Natural Gas, US Shale Dynamics and Energy Security: A View from the European Union

  • Rafael Leal-Arcas
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)


This chapter provides an analysis of natural gas as a resource that can enhance energy security in the European Union (EU). To set the scene, the section “The Gas Exporting Countries Forum” gives an overview of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum as an example of the gas oligopoly in today’s market. The section “A Primer on Natural Gas Transportation and Shale Gas Extraction” shows the basics of natural gas transportation and shale gas extraction, whereas sections “More Imports of LNG Will Diversify EU Energy Supplies” and “US Shale Gas Revolution: Implications for EU Energy Security Enhancement” provide an analysis of how the EU can increase its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to diversify its energy supplies and what the implications of the US shale gas revolution are for EU energy security. The final section concludes the chapter.


  1. Brussels. 2001. Energy Charter Secretariat. Trade in Energy: WTO Rules Applying under the Energy Charter Treaty, 11.Google Scholar
  2. Cimino, C and G. Hufbauer. 2014. US Policies Toward Liquefied Natural Gas and Oil Exports: An Update. Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief Number: 14–19. Print.Google Scholar
  3. Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: European Energy Security Strategy, SWD. 2014. 330 final/3 (2 July 2014). Available at
  4. Counter Balance. 2014. Myths and Facts: The Netherlands as a Gas Roundabout and EIB Investments in Excess Capacity. Counter Balance. N.p. Web 30 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. A Boost for Clean and Secure Energy in Poland: European Commission Approves More Than € 200 Million EU Regional Funds for Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, Press Release (16 July 2013), p. 2. Available at:
  6. ———. 2014a. Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: European Energy Security Strategy. COM(2014) 330 final, 15.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2014b. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Progress Towards Completing the Internal Energy Market. COM(2014) 634 final, 9.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2014c. Quarterly Report on European Gas Markets. [Online] 3. Available at: Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  9. ———. 2014d. Quarterly Report On European Gas Markets. Web 30 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission B. 2014. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: European Energy Security Strategy. COM(2014) 330 Final, 15.Google Scholar
  11. Gas Exporting Countries Forum. 2017. FAQs. [Online]. Available at: Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  12. Gas Infrastructure Europe. 2014. GLE LNG Map. [Online]. Available at: Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  13. Goldthau, A., and Witte, J. (2010). Global Energy Governance: The New Rules of the Game. 1st ed., 221–245. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  14. Houser, T., and M. Shashank. 2014. Fueling Up: The Economic Implications of America’s Oil and Gas Boom. Peterson Institute for International Economics: 15. Print.Google Scholar
  15. International Energy Agency. 2013. World Energy Outlook 2013. [Online] 12. Available at: Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  16. Krupp, F. 2017. Don’t Just Drill, Baby – Drill Carefully: How to Make Fracking Safer for the Environment. Foreign Affairs 93 (3): 1–20.Google Scholar
  17. Ledesma, D. 2013. East Africa Gas – Potential for Export, 31–32. Oxford: The Oxford Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Rakhmanin, V. 2010. Transportation and Transit of Energy and Multilateral Trade Rules: WTO and Energy Charter. In Global Challenges at the Intersection of Trade, Energy and the Environment, ed. Joost Pauwelyn, 123–126. Geneva: Centre for Trade and Economic Integration.Google Scholar
  19. Richardson, B. 2013. America Should Not Try to Keep Its Shale Gas to Itself. Financial Times. [Online]. Available at: Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  20. Selivanova, Y. 2007. The WTO and Energy: WTO Rules and Agreements of Relevance to the Energy Sector. ICTSD Trade and Sustainable Energy Series (1), 18.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2010. Challenges for Multilateral Energy Trade Regulation: WTO and Energy Charter. Society of International Economic Law, Second Biennial Global Conference, University of Barcelona, 2010(10), 2.Google Scholar
  22. Seputyte, M. 2014. Lithuania Grabs LNG in Effort to Curb Russian Dominance. Bloomberg.Google Scholar
  23. Stern, J. et al. 2014. Reducing European Dependence on Russian Gas: Distinguishing Natural Gas Security from Geopolitics. The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 29.Google Scholar
  24. Strzelecki, M. 2015. Poland Opens LNG Terminal, Pledges to End Russian Dependence. Bloomberg. Web 30 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  25. Summer, L. 2014. Lawrence Summer at The Brookings Institute. Speech.Google Scholar
  26. US Energy Information Administration. 2013. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States.Google Scholar
  27. Walde, T., and A. Gunst. 2003. International Energy Trade and Access to Competing Networks. In Energy and Environmental Services: Negotiating Objectives and Development Priorities. New York/Geneva: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  28. Yukos Universal Limited (Isle Of Man) V. 2014. The Russian Federation. Print.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Leal-Arcas
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Commercial Law StudiesQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations