EU -Turkey-Russian Energy Cooperation: "Politics can make strange bedfellows" - Russia’s Gas Strategy Gets Help From Turkey - by Marc Pierini

Politics/Energy can make strange bedfellows

It was November 19 in Istanbul. There, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held a ceremony marking the completion of the first underwater segment of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, linking Russia to Turkey’s European shores. The project is a vivid illustration of Moscow’s strategy to strengthen its position in supplying gas to Europe while reducing its reliance on the Ukrainian transit corridor.

For Ankara, the project is a symbol of Turkey’s independent decisionmaking and of the country’s significance in the wider region. Seen from Ankara, Turkish Stream serves a political purpose. It celebrates the blossoming friendship between Turkey and Russia and confirms Ankara’s ambition to be part of the solution to major international issues—in this case, securing the gas needs for a large part of the EU. 

However, Turkish Stream will also increase Ankara’s dependence on Moscow for its energy needs.

The project’s second meaning is that Turkey is contributing to an essential element of Russia’s multi-pronged, long-term strategy of remaining Europe’s major gas supplier, while creating a “third gas corridor” in addition to the Ukrainian and Baltic Sea supply routes. This strategy is unfolding on several fronts: in Ukraine; in the Baltic Sea; and through future extensions of Turkish Stream to southern and central Europe (toward Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, and to Greece and Italy.)  

This Russian strategy has raised continuous opposition from the United States.

It is also worth noting that Turkish Stream is not part of the EU’s Energy Union plans since it does not contribute to diversification of supplies. In fact, it will rather reinforce Russia’s market  predominance in both Turkey and the EU.

In Ukraine, the multi-pipeline network channeling Russian gas to Western Europe will remain a vital link. But reducing its use could inflict massive losses in terms of transit costs for authorities in Kiev, which is part of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine.

Much will depend on negotiations for the extension of the Russia-Ukraine commercial agreement, which will end in 2019. To help alleviate Kiev’s concerns, Germany has made the continuation of transit via Ukraine an ingredient of a final agreement on Nord Stream 2, the latter being the subject of controversies within the EU.

The Russian strategy is in no way limited to selling Russian gas on the European continent. It extends much further afield in the wider Eastern Mediterranean region.

Egypt is a case in point.

Following the massive discoveries in the so-called Zohr field to the north and east of the Nile River delta, Russia bought a 30 percent stake from the Italian energy group ENI in 2016 with the consent of the Italian government, which Moscow has had a long and close relationship with. The official reason for the sale was the need for ENI to spread the risk of its Egyptian operation.

Similarly, offshore gas discoveries in Lebanese waters have attracted Russian interest— although drilling off Lebanon is largely dominated by France’s TOTAL and Italy’s ENI, who have a 40 percent share each. Russia’s NOVATEK has bought a 20 percent stake.

Russia has also made moves to control both the oil and gas sector in Syria, despite the ongoing war. The actual effect of these recent maneuvers will very much depend on the final political arrangement expected to end the almost eight-year-old civil war. Many of Syria’s oil and gas fields are located north and east of the Euphrates River, currently outside the control of regime forces. In addition, for reasons linked to the ongoing naval military activities, no offshore exploration has yet taken place in Syrian waters.

In Iraq, Russia is involved in pipeline deals in the Kurdistan region through a number of oil and gas companies, although the actual exports would have to take place through Turkish territory or possibly even through Syria in the distant future.

Such an ambitious Russia strategy is justified by Europe’s gas market fundamentals.

A stronger demand for gas in Europe is good for Russia. According to Oxford Energy, gas demand in Europe (Turkey and non-EU Eastern Europe included, except Serbia) has started rising again for three consecutive years—in 2015, 2016, and 2017—to reach a level of 548 billion cubic meters (bcm), due to continued economic recovery, the impacts of climate change, and the increased use of gas by the power sector. The trend seems to be continuing in 2018.

