border with Turkey. In this case, Gazprom can rely on the future expansion of the Turkish market, as in the next 10 years the demand for blue fuel in Turkey will rise up to the capacity of two lines of the planned pipeline. It means that demand for the Turkish stream gas will be in any case, even if Brussels keeps the policies hampering access of South Europe countries to Russian gas.

Meanwhile, clearly showing its intentions, Gazprom has presented the Turkish Stream project at the World Gas Conference, held in Paris and declared Reuters its plans to begin construction later in June.
According to the presented information by 2020 the 1,090-kilometre pipeline project, including 180-kilometre of onshore part, is planned to deliver 63 bcm (2.2 tcf) of gas a year to Turkey, of which 47 bcm (1.7 tcf) will be intended for Europe.

Indeed, if Europe does not open its eyes to the obvious situation and does believe that Russia is willing to build the Turkish stream, then unnerving challenges will await Europeans after 2019. Because Brussels's politicians just is restricting access of the Southeast part of our continent to energy, especially if we take into account the Russia's intention to stop the  gas transit through Ukraine in 2019.

Then what are Europeans to do with their future energy needs while, unfortunately, some South East European countries still remain in a state of energy poverty?
Why can it happen that the European consumers will be forced to use more expensive LNG, or even worse, liquefied shale gas from the US?

Why may the shale gas promised by the US to Europe be non-competitive?

Brussels' hopes on the production of shale gas in Europe as a new alternative source to meet growing needs in energy are weakening before our eyes. Attempts to extend the US shale boom in Europe do fail, demonstrating fiasco of the Washington's intentions to make Central and South East Europe independent of Russian energy.

The Wall Street Journal wrote back in March that Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell almost completely stopped exploratory drilling for hydraulic fracking in Europe. Chevron stopped its last European fracking operations in Romania in February. Shell reduced world-wide shale spending by 30% in a number of countries including Turkey, Ukraine and Argentina. Exxon withdrew out of Poland and Hungary, and suspended its German fracking operations.

However, the EU continues to hope, if not for development of shale gas production in Europe, then at least for imports of shale gas from the US in the form of LNG. These high expectations are inspired by the impressive performance of the US shale gas industry.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), presented in the chart above, currently only four countries in the world - the US, Canada, China and Argentina - have driven the development of shale deposits up to commercial production levels. The absolute leader in the production of shale gas is the United States.

According to Reuters, the total U.S. gas production has increased by 43 percent from 51.9 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in 2005 to a record 74.4 bcfd in 2014. The EIA expects gas output to reach 78.4 bcfd in 2015 and 80.0 in 2016.

These optimistic estimates diverge from the views of many experts, who assert that further growth in shale gas production is possible only in case of a stable oil prices rise on the global market. In reality, however, U.S. crude futures CLc1 (Crude Oil Front Month Futures) decreased by 46 % from the level of more than 107 USD in June 2014 down to USD 58 at the end of May 2015.

If such a trend continues further, experts expect that it will hinder the natural gas production growth. This is indicated by the Genscape Inc. data, which predicted a reduction of daily production of shale gas by 1.1 bcfd in the US next year.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch also expects the decline in production of natural gas in 2016 in the US. According to the Bank's forecasts, the reduction will amount to 1.3 bcfd by slowing down the production of shale gas from deposits in Marcellus and Utica under the influence of falling LNG prices by 50%, which in turn are linked to oil prices.

It is obvious that the expected reduction in the production of shale gas will not be conducive to the development of its exports from the United States.

At the same time, the predicted trend in the production of shale gas in the US is not the only problem in the pursuit of shale LNG supplies to Europe. Another problem is the low quality of shale LNG from the US, which calls into question its competitiveness.

Japanese importers highlight in particular the existence of quality problem of shale LNG from the United States. Their attention and concern regarding this issue is caused by the fact that Japan is going to increase significantly the share of LNG from the US in Japanese imports.

Expert opinion in this country is particularly important because Japan is the world's largest importer of LNG. According to a special report of the EIA published in January 2015, Japan's share in global imports of LNG was 31% back in 2010. On March 11, 2011 a tragic earthquake and tsunami hit Japan. The earthquake destroyed all the off-site and almost all the internal power sources in Fukushima-1 nuclear plant. After that terrible disaster LNG demand in the Japanese market has increased significantly, and in 2014 Japan's share in global imports of LNG reached 37%.

Historically, Japan was among the first countries to import LNG. The first shipments of LNG from the United States to Japan took place in 1969 from gas fields in Alaska. Meanwhile, since then the share of US LNG in Japanese imports has remained insignificant. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, the largest supplier of LNG to Japan in 2013 was Australia (21%) followed by Qatar (18%), Malaysia (17%) and Russia (10%).

In recent years Japan, as well as the EU, has looked forward to importing LNG produced from shale deposits in the United States. However the United States is evidently in no hurry to begin LNG exports. It is well known that American exporters had to obtain approvals from the federal Department of Energy to supply gas to countries, which do not have free trade agreements with the United States. Such free trade agreements are in force with 20 countries but there is neither Japan nor the EU among them. The new legislation should simplify the permitting procedure but its adoption is still pending.

