11 ms·

Europe is locking itself in to US LNG

151 points by hunglee2 1y ago

mytailorisrich 1y ago
Another level of irony is that this is partly because Europe does not want to develop shale gas for environmental reasons, so it imports US LNG... which is mostly shale gas [1]. The US love Europe's policies... [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-exports-fuel-growth-shale-gas-production-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-expor...
- adrianN 1y ago
  It makes sense not to invest a lot of money into fossile infrastructure when you plan to be fossile free in about twenty years.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    Considering that the industry is highly profitable I'd say that Europe spends more importing gas than producing it locally, which would also benefit the economy and improve strategic independence. Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure still happen, too, in the form of LNG terminals.
    - ljf 1y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/environment/energy-crisis-oil-gas-fracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/environment/energ... Fracking is only profitable when oil is $120 a barrel or more.
- ourmandave 1y ago
  I assume they don't want fracking. Let Texas and North Dakota keep their earthquakes and polluted water tables.
- seszett 1y ago
  That's not especially ironic though. In doing that Europe avoids the pollution associated with shale gas exploitation. The gas itself isn't different once it is extracted, so it doesn't matter if the imported gas is shale gas or whatever else. The root problem is needing gas at all, of course.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    The hypocrisy is that, like many other polluting industries, Europe is just sending pollution somewhere else. Then it self-congratulates on how green it is. And it pays foreign powers through the nose at the same time, and then European governments say that "there is no money". There is very little strategic thinking in Europe.
  - nradov 1y ago
    If a problem has no solution then it's not really a "problem", it's just a fact to be accepted. Regardless of heat and power generation, natural gas is a crucial feedstock for manufacturing many types of chemicals. There is no conceivable future where we don't need that stuff to maintain a modern industrial civilization.
    - myrmidon 1y ago
      > Regardless of heat and power generation, natural gas is a crucial feedstock for manufacturing many types of chemicals. Maybe, but the vast majority of gas use in industry is for heat and power and electricity is a trivial substitute there. And even the direct use as process input is far from unavoidable, because in a lot of cases this use could be reduced/eliminated or shift to synthetic inputs, which would happen organically if prices shifted long-term anyway.
- pandemic_region 1y ago
  It makes sense from EU point of view. We'll let another continent destroy itself environmentally and leverage their output during the process. Better that destroying our own soil.
  - jajko 1y ago
    We already damaged Europe in many ways, so yes what you say is true. One day US population will realize the same, but I guess things need to get worse before they start to improve.
- thiago_fm 1y ago
  Have you seen the environmental impact of shale gas? If the US is willing to destroy certain areas of its country in exchange for money, Europe will give them the dollars. If Europe has nobody else to do it for them, I'm sure they'll do it themselves.
- GuB-42 1y ago
  Also, both Europe and the US are happy to have China do the dirty jobs so that they stay clean in their countries. With the consequences we all know today in terms of dependence. Furthermore, China doesn't want to be dirty anymore, in fact they are maybe the ones who take green technologies the most seriously. So the dirtiest jobs are pushed to other countries, mostly in southeast Asia.
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    > Also, both Europe and the US are happy to have China do the dirty jobs so that they stay clean in their countries Can you give examples? What "dirty jobs" is China, and now apparently other countries, being purportedly forced to do? So is Trump really an environmentalist when he levied massive tariffs on countries in the region? No, when countries devastate their environment they do it on their own volition. China was disastrously dirty mostly due to domestic reasons like the absolute lack of pollution controls, coal burning, and so on. China introspected and decided that they wanted to be better than that (the Olympics might legitimately have been a major turning point) and have done an amazing job cleaning the country up, and many areas are now truly Western. Air quality is infinitely better...at the same time that the country is making more than ever for the rest of the world. Other countries haven't got there yet. India, the Philippines and so on have only themselves to blame for the state of their country, however self-comforting the delusion that it's really outsiders that are to blame might be.
    - altcognito 1y ago
      There are no outsiders when it comes to pollution. We get one planet. That's it. So, China is free to choose to pollute, as is Europe and the US free to choose production from a source that doesn't pollute as much. Their electrical infrastructure that is built on coal (60% of current generation) even if they've made huge improvements. Rare earth mining and building of all those electrical batteries and solar panels is a pretty dirty business. Reality is China produces a colossal amount of stuff, and much of it is pretty dirty (it would probably be dirty anywhere as that's the nature of making things at an industrial scale) Right now China seems headed in the right direction for pollution, moreso than the US. And probably the only way they end up reducing pollution completely is to grow wealthy enough to replace old methods.
- Etheryte 1y ago
  The environmental issues with shale gas are local, if you ignore global warming as a whole. So in that sense, not doing it in your own back yard makes a lot of sense.
  - fulafel 1y ago
    Global warming is the biggest harm though so it doesn't make sense to ignore it.
    - Etheryte 1y ago
      I'm not so sure. As a whole, yes, global warming is a huge issue, but one shale gas well alone will surely have very marginal effect on that. Comparing that to the fact that it can seriously contaminate groundwater and air in your imminent vicinity seems like a more serious issue in that regard.
      - fulafel 1y ago
        A barrel of oil means about 560 kg of co2 emissions. Including the mortality cost til 2100 from emissions bumps the cost of emissions to about $145 per barrel using nrs from[1] (0.56 tons of emissions from a barrel x $260 scc per ton of emissions). I'll leave it to you to quantify the local effects and whether they are worse. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322393/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322393/ - they include effects only to 2100 which is way too short term IMO, should be higher
- panstromek 1y ago