According to the Finnish Institute for International Affairs, Russia took advantage of several factors: economic recovery and decreasing gas production in the EU, lower Russian selling prices, and the current limited availability of non-Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the European market.

In addition, preexisting disputes between the EU and Russia (including an antitrust investigation against Gazprom, and a Russian complaint at the WTO) have been resolved, signaling that commercial interests on both sides have prevailed, despite a less-than-optimal political climate.

In such an environment, Russia is in a strong position to keep dominating gas supplies to the EU,

which amounted to 40 percent of extra-EU imports in 2016—although new developments could upset the current situation, such as a rapid development of LNG exports to Europe from other sources.

LNG imports amounted to only 14 percent of total extra-EU gas imports in 2017, with the main supplies coming from Qatar (41 percent), Nigeria (19 percent), and Algeria (17 percent).

In this wider context, and seen from Brussels, Turkish Stream—with a final projected capacity to deliver 31.5 bcm/y, of which 15.75 bcm/y would go to Europe —is a relatively small component of the wider gas supply chain to the EU. In fact, it would represent just over 6 percent of the EU’s imports at 2017 levels.

Yet, seen from Moscow, the pipeline is potentially a significant addition to Russia’s capabilities to export gas to Europe (Turkey included). Assuming that Turkish Stream’s second phase will be completed and operational, it would represent between 16 and 19 percent of Russian sales to the EU and Turkey (at 2017 levels and all other factors remaining unchanged).

In that sense, the ceremony on November 19 in Istanbul was more than just another photo opportunity. It was a symbol of the success of Russia’s objectives in the wider Western European area, with Turkey’s help. 

Together with Russia’s S-400 missile deal with Turkey, it was a symbol of how efficiently Moscow has been using Ankara’s relative diplomatic isolation to its advantage. For Ankara, this was another way of telling the world: Turkey matters.

Read more: Russia’s Gas Strategy Gets Help From Turkey - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

EU: Overview - What is the Europe 2020 strategy about?

The Europe 2020 strategy is the EU's agenda for growth and jobs for the current decade. It emphasises smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in order to improve Europe's competitiveness and productivity and underpin a sustainable social market economy.

To reach this objective, the EU has adopted targets to be reached by 2020 in five areas:

• Employment
• Research & Development
• Climate change & energy
• Education
• Poverty and social exclusion

 What are the key targets to be reached by 2020?

The headline targets related to the strategy's key objectives at the EU level cover:

• Employment:
  > 75% of the population aged 20 to 64 years to be employed;

• Research & Development:
  > 3% of GDP to be invested in the R&D sector;

• Climate change & energy: 
  > Greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 20% compared to 1990
  > Share of renewable energy sources in final energy consumption to be increased to 20%
  > Energy efficiency to be improved by 20%

• Education: 
  > Share of early school leavers to be reduced under 10%
  > At least 40% of 30 to 34 years old to have completed tertiary or equivalent education

• Poverty and social exclusion: 
  > At least 20 million people fewer at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

The EU-level targets have been translated into  national targets in each EU country, reflecting different situations and circumstances.

Oil Price: Saudi Arabia Cuts Subsidies As Budget Deficit Soars - by Andy Tully

The price of crude oil has dropped so low that Saudi Arabia is facing a growing budget deficit, prompting the rich oil kingdom to make sharp cuts in its budget, levy new taxes and reduce government subsidies for water, electrical power and even gasoline.

This is an abrupt change in the country, OPEC’s largest oil producer, which has used its vast oil revenues to prop up the national economy to serve a population of about 30 million people. But even Saudi Arabia can’t sustain such practices when it runs a $98 billion deficit this year – about 15 percent of its gross domestic product.

As a result, Riyadh announced Monday it will cut government spending by 14 percent in the coming fiscal year as it sees no quick end to the depression in oil prices, especially now that Iran, expected to be free of Western sanctions in the near future, will return to the global oil market.

