Tag Archives: risk governance

EU Needs to Protect Founding Principles: Threats from Russia & Hungary

The time has come for the European Union to morph into a strong international force representing democratic rights and international stability.  Acting softly does not work. The confluence of aggressive Russian tactics to take more territory from Ukraine and Hungary’s rose-tinted glasses on the authoritarian political-economic model of Russia and China – and rejection of EU liberal values, threatens Europe’s founding principles and its territorial integrity.

Peace is threatened on Europe’s edges. It’s time to reach back to the values and wisdom for the founding of the European Union, when it was the joining of the European coal and steel industries, with Germany and France uniting for lasting peace in 1951. Economic dependence would unify the continent and prevent war.

The annexation of Crimea by Russia is now an accepted territorial change.  Russia got it for free because the international community didn’t stand up for Ukraine. Now Russia is expropriating more territory to serve Russian President Putin’s political and nationalistic ambitions. Continual instability on Russia’s fringes can help keep not just his popularity up, but keep Russians together rallying for another war. At this point a victory is necessary for Putin. If annexation of eastern Ukraine is not the ultimate end, then instability and projection of an independent Russian enclave inside Russia will do. Control of Russia’s political system, state apparatus, the media, and clamp down on NGO’s all serve to ensure Putin’s power remains unchallenged, ultimately serving his aggressive foreign and military policy. Manufactured crisis ensures domestic support and keeps institutions and the populace toeing Putin’s line.

Hungary's political-economic model, as perceived by a street artist.
Hungary’s political-economic model, as perceived by a street artist.

In Hungary, the parallels are apparent. Orban has waged his own one-sided war against the EU, IMF, US, NGOs and almost every foreign government. The Orban government is actively inciting irredentism  in Romania.  Instability, created by Hungary, provides the government a platform to ‘represent’ Hungarian interests internationally. The ‘rational’ goes, sins between 1989 and 2010 of liberal economics and communist political maneuvering must be wiped out. However, for most people, this was the democratic period that Hungary had. Nonetheless, democracy, as stated by Orban, doesn’t really work well; now we can watch as Orban consolidates his personal power further by rejigging the whole state institutional structure, and improving upon his (essentially) unlimited authority. In two to three years time we will soon have President Orban to call the leader of the country. Echoing Putin’s back-and-forth between prime minister and president.

Fidesz and Orban have a false mandate. No government can be claimed legitimate when election rules are changed and when the OECD finds the elections unfair. The current two-thirds control in Parliament would not have happened if the elections were fair. Currently, the current local elections are under way, Fidesz wasn’t going to win (or by much), so the rules were changed at the last minute. In a few weeks, they can claim a ‘democratic’ mandate to continue their illiberal and illogical policies of modeling Russia, China and India – and not European countries.

Autocratic leaders are challenging the values and the founding principles for the European Union. For these autocratic leaders nationalism can replace economic growth along with illogical economic and foreign policies. The ‘nation’ also also replaces liberal democratic institutions and individual rights.

The 2008 economic crisis resulted in a delayed and inept EU handling by failing to foster economic cooperation between members states. The current democracy and territorial crisis caused by Putin and Orban, pose a deeper threat to the stability of the EU. Orban and Putin both disparage and dishonor the democratic principles and right for economic freedom: they both reject international stability done through common economic and political values. The expression of the nation is more important than economic growth or individual rights. Instability and security concerns are necessary to project an ‘us’ or ‘other’ mindset. Components needed to maintain unlimited power.

It is now time for the EU to solidify and project its unified strength against aggressive rulers with territorial ambitions and authoritarian power. Not standing up for the founding principles of the EU threatens unleashing the same violent forces the charter was established to contain. The EU must now escalate the cost for Russia to maintain its outpost on Ukrainian territory. Through both economic means, and in human life, through increased military aid to Ukraine to maintain eastern Ukraine. Russia won’t know the EU is serious about territorial integrity until it actively works to keep it. In addition, Hungary may be Russia’s outpost in the EU, but that does not mean the EU must accept or maintain the outpost. Appeasement for authoritarian leaders threatens the political, social and economic founding principles of the EU, and its territorial integrity. The EU needs to act.

