Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Q&A: EU biomethane internal market challenged

  • : Biofuels, Natural gas
  • 25/01/02

The European Commission needs to provide clearer guidance on implementing existing rules for the cross-border trade of biomethane to foster a cohesive internal market as some EU member states are diverging from these standards, Vitol's Davide Rubini and Arthur Romano told Argus. Edited excerpts follow.

What are the big changes happening in the regulation space of the European biomethane market that people need to watch out for?

While no major new EU legislation is anticipated, the focus remains on the consistent implementation of existing rules, as some countries diverge from these standards.

Key challenges include ensuring mass-balanced transport of biomethane within the grid, accurately accounting for cross-border emissions and integrating subsidised biomethane into compliance markets. The European Commission is urged to provide clearer guidance on these issues to foster a cohesive internal market, which is essential for advancing the EU's energy transition and sustainability objectives.

Biomethane is a fairly mature energy carrier, yet it faces significant hurdles when it comes to cross-border trade within the EU. Currently, only a small fraction — 2-5pc — of biomethane is consumed outside of its country of production, highlighting the need for better regulatory alignment across member states.

Would you be interested in seeing a longer-term target from the EU?

The longer the visibility on targets and ambitions, the better it is for planning and investment. As the EU legislative cycle restarts with the new commission, the initial focus might be on the climate law and setting a new target for 2040. However, a review of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) is unlikely for the next 3-4 years.

With current targets set for 2030, just five years away, there's insufficient support for long-term investments. The EU's legislative cycle is fixed, so expectations for changes are low. Therefore, it's crucial that member states take initiative and extend their targets beyond 2030, potentially up to 2035, even if not mandated by the EU. Some member states might do so, recognising the need for longer-term targets to encourage the necessary capital expenditure for the energy transition.

Do you see different interpretations in mass balancing, GHG accounting and subsidies?

Interpretations of the rules around ‘mass-balancing', greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting and the usability of subsidised biomethane [for different fuel blending mandates] vary across EU member states, leading to challenges in creating a cohesive internal market.

When it comes to mass-balancing, the challenges arise in trying to apply mass balance rules for liquids, which often have a physically traceable flow, to gas molecules in the interconnected European grid. Once biomethane is injected, physical verification becomes impossible, necessitating different rules than those for liquids moving around in segregated batches.

The EU mandates that sustainability verification of biomethane occurs at the production point and requires mechanisms to prevent double counting and verification of biomethane transactions. However, some member states resist adapting these rules for gases, insisting on physical traceability similar to that of liquids. This resistance may stem from protectionist motives or political agendas, but ultimately it results in non-adherence to EU rules and breaches of European legislation.

The issue with GHG accounting often stems from member states' differing interpretations of the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Some states, like the Netherlands, argue that mass balance is an administrative method, which the guidelines supposedly exclude. Mass balancing involves rigorous verification by auditors and certifying bodies, ensuring a robust accounting system that is distinct from book and claim methods. This distinction is crucial because mass balance is based on verifying that traded molecules of biomethane are always accompanied by proofs of sustainability that are not a separately tradeable object. In fact, mass balancing provides a verifiable and accountable method that is perfectly aligned with UN guidelines and ensuring accurate GHG accounting.

The issue related to the use of subsidised volumes of biomethane is highly political. Member states often argue that if they provide financial support — directly through subsidies or indirectly through suppliers' quotas — they should remain in control of the entire value chain. For example, if a member state gives feed-in tariffs to biomethane production, it may want to block exports of these volumes. Conversely, if a member state imposes a quota to gas suppliers, it may require this to be fulfilled with domestic biomethane production. No other commodity — not even football players — is subject to similar restrictions to export and/or imports only because subsidies are involved. This protectionist approach creates barriers to internal trade within the EU, hindering the development of a unified biomethane market and limiting the potential for growth and decarbonisation across the region.

