Europe Gas Tracker Report 2022 methodology
Data sources and methodology
Data sources
The analysis in the Europe Gas Tracker Report 2022 is based on a March 2022 version of the Europe Gas Tracker dataset. See notes on the methodology behind the Europe Gas Tracker at the bottom of this page.
Notes on specific infrastructure projects
- Nigeria-Morocco Gas Pipeline: at the time of writing, this had entered construction, but the sections that terminate in Spain and Portugal were considered proposed.
- Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline: at the time of writing, Nord Stream 2 was completed but was considered shelved, as there was no evidence that it would become operational in the near-term.
Pipeline length calculations
Throughout the report, pipeline length plays an important role in extrapolating costs of building pipeline infrastructure. For pipelines that cross national borders, we have calculated the fraction of that pipeline within a given country based on the route that we have in our database. We use the actual pipeline length multiplied by this fraction to calculate kilometers within a given country. If length is not available, we calculate it based on the route alone.
Figures
Figure 1: Estimated cost of future EU gas pipelines and terminals by country
For Figure 1, costs were calculated separately for pipelines, onshore LNG terminals, and offshore LNG terminals.
Costs were reconstructed from totaling pipeline kilometers and LNG import terminal capacity, and using cost estimates as follows:
- An average pipeline cost of €3.42 million per kilometer is assumed for the EU-27 countries; capacity expansion projects, where no new pipeline kilometers are built, are not included in these cost estimates.
- Costs for LNG terminals per unit rate of volume transport are differentiated for floating and onshore terminals.
- For floating (offshore) terminals, a cost of €102.38 million per bcm/y capacity is used
- For onshore terminals, a cost of €184.88 million per bcm/y capacity is used.
Gas pipeline costs
Gas pipeline costs were calculated for each country by dividing estimated costs to build a given pipeline (in €) by the estimated kilometers of that pipeline, then averaged for the full EU-27. Only pipelines that had both a known length and estimated cost in the database were used to calculate costs.
Special cases in the GEM database:
- Adriatica Pipeline: Phases 3, 4, and 5 together cost €1.384 billion; their lengths were totaled (141+174+114 km = 425 km), and this was used as a data point in cost estimates.
- Pipelines that were considered cost outliers and not used in calculations were: Nord Stream Gas Pipeline, Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline, and South Stream Gas Pipeline.
Onshore LNG terminal costs
All expansion projects were removed before calculating costs, and a total of 11 projects was used to estimate an EU-27-wide onshore terminal cost of €184.88 million per bcm/y (see table below). This was done by dividing estimated costs to build each terminal (in €) by the total planned or operating capacity (in bcm/y).
Special cases in the GEM database:
- Ravenna LNG Terminal: the cost was estimated at €100 million for a capacity of 0.001 bcm/y; this was considered an outlier and not included in LNG terminal cost estimates.
| Name | Country | Status (2022) | Capacity (bcm/y) | Cost (millions of € per bcm/y) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paldiski LNG Terminal | Estonia | Proposed | 2.450000 | 163.398708 |
| Tallinn LNG Terminal | Estonia | Shelved | 3.670000 | 68.082795 |
| Hamina LNG Terminal | Finland | Construction | 0.140000 | 735.294186 |
| Brunsbüttel LNG Terminal | Germany | Proposed | 8.000000 | 56.250000 |
| Shannon LNG Terminal Phase I | Ireland | Proposed | 2.800000 | 232.142857 |
| Porto Empedocle LNG Terminal | Italy | Shelved | 8.160000 | 79.656870 |
| Gran Canaria LNG Terminal | Spain | Proposed | 1.360000 | 199.632372 |
| Tenerife LNG Terminal | Spain | Cancelled | 1.360000 | 220.588256 |
| Stade LNG Terminal | Germany | Proposed | 12.000000 | 83.333333 |
| HIGAS LNG Terminal | Italy | Operating | 0.410000 | 93.627460 |
| Polish Baltic Sea Coast Terminal | Poland | Proposed | 6.100000 | 101.639344 |
Offshore (floating) LNG terminal costs
All expansion projects were removed before calculating costs, and a total of 10 projects was used to estimate an EU-27-wide offshore terminal cost of €102.38 million per bcm/y (see table below). This was done by dividing estimate costs to build the terminal (in €) by total planned or operating capacity (in bcm/y).