 

Inter-European Gas Wars: Europe’s pursuit of Energy-cide

Also published on Natural Gas Europe.

There is a gas race in Europe. This rivals the well reported US – Europe gas price difference, due to cheap US shale gas and high European imported gas prices. In an attempt to compete against the US European industry just got handed a price break in the form of lower support payments for the renewable energy sector. However, European countries also compete against each other over the price of electricity, a race to the bottom, or rather Energy-cide: the destruction of sovereignty in the pursuit of lower energy prices.

This price war also forces countries to develop strategies to keep electricity prices low. An example is Hungary’s deal with the Russians for a ‘low’ cost nuclear power plant. This inter-European energy price war holds significant long-term political and economic costs, which can hobble Europe’s competitiveness and political independence.

nuclear

The result of this inter-European price war is Russia captures the Crimean prize by understanding how the game is played. The limp EU financial sanctions to hold Russia in-check are framed as the EU punishing Russia. But this is Europe, the ‘unified’ EU action mask the inter-country price wars raging between member states. In each region this plays out differently, for those in the west of Europe (old member states) it is the result of the high initial cost of shifting towards renewable energy and the impact on industry; for those in the east (new member states), it is reliance on Russian gas and householders proportionally high utility bills.

The impact of this price war can be seen playing out in Berlin and Brussels in April, 2014. First the German government approved amendments to its renewable energy law, lowering the cost of German industry financing for renewable energy. Second, the European Commission voted to reduce payments energy intensive industry make to fund the renewable energy shift. The pressure is now intense in Western Europe to reign in energy prices and the real and potential threat of industry flight to the United States. The US, and its cheap shale gas, is held up as a magnet sucking European jobs. Europe feels the coming climate change apocalypse, just as much as a faltering economy, Russian tanks in the Crimea are simply less threatening. But this is a Brussels’ view of the world, in the east the people and politicians feel the heat from Russia.

The Hungarian government continuously lobbies against sanctions on Russia for the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. With Hungary dependent on Russia for gas and nuclear power, its current charade of low energy prices can only be maintained by the wishes of Russia. The Hungarian government secretly inked an agreement with Russia to take a 10 billion euro loan to build two new reactors. Despite no social or political debate, the overriding excuse for such a deal by Hungary’s Prime Minister was lower energy prices – even if the numbers show a doubling of electricity prices. He envisions to have Europe’s most competitive electricity cost for industry and be more competitive than the Czech Republic or Germany. Hungary will be a manufacturing powerhouse fuelled by cheap Russian nuclear power. In return, the Russian’s hold over Hungary a huge mountain of debt which they’ll use to manipulate Hungary’s foreign and domestic policies.

Other countries in Eastern Europe are the same, Bulgaria has been plagued with violent riots over electricity and gas bills. The country’s seven member energy and water regulatory commission had 17 different members and six different chairman in 2013. Poland has lost an environmental minister due to bungling the country’s shale gas ‘revolution’ – it still awaits a commercially viable well. Each country in Eastern Europe has the stated aim of having the cheapest gas and electricity and literally being a regional powerhouse. Each country wants to compete and attract industry from Western Europe. Poland wants chemical manufactures from Germany. Hungary wants auto manufacturers to set up shop. It is a continental race to the bottom.

Russia benefits in spades from intra-European conflict over energy prices while the continent as a whole attempts, by any means, to close the price gap with the US. In 2012, the German border price for gas was four times higher than the US Henry Hub price (even if this is a flawed comparison, it is often made as an excuse for needing lower EU energy prices). To close the price gap, somehow the solution is more Russian gas. Russia’s South Stream pipeline project will avoid Ukraine and deliver the same gas to Europe, without Ukrainian interference. The pipe will traverses the Black Sea, landing in Bulgaria and connecting Serbia, Hungary and Austria. When the going got tough over a year ago for South Stream’s competitor, Nabucco, which would bring non-Russian gas to these same countries, both the United States and the EU failed to step up to ensure its success. The project offered to diversify Eastern Europe’s gas supply. Instead the EU accepted another gas pipeline to Italy – a long running ally of Russia and thus acceptable to both those in Brussels and in Moscow.

nabucco and gazprom v4

The evolving gas map keeps the east boxed in: South Stream and Nord Stream. There is almost zero western support for diversification, the result is high prices and Russian dependency with low security of supply.  But is this paranoia? Not when the German partner of South Stream remarks over EU blocked talks with Russia, “If anything, the approval procedures should be accelerated, not delayed,” said Rainer Seele the Chief Executive of Wintershall.