More importantly, the prospects of shale LNG supplies to Japan from the US are overshadowed by the fact that the American LNG is of inferior quality, especially heating content, which does not meet the market requirements.

The report of the Institute for Energy Economics in Japan indicated that “LNG from the United States will be leaner than LNG from traditional producers in the Asia-Pacific region with lower heating content, lighter in gravity, less ethane and propane, and mostly comprising of methane. While a vast majority of Japan's city gas has a standard heating value of 45-46 MJ /(m3), natural gas distributed in the US has only 37.3-40.1 MJ/(m3) on average”.

Japanese experts also argue that low characteristics of the US LNG quality besides the weak competitiveness may cause logistical problems associated with its storage and distribution to consumers. As a matter of fact it will require after regasification to mix the leaner LNG from the US with the richer one delivered by other countries or to create a separate capacity for storage and distribution.

Such a pessimistic scenario of LNG supplies from the US to Japan obviously has to be very symbolic for the EU, where the same problems should be expected.

This is actually important taking into account that in spring the European Commission launched an EU Energy Union to bind the 28 countries into a single energy market aimed at tightening competition.

How in case of the newly formed single EU energy market can the politicians in Brussels count on the successful market positioning of shale LNG from the US, less quality, but more expensive considering the cost of shipping across the Atlantic?

Why should European consumers have to pay for these not economically, but clearly politically-motivated plans recklessly focused on replacing Russian gas with the shale LNG from the US having a lower quality to price ratio than its competitors?

Why are Greek affairs in the spotlight even at the White House?

Greece is called the cradle of European civilization. In the XXI century the difficult fate of the country led it to the position of the principal debtor within the Eurozone, forced to ask for a massive financial support, especially in countries - its partners in the EU.

In April the German newspaper Handelsblatt cited Vice President of the European Commission Valdis Dombrovskis, responsible for the Euro and Social Dialogue, that the official assumption regarding the Greek economy development in the current year would be reduced affecting conditions of its external lending. Later on the European Commission predicted the Greek economy would grow by only 0.5 per cent of GDP this year, down from an optimistic 2.5 per cent projection made just three months earlier.

There is no doubt that the Greek economy needs a deep rehabilitation and counts on the support and attention from both the EU Member States, and other countries - its traditional partners.

Many Europeans perceive positively that under these circumstances Greece has proved to be a country that is seeking to rely primarily on its own capabilities. The country is really looking for their own independent solutions that can positively impact on its economic status.

In a harsh economic situation the geographic location of Greece becomes an especially valuable gift of fate, since the country is located between the world's largest suppliers of natural gas and the European countries, especially its neighbors in the Balkan region, which need this kind of energy very much. It gives Greece the opportunity to participate in construction and further maintenance of new pipelines to supply gas to Europe.
It is indicative that after Turkey other Balkan countries together with Greece also confirmed their intention to participate in the transit of Russian gas to Europe. They declared about it at the Budapest meeting of foreign ministers from Greece, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Turkey on April 8. The main objective of this meeting was to coordinate efforts for creating a united infrastructure to distribute the gas delivered from third countries.

It is not difficult to see that this objective complies with the problem posed by the European Commission in order to eliminate the so-called "energy islands" existing especially in the countries of South East Europe, where national energy markets are operating separately without a proper technical connection with the energy networks of other EU countries.

However, despite this seemingly worthwhile convergence of the European Commission and the Balkan countries’ intentions regarding the development of the Europe's gas transmission system, in reality there is no consolidation of Brussels and the Balkans on this, of course, the most important task in the energy sector.
The European Union does not support, but rather warns Athens on prospects of participation in the Turkish stream project. In an interview with regional German newspaper Muenchner Merkur European Parliament President Martin Schulz told: “Greece demands and gets a lot of solidarity from the EU. We can therefore also ask for solidarity from Greece and for this solidarity not to be ended unilaterally by pulling out of joint measures".

Obviously, in the energy sector these joint measures meant to follow the requirements of the EU Third Energy Package, according to which it is illegal to own a pipeline and produce the natural gas that flows through it at the same time.

Many Europeans still remember how the European Commission blocked the South Stream project applying the Third Energy Package last year. In fact, a negative role in this story was played by Bulgaria, which did not grant Russia the authorization for construction in its territorial waters and on land. Thus, Gazprom was not able to proceed with the project. It resulted in a dramatic failure of Bulgaria's plans to become a transit country and a major gas hub in South East Europe.

There is a completely different situation now compared to last year because the Turkish Stream project is to be implemented outside the EU and beyond the borders of the EU legislation. However, although such means of pressure on the Russian gas project disappears, there is still the purpose, for which it is done.
Chairman of the Board of Gazprom Alexey Miller at the conference "Europe and Eurasia: Towards a new model of energy security" held in Berlin pointed out that the main purpose of blocking by the European Commission the South Stream project was to preserve the transit of gas through Ukraine.

Actually there is hardly anyone who still doubts that Ukraine has nothing to do with it. As many of you are aware, the United States played a major role in rising the new regime to power in Ukraine and continue to support it by all possible means. That is why after Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to bypass the transit routes through Ukraine last year, the Turkish Stream project became the new target for the White House and, accordingly, Greece too, since the gas pipeline is to be destined for this country.

The US reaction to the interest shown by Greece with regard to new opportunities to develop its energy sector was fairly predictable. Especially after Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras held talks with Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow, the US stepped up attempts to influence the prospects for the gas pipeline along Greek territory.

Repeating a familiar scenario of Bulgarian confrontation against the South Stream project, as if a full-time crisis manager, Amos Hochstein, Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs visited Greece on 7 - 8 May. In contrast to the words of politicians from Brussels mentioned above as they sounded more or less like the language of diplomacy, during the talks in Athens with the Greek Minister of industrial Reform, Environmental Protection and Energy Panagiotis Lafazanis the US Special Envoy directly stated that the US most certainly does not want this pipeline. Covering the visit of Amos Hochstein to Greece, The New York Times in an article entitled "U.S. Urges Greece to Reject Russian Energy Project" emphasized “That pipeline would carry Russian gas to Europe through Turkey and Greece, bypassing pipelines that run through Ukraine”.

As indicated in the press release of the US Embassy in Athens following the visit of Amos Hochstein, instead of participating in the Turkish Stream project Greek side was proposed to concentrate on the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), Greece-Bulgaria Interconnector (IGB), and expanded use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). In the press-release without reference to any economic grounds it is alleged that TAP would result in 1.5 billion Euros in foreign investment in Greece, generate 10,000 jobs during construction, and provide many millions of Euros in revenue annually over 25 years. However, the real situation with the TAP gas pipeline does not correspond with these promises. Although Athens already determined the route of the Greek section of the pipeline, there is no agreement with Baku on the most important financial component of the TAP deal. Even transit tariffs have not been agreed yet.

The US advices regarding LNG seem very vaguely, taking into account that Greece at first will need to build an expensive regasification terminal.

In this regard, the statement made by the US Embassy, which calls for relying on these projects to improve energy security and reduce Greece's dependence on a single gas supplier looks like so much realistic, using the images of the world famous ancient Greek art, as a fig leaf on the ancient statue.

Therefore, it is logical that after talks with Amos Hochstein Greek Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis confirmed: “We want a multilevel and independent energy policy that will be formed exclusively on the basis of our national interest, the interest of the Greek people and, of course, the cooperation and energy security in our region and in Europe”.

How far the consolidation process in favor of national interests will go on further the next meeting of foreign ministers of the Balkan countries and Turkey reveals in July 2015, where imports of gas from Russia will be discussed among other significant issues.

Why wouldn't we wish the countries of South East Europe to withstand these tests of their commitments’ strength to maintain an independent energy policy pursuing its national interests?

p.s. In this situation, the position of the Greek government will continue to be of particular importance for the energy future of the entire region of South East Europe.

Do these facts indicate the fragility of the American shale boom, don’t they?
If so, what does that mean for Europe?

The technology of hydraulic fracturing has been known for many decades. The first experimental hydraulic fracturing treatment took place in the United States in 1947 on the Hugoton gas field in Kansas. However, at the time due to low gas prices this technology was considered too expensive for shale deposits. The situation changed in the 2000s, when gas prices grew significantly arousing interest among mining companies to start fracking of shale formations. It is important to recall that new technologies for drilling long horizontal wells hit the market at the same time. All of these stimulated a rapid development of shale resources in the US and a steep rise in production of shale gas. Exploration and production of oil and gas from shale are conducted currently in many regions of the US.

The largest and most productive shale deposits are the following:

● the Marcellus Shale gas play extends throughout much of the Appalachian Basin primarily in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Ohio;
● the Haynesville Shale play underlies large parts of Southwestern Arkansas, Northwest Louisiana, and East Texas. Some experts believe the Haynesville shale could ultimately produce as much as 0.85 to 1.13 tcm of gas;
● the Fayetteville Shale play stretches across Arkansas;
● the Barnett Shale play extends over Northern Texas.

The Marcellus Shale gas play is the largest shale formation in the US occupying a total area of about 95 thousand sq. miles. By early 2015, the Marcellus Shale was yielding about 40.8 mcm of gas per day. At that time, the Marcellus was the source for over 36% of the shale gas produced in the US. According to expert estimates, it is more than enough to supply gas to a half of gas-fired power stations in the US.

The average thickness of the productive layer ranges from 15 to 60 m. and the depth ranges from 1.2 to 2.6 km. Technically recoverable gas resources amount to 7.4 tcm. Over 8,000 wells were drilled for gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale play and about one hundred new wells are added each month.

According to extraction technology after a vertical drilling to a depth of around two-kilometer each well turns for another kilometer inside the shale formation into a horizontal direction.

There are more than 30,000 wells drilled at above-mentioned four major shale plays, which in total produce two-thirds of shale gas in the US.

The volume of shale gas production in the US reached the highest level of about 275 bcm in 2012.
The forecasts of the Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2014 were based on the expectation that natural gas prices would gradually rise, but remain relatively low, predicted US gas production growing until 2040, driven by large increases in shale gas. It is shown in the graph below.