| Name | Country | Status | Capacity (bcm/y) | Cost (millions of € per bcm/y) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krk LNG Terminal | Croatia | Operating | 2.72 | 85.882361 |
| Krk LNG Terminal Phase 2 | Croatia | Proposed | 4.35 | 110.064349 |
| Cyprus LNG Terminal | Cyprus | Construction | 0.82 | 382.352977 |
| Wilhelmshaven FSRU Terminal | Germany | Proposed | 10.00 | 63.596491 |
| Toscana LNG Terminal | Italy | Operating | 3.81 | 144.432787 |
| Klaipeda LNG Terminal | Lithuania | Operating | 3.94 | 25.535937 |
| Alexandroupolis LNG Terminal | Greece | Proposed | 6.10 | 47.540984 |
| Cork FSRU Terminal | Ireland | Cancelled | 4.00 | 31.250000 |
| Skulte LNG Terminal | Latvia | Proposed | 6.20 | 17.741935 |
| Dioriga FSRU Terminal | Greece | Proposed | 2.60 | 115.384615 |
Figure 2: Historical consumption and future scenarios for EU-27 fossil gas
All data below were converted to units of bcm/y to produce Figure 2. Conversion factors were estimated using BP Statistical Review of World Energy approximate conversion factor tables.
- Historical data (purple line) show EU natural gas consumption combined from the European Commission’s 2020 statistical pocketbook and monthly commodity balance energy statistics from the EC's Eurostat database.
- The EC's statistical pocketbook is only released every two years, and the 2021 version was not available at the time of writing, so we have used the 2020 version which includes data up to 2019.
- To fill in 2020 and 2021, we used commodity balance statistics from the Eurostat database; specifically, we used the "IC_OBS,G3000,MIO_M3" variable within "nrg_cb_gasm" (monthly commodity balance energy data) for each EU-27 member state. At the time of writing (March 2022), 2021 monthly energy data were still not available for Estonia, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, and Croatia.
- IEA scenario (dark blue line) shows projected consumption for the Sustainable Development Scenario from the World Energy Outlook 2021, taken from Table A.12 in Annex A, Tables for Scenario Projections.
- European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG, light blue line) is the average of two low-emissions scenarios in Figure 27 of the Ten Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) 2022 Draft Scenario Report.
- European Commission scenario (green line) portrays the average of three scenarios achieving 55% emissions reductions by 2030, from the 2030 Climate Target Plan.
Figure 3/ES1: EU-27 gas net imports and net import capacity
All data below were converted to units of bcm/y to produce Figure 3. Conversion factors were estimated using BP Statistical Review of World Energy approximate conversion factor tables.
- Historical data (purple line) show historical gas imports inferred by subtracting gas produced from gas consumed within EU-27 boundaries. Gas production and consumption data were taken from the European Commission's statistical pocketbook and country-level datasheets. A 2021 version of the dataset was used, but because the pocketbook provides biannual data, consumption data were only available out through 2019 at the time of writing (March 2022).
- Blue and pink shading show historical and future natural gas import capacity (sum of pipelines and LNG terminals).
- Blue shading until 2021 shows net EU-27 natural gas imports (imports minus exports) from ENTSOG pipeline transmission capacity maps for 2010–2021, plus all historical net LNG capacity (imports minus exports) in the GEM Europe Gas Tracker database. The portion from pipelines was reconstructed by totaling all EU-27 import and export capacities at interconnection points along the borders for each ENTSOG map during 2010–2021.
- Blue shading during 2022 onward shows the total of operating pipeline and LNG terminal capacity (described in the bullet point above), plus any pipelines and terminals in construction as of March 2022, with their capacities being ramped up linearly to reach maximum within five years. These data are from the GEM Europe Gas Tracker database.
- Pink shading shows all proposed gas pipeline and LNG import terminal capacity, with capacities being ramped up linearly to reach maximum within 10 years. These data are from the GEM Europe Gas Tracker database.
