Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest Market News

Q&A: EU biomethane internal market challenged

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

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.

07/02/25

Trump planning rollout of 'reciprocal' tariffs

Trump planning rollout of 'reciprocal' tariffs

Washington, 7 February (Argus) — President Donald Trump is considering announcing "mostly reciprocal tariffs" on an undisclosed number of countries early next week, in a possible shift from a campaign plan to impose universal tariffs of 10-20pc against all imports to the US. Trump did not provide specifics on the idea, but said he would probably have a meeting on 10 or 11 February before making an announcement. The potential rollout of the reciprocal tariffs appears likely to take place after China's planned 10 February date to start collecting a 10pc tariff on crude, coal and LNG from the US that Beijing imposed in response to a 10pc blanket tariff that Trump has placed on Chinese imports. "I think that's the only fair way to do it," Trump said of his plan to "probably" pursue reciprocal tariffs. "That way, nobody's hurt. They charge us, we charge them. It's the same thing. And I seem to be going in that line, as opposed to a flat fee tariff." Trump has said he views tariffs — which he says is his "favorite word" — as a virtually cost-free way to raise revenue that will cut the US trade deficit and boost domestic manufacturing, without raising prices for goods in the US. But earlier this week, Trump delayed his plan to place an across-the-board 25pc tariff on Canada and Mexico just hours before it was set to take effect, as stock markets began to plunge on the threat of the start of a damaging trade war between the US and its two largest trading partners. The vast majority of economists say across-the-board tariffs are an inefficient way of raising revenue, with costs that would fall the hardest on low-income and middle-income US consumers already reeling from years of inflation. US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) on 2 February said kicking off a tariff war with Canada and Mexico "makes 100pc no sense" and would raise costs for US consumers. Trump discussed his reciprocal tariff idea today during a press conference with Japan's prime minister Shigeru Ishiba. Trump said he wants to "get rid of" the US' trade deficit with Japan he estimates is $100bn/yr, primarily by selling the country US oil, LNG and ethanol. Trump said he also spoke with Ishiba about efforts related to the "pipeline in Alaska", an apparent reference to the proposed 20mn t/yr Alaska LNG project, which is expected to cost more than $40bn and would require building a natural gas pipeline across Alaska. Ishiba said it was "wonderful" that Trump had lifted a temporary pause on LNG licensing on his first day in office, and said Japan was interested in purchasing US LNG, ethanol, ammonia and other resources as a way to cut down on the US trade deficit with Japan. "If we are able to buy those at a stable and reasonable price, I think it would be a wonderful situation," Ishiba said through a translator. Japan is keen to increase its overall investment in the US to $1 trillion, Ishiba said. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Crude Summit: P66 eyes US northeast renewables: Update


07/02/25
07/02/25

Crude Summit: P66 eyes US northeast renewables: Update

Adds info on SAF, other details. Houston, 7 February (Argus) — US refiner Philips 66 is weighing producing renewable fuels in the northeastern US if more states adopt low carbon fuel standards. The company is considering producing renewables at its 258,500 b/d Bayway refinery in Linden, New Jersey, if state mandates are approved and implemented, vice president of renewables Suresh Vaidyanathan said on the sidelines of the Argus Global Crude Summit Americas in Houston, Texas, on Friday. The renewables could be processed along with traditional fuels at the refinery. Bayway is the largest refinery on the US Atlantic coast. Phillips 66 could possibly produce renewable diesel or sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) at the refinery, depending on the specifics of the state laws, Vaidyanathan said. The company said it is "constantly evaluating all of our assets for lower carbon opportunities." New Jersey senators last year proposed legislation to establish what could be the first US east coast clean fuels mandate. In New York, bills to establish a clean fuel standard now count the majority of the state assembly and senate as co-sponsors. But similar proposals have stalled in prior years, in part because some progressive lawmakers worry about potentially boosting biofuels at the expense of electrification. New York state agencies are separately studying the potential impacts of a "clean transportation standard" but have given no indication of when they could release their findings. Phillips 66's Rodeo renewables plant in California reported throughputs of 42,000 b/d in the fourth quarter of 2024 after beginning full operations last year. Phillips 66 said today it is producing SAF at the Rodeo refinery. United Airlines announced in December that it agreed to buy SAF from Phillips 66's Rodeo facility as soon as the product came online. Phillips 66's renewable fuels business logged a $28mn profit in the fourth quarter of 2024 driven by higher margins at the Rodeo complex and stronger international results. By Eunice Bridges Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Tariffs have ‘pluses and minuses’: ConocoPhillips