  I don't think this is true, Europe just doesn't have these reserves. If Europe had oil and gas reserves, they would not even build gas pipelines from Russia in the first place.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Europe has 14 billion cubic metres of technically recoverable shale gas reserves.
    - panstromek 1y ago
      That's 5% of Europe's yearly consumption.
      - nradov 1y ago
        Fossil fuel reserves are not a fixed number. When prices rise, energy companies expand exploration and find more. Many areas are still basically unexplored for deep minerals. There are undrilled shale basins across western Europe, and the Black Sea and Ionian Sea have barely been tapped. Technical innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling also expand the reserves that can be economically extracted. There may be valid political and environmental reasons not to go this route but it's silly to claim that fossil fuel reserves are so limited when no one has really looked.
        panstromek 1y ago
        From what I've read so far it seems people have really looked and we have some estimates (not yet proven reserves). The highest estimates I found are around 10-20 years of current consumption rate. That doesn't seem like a lot, and Europe's consumption is going down so it doesn't feel like this will change much for shale oil. But Norway still has big gas reserves and supplies 33% of Eueropian consumption, so I was actually wrong in the original comment and the US LNG impact is pretty overstated, it's just 15%. Most of the rest comes from middle east.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
neves 1y ago
Wasn't it the point of Nord Stream sabotage? https://brian-whit.medium.com/nord-stream-sabotage-a-look-at-the-evidence-so-far-311a615171d https://brian-whit.medium.com/nord-stream-sabotage-a-look-at...
- bilekas 1y ago
  No. This was alleged to be taken out by Ukrainian special forces in order to twist Europe's arm, which is a good thing in the end, but so far as anyone knows it had nothing to to with the US. Until I hear anything proving otherwise I will take what we know as all we know for now. The US were not thrilled about it when it was being constructed, obviously, but this was normal tensions towards Russia, prescient in the end but here we are.
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    Are we sure that Ukrainian special forces have the capability to blow up nord stream without heavy US help?
    - moi2388 1y ago
      Yes.
    - non_aligned 1y ago
      What's the part that's hard to imagine? It's literally just a boat ride to a publicly-known location that isn't monitored in any way, diving to a depth humans can dive to, placing some standard military / commercial explosives, and getting out. There were several countries arguably interested in getting rid of that pipeline (Ukraine, Poland, the US), but Ukraine wanted it the most, had easy access, and there's no need to overcomplicate internet theories.
      - WinstonSmith84 1y ago
        > diving to a depth humans can dive to No, "normal" humans don't dive to 80m deep, where the explosion occurred. Any diver, whether professional or recreational (which is my case), will know about this. I don't have a (alternative) theory about this, I'm just stating facts. Well, the alternative theory, if we are speaking of divers, is that they had some very special equipment and were extremely skilled. It wasn't some random people, renting a random boat, renting random diving gear and buying random explosives ..
jsnider3 1y ago
Renewables solves this.
- probablypower 1y ago
  This is confidently incorrect. Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar). Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed. The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response. Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies. I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-sustainable-electricity-system https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).
  - PunchTornado 1y ago
    Green energy like nuclear
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Politically hamstrung because a bunch of short sighted people have their panties in a bunch?
      - SiempreViernes 1y ago
        Mostly because it's very expensive and slow to build, what with nuclear engineers not wanting their workplaces to be as dangerous as a construction site. Look up who invented the Maximum Credible Accident, it wasn't the environmentalists.
    - euLh7SM5HDFY 1y ago
      Nuclear is as dead as a great technology can be. A few more incremental improvements in solar and battery industry and nuclear won't be profitable even in theory, to say nothing of construction cost overruns. Reactors are only good at providing baseload but that isn't how grids operate anymore. Renewables are too cheap, if a power plant can't drop output fast enough it is punished.
p2detar 1y ago
Weren't there discussions to start buying LNG from Canada as well? In fact even Carney spoke about that if I remember correctly.
- goalieca 1y ago
  Trudeau said no for environmental reasons.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    He said no because there was no market demand for it, and then reversed position in 2022 when there suddenly became market demand.
    - goalieca 1y ago
      He was asked by foreign leaders in Europe. He claimed there was demand but at the time Europe was buying Russian gas which was funding Ukraine war and Europe was seeking alternatives.
  - barbazoo 1y ago
    Carney made announcements couple days ago.
- moltar 1y ago
  Like US would allow that to happen. This has been discussed for over a decade.
  - 8note 1y ago
    quebec has been the main difficulty. not favourable to taking risks of pipelines spilling on Quebecois land, while not getting much value our of it. per Mark Carney, he's interested in pipeline projects, maybe through to churchill instead of going through Quebec, but so far no private company is interested in investing.
- pedalpete 1y ago
willsmith72 1y ago
It's clear to all parties that this is a false promise made to appease Trump. The question is how deep they'll have to go in 3 years. Can they stall it out, or will the US actually demand they fulfill the promise, causing at least some amount of lock-in?
- jonbiggums22 1y ago
  What difference does it make? Trump will re-neg on the agreement even if they actually did it.
jmclnx 1y ago
With a "normal" US Admin, I doubt this would be a concern. With this current regime, it could be risky. I could see Trump having a fit and if he realizes the EU needs US LNG, he could cut the supply or put a huge tax on it. But if that happens, maybe the US Fossil Fuel "Cartel" will revolt. I think the EU really need to accelerate their renewal push even more. From what I read they are doing good w/renewals, but I would be nervous if I was in the EU until renewals and/or nuclear power provides 90% of the power.
- some_random 1y ago
  True but if Europe was willing to accept Russian gas fueling their economy then they have no excuse to not accept American gas in it's place.
- trcarney 1y ago
