Europe Gas Tracker Report 2020 methodology

Methodology

The Europe Gas Tracker uses a two-level system for organizing information. Summary data is maintained in Google sheets, with each spreadsheet row linked to a page on GEM.wiki. Each wiki page functions as a footnoted fact sheet for a particular piece of infrastructure, containing project parameters, background, and mapping coordinates. Each worksheet row tracks an individual project.

Under standard wiki convention, each piece of information is linked to a published reference, such as a news article, company report, or regulatory permit. In order to ensure data integrity in the open-access wiki environment, Global Energy Monitor researchers review all edits of project wiki pages by unknown editors. For each project, one of the following status categories is assigned and reviewed on a rolling basis:

• Proposed: Projects that have appeared in corporate or government plans in either pre-permit or permitted stages.
• Construction: Site preparation and other development and construction activities are underway.
• Shelved: In the absence of an announcement that the sponsor is putting its plans on hold, a project is considered “shelved” if there are no reports of activity over a period of two years.
• Cancelled: In some cases a sponsor announces that it has cancelled a project. More often a project fails to advance and then quietly disappears from company documents. A project that was previously in an active category is changed to “cancelled” if it disappears from company documents, even if no announcement is made. In the absence of a cancellation announcement, a project is considered “cancelled” if there are no reports of activity over a period of four years.
• Operating: The project has been formally commissioned or has entered commercial operation.
• Mothballed: Previously operating projects that are not operating but maintained for potential restart.
• Retired: Permanently closed projects.

To allow easy public access to the results, Global Energy Monitor worked with GreenInfo Network to develop a map-based and table-based interface using the Leaflet Open-Source JavaScript library, publicly viewable at Europe Gas Tracker.

Data sources for figures

Figure 1: Cost of future EU gas infrastructure, by country

Summary of data from GEM's EU gas survey, data gathered October 2019 through January 2020. See "Methodology" above for general information about GEM's surveys and classification of projects. For details on particular subsets of the data, see notes on Tables 3 and 4 (pipelines), Tables 5 and 6 (LNG import terminals), and Table 7 (gas-fired power plants).

Table 1: Future gas infrastructure proposed or under construction in EU countries

Summary of data from GEM's EU gas survey. For details on particular subsets of the data, see notes on Tables 3 and 4 (pipelines), Tables 5 and 6 (LNG import terminals), and Table 7 (gas-fired power plants).

Table 2: Future gas infrastructure on the 4th List of Projects of Common Interest

Summary of data from GEM's EU gas survey. For details on particular subsets of the data, see notes on Tables 3 and 4 (pipelines), Tables 5 and 6 (LNG import terminals), and Table 7 (gas-fired power plants).

Figure 2. EU greenhouse gas emissions 1990-2017

• Data for CO2 emissions from fuel combustion from IEA Data and Statistics, category CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions by energy source.
• Data for total CO2-equivalent emissions from all sources from European Environment Agency, Greenhouse gas emissions by aggregated sector.
• Note: In the report text, it is noted: "in 2018 fossil gas likely surpassed coal to become the EU’s second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after oil." This was based on the data sources above, as well as Eurostat data for consumption of natural gas and coal in 2018. The percentage change from 2017 to 2018 was calculated from Eurostat data, and those percentage changes were applied to IEA emissions data to estimate that in 2018, EU emissions from natural gas exceeded those of coal."

Figure 3. EU uses of fossil gas in 2017

• Data from IEA Data and Statistics, Data tables for uses of natural gas.

Figure 4: Fossil gas consumption

• Historical: Eurostat energy database. Annual fossil gas consumption for 1990-2017 from the series "Supply, transformation and consumption of gas (nrg_cb_gas)." Annual fossil gas consumption for 2018 estimated based on Eurostat's statement that monthly data shows fossil gas consumption decreased 2.4% from 2017 to 2018.
• European Commission: From "A Clean Planet for All". Consumption of natural gas from Figure 28. Data extracted using WebPlotDigitizer, and average of 1.5TECH and 1.5LIFE scenarios calculated.
• IEA: World Energy Outlook 2019,, Sustainable Development scenario, Annex A, Table A.1, Fossil Fuel Demand, line for "natural gas."
• ENTSOG: Ten Year Network Development Plan 2020, average of two low-emissions scenarios, "Distributed Energy" and "Global Ambition", as shown in Figures 24 and 25. Data extracted from the graphs using WebPlotDigitizer.