The Netherlands next year will implement two significant pieces of legislation — a green supply obligation for gas suppliers and a RED III transposition. The Dutch approach combines GHG accounting arguments with a rejection of EU mass-balance rules, essentially prohibiting biomethane imports unless physically segregated as bio-LNG or bio-CNG. This requirement contradicts EU law, as highlighted by the EU Commission's recent detailed opinion to the Netherlands.

France's upcoming blending and green gas obligation, effective in 2026, mandates satisfaction through French production only. Similarly, the Czech Republic recently enacted a law prohibiting the export of some subsidised biomethane. Italy's transport system, while effective nationally, disregards EU mass balance rules. These cases indicate a deeper political disconnect and highlight the need for better alignment and communication within the EU.

We know you've been getting a lot of questions around whether subsidised bio-LNG is eligible under FuelEU. What have your findings been?

The eligibility of subsidised bio-LNG under FuelEU has been a topic of considerable enquiry. We've sought clarity from the European Commission, as this issue intersects multiple regulatory and legal frameworks. Initially, we interpreted EU law principles, which discourage double support, to mean that FuelEU, being a quota system, would qualify as a support scheme under Article 2's definition, equating quota systems with subsidies.

However, a commission representative has publicly stated that FuelEU does not constitute a support scheme and thus is not subject to this interpretation. On this basis, FuelEU would not differentiate between subsidised and unsubsidised bio-LNG. A similar rationale applies to the Emissions Trading System, which, while not a quota obligation, has been deemed to not be a support scheme.

Despite these clarifications, the use of subsidised biomethane across Europe remains an area requiring further elucidation from European institutions. It is not without risks, and stakeholders require more definitive guidance to navigate the regulatory landscape effectively.


Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

25/04/14

Shale patch on edge after tariff drama

Shale patch on edge after tariff drama

New York, 14 April (Argus) — US president Donald Trump's back and forth over tariffs that sent oil prices tumbling to a four-year low last week has sparked jitters across the shale patch, although most producers are likely to take their time to respond. The oil and gas industry, one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders and donors during his election campaign, has been taken aback by the speed and scale of the president's escalating trade wars and executives are signalling growing impatience. Meanwhile, Trump's "Drill, baby, drill" mantra is even less likely to become a reality now, after oil slid below the $65/bl level that executives surveyed by the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank last month warned was needed to profitably sink a new well. Trump's imposition of punitive tariffs on nearly every major US trading partner led to a sell-off in stock, bonds and commodity markets until he announced a 90-day pause for most nations — except China — on 9 April. While it may be too early for talk about dropping rigs and curtailing production, companies will face tough questions from analysts about their contingency plans when first-quarter results start coming through later this month. One key difference from previous downturns in 2014 and 2020 is that exploration and production (E&P) firms are in a better position this time, with less debt on their balance sheets and more modest growth plans, which may help limit the initial fallout. But higher costs owing to tariffs on steel imports could offset the efficiency savings that have kept production going in an era of restrained spending. "E&Ps are likely to mostly take a wait-and-see approach — with a high level of uncertainty about future policy — and not prematurely lay down rigs," consultancy Enverus principal analyst Andrew Dittmar says. "If prices are weak headed into 2026, that is where you are likely to see a more material reduction in drilling budgets. Feeling dominated The shale industry has welcomed Trump's "energy dominance" agenda and his promise of a permitting overhaul. But cracks are appearing in that relationship because of his stop-start policy on tariffs. "This administration better have a plan," Diamondback Energy president Kaes Van't Hof said in a social media post, in a direct appeal to energy secretary Chris Wright. Shale is the "only industry that actually built itself in the US, manufactures in the US, grew jobs in the US and improved the trade deficit — and by proxy GDP — in the US over the past decade", Van't Hof, who is due to become Diamondback chief executive later this year, said. His company became the largest pure-play producer in the prolific Permian basin of west Texas and southeast New Mexico following its $26bn takeover of Endeavor Energy Resources last year. While few public producers were planning any kind of meaningful growth this year as higher dividends and buy-backs continue to be the priority, even that could eventually find itself on the chopping block. "The corporate reality for public players means that already modest growth could be at risk if prices remain near $60/bl," Rystad Energy vice-president for North American oil and gas Matthew Bernstein says. Little in the way of growth was forecast outside the core Permian this year even before Trump rolled out his tariffs. A prolonged period of lower prices could spur a downturn in the top-performing US basin. A combination of short-term activity levels, investor distributions and production could be sacrificed in order to defend margins, according to Rystad. And producers in the Delaware sub-basin could be especially vulnerable, given the region's steep initial decline rates, high well costs and large capital return requirements, the consultancy says. By Stephen Cunningham WTI breakeven price Nymex WTI futures month 1 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Brunei LNG undergoes unplanned downtime


