Global LNG vs the European Union

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“,,, relying on discretionary non-enforcement across all 27 EU Member States fails to address the financial and legal risks associated with [LNG] contracts that often span multiple years and that are valued in the tens of billions of euros.” (Wright et. al. below)

Chris Wright of the U.S. Department of Energy, along with major liquified natural gas exporters to the EU, wrote the following letter to the European climate leaders. The complaint regards the punitive regulatory framework required for expanded LNG deliveries to energy-hungry Europe from the viewpoint of “competitiveness, prosperity, sustainability, and energy security.” EU obstructionism centers around methane emissions in the gas-to-LNG-to-gas process.

An Open Letter to Leaders of the European Commission, European Council, and European Union (EU) Member States on the EU Methane Regulation

Dear President von der Leyen, President Costa, and EU Member State Leaders:

As your largest energy suppliers, we are committed to strengthening our economic and strategic partnerships and ensuring Europe’s energy security. We fully support your objectives of increasing EU economic competitiveness, prosperity, sustainability, and energy security through provision of reliable energy supplies for the European Union and its citizens.

It is with these shared goals in mind that we write to urge the EU to take swift, necessary actions to clarify and to adopt targeted amendments to the EU Methane Regulation (EUMR), some of which have already been requested by several EU Member States, industry, and members of European Parliament.

These amendments should also be preceded by the: (i) adoption of a stop-the-clock mechanism, to provide time to develop necessary methodologies and compliance pathways that work for all; (ii)grandfathering of new contracts signed while these additional legislative adjustments are underway; and (iii) removal of penalties for noncompliance during this transitional period.

As a large and diverse importing region, the EU purchases oil and natural gas from a wide variety of exporters, the majority of which cannot meet the EUMR methane emissions measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements on the prescribed timeline. According to an independent, comprehensive industry analysis, nearly all of EU oil imports and a significant quantity of EU natural gas imports will be noncompliant with the EUMR beginning in January 2027. Even with adaptive and flexible implementation, significant negative supply and price impacts are a certainty.

The EU faces a narrow window to make necessary changes to the EUMR as importers have already begun the process of purchasing oil and natural gas that will be stored for delivery in 2027, and as of now there is no viable path to compliance with the regulation.

We understand that non-binding forthcoming guidelines will encourage flexibility in implementation and will recommend against imposing penalties for noncompliance. However, relying on discretionary non-enforcement across all 27 EU Member States fails to address the financial and legal risks associated with contracts that often span multiple years and that are valued in the tens of billions of euros.

Moreover, because legal compliance remains paramount, exporters and importers alike are unwilling to enter into contractual agreements that knowingly violate EU law, notwithstanding recommendations against penalizing noncompliance.

To be clear, energy producers in our respective nations have already made substantial progress and are spending significant capital to decrease methane emissions intensity. They also intend to continue these efforts, consistent with the objectives of the EUMR.

We strongly encourage a pragmatic approach to clarifying essential missing elements of the EUMR and adopting necessary changes, to allow importers to continue sourcing oil and gas resources needed by the EU market. We also encourage the Commission and EU Member States to work with industry stakeholders on necessary clarifications and changes that enable effective implementation of the law while reducing untenable risks.

We look forward to partnering with you to advance responsible policies that enhance energy access and security throughout the EU.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy United States of America
Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi, Minister of State for Energy Affairs State of Qatar
Ekperikpe Ekpo, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Gas) Federal Republic of Nigeria
Mohamed Arkab, Minister of State, Minister of Hydrocarbons People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
July 23, 2026 10:39 pm

Co-signed by Qatar, Nigeria and Algeria. Neither an extensive nor illustrious list. Leaders still afraid of the climate cult.

My view is the US should restrict export of oil and gas from North America. Let the price of gasoline in the EU triple while the US price falls to unheard of levels in modern history because of the local oil glut. US voters happy, mass protests in Europe, and Trump gets to tell Europe exactly how many aircraft and manpower they have to provide to assist with Hormuz and what regulations to dump before he opens the taps again.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 24, 2026 8:36 am

Let the price of gasoline in the EU triple while the US price falls to unheard of levels in modern history because of the local oil glut.

