Mr. Günther Oettinger:

First, in respect of biofuel, as members are aware, we have a binding target of 10%. By 2020, 10% of the transport sector overall - that is, railways, trucks, buses, aeroplanes and cars - should be powered by sustainable energy. One option is electromobility, but reaching a figure of 10% in eight years is not feasible. A target of 1% would be much more feasible; while electromobility will have a future, it needs a period of 20 to 40 years. Consequently, biofuel use is just one answer. We had an obligation to bring forward a report and make proposals on what went wrong. We perceive two problems in biofuel industries. First, some imports from Brazil, Nigeria and the United States are not really sustainable. If one considers Brazil, existing fields for agriculture are being used for biofuel production, but as there is a need for food, people go into forests to activate new fields for new agricultural investments.

Imports have to be sustainable. Oil imports alone are not acceptable.

The next point relates to first and second generation energy resources. We are holding to the 10% level. We are saying that up to 2020 just 5% can come from first generation resources and that additionally up to 5% has to come from biomass and second generation resources. The Commission wants to take these two binding decisions to balance what is going the wrong way with what should be brought back to an environmental and sustainable position. An EU regulation means every member state has to store 90 or more days of its oil consumption. We have realised this target. We have perfect systems to transport oil in pipelines and trucks, etc. We have 90 days' supply in each of the 27 member states. It is a perfect system. When there were no oil imports from Libya last year, it was not really a problem for Italy. The oil ban on Iran announced in July has not affected Greece and Italy. We have a functioning market, with solidarity between member states. Therefore, security of supply to the market is guaranteed and there is no need to open our storage capacity to bring supplies into the market. Saudi Arabia is producing more oil than ever. It is bringing volumes to the market at a time when Iran is not as active as an exporter to the European Union. There is some debate between the United States and the International Energy Agency. The Commission and member states have to reflect on what should be done. There is an argument that increasing oil prices to bring more volumes to the market could be a way of reducing the price of oil. There is no really binding argument for the opening of our storage capacity. There is an open debate between the United States, the International Energy Agency and us, and I hope it is a rational one. As there are elections in Washington, we will wait and see.

What is the role of gas production? That is an important question. There is no doubt that gas is a perfect partner for renewables because it is environmentally friendly and flexible. As a power source it is more flexible than a coal or nuclear power plant can be. Our strategy is to diversify sources and tools for gas supply. We have new LNG terminals and new pipelines. We have to open new regions such as the southern corridor with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. I do not know what the concrete business case is for the Irish LNG terminal. We have to look at issues such as what is subsidised, whether there is a problem with our internal market rules, whether there is a business case, whether there is enough consumption and the relationship with the pipeline. In general, in Europe there is not enough infrastructure. We need more LNG terminals, more pipelines and more storage capacity. I cannot say which one is the most important. The European Union cannot reach all of its goals without new infrastructure. Germany does not have its own LNG terminal.

The EU gas market needs 530 billion cu. m of gas each year in order to meet consumption levels. According to our outlook, that figure will increase to 600 billion cu. m. Our own gas resources will come to an end in the years to come. The United Kingdom will stop supplying gas in the next decade and the Netherlands will stop some years later. Some 64% of the gas used in the European Union is imported from third states. This means that 36% comes from our own resources. Our Russian partners are our most relevant partners. Every year some 140 billion cu. m comes from Gazprom sources to us. Norway is in second position and Algeria, third. When our own resources come to an end, we will need an additional 180 billion cu. m each year. This volume should not be imported from Mr. Putin; rather, it should come from Qatar and Nigeria by ship to our LNG terminals, or it should come from shale gas. Shale gas is not the perfect answer when we are trying to avoid imports. It is not a replacement source of energy; rather, it is an additional source. If some volumes come from shale gas, that will be welcome. We are comparing demonstration projects and looking at all reports. We are comparing and analysing them. That work is being done by my colleague, Janez Potočnik, and me. Some regions in the European Union are sensitive for reasons relating to nature and soil, etc., and there are other regions where we could test this. Perhaps Poland is in the leading position.

My advice would be not to make any decision for the next decade. Ireland should be open and flexible. Perhaps it will be in a better and more competent position in three to five years, time. Some experts and engineers have said to me that in five or ten years, time all we will need is water and pressure. We will not need chemicals. That is different from today. Perhaps some demonstration projects in Poland will inspire more confidence among citizens and bring more clarity to the issue across Europe. It is not necessary to enter this market now. However, it would be wrong to decide, now and forever, that there would be no shale gas used anywhere in the European Union.