25/04/14
25/04/14

Brunei LNG undergoes unplanned downtime

Singapore, 14 April (Argus) — Brunei's 7.2mn t/yr Brunei LNG export terminal experienced an operational upset on 11 April, but there were no reported injuries or damages to its assets, the firm said in a notice. "Normalisation process is currently in progress," the firm added. Visible flaring and black smoke from the plant may be observed during this time, but the situation is under control and poses no risk to the surrounding community or environment, the firm reported. Brunei LNG cancelled its tender offering a cargo on a fob basis for loading on 22 June , likely as a result of the operational upset. The tender was initially due to close on 17 April. It is still uncertain when the export terminal will resume normal operations. By Joey Chan Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Renovabio: Usinas alertam distribuidoras inadimplentes


25/04/11
25/04/11

Renovabio: Usinas alertam distribuidoras inadimplentes

Sao Paulo, 11 April (Argus) — Grandes grupos do setor sucroalcooleiro começaram a alertar clientes de que poderão deixar de fornecer etanol a distribuidoras em desconformidade com a Política Nacional de Biocombustíveis (Renovabio) e normas da Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP). As informações foram confirmadas à Argus participantes do mercado, entre traders , corretores e funcionários da área de inteligência de mercado de companhias do setor de distribuição, que dizem que as comunicações começaram no fim de março. Segundo as fontes, que falaram sob a condição de anonimato, Atvos, Evolua e Raízen teriam começado a comunicar distribuidoras inadimplentes em suas metas de aposentadoria de créditos de descarbonização (Cbios) de que elas correm o risco de não poder mais adquirir etanol via contratos de fornecimento de longo prazo, regidos pela resolução nº 946/2023 (que modificou a antiga 67/2011) da ANP. Todas as companhias citadas foram procuradas pela Argus, mas decidiram não comentar sobre o assunto ou não responderam até o fechamento desta reportagem. A movimentação das usinas vem com o fim da carência de 90 dias para a entrada em vigor de pontos da nova lei que endurece punições contra distribuidoras inadimplentes (Lei nº 15.082/2024). A norma, apesar de sancionada no fim de 2024, ainda não foi regulamentada pelo governo federal. A lei determina que o descumprimento das metas individuais estabelecidas pelo Conselho Nacional de Política Energética (CNPE) constitua crime ambiental e leve à revogação da autorização para o exercício de atividade do distribuidor, além da cobrança de multa, que pode chegar a R$500 milhões. Ela também proíbe agentes da cadeia de comercializar com essas empresas nesta situação. Mas a aplicação imediata de parte das sanções enfrenta obstáculos legais. Em resposta a questionamentos feitos pela ANP, representantes da Procuradoria Federal junto à autarquia reforçaram entendimento de que a nova lei não deve retroagir. Isso significa que sanções mais duras só valeriam para metas não cumpridas a partir do ciclo de 2025, sendo aplicadas apenas em 2026. Apesar da limitação para o enforcement imediato por parte do regulador, os grandes grupos do setor de açúcar e etanol já começaram a se movimentar para cumprir com suas obrigações legais. Segundo fontes, uma primeira medida estaria relacionada ao fechamento dos próximos contratos de fornecimento, que vão de 1º de junho de um ano a 31 de maio do ano subsequente e vinculariam o fornecimento à situação das distribuidoras compradoras. Batalha jurídica Das 160 distribuidoras com metas estabelecidas no Renovabio, 60 iniciaram o ciclo de 2025 com menos Cbios aposentados do que deveriam. Destas, 13 já entraram na Justiça contra o programa e hoje mantêm alguma decisão liminar favorável às suas causas, segundo dados disponibilizados pela própria autarquia. Raízen e Evolua, líderes do setor sucroalcooleiro no Centro-Sul, são joint-ventures entre produtores e as distribuidoras Shell e Vibra ‒ ambas em conformidade com o Renovabio e críticas às distorções provocadas por distribuidoras regionais inadimplentes. Segundo dados da ANP, as 3 maiores distribuidoras do país têm sofrido com uma perda de participação de mercado nos últimos anos, saindo de um total de 66pc em 2022 para 62pc em 2024. Parte do movimento é justificado por elas pelo não atendimento de empresas concorrentes ao Renovabio e alegadas fraudes no cumprimento do mandato de mistura de biodiesel no diesel. Neste período de 2 anos, o share somado das 5 maiores inadimplentes em Cbios avançou de 5,5pc para 6,5pc. A Associação Nacional de Distribuidores de Combustíveis (ANDC), que representa distribuidoras regionais de pequeno e médio porte, protocolou, em fevereiro, petição à ANP denunciando a atitude de alguns fornecedores de biocombustíveis de recusar a venda de produto. O grupo argumenta que "o poder de polícia cabe ao poder público" e que a atitude das produtoras "fere a defesa da ordem econômica". Na ocasião, o órgão regulador respondeu que as listas divulgadas por ela com as distribuidoras que respondem a processos administrativos sancionadores "não podem ainda ser consideradas para fins de restrição no suprimento de combustíveis", já que a nova lei dos Cbios ainda não foi regulamentada. A ANDC reclama de "falta de participação social" nas discussões sobre a regulamentação do Renovabio e no próprio comitê governamental do programa. A associação diz que, depois dessas movimentações, não observou casos de produtores de biocombustíveis negando a venda de produto para distribuidoras. Por Amance Boutin e Marcos Mortari Envie comentários e solicite mais informações em feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . Todos os direitos reservados.