However, actually expert opinions about the prospects of shale gas production in the US differ dramatically. Official EIA forecasts are criticized that they insufficiently take into consideration the factors capable of undermining the predicted upward trend.

Alternative forecasts of future development of shale gas in the U S developed by a team of geoscientists, petroleum engineers and economists at the University of Texas at Austin had a wide recognition. These forecasts resulted from three-year studies of the major shale plays in the US. The research appeared in some academic journals such as "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences". The Texas team predicted that production from the major four plays would peak in 2020 followed by downturn. As shown in the graph below, in 2030 these plays would be producing only about half as much as in the EIA forecast.

Experts indicate much more detailed analysis conducted by the University of Texas. The EIA research breaks up each shale play by county, calculating an average well productivity for that area. But counties often cover more than one thousand sq. km, large enough to hold thousands of horizontal fracked wells. Compared with that of the Texas team splits each play into blocks of one square mile (2.6 sq. km) that is at least 20 times finer than the EIA's.
Experts have noted that the level of detail is of great importance, since the distribution of shale gas over the deposit area is not homogeneous, and accordingly, the performance of the wells may vary significantly. Researchers from the University of Texas found that the major shale plays included into the studies do not have so many spots with really high production potential, which will be sufficiently profitable. Moreover, as it turned out, shale formations are rather rapidly exhausted. Therefore, the life of shale wells usually does not exceed a maximum of 3-4 years.

Under conditions where wells are losing their performance rapidly, companies need to step up drilling activities to support further growth in shale gas production. In comparison the US companies drilled in total 12,000 wells in 2005, but in 2013 the same number of wells were drilled already over a period of less than one month.

It is important that such a dramatic increase in drilling operations leads to the growth of capital and operating costs of shale plays development, which appear significantly higher than with conventional gas production. As a result, shale gas cannot compete on equal terms with the natural gas produced by traditional technologies. It is obvious that due to objective reasons the opportunities for increasing the number of wells are not unlimited.

The results are “bad news”, said Tad Patzek, head of the University of Texas at Austin's department of petroleum and geosystems engineering, and a member of the team that was conducting the studies. With companies trying to extract shale gas as fast as possible and export significant quantities, he argues, “we're setting ourselves up for a major fiasco”.

The United States is still seeking to promote shale gas exploration and development to Europe. However, such diverging opinions regarding the future of the US shale industry now more and more curb the EU enthusiasm for developing these alternative energy technologies.

Recently the new regulation has been adopted by the German government that fracking should be prohibited in so-called sensitive regions such as nature parks or water bore areas, and in depths above 3,000 meters. The measure still needs to be passed by the Bundestag when it goes up for a vote in May.

With all of these going on, why not take the plunge in all countries of the EU and completely bury a utopian idea of shale gas production in Europe?
… .

Why the promises of Energy Union developers to draw lessons from the Nabucco project is not yet convincing?

In an interview with the Turkish publication Hurriyet on March 14 Vice-President of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič in charge of Energy Union promised to draw lessons from the past and not repeat mistakes of the Nabucco project planned to transport gas from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan through Turkey to the EU countries.

The story of this project really deserves to be remembered today. Preparations for the Nabucco project started in February 2002 and lasted more than a decade. It was finished on 26 June 2013 when the Austrian company OMV Gas GmbH (Gas Connect Austria GmbH), which had led a consortium for the construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline, officially announced the cancellation of the project.

One of the reasons for the cancellation of the project was that there were different opinions concerning its feasibility. Nevertheless, as it turned out, after almost two years the attitude to this project still widely differ, and there are those who even declare their intention to revive it. During the recent talks in Sofia, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov agreed on a strategic partnership in order to resume the gas pipeline project Nabucco.

Many of us were greatly surprised by the news. Anyway, it just indicates that the historical lesson on the importance of taking into account the positions of all potential participants in such kind of transcontinental projects is apparently ignored. As it already happened before, complex political and diplomatic maneuvers keep going on and that, sorry for the comparison, does not fit into rigid steel pipelines of gas infrastructure.
Nevertheless reaching the concurrence among the countries participating in such large-scale international projects is important, but it is not the only condition for their successful implementation. The story of Nabucco revealed that the initiators of that project could not sufficiently answer two fundamental questions, which define its viability and therefore attractiveness to investments. First question concerns conditions of the markets, where gas has to be delivered by the planned pipeline. Second one, not less important, is about the availability of the resource base consisting of those gas deposits, which will provide a constant load of pipeline capacity for many decades.

Correction of past mistakes on the Nabucco project promised by the European Commission deals with the Southern Gas Corridor, which the EU prioritized in the European Energy Security Strategy aiming at diversification of natural gas suppliers. It is commonly known that the Southern Gas Corridor highly ranked among prospective gas suppliers to the EU consists of three separate projects: the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP) via Azerbaijan and Georgia, the Trans Anatolian pipeline through Turkey (TANAP) and its continuation within Europe - the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) via Greece, Albania and Italy.
Obviously, to take properly into account the lessons of the past, at first the European Commission needs to have full confidence in above mentioned key questions regarding the state of internal gas market and a guaranteed resource base for new pipelines.