  That doesn't really support his rhetoric. He has always said that he doesn't like the trade deficit, which is a dumb idea, so increasing exports would go along the same vein as increasing tariffs to limit imports. I think what would be more likely is the EU does something with it as a bargaining chip to reduce import tariffs rather than Trump trying to tax it out of existence. And just to be clear Trump's trade policy is dumb and I don't support it.
Workaccount2 1y ago
Europeans need to wake up. There is an obvious rift between Europeans, European leaders, and the US. Europeans seem tired of the US and it's policies, however simultaneously are unaware that the cushy "European" lifestyle they love only exists because of the US. Which is something that European leaders are keenly aware of. So it creates a situation where the leadership will constantly bend at the knee to the US's demands, and the populace will get progressively more and more anti-US. However in it's current state, Europe is stuck under the thumb of the US on three sides - tech, military, and energy. The only "clean" way to rectify this problem is for Europeans to slash regulations, slash social programs, and dramatically increase annual working hours. All things which are the antithesis of contemporary Europeans ideals. Europe desperately needs a modern industry hub, right now it's all US and China on the board.
- TheRoque 1y ago
  > the cushy "European" lifestyle they love only exists because of the US Could you elaborate ?
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Sure, look at the bottom countries https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/hours-worked.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/hours-worked.html The lifeblood of the European economy is still the same things that were the lifeblood 30 years ago. There is no tech scene in Europe, despite tech being at the global economic forefront for those 30 years. The US spent more per capita than Europe did on support to Ukraine. It also provided the lions share of weapons and armaments. And now Europe is turning to the US to supply most of it's energy. Which is methane. Heaven forbid the EU give green investment funds special economic rules to foster growth, it might generate a few billionaires. Europe is a trust fund state burning old money and milking old industry. It desperately needs to build its own independence. Russia coming knocking seems to have been a bit of a wakeup call, but even still single child Europeans are sitting on the beaches of the Mediterranean complaining that they cannot retire at 55. Wake up.
  - nxm 1y ago
    World-wide global trade security and defense is made possible mostly due to the American military. Hard to import/export when cargo ships get sunk.
joemaniaci 1y ago
As an American how stupid do you have to be to promise $750B for fossil fuel infrastructure instead of say, grid tied battery infrastructure. Europe is weaning themselves off of fossil fuels so quickly(relatively). And to lock yourself in with the Trump admin.
- 3D30497420 1y ago
  Because that gets you a trade deal and reduces the risk of further immediate damage to your economy. Besides, is there an actual contract, with clear penalties, for this $750B purchase? I'll be surprised if it actually happens. I think EU negotiators are well aware that Trump doesn't care about what is in the deal, just that he "wins".
  - joemaniaci 1y ago
    The penalty is upsetting Trump if they try to pretend they're doing it.
    - 3D30497420 1y ago
      Sure, but this is always a risk with him. Maybe you buy $100B of natural gas, but have the temerity to regulate an American company he likes and he slaps you with punitive tariffs. Or he doesn't like something else with your domestic politics. He's not a rule-based actor or cares about anything but loyalty and subservience to him. I'm guessing a lot of of people/countries are aiming to just string him along as long as possible.
      - dboreham 1y ago
        Also he probably won't be around that long.
      - joemaniaci 1y ago
        Fair
codyb 1y ago
Judging by the way the US is going... are they just gonna lock themselves in to their next adversary's fuel? At least we were an ally at the start of this of this trend
- FaridIO 1y ago
  You're extrapolating one somewhat rude adiplomatic president to America going to war with Europe? That's enough internet for you, sir. Time to go for a walk.
  - dboreham 1y ago
    And vice president, and congress/senate/scotus that enables them.
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    > You're extrapolating one somewhat rude adiplomatic president to America going to war with Europe? This is hugely downplaying Trump and his role in the world and domestically.
  - codyb 1y ago
    I didn't say go to war, I said adversarial. Adiplomatic is... _very mild_ considering the threats he's made about taking over Greenland and Canada. Bluster or not, the fact is... the President of the United States is openly talking about it, and currently using the military and all it's levers quite actively here and abroad.
  - 8note 1y ago
    Russia is not at war with Europe, its at war with Ukraine. Both the US and Russia are currently trying to influence the EU to do things that aren't what EU citizens want. per the drunk signal text leak, Europe's shipping is being negatively impacted by the American Israel/Gaza stance, to the extent that the US has made up for it by bombing the Houthis. ...which says both that the US is an ongoing problem for europe, but that the relationship isnt nearly so shaky as it seems. Trump is getting US strategic goals in Europe, to make Europe pay for anti-Russia preparedness, while the US focuses on anti-China.
comrade1234 1y ago
I don't think the "EU" buys fuel. It's individual countries. The promise by the EU to buy LNG was empty. What country is going to buy it?
- ahartmetz 1y ago
  Germany, for instance. LNG terminals on the North Sea were built in record time.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Germany had an unpaid energy karma debt for stupidly decomm'ing their nuclear power for political reasons without a viable technical solution. Russia might not have made the decision to invade Ukraine if Germany hadn't tied its energy needs so transparently to Russian natural gas. And absent blowing up Nord Stream, might have hung Ukraine out to dry anyway. So having to rapidly build LNG import terminals? Repaying that debt.
    - oezi 1y ago
      Gas and electricity prices are somewhat intertwined but not as much as you make it seem. Gas is primarily used in Germany for heating and Nuclear electricity doesn't help with this. Germany fully realizes that Gas is only an intermediate tech which still is relevant for the next 15-20 years.
    - croes 1y ago
      Nuclear Power is too expensive, the power plants too old, still to place for nuclear waste and the operators didn’t want to continue.
      - ahartmetz 1y ago
        A surprisingly large percentage is used in industry, more than residential even: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage/verbrauch-von-erdgas-in-deutschland-nach-abnehmergruppen-2009/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage... Regarding nuclear, the electricity companies didn't want to continue after they had already prepared to shut down the reactors. Maintenance was deferred, people let go or reassigned, etc.