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism


25/04/11
25/04/11

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — International shipping organisations and market participants mostly support the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism approved today at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, but some raised concerns. The structure approved by the IMO establishes that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. Emissions above this target will be charged at $380/tCO2e. The levels defined by the approved regulation are achievable, according to a market participant, who said the gradually increasing targets may allow the market to properly adapt to the transition. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) secretary general Guy Platten said the sector is already investing billions of dollars in 'green' technology, so the agreement gives certainty that sustainable marine fuels producers need. "The world's governments have now come forward with a comprehensive agreement which, although not perfect in every respect, we very much hope will be formally adopted later this year," he said. The European Shipowners (ECSA) secretary general Sotiris Raptis agreed the draft "is not perfect", but he celebrated progress towards a net zero emissions target, saying "it is a good starting point for further work" and pointing out that it may ensure the necessary investment in production of clean fuels. During a press briefing, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said ships operating in international waters will be obliged to comply with the regulations after adoption, despite the US' refusal to engage with the discussions . Adoption of the pricing mechanism will be discussed and voted on in October. Offering a counterview, the Global Maritime Forum said the agreed measures may not be strong enough to reach IMO targets. "The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy's emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met," it said. "As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol , which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential." It said that failure to invest in these fuels would put at risk the target of at least 5pc zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal. The World Shipping Council's vice president Bryan Wood-Thomas praised the agreement and said one benefit of it is the pricing system that is "more aggressive" if a vessel fails to meet the GHG intensity standard. "But you also have a fee system that gives investors more confidence in actual revenue [from using cleaner fuels]," he said. The Brazilian representative told Argus the fact that some countries thought the agreement was too ambitious while others indicated it was not ambitious enough show the group may have reached a balance that can be possible to comply. About the Brazilian position, the representative said the country "was never against an agreement". "We were only against some aspects of the agreement, and we think that the membership has heard our concerns, and that's why we ended up pretty happy with the results", he said. Brazil voted in favour of the agreement today. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Madeleine Jenkins, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market