- Blue lined section shows the maximum physical transmission capacity of pipelines importing into the EU-27 from non-EU countries along the eastern border. This is meant to represent a conservative estimate of the maximum possible amount of pipeline import capacity possible from Russia (around 247 bcm/y). This was calculated by totaling import capacity, though in practice Russian import volumes are much less, because (1) these interconnection points also carry gas from producers like Turkey and Azerbaijan, and (2) the capacities represent maximum rates of volume that the pipelines can withstand, rather than the actual volumes they carry throughout the year. See the end of this methodology documentation for more discussion on assumptions going into this Russia region in Figure 3.
- IEA scenario (blue dash-dot line) shows inferred net import needs, calculated as the difference between projected demand and EU production for the Sustainable Development Scenario from the World Energy Outlook 2021, taken from Table A.11 in Annex A, Tables for Scenario Projections.
- ENTSOG (blue dotted line) shows the average gas import projections of two low-emissions scenarios in Figure 31 of the TYNDP 2022 Draft Scenario Report.
- European Commission scenario (green dashed line) portrays the average natural gas imports of three scenarios achieving 55% emissions reductions by 2030 from the EC’s 2030 Climate Target Plan.
These calculations assume no retirement of currently operating infrastructure and no new project development beyond what is currently announced.
Figure 4: Eastern EU
Figure 5: Western EU
Figure 6: Southern EU
Tables
Table 1. Gas import infrastructure commissioned in 2021
| Name | Capacity (bcm/y) |
|---|---|
| Medgaz Gas Pipeline capacity expansion | 2.5 |
| Serbian-Hungarian Gas Pipeline | 6.0 |
| HIGAS LNG Terminal | 0.4 |
| Krk LNG Terminal | 2.7 |
| Ravenna LNG Terminal | 0.001 |
| Total | 11.6 |
Table 2. Delayed projects
| Name | Countries | Est. cost (million €) | Delay in start dates, and
status where known |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pipelines | |||
| Black Sea Shore-Podisor Gas Pipeline | Romania | 360 | From 2020 to 2022/2023 |
| Celorico-Spanish Border Gas Pipeline | Portugal | 115 | From 2022 to 2025; no reported construction start |
| Interconnector Greece Bulgaria | Bulgaria, Greece | 240 | From 2021 to 2022; in doubt |
| Ionian Adriatic Gas Pipeline (IAP) | Albania, Montenegro, Croatia | 586 | 2025; reported to be behind schedule with no construction start |
| Methanization of Sardinia Project | Italy | 600 | From 2021 to 2025 |
| Onești-Gheraesti-Letcani Gas Pipeline | Romania | 131 | 2021; no reported construction start |
| Poland-Ukraine Interconnector | Poland, Ukraine | 160 | 2022; no reported construction start |
| White Stream Gas Pipeline | Georgia, Romania | 4500 | From 2018 to 2024; no reported construction start |
| LNG terminals | |||
| Cyprus LNG Terminal | Cyprus | 312 | From 2021 to 2023; reported construction difficulties |
| Shannon LNG Terminal | Ireland | 650 | From 2022 to unknown; proposed |
| Skulte LNG Terminal | Latvia | 110 | Planned for 2024; still proposed |
| Total (pipelines and LNG terminals) | 7764 | ||
Table 3. Future gas infrastructure in EU countries (under construction or proposed)
| Country | Pipeline length (km) | Pipeline cost (million €) | LNG terminal capacity (bcm/y) | LNG terminal cost (million €) | Total cost (million €) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | 28 | 106 | 106 | ||