07/02/25
07/02/25

Tariffs have ‘pluses and minuses’: ConocoPhillips

New York, 7 February (Argus) — Threatened US tariffs targeting Canadian imports have both "pluses and minuses" for US independent producer ConocoPhillips which has production on both sides of the northern border. The company's primary exposure to tariffs would center upon sales from its Surmont oil sands operations in Alberta, Canada, into the US. "We sell around half of our Surmont liquids into the US on a mix of pipeline and rail," said Andy O'Brien, ConocoPhillips senior vice president for strategy, commercial, sustainability and technology. "But the remainder is actually transported to the Canadian West coast or sold in the local Alberta market." If tariffs were to be implemented, it is "pretty difficult" to say exactly who would carry the burden -- producers or buyers -- he added. "The refiners in the Midwest and the Rockies have less options to substitute versus, say, the Gulf coast or the west coast refiners," O'Brien said. The company's diversified portfolio would also help shelter it from some exposure. "If we were to see tariffs, we'd likely see strengthening differentials for Bakken, for [Alaska North Slope crude] and possibly even the Permian," said O'Brien. "So lots of moving parts." Like others in the oil industry, ConocoPhillips is looking at the potential to supply power to cater to the boom in AI data centers. "It's got to be competitive for capital, but it certainly looks like some growth opportunities potentially coming, and we're assessing some of those opportunities right now," chief executive officer Ryan Lance told analysts after posting fourth quarter results. Although the Trump administration has called on domestic producers to step up output, Lance said his priority was to drive further efficiencies in operations. "A lot of our focus and attention right now is on permitting reform," Lance said, and the need to build out energy infrastructure. Drilling approvals, rights of ways, and permits on federal land all slowed under the administration of former-president Joe Biden and there is an opportunity now to get back on track. "That just adds to the overall efficiency of the system and should lead to a more sustained plateau or growth in our production coming out of the Lower 48 in terms of liquids and certainly the growing amount of gas volumes that are coming as well," Lance said. "So it just creates a better environment for investment and more efficient operations." Full-year 2025 output at ConocoPhillips is seen in the range of 2.34mn-2.38mn b/d of oil equivalent (boe/d), which includes 20,000 boe/d of planned turnarounds. Fourth quarter 2024 profit fell to $2.3bn from $3bn in the final three months of 2023, as higher volumes were more than offset by acquisition-related expenses and lower prices. Averaged realized prices fell 10pc to $52.37/boe from the fourth quarter of 2023. Fourth quarter output of 2.18mn boe/d represented an increase of 281,000 boe/d from the same quarter of the previous year. After adjusting for acquisitions and dispositions, output grew by 6pc. As part of a $2bn divestment goal, ConocoPhillips has signed agreements to sell non-core Lower 48 assets for $600mn. They are expected to close in the first half of the year. By Stephen Cunningham Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Crude Summit: US to remain top crude producer


06/02/25
06/02/25

Crude Summit: US to remain top crude producer

Houston, 6 February (Argus) — The US is likely to remain the world's top crude producer for some time to come, according to shale executives at the Argus Global Crude Summit Americas in Houston, Texas, today. "In the foreseeable future, I don't really see a lot of change," said Shannon Flowers, director of crude and water marketing at Coterra Energy. There is still enough high-quality acreage to go after, while efficiency gains around faster drilling times and targeting longer wells are also helping to drive output gains. "There's a lot of creativity that goes on in trying to understand how we can do more with less," Flowers said today at the event. While the rig count is down 20pc over the last two years, production has grown by more than 1mn b/d. "Doing more with less is kind of a common theme," Flowers said in reference to operations at Coterra and across the industry. "I expect that to continue." While the Permian has dominated all the attention of late, the offshore Gulf of Mexico is likely to be an important driver of output going forward, with several projects starting up this year. Other regions such as the Rockies, Wyoming and possibly Utah could also see some growth. A recent round of mergers and acquisitions that saw $300bn of upstream oil and gas deals inked has further to run, says John Argo, vice president for the Williston Basin at Continental Resources. "There will continue to be more consolidation," Argo said. Scarcity with regard to remaining high-quality acreage means that valuations will continue to climb, he said. By Stephen Cunningham Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Crude Summit: Asset-backed oil trades on the rise


06/02/25
06/02/25

Crude Summit: Asset-backed oil trades on the rise

Houston, 6 February (Argus) — Asset-backed trading is becoming commonplace in the oil industry as companies up and down the supply chain bring capabilities in-house, delegates heard at the Argus Global Crude Summit Americas in Houston, Texas, today. "Traditionally, long term hedging was popular, and it still is, but in general we've seen a move towards the front end of the curve," said CME Group's managing director and global head of energy and environmental products Peter Keavey. "The risks are really in the prompt," said Keavy. "We're seeing a lot of hedging in the short term [and] that also is reflective of asset-based optimization." HC Group managing partner Paul Chapman has also noticed a continued shift in trading by banks, which either exited or scaled down operations in 2014 and 2015, to those directly in the industry. "I would argue that pretty much every single business around the world — producer, miner, refiner, retailer of fuels and major — is on some spectrum of developing some asset trading," said Chapman. "And it's driven by a need to capture more margin." Changing trade flows have naturally had a bearing on who becomes more involved in individual markets. "Over the past five years, European players have more and more exposure to US molecules, whether it be crude oil or natural gas," said Keavey, which has driven the growth of trade of WTI, RBOB, gasoline, and heating oil in international markets. Changing energy policy, and policies to reach other political objectives, have a tendency to shape energy flows, whether they are intended or not, the speakers said. The Russian-Ukraine conflict is a prime example, and there are clear signs that US president Donald Trump's second term in office will do the same. "As this world gets more shaped by trade wars and there's more and more government intervention, that itself starts to break down some of the fundamentals of how some of these markets work," said Chapman. Keavey expects Canadian crude to continue to flow even under a Canada-US trade war, but "the question is, what disruption happens to the pricing?" By Brett Holmes 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