Should the only means of leverage Ukraine holds over Russia be sped up? Just so Ukraine can be eaten faster by Russia? Hungary’s Orban signs secret deals with Russians because he knows he needs to compete against the west on price, Berlin or Paris aren’t going to send cheaper electricity or gas to the east.

The true price masters are the Russians. They see this intra-EU country price competition. They see political leaders hanging by economic-popularity threads, industry bent over a Russian pipeline – sucking gas, Bulgarians protesting over prices and burning utilities’ cars, while Viktor Orban proclaims an energy price war against Brussels while furtively flying off to Moscow. Even the ‘green’ German consumer demands cheaper electricity. Industry perception of the energy system as a whole matters, even if Russian gas is marginal in Western Europe. The closure of German nuclear was perceived as a blow against German industry, another blow is unwelcomed.

The Russians hear from European industrial and political leaders, “take the Crimea, but just help us compete against our European neighbors and America.” Energy-cide, the destruction of sovereignty in the pursuit of lower energy prices. Russia is the cat and Europe is the mouse. Russia eats part of Ukraine, while Russia also politically binds the Bulgarians, Hungarians and Germans over gas prices. Unless Europe stops its Walmart-like energy price race to the bottom, and shores up energy diversification routes for Eastern Europe, Russia will continue to be the top consumer.

The Russian Rock: Re-landscaping CEE energy (in)Dependence

The recent ‘war of independence’ against Western European owned utilities in Central Eastern Europe (CEE) and South East Europe (SEE) sets the stage for re-integration into Russia’s energy sphere – and dependence. A war against electricity, gas and water prices has been raging in Hungary since 2012 while SEE countries have a longer history. The firm rejection throughout the region of privately owned utilities managed by independent regulatory institutions limits capital inflow to upgrade and diversify the region’s energy infrastructure.

Omul de tinichea transfagarashan

Benefiting from the ‘war’ against Western capital is Russia. State owned Gazprom remains the dominant and stable supplier of gas to the region’s state owned firms and centralized energy systems. The CEE (including Poland) and SEE regions reject complex market structures with competition and diversified generation technologies pushed by the EU. Full independence from Russia is no longer sought, rather a ‘safety’ margin to weather a Russian gas storm provides a low cost diversification option. Three historical periods are discussed, with the third marking the re-integration into the Russian fold.

  • Stage one, fully dependent on Russian resources and technology;
  • Stage two, building an energy system semi-independent of Russia;
  • Stage three, ‘(in)Dependence’ on Russia’s energy wealth, the recognition of benefits gained from dependence coinciding with diversification of energy sources.

The CEE and the SEE regions see energy dependence as strategic while allowing for new infrastructure, such as gas interconnectors, shale gas and LNG terminals to rebalance the energy landscape and provide space for energy independence, rebalancing the historical Russian dependence. The term, ‘(in)Dependence’ provides a encapsulating expression of how Russia remains firmly positioned in the CEE/SEE regions’ energy landscape. It is the rock in the region that despite the best efforts of multiple countries, governments and international organizations, Russia remains firmly positioned in the CEE/SEE energy landscape.

Dependence

The Central Eastern European Region, including the Southeast of Europe, is heavily dependent on Russia’s energy resources. This includes gas, oil and nuclear technology. The ability to cement through physical infrastructure and human capital during Communist period established a robust connected system of resources and expertise between the region’s countries and Russia. The headlines hold that gas security is the most contentious issue. But finding a solution to this dependency requires a complex and stable energy investment climate. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and 2004 and 2007 eastward expansion of the EU, diversification away from Russia for CEE countries was the overall most important headline issue. Despite concerted efforts the region has failed to find alternative sources for Russian gas and remained wedded to Russia. The era of Russian energy dependence can be seen to have evolved over decades under the technical capabilities of the Soviet Union.