25/04/11
25/04/11

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market

Steel can make up nearly a third of an LNG terminal's pricetag, so the new levies could push up costs and push back start-up dates, writes Xiaoyi Deng London, 11 April (Argus) — US president Donald Trump's volatile tariff policy and some of the countermeasures already announced by large trade partners are unlikely to cause any direct disruption to global gas markets. But they will have a direct impact on future US liquefaction capacity. And the indirect effects on gas supply and demand could be huge, stemming from a weaker macroeconomic outlook, fuel substitution and inflationary pressures on infrastructure development. US LNG developers hailed Trump's return to office, after complaining that his predecessor complicated the issuance of additional export licences. But Trump's imposition of 25pc tariffs on all foreign-sourced steel and aluminum, from 12 March, will increase infrastructure costs in the US' upstream and midstream sectors. These present an immediate risk for US LNG developers, particularly for the five projects under construction and the six others expected to reach final investment decisions (FIDs) this year. Metals account for up to 30pc of the cost of an LNG export plant. A terminal can cost $5bn-25bn to build, depending on its size, with steel used for pipelines, tanks and other structural frameworks. Facilities can be built using some domestically produced metal, but higher prices for this might lead to construction and FID delays for the country's planned liquefaction projects. US tariffs' primary effect on the domestic gas market stems from duties levied on non-energy goods used by the oil and gas industry, including steel and specialised pipeline components such as valves and compressors, which are imported. The US remains a net natural gas importer from Canada , but these flows are unlikely to be affected by trade tariffs, given the lack of alternative supply sources available to some northern US states. Tariff baiting Trump's latest tariff round , unveiled on 2 April, involves a a minimum 10pc on all foreign imports from 5 April,with much higher tariffs on selected countries that briefly came into force on 9 April, before Trump bowed to panic in financial markets and announced a 90-day pause. China is the key exception. It has announced retaliatory tariffs that could disrupt US energy exports, resulting in an escalation that leaves the overall levy at 145pc in the US and 125pc in China. China had already stopped importing US LNG earlier this year. But disruption to trade between the world's two largest economies may weigh heavily on manufacturing activity in China, in turn reducing industrial gas demand. And the ripple effects of disruption to US LPG exports to China may alter fuel-switching economics in the region and beyond. Most other countries in Asia-Pacific have opted not to follow China's lead by retaliating. The Japanese government intends to negotiate a better tariff deal and is considering investing in the US' proposed 20mn t/yr Alaska LNG export project as part of wider efforts to reduce its trade surplus with the US. Countries in Asia-Pacific have been hit with some of the highest of Trump's targeted duties. The EU is keeping retaliatory measures on the table, but these are unlikely to involve US LNG. Europe has become much more reliant on LNG imports after losing the bulk of its Russian pipeline supply, and imposing tariffs on energy imports would only reignite inflationary pressures that European countries have tried to curb over the past three years. The bloc says it is ready to negotiate on possibly increasing its US LNG imports to reduce its trade surplus and would axe tariffs on industrial imports if the US agrees to do the same. But Trump says this is not enough, citing the EU's upcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as one of the "unfair trade practices" that justifies a tariff response. US LNG project pipeline mn t/yr Project Capacity Expected start/FID Under construction Plaquemines 19.2 2025 Corpus Christi stage 3 12.0 2025 Golden Pass 18.1 2026 Rio Grande 17.6 2027 Port Arthur 13.5 2027 Waiting for final investment decision Delfin FLNG 1 13.2 mid-2025 Texas LNG 4.0 2025 Calcasieu Pass 2 28.0 mid-2025 Corpus Christi train 8-9 3.3 2025 Louisiana LNG 16.5 mid-2025 Cameron train 4 6.8 mid-2025 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more