Figure 5: Fossil gas imports

• Historical imports (net): Eurostat energy database, gross gas imports from series Imports of natural gas by partner country (nrg_ti_gas); gross gas exports from series Exports of natural gas by partner country (nrg_te_gas). Net imports calculated by GEM as gross imports minus gross exports.
• European Commission: From "A Clean Planet for All" Natural gas imports shown in Figure 35. Data extracted using WebPlotDigitizer, and average of 1.5TECH and 1.5LIFE scenarios calculated.
• IEA: From World Energy Outlook 2019, imports inferred from EU gas consumption (Annex A, Table A.1) minus EU gas production (Annex A, Table A.3: Energy demand – European Union).
• ENTSOG: Ten Year Network Development Plan 2020,, Figures 24 and 25; calculated average of Distributed Energy and Global Ambition scenarios. Data extracted from the graphs using WebPlotDigitizer. For fossil gas imports, counted the categories "imported unabated," "imports for methane demand," "imported unabated," and "imports for hydrogen demand" (the latter defined as "natural gas converted to hydrogen at import point/city gas or direct hydrogen imports." Other data in the report was consistent with "imports for hydrogen demand" being entirely or nearly entirely composed of fossil gas.

Figure 5 (continued): Gas import capacity

• Historical import capacity: The capacity to import gas into the EU, by either pipeline or through LNG terminals, based on historical data.
  • For pipelines: ENTSOG data on capacity for imports into the EU at cross-border interconnection points.
  • For LNG terminals: GEM's EU gas infrastructure survey, drawing from GEM's Global Fossil Infrastructure Tracker; capacities for 2010 and 2019 based on all terminals that were built up to the specified year. Wiki pages for each terminal contain references for their data.
• Projection of EU gas import capacity based historical capacity above and GEM's EU gas infrastructure survey of gas pipelines crossing EU borders and LNG terminals, either under construction or proposed. The projection used the following assumptions:
  • Assumes linear implementation of projects currently under construction between 2020 and 2025. For pipelines, those entering EU are: Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline, Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline, and Poland Ukraine Interconnector Pipeline. For LNG terminals, all within EU are assumed to supply the EU.
  • Assumes linear implementation of projects currently in pre-construction development between 2023 and 2030. For pipelines, those entering EU are: East Med Gas Pipeline, Baltic Pipe Project, Israel Cyprus Gas Pipeline, and White Stream Gas Pipeline. For LNG terminals, all within EU are assumed to supply the EU.
  • Assumes no further projects entering development.
  • Assumes no retirement of gas pipelines for import into the EU that were in operation in 2019. Data from GEM's Global Fossil Infrastructure Tracker shows that nearly all major gas transmission pipelines that supply the EU were built in the 1970s or later. Data from the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG) also shows that nearly all of Europe's gas transmission pipelines were built since 1970, and by 2016 the average age was 32 years. By 2050, the average age of the gas transmission pipelines existing in 2019 would be about 65 years, with nearly all under 80 years old. A major gas pipeline completed in 1967, the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod pipeline (also known as the Brotherhood Pipeline), is still operating in 2020, indicating a lifetime of at least 50 years. For more recently built gas pipelines, it is reasonable to assume 80-year lifetimes. Gas pipeline failures of all types have been reduced about 80% since the 1970s. EGIG argues: "The decrease may be explained by technological developments, such as: welding, inspection, condition monitoring using in-line inspection and improved procedures for damage prevention and detection. Improvements in the prevention of external interference incidents may be explained by a more stringent enforcement of land use planning and the application of one-call systems for the digging activities of external parties." Therefore, we assumed that all gas pipelines in operation in 2019 can be maintained and repaired as needed to continue operating through 2050.
  • Assumes no retirement of EU LNG import terminals that were in operation in 2019. GEM's GFIT shows LNG terminals that are still operating in 2020 that were built around 50 years earlier, such as Barcelona LNG Terminal (Spain, 1969), Negishi LNG Terminal (Japan, 1969), Everett Marine Terminal (United States, 1971), Panigaglia LNG Terminal (Italy, 1971), Fos Tonkin LNG Terminal (France, 1972), Senboku 1 LNG Terminal (Japan, 1972), and Sodegaura LNG Terminal (Japan 1973). GEM's GFIT indicates only one LNG import terminal in Europe has been retired, Teesside GasPort LNG Terminal (United Kingdom, 2007), which retired in 2015 after only 8 years in operation, but there are plans to bring it back into operation. One other, El Musel LNG Terminal (Spain, 2012), has been mothballed since its completion due to a legal decision revoking its permits. Older LNG import terminals, such as Fos Tonkin LNG Terminal, have been refurbished to extend their lifetimes, at a fraction of the cost of building a new LNG terminal. Thus, we assume that LNG terminals existing in 2019 would still be operating in 2050, either within their normal lifetime or that they could be refurbished and continue operating.
  • If we had instead used a very conservative assumption that gas pipelines have a lifetime of 60 years, then by 2050, any pipelines built before 1990 would be retired. Data from GEM's Global Fossil Infrastructure Tracker indicates this would remove about 250 bcm/year of import capacity into the EU, from the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod pipeline (1967), Norpipe Gas Pipeline (1977), Vesterled Gas Pipeline (1978), Soyuz Gas Pipeline (1978), Trans-Mediterranean Gas Pipeline (1983), Northern Lights Gas Pipeline (1985), and Minsk-Kaliningrad Interconnection (1985). This capacity of 250 bcm/year retired is comparable to the 234 bcm/year of pipeline and LNG terminal capacity that is under construction and proposed as of January 2020. In this case, total EU import capacity after the retirement of these pipelines would be 691 bcm/year, only slightly lower than the 2019 capacity of 707 bcm/year.