And without even waiting for 2016 to arrive, the government immediately raised the price of retail gasoline by 50 percent, from 0.60 of a riyal to 0.90 of a riyal per liter of premium gasoline – or from 16 cents to 24 cents. That may not seem a huge cost compared with even today’s lower gasoline prices in the West, but it’s crucial in a country that relies on cars because there is no public transportation.

Certainly the low price of oil isn’t the only reason Saudi Arabia is running a deficit. It’s also spending generously on military action in the Middle East. It is giving financial support to rebels opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom Riyadh wants out. And since last spring it has waged an air war in Yemen against Houthi rebels, who are supported by Iran, a religious rival of Saudi Arabia.

But the biggest reason for the deficit is the price of oil. In June 2014, the average global price for a barrel of crude was above $110. Increased production in non-OPEC countries began to create a supply imbalance, putting downward pressure on oil prices. Now a barrel of oil costs less than $40.

Read more: Saudi Arabia Cuts Subsidies As Budget Deficit Soars | OilPrice.com

Global Oil Production: Double Dip seems to have started as prices drop

Oil Exploration

OILPrice Intelligence reports that the double dip looks to be on. After nearly two months of moderate price gains for crude oil, by mid-March oil is swooning once again. Brent is showing a bit of resilience, but the WTI benchmark – which is the major marker for North American crude – dropped to its lowest level in six years. Producers may have thought they were nearly out of the woods, but stubborn levels of production from U.S. shale fields have prevented a rally. Even worse (for drillers) is the fact that oil storage tanks are starting to fill up. Storage at Cushing, Oklahoma is two-thirds full, and hedge funds and major investors are selling off oil contracts, betting that prices are heading south.

While the oil storage story is real – average storage levels nationwide (USA) are up to 60%, a big jump from the 48% seen a year ago – it may have been played up too much in the media. Many refineries are taken offline in the spring for maintenance, which forces drillers to pump crude into storage for several weeks. Additionally, U.S. consumers are starting to use more gasoline because of low prices, and the extra demand may soak up some of the glut. Finally, production, stubborn as it is, may soon finally begin to dip. Fresh data from North Dakota shows that may already be happening. In other words, the weekly storage build may be unsustainably high.

Nevertheless, the selloff is underway. That is providing an interesting opportunity for the U.S. government, which is set to purchase 5 million barrels for the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR). In March 2014, the U.S. government sold off 5 million barrels ostensibly for a “test sale,” but was no doubt at least in part motivated by the fact that oil prices surpassed $100 per barrel. However, by law, the U.S. Department of Energy is required to replenish that sale within 12 months. With the deadline approaching, the DOE has announced plans to buy up 5 million barrels to put back into the SPR. The U.S. taxpayer is about to benefit from extraordinary timing. With prices now half of what they were 12 months ago, the government will be able to bring the SPR back to up to its proper level at half the price.

Low oil prices are good for the government, but not so good for the oil majors. Italian oil giant Eni (NYSE: ENI) became the first of the oil multinationals to slash its dividend due to low prices and also moved to suspend its share buy-back plan. Eni announced plans to pay 0.8 euros per share rather than the 1.12 euros it paid out in 2014. The move was not taken well by investors – the company’s stock tanked by nearly 5% on the announcement. Still, CEO Claudio Descalzi put on a brave face, claiming that he was “building a more robust Eni capable of facing a period of lower oil prices.” The dividend has long been prioritized by the oil majors, needing to be protected at all costs. Many of them have opted for dramatic cuts to capital spending rather than touch their dividend policies, even if that threatens future production rates. High dividends have made major oil companies highly attractive investment vehicles, allowing companies to obtain a lower cost of capital for drilling plans. Eni has bucked the trend, arguing that it will be more resilient as a result of the dividend cut. Descalzi insists the company will “be strong” if prices remain at $60 per barrel or above. It remains to be seen how long oil prices stay depressed, and whether or not other oil majors can avoid coming to the same conclusion as Eni.