We see the impact that this uncoordinated, but regional consistent energy strategy has on the CEE region: Complete reliance on Russian gas and oil imports. After the political winds shifted in 1998 and the region shifted towards Western Europe for political and economic integration these energy links were viewed as high risk entrapping the region into an almost single sided relationship where the terms are dictated from Moscow. The region may have gotten democracy and removed overt economic and political control but the energy infrastructure is a strong reminder that continues the previous political-economic relationship.

Independence

The launching of the energy independence period, away from Russia, began in the mid-1990s.  Privatization of energy assets and the establishment of energy regulators brought private capital into the energy system, transforming the role of the state. Market considerations would help guide and fund development of the national energy system. Technocratic independent regulatory institutions would oversee the region’s energy system.

Privatizations of energy companies, mainly electricity and distributions companies were never very popular, but the politicians making these decisions were aware the state was incapable of funding a renewed energy system able to operate efficiently. Bloated inefficient companies, were typical and unable – or unwilling due to political pressure, to collect from large and small consumers. In Macedonia at the time of privatization there were 500,000 individual court cases filed over fee collection. Large state owned factories paid little or nothing. Other countries mirrored this systemic inefficiency resulting in underfunded and crumbling energy systems. The entire CEE and SEE region made the hard decision to bring in mainly Western European energy companies to fund the renewal of power generation and electricity and gas distribution systems. These important energy assets were privatized, in some countries more than others, but each country, usually with strong encouragement from international organizations, did privatize. Enough to place the energy sector on a market footing.

By the mid-2000s sufficiently robust national and regional markets in electricity and gas were well under development in the CEE and SEE region. Strong market and regulatory elements were integrated into the system. Authority of the energy system typically, on a technical level, transferred from an energy minister to an ‘independent’ energy regulator, who set prices and technical standards. This technocratic system was established to ensure the long-term commitment and investments by private energy companies were secured and the system as a whole was managed to ensure its continual long-term development.

Since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis already strained relations between private energy companies and governments escalated. The underlining truth to the ‘Utility Rebellion’ of the CEE and SEE region is politicians had a hard time letting go.  From price setting, control or influence over cross-border electricity and gas interconnectors politicians have a hard time coming to terms with allowing the energy sector to operate like an open, but regulated, market. Repeated attempts to establish a transparent and unified electricity system in the Southeast of Europe has failed, despite consistent support (and pressure) from international organizations and institutions. In 2013, the tension has spilled over into outright social and political rebellion against private owners. This includes (but not limited to) some headline cases:

  • Albania: In January 2013 the energy regulator took away the license of Czech power company preventing it from operating in the country.
  • Macedonia: Disputes between Austria’s EVN and the Macedonia government over debts and investments are on-going since privatization in 2006.
  • Bulgaria: After years of building tensions, including court cases, between private investors (CEZ, EON, EVN), the spring of 2013 saw public street protests erupt over electricity and gas prices resulting in new elections, along with investigations and regulatory changes in Bulgaria’s energy sector. Although the fury is equally directed at state owned companies as well as privately owned ones.
  • Hungary: What was once a success story of privatization and equal risk levels to Western Europe, changed after the 2010 elections with the new Fidesz government.  Extra taxes on energy companies were introduced after which the energy regulator was sidelined and forced legislated price cuts above 20% in 2013, compounded by a proposed law to be passed before the 2014 elections of utilities becoming non-profit entities. Many privately owned utilities are making losses since 2011 and have slashed investments.

 

Markets and independence

The focus on market transformation contributed to two false assumptions: First, from a Western European perspective, overall EU gas supplies were not significantly exposed to Russian gas interruptions – if they were to occur at all. Russia was a stable supplier not willing to use gas as a political weapon and the governments of the CEE and SEE regions could diversify themselves; second, over time alternative sources could be secured from Europe’s ‘near abroad’. During this age of attempted energy independence, the pro-market perspective and activity created an assumption that the market would induce greater supply security, investments by Western European firms would contribute to greater energy security. However, these assumptions came to a head at the start of 2009.

