Advertisement

Unconventional Sources of Fossil Fuel in the European Union and China: Perspectives on Trade, Climate Change and Energy Security

  • Rafael Leal-ArcasEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the case of unconventional fossil fuels in the European Union (EU) and China. Recent developments in the extraction of energy from unconventional fossil fuels will have consequences for the governance of global energy trade and European energy security. When it comes to trading energy, there is a clear difference between oil and gas, in that oil can be easily transported, whereas gas needs to be liquefied or transported through pipelines and, consequently, the technological and political challenges are higher for gas than they are for oil. The chapter’s main argument is that shale gas and shale oil will revolutionise world energy politics and economics. Irrespective of whether environmentally acceptable extraction technologies and political consensus for the extraction of unconventional fossil fuel sources in Europe can be found, the EU will be unable to avoid its impacts on global energy markets and will have to adapt EU internal and external energy policies accordingly. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EU’s internal and external governance framework has evolved; however, EU energy policy is only partially ready for the unconventional energy revolution. The EU has taken remarkable steps towards addressing its Member States’ respective energy security in a more cohesive manner, although issues do exist in terms of the distinct energy interests of EU Member States that undermine cohesive EU action.

References

  1. Aaronson, S. A. (2011). Human rights. In J.-P. Chauffour & J.-C., Maur (Eds.), Preferential trade agreement policies for development, a handbook. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/C21.pdf.
  2. Alvarez, R. A., et al. (2012). Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 6435–6440 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boling, M. K. (2015). Balancing environmental, social and economic impacts of shale gas development activities. Webinar presentation for The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. http://www.vimeo.com/58162903.
  4. Bradbury, J., et al. (2013). Clearing the air: Reducing upstream greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems. World Resources Institute. (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute).Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, T. S. (2014). The shale gas revolution—Implications for sustainable development and international trade. Issue Paper, 8,11–13 (2014). ICTSD Global Platform on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainable Energy.Google Scholar
  6. California Energy Commission. (2015). Frequently asked questions about LNG. http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/faq.html.
  7. Coffman, K. (2013). Colorado an energy battleground as towns ban fracking. Reuters, November 6, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/06/us-usa-fracking-colorado-idUSBRE9A50QT20131106.
  8. Colorado Judicial Department. (2014). Order granting motions for summary judgment, July 24, 2014. Colorado: District Court, Boulder County. http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/20th_Judicial_District/Cases_of_Interest/13CV63%20Order%20Granting%20Motions%20for%20Summary%20Judgment.pdf.
  9. Cunningham, N. (2013, March). The geopolitical implications of U.S. natural gas exports. American Security Project, 2.Google Scholar
  10. Cunningham, N. (2014). New York ruling on fracking leaves shale industry weary. The Christian Science Monitor, July 2, 2014. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0702/New-York-ruling-on-fracking-leaves-shale-industry-weary.
  11. Dezember, R., & Areddy, J. T. (2012). China Foothold in U.S. Energy. World Street Journal, March 6, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204883304577223083067806776.
  12. EIA. (2013a, June ). Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources: An assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. U.S. Energy Information Administration.Google Scholar
  13. EIA. (2013c). Shale oil and shale gas resources are globally abundant. United States Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11611.
  14. EIA. (2014). EIA country analysis brief overview China. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=ch.
  15. EIA. (2015a). Frequently Asked Questions, How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned?. US Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11.
  16. EIA. (2015b). US coal summary statistics 2008–2014. US Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/tes1p01p1.pdf.
  17. EIA. (2015c). Annual Energy Outlook, Early Release Overview, ES-1 (2015). http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282015%29.pdf.
  18. Energy Charter Secretariat. (2004). The energy charter treaty and related documents: A legal framework for international energy cooperation. Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents, 13. (Brussels: Energy Charter Secretariat).Google Scholar
  19. EPA (2013). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2011. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. www.epa.gov. Accessed 2 August 2014.
  20. Financial Times. (2014). China and Russia sign $400bn gas deal. The Financial Times, May 21, 2014. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9a8b800-e09a-11e3-9534-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3tons1pe6.
  21. Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas imprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Energy Agency. (2014). World energy investment outlook. Special Report. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEIO2014.pdf.
  23. Jacoby, H. D., O’Sullivan, F. M., & Paltsev, S. (2012). The influence of shale gas on U.S. energy and environmental policy. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 1.Google Scholar
  24. Kass, D. (2015). Supreme Court to rule on local fracking ban. Law360, September 22, 2015. http://www.law360.com/articles/705833/colo-supreme-court-to-rule-on-local-fracking-ban.
  25. Leal-Arcas, R., & Minas, S. (2014). Mapping out the international and European governance of renewable energy. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, 237/2014, 1–40. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies.Google Scholar
  26. Leal-Arcas, R., & Schmitz, J. (2014). Unconventional energy sources and EU energy security: A legal, economic and political analysis. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal, 12(4), 1–37.Google Scholar
  27. Leal-Arcas, R. (2015). How governing international trade in energy can enhance EU energy security. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 6(3), 02–219.Google Scholar
  28. Leal-Arcas, R., Caruso, V., & Leupuscek, R. (2015). Renewables, preferential trade agreements and EU energy security. Laws, 4(3), 472–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leal-Arcas, R., & Wilmarth, C. (2015). Strengthening sustainable development through regional trade agreements. In J., Wouters & A. Marx et al. (eds.), Global governance through trade: EU policies and approaches (pp. 92–123). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Levi, M. A. (2013). The power surge: Energy, opportunity, and the battle for America’s future. Council on Foreign Relations. (New York: Council on Foreign Relations).Google Scholar
  31. Makan, A., & Crooks, E. (2013). Shale gas boom now visible from space. Financial Times, January 27, 2013.Google Scholar
  32. McGowan, F. (2008). Can the European Union’s market liberalism ensure energy security in a time of ‘Economic Nationalism’?. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 4(2), 90, 97.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, S. M. et al. (2013). Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MIT. (2012). The future of natural gas. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Neuhoff, K., & von Hirschhausen, C. (2013). Long-term vs. short-term contracts: A European perspective on natural gas. Cambridge Working Paper in Economics, 0539 (2013).Google Scholar
  36. Reuters. (2013). Quebec seeks fracking moratorium in shale gas rich area. Reuters, May 15, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/15/canada-quebec-fracking-idUSL2N0DW33620130515.
  37. Schrag, D. P. (2012). Is shale gas good for climate change?. Daedalus, 141(2), 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The Economist. (2013). Towards the end of poverty. The Economist, June 1, 2013.Google Scholar
  39. The Economist. (2014). Conscious uncoupling. The Economist, April 5, 2014, p. 30.Google Scholar
  40. UNFCCC. (2014). Global warming potentials. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php.
  41. Wigley, T. M. L. (2011). Coal to gas: The influence of methane leakage. Climatic Change, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. World Energy Council. (2013). World Energy Council report confirms global abundance of energy resources and exposes myth of peak oil. World Energy Council. https://www.worldenergy.org/news-and-media/press-releases/world-energy-council-report-confirms-global-abundance-of-energy-resources-and-exposes-myth-of-peak-oil/.
  43. World Health Organization. (2006). Access to AIDS medicines stumbles on trade rules. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 84(5), 337–424. (Geneva: World Health Organisation). http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/5/news10506/en/.
  44. Zweig, D., & Bi, J. (2005, September/October). China’s global hunt for energy. Foreign Affairs, p. 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations