Article de Dylan Gordon (MS EnvIM 2023-24)

Introduction

The Spectre of Energy Insecurity

Europe’s energy future is increasingly entangled with its aspirations for independence and sustainability. Recent geopolitical crises and the continent’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, has left it vulnerable to disruptions, exemplified by the 2009 Russian-Ukrainian gas dispute and the weaponization of energy during Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine (Dulian, 2024), have left the European Union (EU) grappling with profound energy insecurity.

With over 60% of its energy imported and natural gas comprising a critical portion, the EU faces tough questions about how to secure reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy supplies. Against a backdrop of geopolitical tension and volatile fuel supplies, some see hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” as a pragmatic path to energy independence. With its promise of tapping into domestic shale gas reserves, fracking presents itself as a potential solution to Europe’s energy insecurities, appearing, at first glance, as both a shield and a bridge to the continent’s renewable aspirations.

Yet beneath this promise lies a far more complicated reality. Fracking is not merely a technological marvel but a process fraught with ecological disruption, public health risks, and social tensions. While proponents argue that natural gas could secure a “cleaner” fossil fuel supply, there is no ignoring the environmental price, nor the profound societal divisions it has already stirred in places where its presence
was most strongly felt. As we delve into the potential and the pitfalls of fracking, we will see that its allure may, in fact, be a mirage, one that fades upon closer examination, leaving behind more questions than answers about its place in Europe’s energy future.

Fracking as a Path to Energy Security : The Case for Natural Gas

At the heart of the case for fracking is Europe’s acute dependency on imported energy. Much of Europe’s natural gas flows from beyond its borders, exposing the continent to geopolitical risks that have made energy prices, and energy security, unpredictable. Proponents argue that by tapping into domestic shale reserves, Europe could replace some of these imports with its own energy supply, reducing reliance on
external actors and buffering itself against global energy crises.

The example of the United States looms large here : a country that, by harnessing fracking, transformed from a heavy importer to a net exporter of energy, easing its reliance on volatile markets and achieving a level of energy self-sufficiency unprecedented in modern times (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009).

Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies unlocked vast reserves of shale gas, transforming the U.S. from a major energy importer into a net exporter. States like Pennsylvania and Texas became epicenters of the shale boom, with the Marcellus and Permian basins producing billions of cubic feet of natural gas daily (Glowacki et al., 2014; Dulian, 2024). Furthermore, The U.S. hasn’t shown
signs of stopping, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), shale gas accounted for 23% of U.S. natural gas production in 2010 and is projected to reach nearly 50% by 2035 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009).

Economically, the benefits have been significant. Domestic natural gas prices dropped, lowering energy costs for consumers and industries. The resurgence of energy-intensive industries, such as manufacturing, is often cited as a byproduct of the shale boom. For instance, BMW relocated some production from Europe to the U.S., citing lower energy costs as a decisive factor (Glowacki et al., 2014).

Additionally, supporters contend that natural gas offers a comparatively “cleaner” fossil fuel option, emitting less carbon dioxide than coal when burned. With Europe’s goal to phase out coal as part of its ambitious climate agenda, gas appears, in this light, as an appealing bridge fuel, one that could ease the transition from coal to renewables without compromising grid reliability. For European policymakers
facing immediate energy demands, the flexibility of natural gas infrastructure and the potential economic benefits of a domestic shale industry are difficult to overlook (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

Constraints of Geography and Regulation: Can Europe Replicate the U.S. Model ?

Yet the European landscape, both physical and regulatory, poses challenges that make the American fracking model difficult to replicate. Unlike the sparsely populated regions where U.S. fracking has flourished, Europe’s shale deposits are often situated in densely populated or ecologically sensitive areas. For example, France’s Paris Basin and Austria’s Vienna Basin are located near agricultural and residential zones, where drilling could disrupt communities and ecosystems (Glowacki et al., 2014;Dulian, 2024).

In countries like France and Germany, large swaths of shale lie under regions cherished for their agricultural value and natural beauty. Areas where shale exploration has been attempted, public opposition has been intense, with local communities and environmental groups seemingly united against the industrialization of rural landscapes (Glowacki et al., 2014; Chailleux & Moyson, 2016).

Europe’s regulatory structure also sets a high bar for industrial activities like fracking The EU’s Water Framework Directive, for instance, mandates strict limits on industrial water usage, and stringent waste disposal rules mean that the treatment of flowback water, often contaminated with fracking chemicals, heavy metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials would be both costly and complex. For
European countries prioritizing environmental protections, the regulatory and logistical costs of fracking could make it economically infeasible even if the resource potential is high (Chailleux & Moyson, 2016).

Europe’s regulatory framework prioritizes environmental protection, making large-scale fracking operations economically and logistically challenging. For instance, in Poland, where the government initially championed shale gas exploration, public resistance and disappointing well yields have dampened enthusiasm (Glowacki et al., 2014). Unlike in the U.S., where fracking benefited from favorable geology and lax environmental oversight, Europe faces a far steeper cost curve (Glowacki et al., 2014)

Moreover, in regions of Europe where water resources are under significant strain, and hydraulic fracturing’s demand for millions of gallons of water per well intensifies this pressure. Fracking’s water requirements pose a critical challenge, particularly in Southern European nations already prone to drought.

In the American state of Michigan, a single fracking operation reportedly used over 21 million gallons of water, a national record, while drought-prone regions like California and Texas, these methods of extraction have strained already limited water resources (Glowacki et al., 2014). This vast water usage can also further strain agricultural and residential water supplies, posing both practical and ethical dilemmas in a continent that holds environmental stewardship as a core value (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

Environmental and Health Impacts : A Questionable Path to Sustainability

Despite its appeal, fracking’s environmental and health impacts place it at odds with Europe’s sustainability commitments. Each fracking operation requires a high pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals to fracture the rock and release gas, leaving behind flowback water laden with contaminants.

This wastewater must be carefully managed to prevent spills, leaks, or improper disposal. All of which could lead to groundwater contamination, with serious consequences for both ecosystems and communities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). Chemicals used in fracking fluids often include known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, which can enter local water supplies through spills or leaks. In the U.S., communities near fracking sites have reported increased rates of respiratory illnesses, skin conditions, and other health issues associated with air and water contamination (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009).

Methane emissions further complicate fracking’s climate profile. While natural gas emits less CO₂ than coal when burned, the methane leaks that can occur during extraction and transport have a much higher short-term warming effect. Methane, over a 20-year period, traps heat at a rate over 80 times that of carbon dioxide, undermining natural gas’s potential as a “cleaner” alternative (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009). For Europe, which has set ambitious climate targets under the Paris Agreement, embracing a fuel source with significant methane emissions risks compromising these goals and weakening its leadership on global climate action.

Social Resistance and the Lessons from France

Public resistance to fracking has proven to be a powerful force in Europe. France’s 2011 ban on fracking, spurred by both environmental concerns and a profound social movement, underscores the challenges of implementing fracking on European soil. In the French case, opposition was not simply a reaction to potential water contamination; it was rooted in a broader societal value system that prioritizes
environmental integrity, public health, and rural preservation. Activists argued that fracking posed a fundamental threat to these values, endangering local ecosystems, agricultural lands, and the rural way of life (Chailleux & Moyson, 2016).

Outside of the European Union, the United Kingdom’s attempts to develop shale gas have faced similar resistance. Despite initial government support, public protests and legal challenges repeatedly delayed projects. The government’s 2022 decision to lift a moratorium on fracking was met with fierce backlash, forcing a reversal after less than a year. Local opposition in areas like Lancashire, where Cuadrilla Resources attempted exploratory drilling, demonstrated the deep mistrust of fracking among rural communities (Glowacki et al., 2014) . In the Netherlands, public backlash over induced earthquakes tied to gas extraction in the Groningen field further fueled opposition to fracking, highlighting the risks of seismic activity to the public, even in well established operations (Glowacki et al., 2014; Dulian, 2024)

The lesson from France has resonated across Europe. In France, Germany, and even the Netherlands, public opinion has leaned heavily against fracking, viewing it as an imposition on communities and a violation of the environmental protections Europe holds dear. For these countries, fracking’s promise of energy security rings hollow when weighed against the social and environmental costs of disrupting communities, landscapes, and ecosystems.