OPEC released its monthly oil market report on March 16, in which it argued that North American shale will face a contraction later this year. However, the oil cartel also saw some production declines for the month, as Libya, Iraq, and Nigeria continue to struggle with violence and low oil prices. Libya, in particular, is facing a crisis. Spain raised the prospect of a European Union embargo on Libyan oil if the country’s two political factions did not make headway on peace. Cutting off Libya’s only economic lifeline almost certainly would not bring a swift end to political impasse in Libya, but the EU is clearly becoming impatient with the ongoing violence just across the Mediterranean.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reemerged from a 10-day absence that fueled many-a-rumor – speculation ranged from a palace coup, to a secret birth of a child, even to some wondering whether the Russian President met an early demise. The Kremlin offered no explanation, but Putin appeared to be just fine. Despite his seemingly good health, the Russian economy continues to buckle under the weight of low oil prices. And that, according to Bloomberg, has Putin increasingly angry at a once close ally: Rosneft head Igor Sechin. Putin is reportedly blaming Sechin for rising debt at the state-owned oil firm, perhaps stemming from the purchase of TNK-BP in 2013. Also, Sechin’s role in borrowing billions of rubles that sent the currency plummeting in December 2014 has raised the ire of the Russian President. There are rumors that Sechin could be on his way out, but those reports are unconfirmed. Nevertheless, the fraying of the relationship suggests low oil prices are taking a toll on Putin’s inner circle.

EU-Digest 

North Sea Oil and gas industry leaders warn: slump in investment could devastate North Sea - by Mark Williamson

Oil and gas firms will slash investment in the North Sea by around 80 per cent in coming years following the oil price slump potentially leaving parts of the area abandoned, industry leaders have warned.

The cuts in spending could result in billions of barrels resources going unrecovered including 1.7 billion held in existing fields, it is feared.

The warning follows publication of the latest survey of North Sea firms by Oil & Gas UK. This shows the fall in the oil price since June is taking a heavy toll on the area, where firms have radically cut their investment plans over the last year.

The industry body found the UK North Sea industry spent £5.3bn more than it got from oil and gas sales last year, the worst result since the 1970s. The tax take for the UK Government fell by 40 per cent to £2.8bn, the lowest level in more than 20 years.

Oil & Gas UK found annual investment in projects like bringing new fields into production is set to fall from a record £14.8 billion last year to just £2.5bn in 2018.

With the industry facing greater uncertainty than ever, Oil & Gas UK said a number of projects that have been approved may yet be cancelled.

Malcolm Webb, chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, said the survey painted a bleak picture of conditions in an industry that supports hundreds of thousands of highly skilled jobs. Many of these are in Scotland.

Read more: Oil and gas industry leaders warn: slump in investment could devastate North Sea | Herald Scotland

Energy: The Dangerous Energy Poker Game:Between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Russia and the USA

Geo-Political Poker Game Or Saudi Blackmail?

"After two years of stable prices at around $105 to $110 a barrel, Brent blend, the international benchmark fell from $112 a barrel in June to around $65 on Friday, December 12 . “What is the reason for the United States and some U.S. allies wanting to drive down the price of oil?” Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro asked rhetorically in October. His answer? “To harm Russia.” - says Mohamad Bazzi in a report he wrote for Reuters

That is partially true, but Saudi Arabia’s gambit is more complex.

The kingdom has two targets in its latest oil war: it is trying to squeeze U.S. shale oil—which requires higher prices to remain competitive with conventional production—out of the market. More broadly, the Saudis are also punishing two rivals, Russia and Iran, for their support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in the Syrian civil war. Since the Syrian uprising began in 2011, regional and world powers have played out a series of proxy battles there.

While Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been arming many of the Syrian rebels, the Iranian regime—and to a lesser extent, Russia—have provided the weapons and funding to keep Assad in power.

