There is a degree of cohesion regarding Iranian oil and gas because the country is subject to international sanctions, and because there are many Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern alternative sources of supply. As to Russian oil and more importantly natural gas, cohesion is not very strong.

Some critics argue that the EU chose to make itself dependent on Russian natural gas over the objections of the Reagan administration. But obviously that was before the collapse of Communism- and thanks to Chancellor Schröder. The EU is now trying to reduce this dependence with imports from Qatar, etc., but it won’t really be seriously dented before the US and others start exporting shale gas in large quantities.

Under the Nixon Administration – in the 1970s Henry Kissinger did his best to organize energy consumers/importers in a united front, in the same way oil exporters had organized themselves within OPEC. But the result of Kissinger’s efforts was the Paris-based International Energy Agency which, far from becoming a consumer’s OPEC, contented itself with the role of information clearing house and analytical researcher. The reasons for Kissinger’s failure resided mainly in the fact that European countries preferred individually to cut special deals with individual Middle Eastern countries and the illusion that Europe’s less pro-Israeli policies would guarantee Europe better terms. France was the main adversary of a united consumer’s front, in line with her general and Middle Eastern foreign policy.

Circumstances are however more favorable today for improved cohesion. Obviously an EU that, in spite of the euro crisis, is better and more strongly organized. Unfortunately as concerns natural gas Europe made a major mistake, not by purchasing Russian gas, but by allowing Gazprom to meet a quasi-monopoly place as natural gas supplier to the EU. The availability of American shale gas and if and when it happens a settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue, of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Turkey’s (the most convenient point of transit) entry into the EU would of course change the situation, however the prospect of supplies of American shale gas is the only one to be almost immediate. Institutional observers are also closely following progress in talks for an association agreement between Ukraine (another major point of transit) and the EU, but this is held hostage by the Ukrainian government’s unacceptable human rights practices. Yes, there is a question of costs, but the infrastructure could have been developed, not to replace Russian gas, but to avoid Gazprom to be build a quasi-monopoly. Chancellor Schröder’s efforts were rewarded with the chair of the board of the German-Russian company bringing gas to Germany.

US shale gas will be transported to Europe by gas tankers. This technology was developed long ago and allowed Algeria to sell large quantities of LNG to the US and France, which is also used by Qatar. Some countries like France have prohibited shale gas and oil exploration. In fact, companies, such as the GDF Suez of France (GDF Suez is Europe’s largest LNG importer and the world’s third-largest seller of LNG with a portfolio of 16m tonnes a year) - are busy exploring for shale gas in the US and have already prepared plans for the port infrastructure in France and at least another European country. The US is expected by the International Energy Agency to be the world’s largest natural gas exporter by 2020 (and the largest oil exporter too), though it expects these exports to plateau in the future.

The US is poised to overtake Russia as the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas this year, a startling shift that is reshaping energy markets and eroding the clout of traditional petroleum-rich nations, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Shale-rock formations of oil and natural gas have fueled a comeback for the US that was unimaginable a decade ago. Russia meanwhile has struggled to maintain its energy output and has yet to embrace the technologies such as hydraulic fracturing that have boosted US reserves.

In May the Department of Energy authorized the Freeport LNG project in Texas to export to countries that do not have a trade agreement with the US, including Japan and the members of the EU. It was the first such approval to be granted for two years.

Twenty-six proposed US LNG plants have applied to the Department of Energy for export permits, but only one – Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass development in Louisiana – had been granted permission to sell to countries that do not have a trade agreement with the US. The US energy department said it would work through the remaining applications in order. Japan is already the world’s largest importer of LNG, and the crippling of its nuclear industry by the 2011 meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi atomic power station has only increased its demand.

Freeport has signed deals to sell its gas to Osaka Gas and Chubu Electric of Japan, and BP of the UK. The export project is owned by a consortium including Osaka Gas and Michael Smith, Freeport’s founder and chief executive.

Separately, Japanese and European companies said they would invest billions of dollars in another proposed gas export project - the $10bn Cameron LNG plant in Louisiana. Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Nippon Yusen of Japan, and GDF Suez of France which had already agreed to buy LNG from Cameron - will offer construction financing in return for equity stakes totaling 49.8 per cent.