| Belgium | 8.2 | 116 | 116 | ||
| Bulgaria | 1,766 | 2,574 | 2,574 | ||
| Croatia | 869 | 1,198 | 4.4 | 479 | 1,677 |
| Cyprus | 832 | 2,436 | 0.8 | 312 | 2,748 |
| Czech Republic | |||||
| Denmark | 424 | 1,454 | 0.1 | 13 | 1,467 |
| Estonia | 2.5 | 400 | 400 | ||
| Finland | 0.1 | 100 | 100 | ||
| France | 10.6 | 3,077 | 3,077 | ||
| Germany | 30.0 | 2,086 | 2,086 | ||
| Greece | 2,319 | 7,995 | 8.7 | 590 | 8,585 |
| Hungary | 461 | 725 | 725 | ||
| Ireland | 26 | 89 | 11.5 | 1,648 | 1,737 |
| Italy | 1,632 | 5,227 | 5,227 | ||
| Latvia | 32 | 26 | 6.2 | 110 | 136 |
| Lithuania | 165 | 184 | 184 | ||
| Luxembourg | |||||
| Malta | 71 | 182 | 182 | ||
| Netherlands | 1.5 | 277 | 277 | ||
| Poland | 1,878 | 3,919 | 9.4 | 1,195 | 5,113 |
| Portugal | 321 | 730 | 730 | ||
| Romania | 2,948 | 3,821 | 8.2 | 1,509 | 5,330 |
| Slovakia | 137 | 239 | 239 | ||
| Slovenia | 496 | 517 | 517 | ||
| Spain | 1,242 | 4,529 | 5.0 | 398 | 4,927 |
| Sweden | 86 | 296 | 296 | ||
| Total | 15,732 | 36,246 | 107.0 | 12,309 | 48,555 |
Table 4. EU gas crisis 2022: LNG import terminal proposals and developments since February
| Name | Country | Project type | Status | Capacity (bcm/y) | Est. cost (million €) | Government backing | Start date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paldiski FSRU Terminal | Estonia | FSRU | Proposed | — | 500 | Yes | 2022 |
| Rostock LNG Terminal | Germany | Unknown | Cancelled in 2021; new project in area is being revived | — | — | Unknown | Unknown |
| Uniper Wilhelmshaven LNG Terminal | Germany | Onshore LNG terminal | Proposed | 20 | — | Unknown | 2025 |
| TES Wilhelmshaven LNG Terminal | Germany | Onshore LNG terminal | Proposed | 10 | — | Promoter is seeking government backing | 2025 |
| Argo FSRU Terminal | Greece | FSRU | Proposed | 4.6 | 226.5 | Yes | 2023 |
| Thrace FSRU Terminal | Greece | FSRU | Proposed | 5.5 | — | Unknown | Unknown |
| Gioia Tauro LNG Terminal | Italy | Onshore LNG terminal | Shelved to Proposed | 12 | 1000 | Yes | 2026 (potentially) |
| Porto Empedocle LNG Terminal | Italy | Onshore LNG terminal | Shelved to Proposed | 8.2 | 650 | Yes | Unknown |
| At leat two new FSRUs | Italy | FSRU | Proposed (speculation) | 10 (minimum) | — | Yes | One by Q3, 2022 |
| Eemshaven FSRU Terminal | Netherlands | FSRU | Proposed | 4 | 300 | Yes | Q3 2022 |
| Gate LNG Terminal | Netherlands | Onshore LNG terminal | Proposed capacity expansion | 5–8 | — | Yes | Unknown |
Table 5: Future gas infrastructure (pipelines and LNG terminals) by EU region
| Construction | Proposed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost (million €) | Import capacity (bcm/y) | Cost (million €) | Import capacity (bcm/y) | |
| Western EU | 0 | 0 | 7204 | 61.7 |
| Eastern EU | 925 | 13.3 | 4795 | 65.8 |
| Southern EU | 312 | 0.8 | 11369 | 34.7 |
| Northern EU | 1850 | 0.1 | 13 | 0.1 |
Table 6: Planned pipelines to import gas into the EU
| Country | Pipeline name | Capacity | Length (km) | Cost (million €) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | ||||
| Denmark | Baltic Pipe Project | 10 | 424 | 1,454 |
| Poland | 102 | 350 | ||
| Sweden | 86 | 296 | ||
| Subtotal | 10 | 613 | 2,100 | |
| Proposed | ||||
| Cyprus | Anamur to North Cyprus Gas Pipeline | 42 | 144 | |
| Croatia | Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia South Interconnection Gas Pipeline | 1.5 | 62 | 213 |