Supply disruptions, between Russia and the Ukraine, were already regular seasonal events, but in 2009 the crisis cascaded into disruption to EU Member States. This disruption showed, what was already known in the region, diversification away from Russia was important for the energy security and security of supply for the region. It was not the overall EU level of dependence that matter, but the regional dependence. EU institutions woke up, but not until after they coordinated a technical response of sending gas to dried up systems in Bulgaria, Hungary and Serbia. Afterwards, the EU threw greater effort and coordination into helping the region diversify and open up alternative routes of supply for the region. These include interconnectors, expanding gas storage, ensuring reverse flow in pipelines and instituting new procedures and guidelines to ensure a timely coordinated action in case of emergencies. However, much of this diversification is funded by national governments. Key diversification projects include:

  • Polish LNG
  • Poland’s push into shale gas
  • Hungary’s oil and gas group MOL upgraded an oil pipeline to the Adriatic, tying the region into global oil supplies.
  • Bulgaria signed an agreement to import gas from Azerbaijan starting in 2019, completely avoiding Russia by transporting the gas through Turkey and Greece.
  • Bulgaria will build interconnectors with Turkey and Greece.
  • Upgrading gas interconnectors between Hungary and neighboring countries, particularly a new Hungary-Slovak interconnector that begins to establish a north-south gas corridor to Poland.
  • Gas storage investments in Hungary and Austria
  • Western interconnectors to Austria and Germany with reverse flow capability are being built or upgraded.

Missing from these ongoing or completed projects, is the most symbolic project of all, Nabucco. The failed bid to transport Azeri gas to the SEE and CEE regions may turn out to be more politically significant than functionally significant. Existing Soviet era transport pipelines to Russia remain the only large supply route of gas into the region. Regardless of boosted interconnectors, regional LNG access or gas storage, Russia will remain the dominate gas supplier to the entire region, all the additional projects provide a boosted level of energy security and improve security of supply in times of emergency. Nonetheless, if the goal is to ensure operations through a cold winter when the gas is cut off from Russia then the region can weather a Russian storm.

The failure of Nabucco to launch prevents the region from adding the significant alternative capacity, which combined with on-going diversification projects, could reduce further Russian reliance. Nabucco, backed by a consortium of CEE, SEE and Western European companies represented the most symbolic effort for energy independence. It was the battle between competing gas pipelines through Europe’s southern gas corridor: Russia supported South Stream vs. Nabucco. The EU backed Nabucco, had the political-economic edge to deliver more gas while increasing energy security. In the end, the pure commercial decision was taken by the upstream consortium to deliver gas into the Italian market through a competitor private pipeline to Nabucco. The downstream activities in the CEE and SEE region prove themselves just as important as the upstream transit routing decisions, which together influence large scale investments into the region.

Building the Nabucco pipeline through the CEE/SEE region would require decades of commitments from all upstream extraction parties tying them into downstream distribution partners. As outlined above, past relations between the region’s governments and foreign energy investors is turbulent. If Nabucco went ahead the upstream suppliers, extracting in Azerbaijan, would be tied to the political whims in the CEE and SEE region. If the original point is to play Nabucco against the Russians, then the tables could be turned to threaten the extra capacity from the older Russian pipelines to drive prices lower once Nabucco pipes are in the ground. Fixed assets and fixed prices are only as fixed as the political winds.

Current actions of governments throughout the CEE and SEE region demonstrate independent energy regulators are used for window dressing to meet EU requirements. Energy regulators were meant to ensure the long-term investments by energy companies were protected. This has turned out to be false. Under current conditions, the forced price reductions, revoking – or the threat of revoking – licenses and continued disputes over the prices of electricity and gas creates a significant challenge to maintain necessary investment levels, upgrade or prevent a company from financial losses. It is hard to imagine the political rhetoric and actions stopping for upstream suppliers physically locked into the region and with alternative sources of gas for governments to buy.

