US LNG costs EU three times as much as Russian pipeline gas

Liquid natural gas from the United States is expensive. Really expensive. But for ideological reasons, cheap pipeline gas from Russia is being rejected. This is detrimental to consumers and industry in Europe. How long can this go on?

The bill for Europe’s failed energy transition is slowly coming due – and it’s higher than some expected. As the European Union increasingly relies on wildly unreliable “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar power and aims to phase out Russian gas imports altogether by 2027, recent Eurostat data reveals a complex reality: American liquefied natural gas already costs European consumers twice as much as Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), writes Heinz Steiner .

The data published by the “ Berliner Zeitung ” speak for themselves. In the first quarter of 2025, EU countries paid an average of 1.08 euros per cubic meter for American LNG, while Russian liquefied natural gas cost 0.51 euros. A price difference of more than 100 percent. What is striking is that despite all the political signals, the EU is still importing significant quantities of Russian gas – a clear sign of how difficult the ideologically motivated disconnection is in practice.

Import volume reveals continued dependency

Import statistics for the first quarter of 2025 paint a complex picture of Europe’s energy supply. With 13.4 billion cubic meters, American LNG dominated liquefied gas imports, accounting for 48 percent of all EU LNG purchases. For this amount, the European Union invested €14.7 billion – a significant amount that highlights the price of diversification. At the same time, the EU purchased 5.3 billion cubic meters of Russian LNG for €2.7 billion, representing a 19 percent share.

The comparison with Russian natural gas via pipelines is particularly telling: at 0.32 euros per cubic meter, it costs only about a third of American LNG. Another 5.3 billion cubic meters were transported to Hungary and Slovakia via the Black Sea pipeline for a total value of 1.75 billion euros. These figures show that, despite the political reorientation, Europe is still significantly dependent on Russian energy supplies.

It is worth considering this development in a historical context: the system of cheap pipeline connections that has been built up over decades has long given Germany and other EU countries competitive advantages. German industry has been able to count on a reliable and cheap energy supply – a foundation that now has to be rebuilt, but at significantly higher costs.

Norway as the cheapest alternative

Norwegian gas supplies show interesting price dynamics. Pipeline gas from Norway cost the EU only 0.24 euros per cubic meter and was therefore even cheaper than Russian pipeline gas. This price difference can mainly be explained by the direct transport routes via established pipelines in the North Sea, while Russian gas has to be diverted via Turkey and other transit countries due to the changed geopolitical situation. Such diversions make transport considerably more expensive. However, Norway does not have sufficient production capacity to supply half of the continent with natural gas. frontnieuws.com

In the first quarter of 2025, the EU imported pipeline gas from third countries worth a total of EUR 10.2 billion, the largest share of which came from Norway. These figures make it clear that alternative gas sources can certainly offer competitive prices, but only for direct transport routes without geopolitical complications. For comparison, in 2021 the average import price was still around EUR 0.20 per cubic meter for natural gas via pipelines – a price level that seems to come from a different era given current developments.

Brussels plans complete import ban by 2027

The European Commission presented far-reaching plans in May 2025 to halt all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. Brussels wants to ban new contracts and existing spot contracts by the end of 2025. To help companies exit long-term contracts, the Commission is considering legal instruments such as higher import duties or zero quotas. These measures should allow European energy companies to invoke “force majeure” and terminate long-term contracts without penalties.

However, the timeline is surrounded by great uncertainty and the practical challenges are considerable. European energy companies not only have to find alternative suppliers, but also deal with significantly higher costs – costs that will ultimately be passed on to consumers and industry. The price difference between American and Russian gas makes clear the financial burden that awaits households and businesses. For energy-intensive sectors, this could lead to a locational disadvantage that can only be fully assessed in the long term.

Hungary and Slovakia resist

Not all EU member states support the radical rejection of Russian gas. Hungary and Slovakia have already announced that they will block the planned measures, because both countries are structurally highly dependent on cheap Russian gas supplies. Due to their geographical location, they are natural buyers of Russian pipeline gas via the Black Sea route. A complete stop to imports would pose significant supply problems and drastic cost increases for these countries.

The European Commission nevertheless intends to implement its measures by qualified majority, thereby circumventing the veto of individual Member States – notably Hungary and Slovakia. However, this approach is politically explosive and could further undermine the unity of the European Union on energy. The question remains whether such a costly energy strategy is politically and economically sustainable in the long term if the burden on consumers and industry continues to increase. After all, it is not only a matter of household budgets, but also of the international competitiveness of European companies – an aspect that sometimes receives too little attention in the political debate.