Let us consider current information on these issues with regard to TANAP / TAP to understand how much it is possible to avoid project failure next time after Nabucco.

European part of the Southern Gas Corridor - TAP has a route length of 520 km through Greece, Albania and the Adriatic Sea (offshore part) and ends in Italy. TAP's initial capacity of 10 bcm of gas per year is distributed between three countries: the Italian natural gas grid will get 8 bcm, Greece and Albania will share the rest volume of gas by one bcm each. However, it is obvious that TAP will not be able to provide gas to most markets of South-East European countries, which are experiencing particularly high demand for energy.
It refers to the countries that counted on the South Stream pipeline construction, which envisaged deliveries of 63 bcm of gas from Russia to Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia and some other countries. After the South Stream project had been cancelled last December, all these countries lost opportunities to get access to new gas supplies in the nearer future.

By the way, it is likely that just an awareness of such a loss made Bulgaria propose to revive the Nabucco project. Nevertheless, it is evident that neither future TAP nor Nabucco restored from the past would merely present any realistic prospect for meeting fully market demand in South-East European countries. The situation is coming closer to repeating old mistakes - these markets may be left without new gas supplies at least in the near future if ...

It can happen if the European Commission does not take proper care of the development of the internal gas transport infrastructure connecting South-East European countries' markets within the framework of future Energy Union. Although the European Energy Security Strategy envisages the construction of interconnectors, but its implementation will be dragged on for many years. In addition, Serbia and Macedonia should find their own funds and partners to develop their gas transportation infrastructure.
Therefore, the first key issue of providing the infrastructural integrity of national gas networks can be fulfilled, and it is expected that the European Commission and its future Energy Union will play a significant unifying and stimulating role.

However, there is still the second issue of the resource base - are there enough gas from the Southern Gas Corridor for all European countries concerned but not just for those countries that were originally identified in the TANAP / TAP project?
Let us recall that the TANAP pipeline is designed to transport from Azerbaijan an additional gas from the second stage of the Shah Deniz deposit on the route from the Georgian-Turkish border to the western border of Turkey. Azeri gas will be delivered to Turkey via new pipes laid alongside the South Caucasus Pipeline "Baku - Tbilisi - Erzurum" which was officially opened in 2007.

It is assumed that in parallel to the South Caucasus Pipeline with capacity of 8 bcm accommodating gas from the Shah Deniz Stage 1, there will be another pipeline in the same route. The new pipeline will have a capacity of 17 bcm per year, including 16 bcm reserved for the Shah Deniz Stage 2 and another 1 bcm as a technical reserve.

In turn according to the initial project design, the TANAP pipeline will have the capacity of 16 bcm, of which 10 bcm should be transported to Europe and 6 bcm - to Turkey.

However, in fact it is by no means enough to meet the needs of Europe. There is every indication that here is no way yet of getting away from the problem of gas availability for growing imports to Europe. Moreover, a ghost of Nabucco reminds us about it even more convincingly after the cancellation of the South Stream gas pipeline.

Apparently, to look for new ways of solving this problem in December 2014 the European Commission addressed to Azerbaijan with a request to double the capacity of the TANAP pipeline. In response Azerbaijan promised that the TANAP capacity would be increased to 23 bcm but only by 2023 (and in 2026 it would be increased to 31 bcm).

In the meantime, future implementation of such optimistic promises actually raises reasonable doubts. Actually, an increase in capacity would require significant changes not only in the working design of the TANAP pipeline project, but consequently in the planned new part of the South Caucasus Pipeline. In addition, such project upgrade would result in the necessity to attract new investments.

Even more importantly, there is no objective evidence that now and in the considered future the Caspian region really can provide availability of sufficient gas resources to fill the TANAP pipeline with doubled capacity. It is quite clear, that to fulfil these promises by means of gas from Shah Deniz only will not be enough.

Azerbaijan apparently hopes that additional gas resources can be developed. In December 2014, Company British Petroleum and Azerbaijan’s SOCAR (the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan) signed a production sharing agreement (PSA) to jointly explore and develop potential prospects in the shelf area around the Absheron Peninsula in the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea. However, there are no certain estimates how much time it might take to start a new gas production.

Due to the limits of resource base in Azerbaijan to supply gas via the Southern Transport Corridor, the European Commission included into the short list of potential suppliers presented in the Energy Union strategy two other countries of the Caspian region - Turkmenistan and Iran.

In July 2013, a framework agreement was signed between the governments of Turkmenistan and Turkey on cooperation in deliveries of Turkmen gas to Turkey and to Europe. Turkmenistan's President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov paid an official visit to Turkey on March 3, where the discussion of Turkmen gas supplies for TANAP pipeline was continued again. Meanwhile a desire alone cannot lead to success, as well as "a good will" of the parties, even in this case with the active support of the EU. That is why it is too early to talk on any concrete date of commencing Turkmen gas supplies.

In reality, there are problems, which people are trying to ignore. First of all, Turkmenistan's gas resources are currently fully focused on the Chinese market and no radical changes are in sight.