meindnoch 1y ago
We just need to wait out the inevitable collapse and breakup of Russia, then we can go in and scoop up the energy resources. This time it has to be a more hands-on approach, to not repeat the same mistake that we made at the end of the Cold War.
- vpinkeroff 1y ago
  [dead]
probablypower 1y ago
There are a lot of posts here pushing batteries. Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids. Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up. A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.
- fulafel 1y ago
  There's not really a choice in replacing fossils with renewables&nuclear if we want to mitigate the climate catastrophe.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  Demand side management is a nice concept, but it is neither free nor a cure-all: It has real costs because it limits the utilization of involved infrastructure and is simply not feasible for a lot of industries. It does not help when residential demand exceeds the available supply either. The most practical solution will probably be a mix of overprovisioning (especially considering how cheap solar panels have become), battery storage and fuel powered fallback, with the balance shifting as long as batteries and panels get cheaper. Grid level battery storage is already coming online at scale (e.g. https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up-uks-largest-battery-at-300-mw-thurrock-storage/ https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up...). LiFePo cells are already down to ~$60 for 1kWh (8000 cycles), which is pretty palatable for a lot of applications and prices still trend down.
- nradov 1y ago
  Demand side response drives up costs a lot. You end up with expensive, rapidly depreciating capital equipment sitting idle and not earning any revenue. The same problem applies whether the equipment is a GPU cluster or aluminum smelter. If we're going to have a modern industrial economy then we need to have enormous quantities of cheap electrical power available 24 hours a day. Long distance high voltage transmission lines can help to an extent but create the same sort of concerns about dependence on unreliable foreign countries as fossil fuel imports.
jillesvangurp 1y ago
At the relatively high cost US LNG gets imported, it creates a big incentive to start considering alternatives. A lot of the investment commitments will probably never be delivered. Fundamentally, a lot of states in the EU will have to sell this to their voters and tax payers and that's where this stuff will slowly die. Because it's a hard sell. LNG imports will be demand driven, not supply driven. And demand is going to decrease over time; not increase. That calls into question the need for more infrastructure. On both sides. Germany already topped up its reserves for the coming winter; ahead of schedule. There is no shortage. The US is building a big LNG bubble with investments that might end up under water. What happens if demand flattens and decreases mid to long term, as can reasonably be expected at this point? Can the US sustain high LNG prices when cheaper sources become available? What will high export prices do for domestic pricing for energy? How eager will investors be to make big multi decade investments in this (given all this)? The existing terminals are underutilized already (below 50%). It's hard to see where all this extra demand to fill even more terminals is going to come from. There is no urgency for any of this on the EU side. However there is quite a bit of urgency on lowering energy prices for industry and consumers. LNG is not the way to do that. I don't see that changing.
- nradov 1y ago
  Germany has enough natural gas reserves to keep people from freezing to death but not enough to keep their chemical manufacturing industry alive. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/german-chemical-sector-running-lowest-capacity-more-than-30-years-vci-says-2025-09-03/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
cantor_S_drug 1y ago
I don't understand economics that much or how money works. But is the following possible in a clandestine manner? US and EU provide each other money through swaplines by printing freshly created respective currencies and exchanging them. Then EU can use those dollars to buy US LNG. Is this a far fetched idea? This is like undercover QE.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  why would the US gov want euros?
  - cantor_S_drug 1y ago
    Something like this https://x.com/FedGuy12/status/1970010162741346356 https://x.com/FedGuy12/status/1970010162741346356 South Korea is suggesting that their $350b investment in the U.S. is so large it requires an FX swap line, which in turn implies that the Fed would be the ultimate financier of the investment.
Anonyneko 1y ago
I don't know when Europe managed to "escape Russian energy dependence" as it still seems to be buying tremendous amounts of Russian fossil fuels that are now branded as Turkish, Indian, Azeri, the list goes on.
- barney54 1y ago
  Europe has been dependent on Russian oil and gas for many years--and still is continuing to buy Russian natural gas. In fact, the EU imported €4.4 billion worth of Russian gas in the first half of 2025. https://www.brusselstimes.com/1707644/eu-imported-e4-4-billion-worth-of-russian-lng-in-first-half-of-2025 https://www.brusselstimes.com/1707644/eu-imported-e4-4-billi...
- noselasd 1y ago
  Do the list go on ? For gas Q2 2025, figure 5 at https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports it's UK 5,6% Azerbadjan 3,8% Algeria 12,5% Norway 30,1% Other LNG 9,4% USA LNG 27,2% Russia 11,5% Most of the "Other LNG" comes from Turkstream in the underlying data. Edit: I was wrong, Turkstream is included in "Russia", other sources points to Qatar and Nigeria being the largest part of "Other LNG" If I read it right, for oil in Q1 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_latest_developments https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... United States 15,0% Norway 13,5% Kazakhstan 12,7% Libya 9,0% Saudi Arabia 6,6% Nigeria 6,3% United Kingdom 5,2% Iraq 4,5% Guyana 4,3% Brazil 4,1% Azerbaijan 4,1% Algeria 3,4% Russia 2,5% Mexico 2,1% Other 6,6%
- jesterson 1y ago
  Exactly at the moment people start buying BS from Brussels's ursula, roberta and rest of corrupted clique.
amai 1y ago
Wat? Most of European countries buy gas from Norway, Algeria and other countries. The US share is just 16.5 %. That is not really a lock in. That is just diversification. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...
seydor 1y ago
Completely unsustainable position
seatac76 1y ago
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/15/trump-trade-deal-european-union-energy/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/15/trump-trade-deal-europe... A good article on the energy politics between US and EU.
floppiplopp 1y ago
"Let's not buy from Russia, it's an overt dictatorship lazily cosplaying as a democracy that's waging wars on other nations and killing innocent civilians."

