Europe’s Selective Blindness on Gas – US LNG and the Limits of Supply Diversification

• US gas imports into the EEA (including Norway) surged in 2025, now accounting for almost 40% of the EEA’s total gas imports and nearly 60% of its LNG imports, creating exposure to geopolitical and price risks.
• While phasing out Russian fossil fuels is strategically sound, new EU legislation narrows diversification to merely eliminating Russian imports.
• Treating Norway as an external supplier is at odds with economic realities and obscures Europe’s growing dependence on the US, an energy security risk that policymakers must acknowledge.
• The EU should monitor all suppliers’ import shares, accelerate the energy transition and resist long-term fossil lock-ins misaligned with Europe’s falling gas demand.

New Policy Brief on EU’s Growing US Gas Dependence: Increasing Geopolitical and Price Risks

A new policy brief shows that Europe is rapidly replacing its dependence on Russian pipeline gas with a dependence on US liquefied natural gas (LNG). In 2025, US LNG imports to the European Economic Area (EEA) increased by 61% compared to 2024, and almost sixfold compared to 2019. US LNG now accounts for over 59 % of EU LNG imports and about 38 % of total gas imports from non-EEA countries. This trend exposes Europe to geopolitical pressure, price volatility and stranded asset risks, argue the brief’s authors.

The policy brief titled ‘Europe’s Selective Blindness on Gas: US LNG and the Limits of Supply Diversification‘ is published in a collaborative effort of energy policy experts from the Clingendael Institute (The Hague), Ecologic Institute (Berlin), and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs – NUPI (Oslo). Based on most recent gas flows data until 31 December 2025, the brief examines the EU’s approach to gas supply diversification.

In December, the European Parliament approved a new law to phase out gas and oil imports from Russia. The authors welcome its goals but warn that the act, which now needs to be formally endorsed by the Council, redefines “diversification” as meaning only the elimination of Russian imports. “Diversification cannot mean replacing one dominant supplier with another one. Europe needs a clear definition of diversification and a strategy that reflects today’s geopolitical realities” notes Raffaele Piria, Senior Fellow at Ecologic Institute and initiator of the research.

The policy brief appears amidst an unprecedented controversy among NATO countries, shortly after the US intervention in Venezuela, and with tensions over Greenland rising. “Historically, interferences by the US government in gas markets to exert pressure on Europe were considered unthinkable. In the current geopolitical context, this assumption is questionable” – Piria adds.

While earlier analyses have already pointed to increasing US imports of gas, the policy brief provides a clearer and more realistic picture by treating the currently main source of gas in Europe – Norway – as indigenous.

“Norway is effectively an integral part of the common energy market, it is largely covered by the same regulations, and it can sell its gas almost only to the EU or the UK”  – explains Kacper Szulecki, Research Professor at NUPI. He adds: “That is why it makes sense to speak of the European Economic Area’s increasing dependency on US gas – Europe’s vulnerabilities are collective and need to be better understood by policymakers and the public”.

“LNG offers a higher diversification potential than pipeline gas” says Clingendael Institute Research Fellow Hannah Lentschig, “but Europe’s LNG dependence increases our exposure to global price shocks via spot markets, with a strong impact on wholesale gas and electricity prices in Europe” – adding that “LNG is also more emissive than pipeline gas. This is not a sustainable energy security path.”

While appealing for a proper definition of diversification, the authors are also calling on EU decisionmakers to make it an element of a broader energy security strategy. “True energy security requires accelerating domestic renewables and electrification to gradually phase out gas and oil imports, not just shifting fossil fuel suppliers” – argues Louise van Schaik, Head of Unit EU & Global Affairs at Clingendael. “In the short and medium term we will still need gas”, she adds, “and therefore EU lawmakers need to seek genuine diversification across suppliers and routes, and national diversification plans should clearly reflect this”.