There are issues, which have not been regulated yet, of which the laying of the offshore Trans Caspian pipeline is the main one. As we know, the coastal states have not determined the Caspian Sea's status. At the same time, all the countries have their own interests. For example, Iran demonstratively demands the strict compliance with environmental regulations, which shows that this country is taking advantage of the situation, not wanting any partnerships without its participation.

Tehran seems to be in no hurry to give a "green light" to the development of cooperation between Ashgabat and Baku. Iran is thus promoting its export opportunities, suggesting Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan use its own transport infrastructure for subsequent transit of gas through Turkey to the EU.

However, all this only prolongs time for an indefinite period, since, despite the intentions of the European Commission, Iran is far from ready to draw up concrete plans to supply gas to Europe. In this case, the situation is directly connected with the complex problems of Iran's relations with the US and Israel. Iran's inclusion in the list of prospective gas suppliers to Europe is rightly seen by the world as a political move, which will not be followed yet by real gas projects. As the sanctions against Iran, motived by its nuclear programme, remain in force, and Israel protests sharply against any hint that they may be relaxed.

Thus, the opportunity of Iranian gas imports proposed in the Energy Union strategy raises rather hard political dilemma for Brussels and Washington, which requires to choose what is more important - to maintain the direct and indirect sanctions imposed on Russia including the policy of curbing gas supplies or to continue the sanctions regime against Iran. The intrigue may turn out to be that neither Iran nor Russia have anything crucial to lose in this situation.

Why does the European Commission persist to prove the possibility of replacing Russian gas while at the same time referring to the willingness to take into account the lessons of the past? Why is it less important to keep in mind the mistakes with the South Stream project too that happened after a failure of the Nabucco project? Indeed, history shows that hoping for time will judge everything by itself could cost us too much.
… .

Why is it not worth regretting the fact that US companies are terminating its projects to extract shale gas in Europe?

According to the US Energy Information Administration, France has the largest deposits of shale gas in Europe, located mainly in the basin of Paris and the Rhone Valley. Perhaps that is why with this country US companies intended to begin development of European resources of this unconventional energy. However, France became the first country in the world where 13 July 2011 the Senate legally banned a mining method using the so-called "hydraulic fracturing."

Following the ban, US company Schuepbach Energy, which had two exploration licenses cancelled in southern France, appealed on several counts. But the Constitutional Court rejected these complaints and upheld the 2011 law banning the hydraulic fracturing in the country. France's Energy Minister Philippe Martin called the court ruling "a legal victory, but also an environmental and political one".

Meanwhile it was only the first victory. At the same time, it may happen that somewhere such a reasonable opinion can retreat under pressure of shale technologies image actively promoted in society and political circles. Not everywhere in Europe yet people are aware that environmental risks associated with development of shale deposits will be too high. After all, Europe is of particular ecological vulnerability because of a very high population density in most countries, against which a fragile environment, as it is, often barely withstands.

For many of us in Europe it is even difficult to imagine how the horizontal drains are kicked off at the base of a vertical hole at a depth of 1,500 to 3,000 meters and can extend over a distance of 1,000 and 2,000 meters underneath village houses or city blocks. After that, multiple fractures are created by injecting a very high-pressure mixture of water, sand and several hundred different harmful chemical additives. Routinely on existing technologies, the operations of hydraulic fracturing should be repeated in the same production area up to 10 times a year.

How the density of the drilling sites in the fields of shale deposits looks like one can see in the photo made in the Jonah Field - a large natural gas field in the Green River Basin, Wyoming, in the United States. At the sight of this photo, all of us might wonder if there will be anyone in sound mind, who can combine this half-Mars picture with our European landscape?

Staying in one of the first places on the estimated reserves in Europe, particularly Poland has been in a deep conflict regarding shale gas exploration in recent years. Among other problems of shale gas development had arisen in Poland there was the fact that this technology leads to a high consumption of water, which can be a very harmful to the country's agro-industrial sector.

Besides there is always the danger that huge volumes of fracking mixture will uncontrollably be spilled over the ground surface, infecting everything around. According to the evidence of Polish farmer from the village Żurawlów, close to the town Zamość, when the US company Chevron conducted seismic surveys "water looked like the oil slush. And before that it was crystal clear".

Confrontation with Polish farmers in Żurawlów lasted more than a year. During that time, activists of environmental organizations from the United States, Czech Republic and Latvia arrived in Żurawlów sharing their experience in the opposition against fracking in their countries. As a result, Chevron terminated its activities in the Lublin province, and later on in January it completely stopped exploratory drilling in Poland. Before that, within three years the US companies ExxonMobil and Marathon Oil, and the Canadian Talisman Energy Inc. also had left Poland. This year in February Chevron announced that it would give up shale gas exploration plans in Romania.

Huge amount of water mixed with sand and different chemicals that is pumped deep into the earth for fracking poses is a real threat not only because it causes a very dangerous environmental pollution. In the United States, where the development of shale gas production has already reached a very large industrial scale, there is another serious problem. Modern fracking technology provokes artificial earthquakes.

