After a renewed demand by Donald Trump for the EU to buy more US oil and gas, Energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen has signalled the bloc is ready to increase imports, but not if it means abandoning climate and environmental goals – and that is a big if.
Presumably referring to the trade in goods, Trump said on Monday as he rejected a ‘zero-to-zero’ tariff offer from Brussels that the US had a $350 deficit with the EU.
“One of the ways that can disappear easily and quickly is they’re gonna have to buy our energy from us, because they need it…We can knock off $350bn in one week,” Trump told reporters in Washington.
Then president-elect, Trump had already warned on his social media platform in December that it would be “TARIFFS all the way!!!” unless the European Union ramped up energy imports.
According to the US government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit in 2024 was $235.6 billion – but even that seems to be an order of magnitude larger than the potential European market for American – or indeed any liquefied natural gas.
The total value of all of Europe’s energy imports last year – meaning pipeline gas, petroleum and coal in addition to LNG – came to €375.9 billion, according to the EU’s statistics office Eurostat. LNG made up only €41.4bn of this, of which America’s share was just under half, and overall import volumes were down 15% on the previous year.
Meanwhile, Europe is ramping up the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, especially wind and solar, and demand for fossil fuels overall – especially if the EU sticks to its decarbonization agenda – is on a downward trajectory.
The stark reality that Russia retains an 17.5% share of the European Union’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) market, coupled with the bloc’s aim to stop importing all Russian energy by 2027, suggests potential space exists to boost American LNG imports over the coming years.
Lessons learned
But EU officials have already poured several buckets of cold water on the idea of a more permanent ramping up of imports on the scale Trump seems to be implying. “We want to avoid over-dependence on any single supplier,” a Commission spokesperson said the day after Trump’s vague offer of a quid pro quo. “We've learned our lesson too well.”
Moreover, the EU official noted, the European Commission was not a market actor, and its room for manoeuvre was limited to measures such as reviewing permitting procedures for LNG infrastructure – of which the EU already has a surplus – or exploring ways to pool demand. As for Trump’s figure of $350 bn, it would be “very, very difficult to comment on one number that has been given from the US side”.
Energy Commissioner Jørgensen was equally lukewarm in an interview with the Financial Times on Thursday (10 April). There was “potential” for the EU to buy more LNG from the US, but it would need to be “on conditions that are also in line” with European environmental regulations, he said.
A piece of legislation of key relevance here is the Methane Regulation, which is set to impose the same monitoring, reporting and verification obligations on exporters to the EU as on domestic operators.
It would also block supply contract for fuels whose associated upstream carbon footprint is above a yet-to-be-defined threshold that would likely capture gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as is the case for most US production.
Following the initiation of his worldwide tariff conflict, President Trump has seen EU authorities reaffirm that European environmental and food safety regulations remain non-negotiable matters.
However, EU energy authorities have been engaged in "continuous talks" at the "operational level" with their American peers regarding the methane regulations, as stated by a representative to Diwida.News. "Certainly, conversations have occurred concerning the impact of these methane rules; however, such dialogues are not specifically happening right now amid the present conditions."
Meanwhile, the anticipated Russian energy exit strategy, scheduled for completion by the end of March, still stands. In an interview with the Financial Times, Jorgensen admitted that the EU has expended more funds on Russian energy imports since 2022 compared to what it has provided as aid to Ukraine.
However, the European Union Executive's most recent preliminary schedule indicates that they do not intend to present the proposal until after the summer. This implies that the group would have barely more than two years at most to put the plan into action. "Of course, we are closely monitoring developments as we formulate our strategy, ensuring it...will be suitable," stated the official.