| Greece | East Med Gas Pipeline (with expansion) | 20 | 1,293 | 4,148 |
| Cyprus | 571 | 1,833 | ||
| Romania | Gheraesti-Siret Gas Pipeline | 145 | 124 | |
| Croatia | Ionian Adriatic Gas Pipeline | 5 | 264 | 286 |
| Cyprus | Israel Cyprus Gas Pipeline | 1 | 152 | 217 |
| Bulgaria | Macedonia-Bulgaria Interconnector Gas Pipeline | 30 | 101 | |
| Spain | Nigeria-Morocco Gas Pipeline | 617 | 2,390 | |
| Portugal | 159 | 615 | ||
| Bulgaria | North Macedonia–Bulgaria Gas Pipeline | 5 | 1 | |
| Italy, Greece | Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline (capacity expansion) | 10 | -- | 1,035 |
| Bulgaria | White Stream Gas Pipeline | 32 | 160 | 546 |
| Romania | 118 | 405 | ||
| Subtotal | 69.5 | 3,617 | 12,059 | |
| Grand total | 4,230 | 14,159 | ||
Table 7: Planned EU LNG import terminals
| Country | Terminal name | Capacity (bcm/y) | Cost (million €) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | |||
| Cyprus | Cyprus LNG Terminal (import) | 0.8 | 312 |
| Finland | Hamina LNG Terminal | 0.1 | 100 |
| Poland | Świnoujście Polskie LNG Terminal (expansion) | 2.5 | 427 |
| Poland | Świnoujście Polskie LNG Terminal (expansion 2) | 0.8 | 148 |
| Subtotal | 4.3 | 987 | |
| Proposed | |||
| Greece | Alexandroupolis LNG Terminal | 6.1 | 290 |
| Germany | Brunsbüttel LNG Terminal | 8.0 | 450 |
| Romania | Constanta LNG Terminal | 8.2 | 1,509 |
| Malta | Delimara Onshore LNG Terminal | ||
| Greece | Dioriga FSRU Terminal | 2.6 | 300 |
| France | Fos Cavaou LNG Terminal (expansion 1) | 2.7 | 1,571 |
| France | Fos Cavaou LNG Terminal (expansion 2) | 5.4 | 1,006 |
| Denmark | Frederikshavn LNG Terminal | 0.1 | 13 |
| Netherlands | Gate LNG Terminal (expansion) | 1.5 | 277 |
| Spain | Gran Canaria LNG Terminal | 1.4 | 272 |
| Croatia | Krk LNG Terminal Phase 2 | 4.4 | 479 |
| France | Montoir LNG Terminal (expansion) | 2.5 | 500 |
| Spain | Mugardos LNG Terminal (expansion) | 3.6 | 36 |
| Estonia | Paldiski LNG Terminal | 2.5 | 400 |
| Poland | Polish Baltic Sea Coast Terminal | 6.1 | 620 |
| Ireland | Predator FSRU Terminal | 3.3 | |
| Spain | Puerto de la Luz LNG Terminal | 90 | |
| Finland | Rauma LNG terminal | ||
| Ireland | Shannon LNG Terminal Phase I | 2.8 | 650 |
| Ireland | Shannon LNG Terminal Phase II | 2.1 | 388 |
| Ireland | Shannon LNG Terminal Phase III | 3.3 | 610 |
| Latvia | Skulte LNG Terminal | 6.2 | 110 |
| Germany | Stade LNG Terminal | 12.0 | 1,000 |
| Germany | Wilhelmshaven FSRU Terminal | 10.0 | 636 |
| Belgium | Zeebrugge LNG Terminal, 2024 Expansion | 6.4 | 116 |
| Belgium | Zeebrugge LNG Terminal, 2026 Expansion | 1.8 | |
| Subtotal | 102.7 | 11,322 | |
| Grand total | 107.0 | 12,309 | |
Table 8: Future gas pipelines within the EU
| Country | Pipeline name | Capacity (bcm/y) | Total pipeline length (km) | Length in country (km) | Cost (million Euro) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | |||||
| Bulgaria | Bulgaria-Serbia Interconnector Gas Pipeline | 1.8 | 170 | 62 | 49 |
| Poland | Gas Interconnection Poland-Lithuania (GIPL) | 2.4 | 508 | 343 | 382 |
| Lithuania | 165 | 184 | |||
| Bulgaria | Gas Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria (IGB) | 3 | 184 | 157 | 205 |
| Greece | 27 | 35 | |||
| Poland | Gustorzyn-Wronów Gas Pipeline | 308 | 308 | 1054 | |
| Italy | Methanization of Sardinia Project | 573 | 573 | 615 | |
| Poland | Pogórska-Wola-Tworzen Gas Pipeline | 168 | 168 | 301 | |