According to the US Geological Survey, published by the Washington Post, an unprecedented increase in the number of earthquakes was recorded in Oklahoma, where a big part of the Caney and Woodford Shales is located occupied by sites of drilling and fracking. As of 2012, there were an estimated 11,000 private and commercial injection and disposal wells in Oklahoma and the number of earthquakes has been accordingly growing. In 2014, the US Geological Survey data showed there had been 585 earthquakes with magnitude 3.0 or greater in Oklahoma that is more than three times the number of earthquakes as in California.

It is important that the greatest impact, causing movements of the earth's crust, resulted not from the fracking process but mostly due to associated deep geological disposal of sludge water, which pumped back into specially drilled wells. According to various estimates, there are about 30 thousand disposal wells in the United States. Numerous facts point at a direct link between the injection of fracking wastewater into the earth and the increase in seismic activity, since the latter more occurs around disposal wells. Thus, according to the Earthworks report released in March 2014 there are more than 1,500 wells for the disposal of wastewater in California. Over a half of these wells is within ten-mile zone of the earthquake epicenter, and 6% or 87 wells - within one-mile radius.

It seems that everybody has already aware of that fracking technology carries various threats such as contamination of groundwater, earthquakes, enormous water consumption, and risks caused by improper disposal of flowback water.

However, despite how much fracking supporters wanted to wave it away European countries should draw attention to the existing experience and make the right conclusions that their plans for a widespread use of fracking technologies in Europe intended for shale gas production do not have any proper environmental as well as economic feasibility. Before everything else such plans are motivated by unreasonable ambitions of policy makers and reckless commercial interests of international oil companies, which are promoting all over the world the shale technology a little worrying about the consequences.

.

Unfortunately, the doors for the shale gas exploration and production technology are open in most European countries yet. According to the article published on April 5, 2014 in the Economist, as shown in the map above, there is a ban on the production of shale gas only in five European countries, including France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. Meanwhile in February Germany proposed a draft law that would allow commercial shale gas fracking at depths of over 3,000 meters in this case removing a moratorium that was imposed several years ago
.
Anyway, the hope is necessary that a careful attitude towards ecology conservation in all European countries will adjust their shale policy and will be reflected in the priorities of the future Energy Union.

When would it be possible to expect that our politicians and lawmakers will definitely say goodbye to a troublemaking dream of inspiring a dangerous shale boom in Europe? Otherwise, do they still need for that real earthquakes and a special smell of oil in a sauna?

Why do waves of the U.S. shale gas revolution not cross over the Atlantic at least until the end of this decade?

In March last year, speaking at a press conference in Brussels after the US - EU summit, the U.S. President B. Obama told European leaders that the US could provide all of the natural gas Europe needs on a daily basis . Obviously, these promises, as the US had expected, should strengthened the EU intentions to boost the energy security by reducing Europe's dependence on Russia. A significant decline in Russia's market share in Europe was one of the main objectives of the EU Energy Security Strategy adopted in the late spring of last year.

The spring will come soon again; a whole year is nearly over after these events. Let us look at what has changed in favor of ensuring the European energy security for the period from the spring of last year.
Among the practical steps completed last year against Russian gas imports to the EU it especially stood out that Bulgaria did not give construction permits to build the South Stream pipeline seriously affecting the European energy security but, unfortunately, not for the better.

Now the fact that some of the most vulnerable South East European countries lost an opportunity of obtaining in the end of this year Russian gas by first of four lines of the canceled pipeline South Stream with an annual capacity is up to 16 bcm has far-reaching consequences, which are considered differently. This gas will not come to Bulgaria. Moreover, the former risks of energy security for the country remain, because 85% of the gas consumed by Bulgaria, imported from Russia through the Ukraine's war-torn territory.

Cancellation of the pipeline South Stream made the EU initiate a special working group to discuss what actions the countries - former participants of the South Stream project might undertake in the present situation. Although following the results of its first meeting in Sofia it was not clear what Bulgaria would receive instead of lost opportunities to strengthen its energy security as well as missed investments into the Bulgarian section of South Stream project and foregone earnings from gas transit. The European Commission promises to Bulgaria only legal and expert support in future gas projects, which, as the Vice-President for Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič pointed out at the working group meeting, can occur within two to three years.

In the meantime, the US openly celebrate their victory over the South Stream project. "The battle was won," the US Secretary of State John Kerry told the staff of the American Embassy in Sofia. "And here we are today in 2015, and Russia is still trying to impose on people its will."

However, such an enthusiasm does not correspond to what has been expected by Europe and what Europe is waiting for now. Indeed, it is unlikely such "victories" somehow can help European countries to make progress in achieving strategic goals of energy security. Therefore, in this situation, Brussels has even more actively to look for opportunities for enhancing energy security in two main directions: firstly, substantive constraints on the overall demand for fossil fuel like natural gas and, secondly, a significant increase in supply from alternative sources.