The original energy newcomers to the region, described above, are now withdrawing – or literally being squeezed out, like in Hungary. In short, the energy investment environment has turned negative, price pressures dominate, and political along with social demands result in an unpredictable market. Despite gas being a global commodity, politically mandated cuts in electricity and gas prices force losses onto distribution companies. Building a multi-billion Euro pipeline through the region begins to weaken under the current domestic and regional conditions energy providers are met with.

The loss of Nabucco should send a clear message, and the politicians of the CEE/SEE should hear it: Market fundamentals, are the basis for investments, not political considerations. Politicians can fight downstream electricity and gas companies for lower prices, argue with Russia over contracted prices, but unless governments are prepared to pay a market price for commodities – thus subsidizing their consumers, energy companies will go elsewhere. Private capital doesn’t finance displays of populism and energy independence that in the long-term undermine both security of supply and energy security.

 (in)Dependence

Today, 2013, we have a new era, of energy (in)Dependence. It represents the limits of infrastructure development, alternative import routes and politically induced market risks. Constant political warfare with private energy companies, in most of the CEE and SEE countries, has resulted in depressed incentives for infrastructure upgrades and price instability. Building a non-Russian transit pipeline into a region of significant market instability requires incentives outweighing these negatives. Each country in the region is proclaiming energy independence, which then (laughably) increases their reliance on Russian gas and increases security of supply risks. Resiliency within national systems is less than in regionally integrated systems. Faltering now on regional integration or preventing foreign capital from entering only underfunds alternative energy solutions which displace Russian gas.

The region’s largest gas projects moving ahead mainly rely on government efforts and financing. Gas storage in Hungary, network interconnectors, Polish LNG terminal and shale gas. While these efforts are able to move the ball down the court towards greater energy security, they do not provide substantial regional upstream diversification. The original intent of privatization of energy companies was to infuse capital into the regions’ energy systems to modernize the infrastructure, governments lacked the money to redevelop the basis of their economies. The question must be asked, does this trend continue, or has energy capital taken flight?

CEE and SEE governments cannot finance a new energy system that excludes market based elements and players. EU institutions are pushing for great market transparency, elimination of state aid, stronger energy regulators, stability in prices for private energy investors, and the interlinking of national and regional markets, thus reducing the room for political interference in energy markets.

There are now a number of attraction for CEE/SEE governments to deal with Russia and maintain its dominate position in the region, and in fact, moving away from Russia now appears more dangerous as the original – and justifiable reasons for energy independence fade. Russia remains a single supplier who is ‘simple’ to deal with. The terms of gas supply are clear, ‘You buy it we deliver it.’ Not the Brussels motto of, ‘If you buy it then here are the competitive conditions that have to be fulfilled, here is the transparency that is expected, and we expect the energy regulator to make well-reasoned opinions based on professional decision making process.’ Politically, that EU garbage only works in Western Europe.

Politically for CEE countries, Moscow can now act as a counterweight against Brussels. Whether this is just symbolic or not, the political elite in the CEE region is learning to balance energy relations between the old foe and the new foe. Finding a common cooperative topic with Russia is also beneficial for on-going relations, if not energy than what? Agriculture or software? There’s nothing that says a serious relationship than building long-term energy ties with Russia. Satisfying the strong neighbor, financially and commercially on energy issues distracts them from other issues.

A cooperative relation also demonstrates that CEE countries can stand by themselves with Russia. The rules of the energy sector may be dominated by Brussels and Western European companies, but the national governments of the CEE region still have an important role to play in their national gas markets and pricing. Bilateral relations are fostered and maintained with energy. While Russian gas, in the age of independence, was viewed as a necessity, in the age of (in)dependence, negotiations demonstrate politicians are in control of their country’s energy assets and a solid relationship exists between old foes/friends. This is contrasted against the assumed friendly relations with Brussels and the EU’s demands for an independent and transparent energy sector with complex rules and limited room for political grandstanding and influence. Russia and Gazprom are more than happy to lend to the showmanship, with the price of gas possibly linked to the temperature of relations between countries. Energy (in)Dependence provides security, simplicity, political capital and limits the need for a more complex energy market to replace Russian sourced gas.

