EU and US sign trade deal, but energy remains a question mark

On the European side, it is described as a political agreement restoring stability and predictability for citizens and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. On the American side, as a great triumph in the form of President Trump’s monumental trade deal. The agreement in question is the recently concluded transatlantic deal on tariffs and trade. What does this agreement mean for energy?

"Ensuring reliable access to critical energy supplies and future-oriented sources. The EU intends to purchase US liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear energy products worth an estimated $750 billion (around €700 billion) over the next three years. This will contribute to replacing Russian gas and oil on the EU market," states an official statement by the European Commission.

At first glance, this may appear to be a deal that significantly strengthens Europe’s energy security. On closer inspection, however, it suggests American calculation and, on a third reading, a necessary condition for keeping import tariffs at the negotiated 15% level. Yet the energy clause conceals a number of question marks.

The first and most important catch is that the investments are not binding on either EU member states or individual companies. Put simply, the EU cannot force anyone to buy energy from the US, just as Trump cannot force US producers to sell to Europe.

"It is not binding. It is a promise," said Erik Brattberg, a Europe expert at the Atlantic Council think tank.

Second, the agreement refers to an estimated value of $750 billion. Over the remaining three years of President Trump’s term, this amounts to $250 billion each year. However, according to data from Kpler, the EU last year bought oil, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and coal from the US worth around $80 billion annually in total – more than three times less than is now envisaged.

This also clashes with the reality on the US side. US fossil fuel production is stagnating, and the outlook for the near future even points to a decline. To meet such ambitious volumes, US companies would have to divert supplies from other markets, such as Asia or Latin America, which would be highly complex both logistically and economically.

A further contradiction lies in Europe’s drive for diversification. The EU has long aimed not to depend on a single supplier. Already, more than half of energy imports into the EU come from the US.

"It is highly unrealistic for Europe to import exclusively from the US," said Mathieu Utting, an analyst at Rystad Energy.

Finally, there are the EU’s climate targets. Increased imports of US oil are not in line with Europe’s strategy to cut emissions and gradually phase out fossil fuels. The EU has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, and a significant share of member states are already investing in renewables and electrification. Moreover, European refining capacity has declined in recent years, raising doubts over the practical ability to process large volumes of US oil without additional infrastructure investment that would run counter to current decarbonisation trends.

In conclusion, the deal, presented as a strengthening of transatlantic energy security, raises a number of questions. These concern not only the practical feasibility of the stated volumes, but also the EU’s long-term commitments on climate and the energy transition. Rather than a clear victory, it may prove to be a compromise full of conditions and uncertainties, potentially leading to future conflict between Washington and Brussels.