151 points by hunglee2 1y ago

Another level of irony is that this is partly because Europe does not want to develop shale gas for environmental reasons, so it imports US LNG... which is mostly shale gas [1]. The US love Europe's policies... [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-exports-fuel-growth-shale-gas-production-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/surging-us-lng-expor...

adrianN 1y ago
It makes sense not to invest a lot of money into fossile infrastructure when you plan to be fossile free in about twenty years.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Considering that the industry is highly profitable I'd say that Europe spends more importing gas than producing it locally, which would also benefit the economy and improve strategic independence. Investments in fossil fuel infrastructure still happen, too, in the form of LNG terminals.
  - ljf 1y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/environment/energy-crisis-oil-gas-fracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/environment/energ... Fracking is only profitable when oil is $120 a barrel or more.
ourmandave 1y ago
I assume they don't want fracking. Let Texas and North Dakota keep their earthquakes and polluted water tables.
seszett 1y ago
That's not especially ironic though. In doing that Europe avoids the pollution associated with shale gas exploitation. The gas itself isn't different once it is extracted, so it doesn't matter if the imported gas is shale gas or whatever else. The root problem is needing gas at all, of course.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  The hypocrisy is that, like many other polluting industries, Europe is just sending pollution somewhere else. Then it self-congratulates on how green it is. And it pays foreign powers through the nose at the same time, and then European governments say that "there is no money". There is very little strategic thinking in Europe.
- nradov 1y ago
  If a problem has no solution then it's not really a "problem", it's just a fact to be accepted. Regardless of heat and power generation, natural gas is a crucial feedstock for manufacturing many types of chemicals. There is no conceivable future where we don't need that stuff to maintain a modern industrial civilization.
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    > Regardless of heat and power generation, natural gas is a crucial feedstock for manufacturing many types of chemicals. Maybe, but the vast majority of gas use in industry is for heat and power and electricity is a trivial substitute there. And even the direct use as process input is far from unavoidable, because in a lot of cases this use could be reduced/eliminated or shift to synthetic inputs, which would happen organically if prices shifted long-term anyway.
pandemic_region 1y ago
It makes sense from EU point of view. We'll let another continent destroy itself environmentally and leverage their output during the process. Better that destroying our own soil.
- jajko 1y ago
  We already damaged Europe in many ways, so yes what you say is true. One day US population will realize the same, but I guess things need to get worse before they start to improve.
thiago_fm 1y ago
Have you seen the environmental impact of shale gas? If the US is willing to destroy certain areas of its country in exchange for money, Europe will give them the dollars. If Europe has nobody else to do it for them, I'm sure they'll do it themselves.
GuB-42 1y ago
Also, both Europe and the US are happy to have China do the dirty jobs so that they stay clean in their countries. With the consequences we all know today in terms of dependence. Furthermore, China doesn't want to be dirty anymore, in fact they are maybe the ones who take green technologies the most seriously. So the dirtiest jobs are pushed to other countries, mostly in southeast Asia.
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  > Also, both Europe and the US are happy to have China do the dirty jobs so that they stay clean in their countries Can you give examples? What "dirty jobs" is China, and now apparently other countries, being purportedly forced to do? So is Trump really an environmentalist when he levied massive tariffs on countries in the region? No, when countries devastate their environment they do it on their own volition. China was disastrously dirty mostly due to domestic reasons like the absolute lack of pollution controls, coal burning, and so on. China introspected and decided that they wanted to be better than that (the Olympics might legitimately have been a major turning point) and have done an amazing job cleaning the country up, and many areas are now truly Western. Air quality is infinitely better...at the same time that the country is making more than ever for the rest of the world. Other countries haven't got there yet. India, the Philippines and so on have only themselves to blame for the state of their country, however self-comforting the delusion that it's really outsiders that are to blame might be.
  - altcognito 1y ago
    There are no outsiders when it comes to pollution. We get one planet. That's it. So, China is free to choose to pollute, as is Europe and the US free to choose production from a source that doesn't pollute as much. Their electrical infrastructure that is built on coal (60% of current generation) even if they've made huge improvements. Rare earth mining and building of all those electrical batteries and solar panels is a pretty dirty business. Reality is China produces a colossal amount of stuff, and much of it is pretty dirty (it would probably be dirty anywhere as that's the nature of making things at an industrial scale) Right now China seems headed in the right direction for pollution, moreso than the US. And probably the only way they end up reducing pollution completely is to grow wealthy enough to replace old methods.
Etheryte 1y ago
The environmental issues with shale gas are local, if you ignore global warming as a whole. So in that sense, not doing it in your own back yard makes a lot of sense.
- fulafel 1y ago
  Global warming is the biggest harm though so it doesn't make sense to ignore it.
  - Etheryte 1y ago
    I'm not so sure. As a whole, yes, global warming is a huge issue, but one shale gas well alone will surely have very marginal effect on that. Comparing that to the fact that it can seriously contaminate groundwater and air in your imminent vicinity seems like a more serious issue in that regard.
    - fulafel 1y ago
      A barrel of oil means about 560 kg of co2 emissions. Including the mortality cost til 2100 from emissions bumps the cost of emissions to about $145 per barrel using nrs from[1] (0.56 tons of emissions from a barrel x $260 scc per ton of emissions). I'll leave it to you to quantify the local effects and whether they are worse. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322393/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8322393/ - they include effects only to 2100 which is way too short term IMO, should be higher
panstromek 1y ago
I don't think this is true, Europe just doesn't have these reserves. If Europe had oil and gas reserves, they would not even build gas pipelines from Russia in the first place.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Europe has 14 billion cubic metres of technically recoverable shale gas reserves.
  - panstromek 1y ago
    That's 5% of Europe's yearly consumption.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Fossil fuel reserves are not a fixed number. When prices rise, energy companies expand exploration and find more. Many areas are still basically unexplored for deep minerals. There are undrilled shale basins across western Europe, and the Black Sea and Ionian Sea have barely been tapped. Technical innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling also expand the reserves that can be economically extracted. There may be valid political and environmental reasons not to go this route but it's silly to claim that fossil fuel reserves are so limited when no one has really looked.
      - panstromek 1y ago
        From what I've read so far it seems people have really looked and we have some estimates (not yet proven reserves). The highest estimates I found are around 10-20 years of current consumption rate. That doesn't seem like a lot, and Europe's consumption is going down so it doesn't feel like this will change much for shale oil. But Norway still has big gas reserves and supplies 33% of Eueropian consumption, so I was actually wrong in the original comment and the US LNG impact is pretty overstated, it's just 15%. Most of the rest comes from middle east.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago

neves 1y ago

Wasn't it the point of Nord Stream sabotage? https://brian-whit.medium.com/nord-stream-sabotage-a-look-at-the-evidence-so-far-311a615171d https://brian-whit.medium.com/nord-stream-sabotage-a-look-at...

bilekas 1y ago
No. This was alleged to be taken out by Ukrainian special forces in order to twist Europe's arm, which is a good thing in the end, but so far as anyone knows it had nothing to to with the US. Until I hear anything proving otherwise I will take what we know as all we know for now. The US were not thrilled about it when it was being constructed, obviously, but this was normal tensions towards Russia, prescient in the end but here we are.
- pclmulqdq 1y ago
  Are we sure that Ukrainian special forces have the capability to blow up nord stream without heavy US help?
  - moi2388 1y ago
    Yes.
  - non_aligned 1y ago
    What's the part that's hard to imagine? It's literally just a boat ride to a publicly-known location that isn't monitored in any way, diving to a depth humans can dive to, placing some standard military / commercial explosives, and getting out. There were several countries arguably interested in getting rid of that pipeline (Ukraine, Poland, the US), but Ukraine wanted it the most, had easy access, and there's no need to overcomplicate internet theories.
    - WinstonSmith84 1y ago
      > diving to a depth humans can dive to No, "normal" humans don't dive to 80m deep, where the explosion occurred. Any diver, whether professional or recreational (which is my case), will know about this. I don't have a (alternative) theory about this, I'm just stating facts. Well, the alternative theory, if we are speaking of divers, is that they had some very special equipment and were extremely skilled. It wasn't some random people, renting a random boat, renting random diving gear and buying random explosives ..

jsnider3 1y ago

Renewables solves this.

probablypower 1y ago
This is confidently incorrect. Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar). Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed. The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response. Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies. I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-sustainable-electricity-system https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).
- PunchTornado 1y ago
  Green energy like nuclear
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Politically hamstrung because a bunch of short sighted people have their panties in a bunch?
    - SiempreViernes 1y ago
      Mostly because it's very expensive and slow to build, what with nuclear engineers not wanting their workplaces to be as dangerous as a construction site. Look up who invented the Maximum Credible Accident, it wasn't the environmentalists.
  - euLh7SM5HDFY 1y ago
    Nuclear is as dead as a great technology can be. A few more incremental improvements in solar and battery industry and nuclear won't be profitable even in theory, to say nothing of construction cost overruns. Reactors are only good at providing baseload but that isn't how grids operate anymore. Renewables are too cheap, if a power plant can't drop output fast enough it is punished.

p2detar 1y ago

Weren't there discussions to start buying LNG from Canada as well? In fact even Carney spoke about that if I remember correctly.

goalieca 1y ago
Trudeau said no for environmental reasons.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  He said no because there was no market demand for it, and then reversed position in 2022 when there suddenly became market demand.
  - goalieca 1y ago
    He was asked by foreign leaders in Europe. He claimed there was demand but at the time Europe was buying Russian gas which was funding Ukraine war and Europe was seeking alternatives.
- barbazoo 1y ago
  Carney made announcements couple days ago.
moltar 1y ago
Like US would allow that to happen. This has been discussed for over a decade.
- 8note 1y ago
  quebec has been the main difficulty. not favourable to taking risks of pipelines spilling on Quebecois land, while not getting much value our of it. per Mark Carney, he's interested in pipeline projects, maybe through to churchill instead of going through Quebec, but so far no private company is interested in investing.
pedalpete 1y ago

willsmith72 1y ago

It's clear to all parties that this is a false promise made to appease Trump. The question is how deep they'll have to go in 3 years. Can they stall it out, or will the US actually demand they fulfill the promise, causing at least some amount of lock-in?

jonbiggums22 1y ago
What difference does it make? Trump will re-neg on the agreement even if they actually did it.

jmclnx 1y ago

With a "normal" US Admin, I doubt this would be a concern. With this current regime, it could be risky. I could see Trump having a fit and if he realizes the EU needs US LNG, he could cut the supply or put a huge tax on it. But if that happens, maybe the US Fossil Fuel "Cartel" will revolt. I think the EU really need to accelerate their renewal push even more. From what I read they are doing good w/renewals, but I would be nervous if I was in the EU until renewals and/or nuclear power provides 90% of the power.

some_random 1y ago
True but if Europe was willing to accept Russian gas fueling their economy then they have no excuse to not accept American gas in it's place.
trcarney 1y ago
That doesn't really support his rhetoric. He has always said that he doesn't like the trade deficit, which is a dumb idea, so increasing exports would go along the same vein as increasing tariffs to limit imports. I think what would be more likely is the EU does something with it as a bargaining chip to reduce import tariffs rather than Trump trying to tax it out of existence. And just to be clear Trump's trade policy is dumb and I don't support it.