Russia and Iran are highly dependent on stable oil prices. By many estimates, Russia needs prices at around $100 a barrel to meet its budget commitments. Iran, facing Western sanctions and economic isolation, needs even higher prices. Already, Iran has taken an economic hit from Saudi actions.

On Nov. 30, as a result of OPEC’s decision not to increase production, the Iranian rial dropped nearly six percent against the dollar.

The Saudis believe it can protect itself from the impact of the price drops. It can always increase oil production to make up for falling prices, or soften the blow of lower profits by accessing some of its $750 billion stashed in foreign reserves.

Still, Saudi Arabia is playing a dangerous game—there is little evidence that authoritarian regimes like Russia and Iran would change their behavior under economic pressure. Worse, the Saudi policy could backfire, making Russia and especially Iran more intransigent in countering Saudi influence in the Middle East.

In the meantime  OPEC Gulf members and crisis-hit producer Russia held the line on resisting oil output cuts, a message that helped send oil to a fresh five-year low on Tuesday December 16.

A near-$20 drop in prices since OPEC declined to cut output at a Nov. 27 meeting has yet to prompt the Gulf members - who overruled calls for output cuts by poorer members such as Venezuela - to reverse course.

Russia has said it would not cut production even if oil prices fell below $60 per barrel - far below some $100 a barrel it needs to balance its budget - a message reinforced on Tuesday by energy minister Alexander Novak arriving at a gas producers summit in Qatar.

"If we cut, the importer countries will increase their production and this will mean a loss of our niche market," he told reporters, speaking through an interpreter.

"We plan to preserve the plan for 2014 production without any increase or decrease," he said.
His comments came as the rouble fell to a new all-time low despite the central bank's steep rate hike on Monday.

Oil prices dropped to below $59 per barrel on Tuesday for the first time since 2009 and are now down almost by a half since June due to weak demand and growing supply from the United States.

The collapse of the rouble and plunging oil revenue present one of the biggest challenges for President Vladimir Putin during his 15-year rule at a time when the Russian economy is already struggling under Western sanctions over Ukraine.

Novak said Russia, the world's second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, will maintain its output levels even if there was no guarantee prices would not go much lower.

"No one will tell you this," Novak said when asked what was the floor for oil prices.
He also said Russia agreed with the view of Saudi Arabia that the oil market would eventually stabilize itself.

What is certain however is that the oil market and the world economy  faces an uncertain outlook in 2015 as tumbling oil prices resulting from global oversupply stoke geopolitical tensions in key producers of crude, analysts say.

In fact, if no one eventually blinks in this rapidly deteriorating volatile energy based geo-political dispute, it potentially has the ability to escalate on a global scale and turn into a military conflict involving all super powers which, without any doubt, would mean the end of civilization as we know it.

EU-Digest

Oil Industry - Royal Dutch Shell and other energy giants say they are for climate reform but finance the lobby to kill reform- by Lee Fang

Several fossil fuel interests are here at the United Nations climate negotiations, putting on their best public face in support of reducing carbon emissions. Despite the lofty rhetoric, with some pledging to lead the way in reducing carbon pollution, the same corporate actors are also fueling efforts to block any substantive reforms.

It’s been called the “Jekyll and Hyde Approach to Climate Change.” In other words, businesses are boosting their brand by appearing to support climate reforms, while working to block policies to achieve these goals at very same time.

Republic Report talked to several corporate lobbyists and business representatives at the summit this week about their ties to pressure groups working to block action on carbon reduction in the United States.

The Edison Electric Institute, a lobbying group that represents utility companies, many of which rely on coal-based power plants, is indicative of this approach. The group claims that it is “committed to addressing the challenge of climate change” and says its member companies, including American Electric Power, Duke Energy, Xcel Energy, and others, “have undertaken a wide range of initiatives over the last 30 years to reduce, avoid or sequester GHG emissions.”