The intertwined concepts of finance and market complexity, for alternatives to Russian gas, provide another reason for energy dependence on Russia. Despite alternative gas supplies, like LNG and shale gas, becoming more available, they will only make a small dent into the domestic or regional gas market. Any alternative to Russian gas requires considerable investments into developing a functioning gas market, including a nationwide network with gas power plants. Failure to incentivize private companies to invest in alternatives to Russian sourced gas (such as shale gas) ensures continued Russian dominance, for example in Poland’s gas market. Poland values energy independence, but not even concerted investments into LNG, shale gas and interconnectors can reduce its heavy reliance on Gazprom. The same applies to all the other countries in the CEE and SEE regions.

Conclusion

The political and economic hurdles for energy independence are too high for the CEE and SEE regions: Building a new energy system, funded by private capital, requires competition and complex market structures with limited political involvement.  Extending dependence on Russia energy resources provides the opportunity to maintain centralized energy systems and using Russia as a counter weight to Brussels non-political energy market schemes.

The collapse of Nabucco represented the failure of an energy independence strategy. A high priced, visionary project that was politically supported but without the political or economic stability required for its long term success. The debate over Nabucco overshadowed the on-the-ground work of building and expanding interconnector capacities, LNG terminals, domestic gas deposits and an overall beefing up of security of supply components. Enough so that supply disruptions, from Russia or transit countries, would have a limited impact. Energy independence can be gained by small hedges against Russian agitation and action. Therefore, (in)Dependence provides a lower cost, economically and politically hedged energy strategy that balances the local politics of the CEE/SEE region and the competing demands of Brussels and Moscow. A classic Central European strategy.

 

Shale gas, not bound by traditional risk assessments? Part I

Separating the game changing analysis of shale gas from hype and connecting it with reality is an important task. Providing an effective analysis of shale gas requires separating between the different elements of the industry. Just as the study of oil has multiple dimensions with a mature analysis ‘industry,’ shale gas has suffered from the element of news media hype and an over reliance on the geological and technical analysis of extraction and incubation of the industry.  This focus fails to provide both a short-term and long-term perspective that assesses traditional risks existing in the energy industry.

Traditional risk analysis demonstrates shale gas is just like you and me – not a superstar Hollywood actor. The debate around shale gas as a ‘game changer’ needs to give way – including in the media – to a new level of analysis that sees the industry as bound by traditional political-economic risks. The recent report produced for the European Commission on the legal frameworks that surround unconventional ‘shale’ gas demonstrates how the laws of gravity apply to this ‘new’ technology.

The study examines the legal and regulatory framework in four EU Member States: Poland, France, Germany and Sweden. The report provides a good overview of the legal environment, and the licensing procedures, including public involvement and how environmental concerns and impact of the technology are addressed.

What emerges is a barenaked industry, with limited drilled wells and companies operating in constrained regulatory and legal framework. No doubt improvements could be made to the permitting process and procedures streamlined or public involvement increased, but the industry is not breaking down the steal door to become the disruptor of the gas sector. There are too many traditional risks blocking a clear path to a broad use of the technology.

A risk typology can be produced that demonstrates just how down to earth shale gas is. Drawing from two categories of risks that I put together for an article on the transition towards a low carbon economy by 2050, the risks emerge as applicable to the new industry.  If we take the identified risks, and just list a few anecdotal events then we can see the constraints.

Contractual risks

  1. Fuel price risk: price variability and uncertainty over future costs; e.g. comparison between Russian pipeline gas and shale gas.
  2. Demand risk: gas produced will not be needed as projected; e.g. impact of renewables, LNG and pipelines (and energy efficiency?).
  3. Performance risk: wells do not produce as predicted to satisfy contractual obligations.
  4. Environmental compliance riskThe financial risk to which parties to an energy contract are exposed, stemming from both existing environmental regulations and uncertainty over possible future regulations; e.g. this is the most popularized risk at the moment, France and Bulgaria demonstrate that public opinion can lead to blocking the use of shale gas technology.