Workaccount2 1y ago

Europeans need to wake up. There is an obvious rift between Europeans, European leaders, and the US. Europeans seem tired of the US and it's policies, however simultaneously are unaware that the cushy "European" lifestyle they love only exists because of the US. Which is something that European leaders are keenly aware of. So it creates a situation where the leadership will constantly bend at the knee to the US's demands, and the populace will get progressively more and more anti-US. However in it's current state, Europe is stuck under the thumb of the US on three sides - tech, military, and energy. The only "clean" way to rectify this problem is for Europeans to slash regulations, slash social programs, and dramatically increase annual working hours. All things which are the antithesis of contemporary Europeans ideals. Europe desperately needs a modern industry hub, right now it's all US and China on the board.

TheRoque 1y ago
> the cushy "European" lifestyle they love only exists because of the US Could you elaborate ?
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Sure, look at the bottom countries https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/hours-worked.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/hours-worked.html The lifeblood of the European economy is still the same things that were the lifeblood 30 years ago. There is no tech scene in Europe, despite tech being at the global economic forefront for those 30 years. The US spent more per capita than Europe did on support to Ukraine. It also provided the lions share of weapons and armaments. And now Europe is turning to the US to supply most of it's energy. Which is methane. Heaven forbid the EU give green investment funds special economic rules to foster growth, it might generate a few billionaires. Europe is a trust fund state burning old money and milking old industry. It desperately needs to build its own independence. Russia coming knocking seems to have been a bit of a wakeup call, but even still single child Europeans are sitting on the beaches of the Mediterranean complaining that they cannot retire at 55. Wake up.
- nxm 1y ago
  World-wide global trade security and defense is made possible mostly due to the American military. Hard to import/export when cargo ships get sunk.

joemaniaci 1y ago

As an American how stupid do you have to be to promise $750B for fossil fuel infrastructure instead of say, grid tied battery infrastructure. Europe is weaning themselves off of fossil fuels so quickly(relatively). And to lock yourself in with the Trump admin.

3D30497420 1y ago
Because that gets you a trade deal and reduces the risk of further immediate damage to your economy. Besides, is there an actual contract, with clear penalties, for this $750B purchase? I'll be surprised if it actually happens. I think EU negotiators are well aware that Trump doesn't care about what is in the deal, just that he "wins".
- joemaniaci 1y ago
  The penalty is upsetting Trump if they try to pretend they're doing it.
  - 3D30497420 1y ago
    Sure, but this is always a risk with him. Maybe you buy $100B of natural gas, but have the temerity to regulate an American company he likes and he slaps you with punitive tariffs. Or he doesn't like something else with your domestic politics. He's not a rule-based actor or cares about anything but loyalty and subservience to him. I'm guessing a lot of of people/countries are aiming to just string him along as long as possible.
    - dboreham 1y ago
      Also he probably won't be around that long.
    - joemaniaci 1y ago
      Fair

codyb 1y ago

Judging by the way the US is going... are they just gonna lock themselves in to their next adversary's fuel? At least we were an ally at the start of this of this trend

FaridIO 1y ago
You're extrapolating one somewhat rude adiplomatic president to America going to war with Europe? That's enough internet for you, sir. Time to go for a walk.
- dboreham 1y ago
  And vice president, and congress/senate/scotus that enables them.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  > You're extrapolating one somewhat rude adiplomatic president to America going to war with Europe? This is hugely downplaying Trump and his role in the world and domestically.
- codyb 1y ago
  I didn't say go to war, I said adversarial. Adiplomatic is... _very mild_ considering the threats he's made about taking over Greenland and Canada. Bluster or not, the fact is... the President of the United States is openly talking about it, and currently using the military and all it's levers quite actively here and abroad.
- 8note 1y ago
  Russia is not at war with Europe, its at war with Ukraine. Both the US and Russia are currently trying to influence the EU to do things that aren't what EU citizens want. per the drunk signal text leak, Europe's shipping is being negatively impacted by the American Israel/Gaza stance, to the extent that the US has made up for it by bombing the Houthis. ...which says both that the US is an ongoing problem for europe, but that the relationship isnt nearly so shaky as it seems. Trump is getting US strategic goals in Europe, to make Europe pay for anti-Russia preparedness, while the US focuses on anti-China.

comrade1234 1y ago

I don't think the "EU" buys fuel. It's individual countries. The promise by the EU to buy LNG was empty. What country is going to buy it?

ahartmetz 1y ago
Germany, for instance. LNG terminals on the North Sea were built in record time.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Germany had an unpaid energy karma debt for stupidly decomm'ing their nuclear power for political reasons without a viable technical solution. Russia might not have made the decision to invade Ukraine if Germany hadn't tied its energy needs so transparently to Russian natural gas. And absent blowing up Nord Stream, might have hung Ukraine out to dry anyway. So having to rapidly build LNG import terminals? Repaying that debt.
  - oezi 1y ago
    Gas and electricity prices are somewhat intertwined but not as much as you make it seem. Gas is primarily used in Germany for heating and Nuclear electricity doesn't help with this. Germany fully realizes that Gas is only an intermediate tech which still is relevant for the next 15-20 years.
  - croes 1y ago
    Nuclear Power is too expensive, the power plants too old, still to place for nuclear waste and the operators didn’t want to continue.
    - ahartmetz 1y ago
      A surprisingly large percentage is used in industry, more than residential even: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage/verbrauch-von-erdgas-in-deutschland-nach-abnehmergruppen-2009/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage... Regarding nuclear, the electricity companies didn't want to continue after they had already prepared to shut down the reactors. Maintenance was deferred, people let go or reassigned, etc.