Table 3: Pipelines on the 4th List of Projects of Common Interest and Table 4: Other future EU gas pipelines

• Includes pipelines under construction or proposed that are at least partially within the EU, or are on the European Commission's 4th List of Projects of Common Interest (PCI). For pipelines not on the 4th PCI list, inclusion in GEM's survey was based on information from varied sources, including ENTSOG's Ten Year Network Development Plan 2020, company announcements, and news articles. Specific sources for each pipeline are listed in the pipeline's wiki page on GEM.wiki.
• Pipeline routes and lengths: Pipeline routes were determined from various sources, including maps in company announcements or in news articles. Approximate routes were then geocoded in latitude and longitude. Pipeline lengths within each country were based on analysis using Shapely and Geopandas, assigning portions of each pipeline to countries based on country borders for land and Exclusive Economic Zone maritime borders from Marine Regions, Version 2 - 2014 (created from EEZ version 8). If sources indicated the total length of the pipeline, then all calculations in Shapely were scaled proportionally to ensure that the portions eithin each country based on the approximate route would sum to the actual total length of the pipeline.
• Pipeline costs: If the cost for the pipeline was explicitly stated, that cost was used in GEM's EU gas survey, and the source is noted on the pipeline's wiki page. If the cost for the pipeline was not explicitly stated, it was assumed to cost 4.75 million USD per kilometer, following the methodology in GEM's 2019 report "Pipeline Bubble." We used an exchange rate of 1 USD = 0.90 euro.

Table 5: Planned EU LNG import terminals on the 4th PCI List and Table 6: Other planned EU LNG import terminals

• Includes liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals under construction or proposed that are within the EU. For LNG terminals not on the European Commission's 4th List of Projects of Common Interest, inclusion in GEM's survey was based on information from varied sources, including ENTSOG's Ten Year Network Development Plan 2020, company announcements, and news articles. Specific sources for each LNG terminal are listed in the terminal's wiki page on GEM.wiki.
• LNG terminal costs: If we were able to identify an explicit cost estimate for the terminal, that cost was used in GEM's EU gas survey, and the source is noted on the terminal's wiki page. If were not able to identify a cost estimate for the terminal, GEM estimated the cost based on values from the International Gas Union, that land-based terminals cost 274 USD per metric ton of LNG import capacity, and that floating terminals cost 129 USD per metric ton of LNG import capacity. We used an exchange rate of 1 USD = 0.90 euro.

Figure 6: Alternative sources of methane

• Historical biogas consumption: Eurostat energy database, Complete energy balances (nrg_bal_c), SIEC R5300 Biogases
• European Commission: From "A Clean Planet for All," consumption of "biogas and waste gas" and "e-gas" (synthesized methane) shown in Figure 31. Data extracted using WebPlotDigitizer, and average of 1.5TECH and 1.5LIFE scenarios calculated.
• IEA: World Energy Outlook 2019, Sustainable Development Scenario, biomethane consumption in Figure 13.14. The report argues that low-carbon synthetic methane has high costs of around $60/MBtu. "Cost reductions of around 50% are expected by 2040 from improvements in electrolysers, renewable electricity generation and methanation equipment. However these reductions are not sufficient for low-carbon synthetic methane to play a meaningful role before 2040 in the Sustainable Development Scenario." Therefore low-carbon synthetic methane is assumed to be zero through 2040.
• ENTSOG: Ten Year Network Development Plan 2020, average of two low-emissions scenarios, "Distributed Energy" and "Global Ambition", as shown in Figures 24 and 25, in the columns "Power to methane" and "Biomethane." Data extracted from the graphs using WebPlotDigitizer.

Figure 7: Gas consumption for electricity generation

• Historical: IEA World Energy Outlook 2019 and earlier editions.
• European Commission: From "A Clean Planet for All," uses of fossil gas by sector shown in Figure 28 and uses of biogas and waste gas by sector shown in Figure 29. Data extracted using WebPlotDigitizer, and average of 1.5TECH and 1.5LIFE scenarios calculated.
• IEA: World Energy Outlook 2019, Sustainable Development Scenario, natural gas consumption by the power sector in Table A.3: Energy demand – European Union.
• ENTSOG: Ten Year Network Development Plan 2020, average of two low-emissions scenarios, "Distributed Energy" and "Global Ambition", as shown in Figure 40. Data extracted from the graphs using WebPlotDigitizer.

Figure 8: EU grants from public funds for gas infrastructure included as Projects of Common Interest

• Annual EU spending on Projects of Common interest.

Conversion factors

For all figures: used conversion from energy units to volume units of 38.54 TJ / million cubic meters, based on ratio of energy to volume data for EU natural gas in Eurostat energy database, , series Supply, transformation and consumption of gas (nrg_cb_gas).

Abbreviations used

• bcm = billion cubic meters (of fossil gas)
• GFIT = Global Fossil Infrastructure Tracker (GEM project)