What do you think of European energy policy?
I see two essential governance problems. In the first place, at the European level, due to the division of energy responsibilities into four areas: environment , industry , foreign policy and competition, without there being a figure who summarizes them. A second error was the at least confused division of responsibilities between the Member States and the European Union, a source of further errors. I must say that I was among the first to talk about it. A few days ago, the same European Commissioner for Energy, the German Günther Oettinger, seems to have made his "mea culpa". And Germany's new super-minister of energy and vice-chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, also acknowledged that we made dramatic mistakes. In particular, he recognized that there was a need to backtrack on renewable energies. One of the best examples of this governance problem was seeing how the “3×20” target set in 2008 by the European Union was applied. This has led Member States to interpret these objectives disastrously. Three countries, Germany, Spain and Italy, have created renewable energy subsidies that have annihilated the consumer. In Germany, every household had an annual surcharge of 220 euros on their electricity bill and will continue to do so for another 20 years. And while the American consumer saves 1.300 dollars a year thanks to shale gas, German families are severely penalised. This is why the new German grand coalition is preparing today to overhaul its energy policy.
At least a limit had to be set for them. Renewable energies have been strongly encouraged. The price of coal has collapsed. The CO2 reduction benefits of using green energy have been absorbed by the negatives of coal. Excessive subsidies have led to large investments in wind and solar energy, which have priority access to grids at fixed prices for 20 years and above market prices. It has become the easiest job in the world.
France experiences the problem with less anxiety than the rest of Europe, because it remains privileged by its choice for nuclear power. It should be remembered in this regard that when De Gaulle opted for nuclear power, with the support of Maurice Thorez's Communist Party, they didn't do it because it was cheaper. They did it to ensure France's energy independence: it is it was a strategic choice of the country in the long term. But today, at European level, if we don't address the issue of shale gas, we are resigned to losing the entire energy-consuming industry. Because the cost differential with the United States is so significant that all new investment will be concentrated there, with the possibility of business transfers being excluded. With all its current problems, can Europe resign itself to this sad fate for the next 10-20 years? I do not think so. Competitive energy must be top of the agenda for European industrial policy.
Personally, I see two avenues to explore. First, let's try to see if the shale gas revolution we saw in the United States can be experienced in Europe. Let's see if there are deposits, if it's exploitable, competitive, compatible with the environment… Before saying no to shale gas, we need to know what we're talking about. As always, the most pragmatic country on the matter was England, while France has a more ideological stance. François Hollande said: "As long as I am the president, there will be no shale gas." I wish him not to be president for too long because he risks having a problem on that front. Why exclude it without knowing what it is about? To say never without thoroughly exploring such a vital topic seems absurd to me.
You spoke of another alternative way available to Europe. What would that be?
The other political path would be to ally with Russia. But with this country, which has almost unlimited gas resources at very low cost, we Europeans have so far established conflicting political relations. The European Union's relations with Russia are purely commercial. At Eni level, we have had excellent relations with Russia for over 40 years. With Rosneft, we have an agreement for the exploration of hydrocarbons in the Barents Sea and the Russian Black Sea. As for Gazprom, we have a commercial contract with them to bring gas prices in line with European ones. The problem is that gas in the US sells for $4 per million BTUs (British Thermal Units). In Europe, it sells for 11-12 dollars. Through commercial negotiations, it can go from 12 to 10, but it remains double the American price. To move to 4, you have to find shale gas in Europe or treat Russia as a partner. Because Russia itself has an interest in Europe not being deindustrialised. But the best way to deal with Russians is not to lecture them every day. We Westerners sometimes have much more tolerant attitudes towards regimes even more distant from our culture than Russia. We tend to teach Russia democracy, forgetting other certainly less democratic countries.