The Illusion of Fracking as a Sustainable Solution

Natural gas has long been framed as a “bridge fuel,” a transitional energy source as the world moves from fossil fuels to renewables. However, the urgency of the climate crisis and advancements in renewable technology challenge this narrative. Europe’s Green Deal and REPowerEU initiatives emphasize the rapid expansion of solar, wind, and hydrogen infrastructure, reducing the need for new fossil fuel investments, including fracking (Dulian,2024; CRS, 2020).

As renewable energy technologies advance, Europe has increasing options that do not require the compromises fracking demands. Germany’s Energiewende exemplifies this shift, prioritizing renewable energy over domestic fossil fuel extraction. While the transition has faced challenges, it underscores the feasibility of a clean energy future without resorting to fracking (Dulian, 2024).

Moreover, the global natural gas market offers alternatives to domestic shale development. Europe has diversified its supply through liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the producers in the U.S., North Africa, and the Middle East. Investments in LNG terminals and interconnections, such as the Baltic Pipe linking Poland and Norway, may offer a more sustainable and economically viable path to energy
security (Dulian, 2024; CRS, 2020).

While some claim that natural gas could serve as a “transitional fuel,” the broader reality suggests that fracking is incompatible with Europe’s vision for a sustainable energy future. The European Union’s climate goals include achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, a target that aligns with its dedication to mitigating climate change through renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Fracking, with its methane emissions, water contamination risks, and industrial footprint, seems a poor fit for a continent committed to environmental stewardship and sustainable development (U.S. Department of Energy, 2009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

Conclusion

Fracking’s Misalignment with Europe’s Future

The U.S. shale boom, while transformative, is not a model that Europe can or should replicate. The environmental and social costs, coupled with Europe’s dense population and regulatory standards, make large-scale fracking an ill fit for the continent’s energy strategy. Hydraulic fracturing, while promising on the surface, fails to address the deeper complexities of Europe’s energy security needs.

Its environmental, social, and economic costs, coupled with Europe’s regulatory and geographical constraints, make it an ill-suited solution. Instead, Europe’s focus should remain on accelerating its transition to renewable energy and improving energy efficiency, ensuring that its pursuit of energy security aligns with its long-term climate goals.

In pursuing energy security, Europe need not compromise its values. By investing in renewables, energy efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure, the continent can achieve a future that is not only secure but also consistent with its commitments to a cleaner, healthier world. Fracking, with its risks and marginal benefits, may ultimately prove to be a diversion on the path to true energy resilience, one that Europe is wise to question, and perhaps ultimately reject.

Citations

Chailleux S., & Moyson, S.(2016). The French ban on hydraulic fracturing and the attempts to reverse it: Social Mobilization, Professional Forums, and Coaltion Strategies. 10.1057/978-1-137-59574-4_5.

Dulian, M. (2024). Security of energy supply. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). PE 762.410.

Glowacki, J. and Henkel, C (2014). Hydraulic Fracturing in the European Union: Leveraging the U.S.
Experience in Shale Gas Exploration and Production. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 24, pp. 113–141.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2009). Modern shale gas development in the United States: A primer. Office of the Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Assessment of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources: Executive Summary (EPA/600/R-15/047a). Office of Research and Development.

Ratner, M., Glover, C. and Brown, P. (2015). U.S. natural gas exports: New opportunities, uncertain outcomes. Congressional Research Service (CRS), Report R42405.

European Parliament. (2012). Report on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. A7-0283/2012.

Broomfield, M. (2012). Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe. AEA Technology for the European Commission.