But EEI doesn’t just support both sides of the aisle, they support both sides of the moral spectrum on climate change. Brian Wolff, the executive vice president of the group, told us that his organization is a dues-paying member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that recently released a slew of anti-environmental template legislation to express support for abolishing the EPA, delaying greenhouse gas-related regulations, and undercut the federal government’s ability to enforce climate change rules, including on power plants.

“There are benefits of having stakeholder engagement,” Wolff contends. “We’re involved with many Republican, Democrat organizations,” said Wolff at an event in Lima sponsored by the European Union pavilion. Wolff told us that he sent a staffer to a recent ALEC conference to see “what is going on there and the action coming up,” but said he could not recall if his representative voted to approve ALEC’s new bills focused on climate change.

Shell Oil plays from a similar script. Shell, also a member of ALEC, was revealed recently in a Bloomberg News investigation to be a donor to a campaign in California to attack the state’s landmark climate law, AB32.

Read more: The fossil fuel industry’s Jekyll-and-Hyde trick: Back climate reforms while quietly financing lobby to kill them - Salon.com

Energy Renewables and the Private Sector: IKEA a shining star when it comes to efforts made by the private sector

The lion’s share of debate about the progress of renewable energy is missing an important dimension. It seems that the media, banks and NGOs largely value the worth of each renewable source by their rate of adoption at the national and international level. These measurements seem to rely on macro-economic indicators or on agreements such as that made last week by the U.S. and China. However, the efforts of private corporations to go green, while not wholly unnoticed, do not seem to weigh in. It would make no sense in most other industries to measure their health purely by public efforts. In fact, many renewable energy developers today are seeking to change their industry’s reputation as being dependent on government subsidies and costly to the taxpayer with little return. One way to fight this reputation is to show concrete evidence of global corporations going renewable. This week has given plenty of evidence of just that, with IKEA, Google and Amazon all making real commitments.

Back in March, IKEA acquired the Hoopeston wind farm in Illinois, which is set to produce more than enough energy to power all its stores and distribution stores in the country. 65% more. But this energy will not be sent to IKEA’s stores, instead, the Swedish retailer will sell it off as part of a strategy to offset its entire consumption by 2020. This week, an ever bigger announcement came. IKEA has purchased a 165MW wind farm in Cameron County, Texas, marking “the single largest renewable energy investment made by the IKEA Group globally to date.” IKEA goes on to say that it will invest $1.9 billion in renewables by the end of 2015.

Where IKEA is investing in renewables to offset its energy usage, Google and Amazon are doing so for a far more practical reason: data centers have incredibly high energy consumption and renewable projects can be a good way to reduce that burden. To power its new 600 million euro data center at Eemshaven in the Netherlands, Google has agreed to buy a wind farm being built by Eneco near Eemshaven. The 19-turbine 62MW wind farm will power the data center from day one, and comes on the heels of Google buying two other wind farms in Sweden to provide for its data center in Finland.

Other tech and retail leaders are making forays in the same direction, albeit with less emphasis. After being slammed on Greenpeace’s ranking of the green track records of IT leaders, Amazon seems to want to become more sustainable. Amazon Web Services, responsible for cloud computing, stated that it was taking a “long-term commitment to achieve 100 percent renewable energy usage for our global infrastructure footprint.” Unlike Google and IKEA, though, Amazon has not stated any outright investments it is planning on making. It will likely take years for Amazon to become fully renewable, but even doing so for its cloud computing needs would be a major achievement, given how the likes of Pinterest, Netflix and Spotify rely on Amazon’s cloud.

On the negative side of the equation, Walmart is slipping backwards, having used renewables for 3 percent of its energy needs in 2013, as opposed to 4 percent in 2011. Although long identifying itself in its corporate branding as a green leader, a new think tank has revealed that Walmart is relying on coal for 40% of its energy needs in the U.S. This is a particularly damning accusation since Walmart’s stores use more power than Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont combined, according to the report. Walmart immediately rebutted the report, saying it gets 24 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources—and that it would “expand its renewable energy projects and procurement to reach 7 billion kilowatt-hours of wind, solar, hydroelectric and biogas globally by 2020, up from 2.2 billion kilowatt-hours today.”