Regime risks

  1. Financial risk: no or limited amount of money available. This does not seem too applicable at the moment.
  2. Regulatory risk:  The risk that future laws, regulations, regulatory reviews or renegotiation of contracts will alter the benefits or burdens of contracts for either party; e.g. this is real and tightly connected with environmental risks.
  3. Technological lock-inPerpetuation of a dominant design that is inferior to newer technology. Industries that have a significant systemic-technological relationship are most susceptible, due to buffered market forces. This may be more applicable in Russia where shale technology is not being deployed. But the use of ‘traditional’ conventional technologies may be encouraged to be used first before unconventional technologies are deployed; e.g. the ban in France and Bulgaria will continue the use of established technologies.
  4. Institutional lock-inTo reduce uncertainty and to provide continuity to past investors regulatory institutions may change only incrementally, thereby relying on older technologies and inhibiting newer technologies. This may not occur like this, but avoidance of unconventional technology by regulators may lock a country into older technologies, that over time, if traditional gas fields faulter, won’t work as well.
  5. Administrative capacity risk: Constrained staffing levels in government institutions prevent a larger policy and regulatory response. This may occur, as demonstrated in the EC report, if laws and regulations and the agencies that implement these, are not made more flexible or given the tools to properly account for the special characteristics of the shale gas industry.
  6. Investment risk:  Investments are impacted due to uncertainty in the operational environment; e.g. the differenence can be seen between different countries like Bulgaria and Poland, where one country is not moving ahead and the other is. At the moment, it seems like there are willing investors and uncertainty in any country (only legal blockades) are preventing greater investment.

Geopolitical risks: relations with third countries. This is a separate category that needs a full analysis of how Russia is and will react to greater use of unconventional gas technology in Europe.

The categories listed here provide a rough guide to examine the types of risks that have emerged to stop greater investment and what risks may emerge more forcefully in the future. No doubt environmental compliance risks, administrative capacity risk and geopolitical risks emerge as key areas that the industry must focus on. These are divergent risks and take different strategies to overcome or to mitigate. But effectively addressing these becomes important to the growth or decline of the small industry in Europe.

Reaching Zero Carbon by 2050

I was invited to give a presentation at the CEE Energy 2010 conference organized by EastEuro Link in Budapest September 30th and October 1, 2010. I decided to diverge from the typical conference presentation about energy developments and the need for cross border cooperation and how companies operate in the CEE and SEE region. Instead I went straight to the urgent need to speed up our institutional and professional efforts at reducing carbon output.

[slideshare id=5410892&doc=reachingzerocarbonlabelle-101011031245-phpapp01]

I drew on a current project that I’m doing for the Regional Centre for Energy Policy Research (REKK) at Corvinus University. It is the Pathways for Carbon Transitions – or PACT, an EU financed FP7 project. For this study I interviewed over 30 people and analyzed the risks associated for companies and institutions in transitioning to a carbon neutral society by 2050. This is a chief goal of the EU’s second strategic energy review (past posting here, on old blog).

To simplify the findings I’ve developed a very simple equation that attempts to capture the key elements that can lead us to reducing carbon output (in the energy sector) to near zero. Or more realistically, to really be on a path where this is entrenched into the institutional and business practices (along with society). The equation is this:

pace of change = institutional change + technological development + (political/social capital)

The pace of change is essential for getting us there on time. To express this I use the quote by Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary.

Look how long it took to make the transition from wood to coal, coal to oil and gas: 50- 60 years. We cannot make this transition in another 50 or 60 years. It will be too late for the climate.

Therefore, we must speed up how we do things. I purpose that identification of risks can speed institutional and market change. This includes closer scrutiny and identification of the elements associated with risk governance that can enable faster change to come about. Governance risks involves: regulatory, geopolitical, institutional lock-in and technological lock-in and investment risk. For a full analysis please read a recent article I’ve submitted for review to a journal(Risk Governance and Technologies LaBelle).

The presentation offers a more simple explanation of the approach and ties it to periods of market and regulatory change in the CEE/SEE region. A key proposition I made during the speech is that we can learn a lot by looking at past periods of change in the energy sector. Most recently the deregulation of electricity markets in the US and the privatization of energy companies. All profound changes that have (and have not) brought about how energy markets operate. The limitations of change should be noted, but also how change did occur.