How many barrels of crude does the US produce?
How many barrels of gasoline do they consume?
How many barrels of crude do you need to get a barrel of gasoline?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 24, 2026 9:19 am

How many question that can be answered by a quick Google search can you ask?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
July 24, 2026 10:45 am

Tag Team idiocy…When Mr. Beeton is done making a fool of him (her, it??)self on one post, MyLosernameRetarded tags in and shows up on the next one.

D Sandberg
July 23, 2026 11:34 pm

Europe is so committed to destroying their economies with energy policy that any contractual agreements may fail because of prolonged economic depression.
the U.S may do better by focusing on other markets. in other words, Screw ’em, we don’t need them and their climate cult nonsense.

July 24, 2026 2:01 am

Let Europe flounder in their self-imposed energy poverty.

Maybe the UK can on-sell their wall socket solar panels and batteries that they get made in China. They should be able to specify an adapter to suit the myriad of sockets through Europe. At least it will make the POMs feel good to know they are helping save the planet!!!

Rod Evans
July 24, 2026 3:23 am

This is a clear question of who is the dog and who is the tail?
If the EU commission can write into their purchase contracts, the supply must conform with methane levels they have arbitrarily set. Then it is up to the suppliers to decide whether they supply or not. The thought of a latent legal battle in the future looming over the supply would be sufficient for me to say no.
The EU needs the energy supply, the suppliers do not need the EU or its tail wagging threatening the legal rule book. Fond of Lying has a reputation well earned for incompetence, she can’t be trusted.

July 24, 2026 4:07 am

Secretary Wright is doing great things for U.S. energy policy, in my view.

However, he has not yet opened the door within DOE to challenge the unsound claim that fugitive emissions of methane have a perceptible influence on “climate”:
“To be clear, energy producers in our respective nations have already made substantial progress and are spending significant capital to decrease methane emissions intensity. They also intend to continue these efforts, consistent with the objectives of the EUMR.”

OK, tighten the flanges and use valve packings that reduce leakage. Fine. But not because of the delusional concerns over “climate” that have driven the EU to impose restrictions in pursuit of the absurd “objectives of the EUMR.”

We’ll see what happens.

Reply to  David Dibbell
July 24, 2026 5:36 am

There is no evidence methane has or will have any discernible effects on the Earth’s weather or climate.

More Net Zero stupidity from the EU.

Can these people get any dumber?

mleskovarsocalrrcom
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 24, 2026 5:53 am

“Can these people get any dumber?” Hold my beer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
July 24, 2026 7:36 am

Be careful who you have holding your beer. Those bubbles are CO2. 😉

Reply to  David Dibbell
July 24, 2026 7:18 am

Reducing methane leaks is good and something industry does on its own. However, some of the regulations wanted to ban gas-over-oil valve actuators (GOOAs) which is non-sensical and would cost the industry 100s of Billions of dollars.

Many pipeline valves are out in the middle of no-where and exist to minimize emissions should there be a catastrophic pipeline rupture and to be ale to isolate segments for maintenance. These are very large valves (36″-48″+) and need to be able to close on the order of 1 second per inch of diameter. The solution is to use pipeline pressure to drive hydraulics to operate he valve actuator.

These valves stay open because closing them shuts down the pipeline segment. There is no leakage of methane except when the valve is actuated which is basically never. However, regulations wanted to count these as a source. There are literally 10s of thousands of these valves across the pipeline industry in the US. To replace these with something just as reliable would cost a minimum of $200k per valve and as much as $5MM per valve depending on valve size and location.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent analyzing the required replacements and figuring out how to comply until the Trump EPA rescinded the requirement.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 24, 2026 7:35 am

“OK, tighten the flanges and use valve packings that reduce leakage.”

Exactly. Less waste means more sales and more profit. The only question is the ROI for any particular upgrade.

Dave Andrews
July 24, 2026 7:11 am

The EU seems to be determined to shoot itself in the foot.

In 2025 it was the world’s largest importer of LNG with imports rising 34.1% to 169bcm.

It was also the world’s largest importer of all gas with a rise of 11% to 267bcm.

Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’

July 24, 2026 7:14 am

Harold The Organic Chemists Says:
“No need to worry about the emission of methane”.

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of methane in dry air is 1.93 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 3.8 milligrams of methane.

Some major natural sources of methane are swamps, bogs, fens and wetlands; wild ruminate animals, rotting vegetable matter; seeps from the oceans floors; and insects and termites, especially tropical termites which emit about 20 million tonnes of methane per year.

Some major sources of methane due to activities of humans are oil and gas operations, leaks form pipelines, coal mining, domestic ruminate animals, land fills and garbage dumps, and sewage processing. Factoid: One cow emits 70 to 120 kilograms of methane per year.

The low concentration of methane in the air is due in part to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning. There is no propagation of the combustion of methane due to its very low concentration in the air. There are over 8 million discharges of lightning everyday. Discharges of lightning generate ozone which would readily oxidize methane to carbon dioxide and water.

Methane is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of ice cold water can contain 33 milliliters of methane. Methane that is absorbed in cold polar waters slowly diffuses to the ocean floor where under hih pressure it forms a solid clathrate known as methane ice. The oceans are the major sink for methane.

The claim that methane is 80 times a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is based on a theoretical analysis of its infrared absorption spectrum. However, methane has no major absorption bands in the thermal emission spectrum of the earth’s surface.

The bottom line is that we do not have to concerned about the emission of methane from activities of humans. The claim that the greenhouse gas methane can cause significant global warming is flat out wrong.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Harold Pierce
July 24, 2026 8:04 am

Harold, you are correct as usual. Allow me to expand a bit on the topic.

The following are listed as assumptions because I choose to not provide the supporting physics.

Assumption 1: Methane is 80 times more powerful at “trapping heat” (a bogus expression) than CO2.
Assumption 2: Methane absorption and emission spectra are overlaid with H2O.
Assumption 3: Atmospheric concentrations: CO2 is 400+ ppm. CH4 is < 2 ppm. H2O is 5,000 to 50,000 ppm although it can drop to near 0 in certain micro climates.
Assumption 4: Atmospheric life cycle: CH4 is days. CO2 is years. H2O is highly and widely variable.
Assumption 5: CO2 is symmetrical and has no molecular dipole moment. CH4 is symmetrical and has no molecular dipole moment. H2O is not symmetrical and has a molecular dipole moment and the H2O molecule kinetically interacts with EM fields.

Conclusion: In the atmosphere, methane is not a more powerful “greenhouse gas” (a bogus expression) than CO2.

H2O is the dominant “greenhouse gas” and regulates temperatures across the planet.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 24, 2026 8:36 am

I thank you for your info and support. Do this search:
Infrared absorption spectrum of methane. The spectrum show major absorption at 1300 and 300 wavenumbers. Collisions with N2, O2 and Ar can induce a dipole moment which results in methane absorbing long wavelenght IR light.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Harold Pierce
July 24, 2026 11:58 am

“Major absorption” does not mean what it seems to say.
Primary absorption/emission spectra is more accurate.

A dipole moment does not affect absorption or emission of EM energy.
A dipole moment interacts kinetically with the electric field portion of the EM wave.

The speculation of absorption due to collision is based on the conjecture that valence bonds can resonate and vibrate. They can’t, or at least not enough to matter. Electrostatic fields have no modulus of elasticity, can not store or release kinetic energy. Note the fields are static. Electron and proton charge are physical constants.

A collision that potentially could distort the CH4 symmetry would be short lived and as such in effective in any meaningful way. Even if the collision induced a molecular dipole moment, it does not lead to CH4 absorbing LWIR, but rather a small, temporary kinetic interaction with the electric field portion of the EM wave.

The collision transfers kinetic energy between molecules altering movement speed and vector and rotation.

We are not convinced that atmospheric molecules make physical contact during collisions. Electrostatic fields play into it. We do not know where electrons are in an atom or a molecule or even how they “orbit.” That is why it is called a” quantum probability electron cloud.”

Be aware there has been a decades long effort to create physics that proves “CO2 traps heat.”

Sparta Nova 4
July 24, 2026 7:32 am

Good luck. You will need it.