Whether companies are making quantifiable commitments to renewables or are fudging the statistics to look sustainable, it is becoming increasingly nonsensical to weigh up the value of renewable energy sources through public investment alone.

EU-Digest

Energy-Fracking: British Poll finds: Wind farms more popular than fracking sites - Fracking dangerous to your health

Fracking good for the corporate world - but not for your health

More people would prefer a wind farm in their local council area than a fracking site, according to research published recently by YouGov for the renewables company, Ecotricity.

When asked “Which of the following energy projects or plans would you prefer to have operating in your council area”, 62% said a wind farm, 19% said a fracking site and 19% said they didn’t know.

The research found that a wind farm was more popular than a fracking site, regardless of political opinion.

The preference for wind farms was lowest UKIP and Conservative supporters and highest among Lib Dem and Labour supporters

Conservatives: 50% chose wind, 33% chose fracking, 17% did not know
Labour: 76% chose wind, 9% chosefracking, 14% did not know
Lib Dem: 78% chose wind,14% chosefracking, 8% did not know
UKIP (Eurosceptics): 41% chose wind, 36%chose fracking, 24% did not know

Interesting note about these figures is that the Conservatives and the right-wing UKIP Eurosceptics had the least understanding of what fracking is all about.

Women were more likely to support wind farms than men. The research found that among women, 68% of women would prefer a wind farm, compared with 9% who would prefer a fracking site. The figures for men were: 56% would prefer a wind farm, compared with 29% a fracking site.

Fracking was more popular in older people. According to the research, of those that preferred fracking over wind, 29% were over 60.

To watch a video on what Fracking does to the environment and your health click here.

EU-Digest

Europe, Russia Ensnared in 'Energy Cold War,' Experts Say - by Alan Neuhauser and Paul D. Shinkman

Europe and Russia have become locked in an “energy cold war,” experts say, walking a razor’s edge between mutual economic dependence and “mutually assured economic destruction.”

“If someone makes a wrong move on this economy or energy war game, everyone can lose,” says Paul Sullivan, a professor of economics at National Defense University and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

“Europe depends on the Russians. The Russians depend on Europe. The question is who’s going to blink?”

The situation grew ever more precarious Thursday when Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to completely shut down the country’s gas pipelines to Ukraine — and, by extension, parts of Western Europe — if Ukraine didn’t pay off the $2.2 billion it owes the Russian-owned gas giant Gazprom.

Yet as much as a gas freeze would cripple the Ukrainian economy and hurt Western Europe, it would also affect Russia — and the consequences for both sides, if allowed to fester, could ultimately prove disastrous.

Read more: Europe, Russia Ensnared in 'Energy Cold War,' Experts Say - US News

EU Votes to Tighten Rules on Drilling (fracking) Method - by James Kantner

European Union lawmakers voted narrowly on Wednesday to force energy companies to carry out in-depth environmental audits before they deploy a technique known as fracking to recover natural gas from shale rock.

The technique involves shooting a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into shale to break it up and release the gas. France has already banned the technique, also known as hydraulic fracturing. And it has produced protests in Britain. 

The rules were narrowly approved by the European Parliament, which is meeting this week in Strasbourg, France, and still must undergo another round of voting in the Parliament once an agreement on final language is reached with European Union governments. Shale gas projects that do not use fracking would not be covered by the rules, which update environmental legislation in Europe. 

Even so, the result is a setback for the shale-gas industry in Europe, where it is far less developed than in the United States and where many citizens are more concerned about the environmental impact of recovering the gas than about finding new sources of hydrocarbons as a way of combating stubbornly high energy prices.

Recently the Dutch Government postponed their plans to explore Gas reserves in the Province of Flevoland by means of fracking in order to carry out more studies as to the safety of such exploration.

Read more: Europe Votes to Tighten Rules on Drilling Method - NYTimes.com