meindnoch 1y ago

We just need to wait out the inevitable collapse and breakup of Russia, then we can go in and scoop up the energy resources. This time it has to be a more hands-on approach, to not repeat the same mistake that we made at the end of the Cold War.

vpinkeroff 1y ago
[dead]

probablypower 1y ago

There are a lot of posts here pushing batteries. Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids. Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up. A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.

fulafel 1y ago
There's not really a choice in replacing fossils with renewables&nuclear if we want to mitigate the climate catastrophe.
myrmidon 1y ago
Demand side management is a nice concept, but it is neither free nor a cure-all: It has real costs because it limits the utilization of involved infrastructure and is simply not feasible for a lot of industries. It does not help when residential demand exceeds the available supply either. The most practical solution will probably be a mix of overprovisioning (especially considering how cheap solar panels have become), battery storage and fuel powered fallback, with the balance shifting as long as batteries and panels get cheaper. Grid level battery storage is already coming online at scale (e.g. https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up-uks-largest-battery-at-300-mw-thurrock-storage/ https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up...). LiFePo cells are already down to ~$60 for 1kWh (8000 cycles), which is pretty palatable for a lot of applications and prices still trend down.
nradov 1y ago
Demand side response drives up costs a lot. You end up with expensive, rapidly depreciating capital equipment sitting idle and not earning any revenue. The same problem applies whether the equipment is a GPU cluster or aluminum smelter. If we're going to have a modern industrial economy then we need to have enormous quantities of cheap electrical power available 24 hours a day. Long distance high voltage transmission lines can help to an extent but create the same sort of concerns about dependence on unreliable foreign countries as fossil fuel imports.

jillesvangurp 1y ago

At the relatively high cost US LNG gets imported, it creates a big incentive to start considering alternatives. A lot of the investment commitments will probably never be delivered. Fundamentally, a lot of states in the EU will have to sell this to their voters and tax payers and that's where this stuff will slowly die. Because it's a hard sell. LNG imports will be demand driven, not supply driven. And demand is going to decrease over time; not increase. That calls into question the need for more infrastructure. On both sides. Germany already topped up its reserves for the coming winter; ahead of schedule. There is no shortage. The US is building a big LNG bubble with investments that might end up under water. What happens if demand flattens and decreases mid to long term, as can reasonably be expected at this point? Can the US sustain high LNG prices when cheaper sources become available? What will high export prices do for domestic pricing for energy? How eager will investors be to make big multi decade investments in this (given all this)? The existing terminals are underutilized already (below 50%). It's hard to see where all this extra demand to fill even more terminals is going to come from. There is no urgency for any of this on the EU side. However there is quite a bit of urgency on lowering energy prices for industry and consumers. LNG is not the way to do that. I don't see that changing.

nradov 1y ago
Germany has enough natural gas reserves to keep people from freezing to death but not enough to keep their chemical manufacturing industry alive. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/german-chemical-sector-running-lowest-capacity-more-than-30-years-vci-says-2025-09-03/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

cantor_S_drug 1y ago

I don't understand economics that much or how money works. But is the following possible in a clandestine manner? US and EU provide each other money through swaplines by printing freshly created respective currencies and exchanging them. Then EU can use those dollars to buy US LNG. Is this a far fetched idea? This is like undercover QE.

HDThoreaun 1y ago
why would the US gov want euros?
- cantor_S_drug 1y ago
  Something like this https://x.com/FedGuy12/status/1970010162741346356 https://x.com/FedGuy12/status/1970010162741346356 South Korea is suggesting that their $350b investment in the U.S. is so large it requires an FX swap line, which in turn implies that the Fed would be the ultimate financier of the investment.

Anonyneko 1y ago

I don't know when Europe managed to "escape Russian energy dependence" as it still seems to be buying tremendous amounts of Russian fossil fuels that are now branded as Turkish, Indian, Azeri, the list goes on.

barney54 1y ago
Europe has been dependent on Russian oil and gas for many years--and still is continuing to buy Russian natural gas. In fact, the EU imported €4.4 billion worth of Russian gas in the first half of 2025. https://www.brusselstimes.com/1707644/eu-imported-e4-4-billion-worth-of-russian-lng-in-first-half-of-2025 https://www.brusselstimes.com/1707644/eu-imported-e4-4-billi...
noselasd 1y ago
Do the list go on ? For gas Q2 2025, figure 5 at https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports it's UK 5,6% Azerbadjan 3,8% Algeria 12,5% Norway 30,1% Other LNG 9,4% USA LNG 27,2% Russia 11,5% Most of the "Other LNG" comes from Turkstream in the underlying data. Edit: I was wrong, Turkstream is included in "Russia", other sources points to Qatar and Nigeria being the largest part of "Other LNG" If I read it right, for oil in Q1 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_latest_developments https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... United States 15,0% Norway 13,5% Kazakhstan 12,7% Libya 9,0% Saudi Arabia 6,6% Nigeria 6,3% United Kingdom 5,2% Iraq 4,5% Guyana 4,3% Brazil 4,1% Azerbaijan 4,1% Algeria 3,4% Russia 2,5% Mexico 2,1% Other 6,6%
jesterson 1y ago
Exactly at the moment people start buying BS from Brussels's ursula, roberta and rest of corrupted clique.

amai 1y ago

Wat? Most of European countries buy gas from Norway, Algeria and other countries. The US share is just 16.5 %. That is not really a lock in. That is just diversification. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...

seydor 1y ago

Completely unsustainable position

seatac76 1y ago

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/15/trump-trade-deal-european-union-energy/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/15/trump-trade-deal-europe... A good article on the energy politics between US and EU.

floppiplopp 1y ago

"Let's not buy from Russia, it's an overt dictatorship lazily cosplaying as a democracy that's waging wars on other nations and killing innocent civilians."