At the same time, we must realize that both search logic of such alternatives and identification of best options for energy supplies should be based on the principles of competition so highly respected in Europe as cradle of the market economy. As we may see in current reality, the EU energy market has turned into one of the arenas of confrontation between the US and Russia, which is now openly declared by the US officials. This indicates that Washington is openly taking control of the future of the European energy market. Amos Hochstein, the US State Department’s special envoy for international energy affairs has recently said that the U.S. would like to see a 20 percent slice cut out of Russia’s current share of the Eastern European gas market by 2020.

In fact, with the absence of "the spur of competition" between gas suppliers at the European energy market our consumers would lose benefits of better prices, attractive commercial terms of delivery and much more. It is not difficult to see that the US competition with Russia for the European gas market does not comply with the traditional model, which should be aimed at the interests of end users of gas in Europe. According to this model, only Russian side presents such usual evidences of competitiveness for consumers, as many years’ experience in supplies of gas to Europe, security of supplying extended volumes based on huge gas reserves in Siberia and on the continental shelf in the Arctic. It might be well to add the rejected investments of the Russian company "Gazprom" into the South Stream gas pipeline now went off the prospects for development of Eastern European gas transport infrastructure.

What do the US competitors undertake in the rivalry for European gas market from their side? In the first instance it is a political pushing through Brussels, and, if necessary, directly through the governments of the EU Member States such bureaucratic decisions that should hinder the activities of their competitors.
Besides, probably for maintaining the competitive image, it was promised that American companies would bring to Europe new investments and technologies on waves of the US shale boom, which will cross the Atlantic approaching European gas market rather soon.

Unfortunately, the role of Brussels in the US competition with Russia is often not consistent with vital economic interests of European gas consumers - both business owners and households. As usual agreeing with the Atlantic allies, Brussels without hesitation accepts the proposed transition to much more expensive North American shale LNG even though the starting date of its supplies to European market has not conclusively determined yet.

Brussels in turn has recently reminded the US of the necessity to implement the idea of supplying Europe with North American LNG. “Energy needs to be a key part of Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership discussions” the EU Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete said at the Atlantic Council meeting in Washington. “We need gas to be traded freely across the Atlantic”.

Meanwhile there is no any certain reaction to this reminder. The problem obviously is that the promises made by President B. Obama have proved difficult to implement in practice. Actually now there are real obstacles to shale LNG exports from the US to Europe. First, American companies should be allowed to deliver shale LNG to Europe, since now it is banned. The “Export American Natural Gas Act of 2015” was assigned to the US congressional committee on January 21, 2015 and it was made not for the first time. The initiators of the bill point out that it should speed up the procedure of permits for export of LNG assigned to the US Department of Energy.

Apparently, opponents of the bill, including experts from the Department of Energy, who have held up this legislation up to now, better aware of the complex problems in the US shale industry, which are hiding behind the facade of diagrams showing an optimistic growth in shale gas production. There are serious concerns that the export of shale LNG can only aggravate the problems, which have long been objectively increasing within upstream sector of the US shale industry.

In the meantime, due to the unique character of the US shale industry and the extent of its influence on the international energy market, the existing problems in the upstream sector deserve special consideration that is better to do separately but now let us turn back to the prospects of the shale LNG supplies to the European market.

Apart from the above-mentioned absence of the legislation, next barrier existing on the route to Europe concerns a delay in development of the transport infrastructure needed for shipping LNG from the US. In this case, the problem is that construction of LNG terminals in the US is losing its investment attractiveness because of the drastic drop in oil prices. Now more than 14 projects of LNG terminals in the US happened to be under the threat of suspension of construction.

A low level of oil prices undermines both prospects of shale gas production and development of infrastructure for the transportation of LNG from the US. Contracts for North American LNG are closely correlated to the price of gas in the Henry Hub - а distribution hub on the natural gas pipeline system in Erath, Louisiana, where the nine largest interstate pipelines converge together. At the same time, LNG prices of competing suppliers from Australia, Qatar and other countries are calculated based on oil quotations.

When oil quotations were over 100 USD per barrel LNG export from the US had certain advantages over competing supplies from terminals in other regions of the world, but in consequence of collapse in oil prices to a level of 55 USD per barrel for WTI and 60 USD for Brent these advantages disappeared. Changes for the better are not expected. Moreover, a new report of Citigroup, published in February this year predicts that "West Texas Intermediate Crude, currently trading at about 52 USD per barrel, could fall to 20 USD “for a while” until the current supply glut is worked off".

With regard to the readiness for unloading the North American LNG on the European continent, here the situation is not much better. Only Western European countries possess the necessary LNG terminals and regasification facilities. As to South East Europe, in these countries the LNG infrastructure is completely missing because initially a local gas transportation system was intended for the consumption of pipeline gas from Russia.

It is planned that the first LNG terminal in South East Europe will be Adria LNG Project in Omisalj on the northern Adriatic island of Krk that will has a regasification capacity of 10 bcm per year. According to the EU Energy Security Strategy, adopted in Brussels, this project is expected to launch in about five years in 2019.

Thus, the facts indicate that the US LNG might actually appear at the European market and particularly in South East European countries only to the end of this decade.

Why do politicians urge us to believe on their bare words that despite the existing problems the North American shale LNG will be able soon to put competitive pressure on Russian gas at the European market?