| Slovakia | Poland-Slovakia Gas Pipeline | 5.7 | 165 | 108 | 177 |
| Poland | 57 | 93 | |||
| Pipelines with length < 150 km | 610 | 1308 | |||
| Subtotal | 2578 | 4403 | |||
| Proposed | |||||
| Italy | Adriatica Pipeline | 8.8 | 170 | 170 | 582 |
| Romania | BRUA Gas Pipeline | 843 | 843 | 530 | |
| Romania | Black Sea Shore–Podișor Gas Pipeline | 308 | 308 | 360 | |
| Portugal | Celorico-Spanish Border Gas Pipeline | 162 | 162 | 115 | |
| Cyprus | Cyprus-Egypt Gas Pipeline | 8 | 215 | 23 | 93 |
| Romania | Eastring Pipeline | 20 | 1208 | 646 | 1391 |
| Hungary | 299 | 644 | |||
| Bulgaria | 232 | 500 | |||
| Slovakia | 29 | 61 | |||
| Spain | Guitiriz-Zamora-Adradas Gas Pipeline | 625 | 625 | 2140 | |
| Slovenia | Hungary-Slovenia-Italy Interconnector Gas Pipeline | 1.2 | 412 | 250 | 125 |
| Hungary | 161 | 80 | |||
| Italy | 1 | 0 | |||
| Croatia | Interconnector Croatia-Serbia | 7 | 182 | 109 | 93 |
| Cyprus | Israel–Egypt Offshore Gas Pipeline | 10 | 593 | 43 | 149 |
| Italy | Malta-Italy Gas Pipeline | 2 | 159 | 88 | 228 |
| Malta | 71 | 182 | |||
| Romania | North–Vest Romania Pipeline | 518 | 518 | 405 | |
| Croatia | Omišalj-Zlobin-Bosiljevo-Sisak-Kozarac-Slobodnica LNG main evacuation pipeline | 10 | 180 | 180 | 198 |
| Romania | Onești-Gheraesti-Letcani Gas Pipeline | 165 | 165 | 131 | |
| Greece | Poseidon Gas Pipeline | 15 | 976 | 914 | 3183 |
| Italy | 62 | 217 | |||
| Italy | Sealine Tirrenica gas pipeline | 255 | 255 | 873 | |
| Bulgaria | Varna-Oryahovo Gas Pipeline | 844 | 844 | 677 | |
| Pipelines with length < 150 km | 1926 | 4727 | |||
| Subtotal | 8924 | 17685 | |||
| Grand total | 11502 | 22088 | |||
Balancing issues: EU-27 reliance on Russian gas
Treated as a whole, our findings suggest that EU-27 has sufficient natural gas import capacity if Russian pipeline imports, as measured by the striped region in Figure 3, were removed. However, this carries a few assumptions that should guide its interpretation, on which we elaborate below.
Imbalance in location of LNG import capacity
While EU-27 as a whole may have sufficient gas import capacity to not rely on Russian imports, the majority of this excess import capacity is currently in Spain, and analysis by ING suggests that LNG regasification capacity is already at a maximum in early 2022.
Robustness of EU-27 pipeline network to distribute gas imported from the west
Due to the location of LNG import terminals, the bulk of excess natural gas capacity is in Spain, but there is insufficient pipeline infrastructure to redistribute this gas to the rest of EU-27.
Possible workarounds
There is a possibility that gas could be carried through pipelines of non-EU nations and make up this west–east natural gas capacity imbalance, but there is no clear solution to do this yet.
Using storage better
Another approach would be for EU-27 member states to use natural gas storage better, to buffer against supply shocks, though the issues of import capacity imbalance and east–west distribution would still likely exist to a degree.
Europe Gas Tracker 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 piece of information is linked to a published reference, such as a news article, company report, or regulatory permit. 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, or in news reports, 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 works 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.
