FREE

Shale gas public perception in Romania

This Policy Brief looks into the distinctive nature of the Romanian opposition to shale gas: what is the context in which it appeared, the key drivers behind it, and how it has changed in the last year and a half (January 2012 – July 2013). Two different perspectives (political and societal) are deployed in an attempt to perform an anatomy of the shale gas opposition phenomenon in Romania. The technical arguments related to the technology itself are not the focus of this brief. Instead, the analysis tries to identify the specific conditions which lead to such a strong public outburst against unconventional projects in 2012. In Romania, shale gas projects ran into unexpected opposition from local communities, the Romanian Orthodox Church and encountered a growing environmental activism of a younger generation of Romanians who currently lacks political representation. Against a background of prolonged austerity measures in what is already one of the EU’s poorest country and low transparency of key public institutions, the Romanian shale gas opposition appears a heterogeneous movement whose environmental core is strengthened by opinion-leaders of left-wing, nationalistic, or anti-capitalist beliefs. But, it is also joined by disgruntled citizens who feel disempowered and is supported by a young generation of Romanians who are fed up with Romania’s endemic corruption and lack of accountability of the current political elite.

Romania, along with Poland and Bulgaria, is one of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe that is believed to hold important reserves of shale gas. The issue of shale gas and the use of hydraulic fracturing has so far proved a sensitive one and holds the potential to become as divisive a topic as that of Roşia Montană. The first time the public attention was drawn to the issue of shale gas exploration and extraction was during the 2012 anti-government protests. Romania’s official position on the topic changed several times: from silent support in 2010 until early 2012 to a ‘political’ moratorium on shale gas between May and December 2012, and back to cautious support of exploration in 2013. Romania is now one of the European countries that favors shale gas development in order to strengthen its energy security, diversify energy supply, and gain access to cheaper energy in order to develop its industry.

The politics of shale gas in Romania

As a topic of public interest, shale gas came to the fore in 2012 during a period of intense political struggle and polarization. In 2012, Romania went through a political crisis that saw president Traian Băsescu in impeachment procedures for a second time during his two term presidency, the foundations of the rule of law questioned by surreptitious changes in legislation and a change of government. The issue of drilling for shale gas in such a tense political environment was bound to become divisive and subject to manipulation by parties interested in quick political gains.

At the beginning of 2012 the Romanian government was led by a technocrat, Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu – former director of Romania’s Foreign Intelligence Service – and supported by a narrow majority in Parliament made up of PDL, UDMR (Hungarian minority party), UNPR and representatives of other national minorities. The Ungureanu government openly supported Chevron, which won in 2010 an international tender for a number of sites in Romania and expressed interest in Romania’s shale gas deposits. The topic itself was first targeted by street protests in Bucharest during the early 2012 protests in Piața Universității, which took place against a general popular discontent about the harsh austerity measures taken by the previous PDL government, led by Emil Boc (2009-2011).

1 Source: KPMG, 20 years of American investment in Poland

The PDL-led government supported shale gas projects for both political and economic reasons. From a political standpoint, it meant expanding the strategic partnership between Romania and the United States in the field of economics. Although Bucharest and Washington enjoy a strong relationship, it is far more effective in security and strategic terms than in economic ones. In the last twenty years, for instance, Romania has been far less effective at attracting American foreign direct investments (FDI) than Poland, which is the regional champion in Central Europe with 20 billion dollars of cumulative US investments by 2010.¹ Source: KPMG, 20 years of American investment in Poland

The prospect of a big American company investing in Romania during the most severe economic crisis since the fall of communism was also important, considering that 2012 was an electoral year. Shale gas extraction also means diversification of Romania’s energy sources. Romania’s proven gas reserves are expected to last no more than 10-15 years² and Bucharest is wary of becoming too dependent on Russian imports. From an economic point of view, the possible discovery of significant shale gas reserves that could be exploited meant additional revenues for the state through royalties and taxes, as well as increased local gas production.

However, in its short mandate, Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu’s cabinet proved to be rather ineffective in managing another mineral resources file – the privatization process of Cuprumin, a bankrupt state owned mining company that extracted copper from open pit mines. Although the privatization process was held up as a successful endeavor of the government in salvaging an important part of Romania’s mining industry, the entire process collapsed when the winner of the tender for the majority stake in Cuprumin proved incapable of paying the 200 million dollars price tag. This failure reflected poorly on the government’s ability to manage projects involving natural resources.

The Romanian president, Traian Băsescu, has argued on many occasions that the country should take advantage of its natural resources and use them as an engine for economic development. At the time, Traian Băsescu was held responsible for the severe austerity measures taken by the government in order to deal with the economic crisis: his support for shale gas projects attracted instant opposition, from civil society and opposition parties.

The main opposition coalition, the USL, which united the social-democrats (PSD) and the liberals (PNL), were not as supportive of shale gas projects as the government, although they didn’t oppose them strongly either. Given the economic, strategic, and political stakes involving shale gas, the response of the USL to this issue was measured and gradual. Furthermore, USL did not ignore the public mood at the beginning of 2012, which was vehemently against the government and openly criticized projects promoted by the PDL-led cabinet. In order to broaden USL’s political appeal and to ensure a broad coalition, Victor Ponta, the Social-Democrats’ leader, chose to include in the opposition coalition the Greens. Although, in Romania, the Greens have never been a significant political force and at the time were fragmented, with at least three parties claiming to represent the green movement (the Green Party, the Romanian Ecological Party and the Movement of the Green-Democratic Agrarians³), the move sent an important message that USL would take into consideration the environmental agenda.

When Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu’s cabinet did not survive a no-confidence vote in May 2012, president Traian Băsescu nominated Victor Ponta to form a USL-led cabinet. Its main task was to organize the local elections that would take place in June 2012 and the general elections in December. One of the first decisions of the new cabinet was to impose a 6-month moratorium on shale gas exploration. However, it appears that this was a half hearted effort of the USL, directed at reassuring the public on an emotional topic, as the government opposed legislation to ban hydraulic fracturing, even if it was put forward by deputies from their own ranks.⁴ After the general elections, which saw a landslide victory of the USL, prime-minister Ponta had a change of heart concerning shale gas development in Romania. Upon expiration of the shale gas moratorium, he did not renew it, arguing that he was going to allow only exploratory drilling, not exploitation. The prime-minister’s position on shale gas has gradually grown more supportive over the past six months. Ponta has made several public statements that openly support shale gas drilling in Romania, abandoning his initial skepticism and the cautious policy approach of 2012:

“I am for [shale gas] exploration, because exploitation drilling will start five years from now. If shale gas will be discovered as a result of these explorations and can be exploited without harm to the environment, I will support it (…) I know it is good for Romania to be energy independent. For this reason I assume responsibility for the unpopular issue of shale-gas drilling.”⁵

or

“Now, I fight for shale gas and I think I am doing the right thing, there will be jobs and investments of over 300 million dollars this year.” (Statement made in a talk-show on B1 TV channel, on May 13, 2013).⁶

Why the sudden change? A cynical explanation would be that after the electoral season was over, the anti-shale gas position was untenable both politically and economically. With a two thirds majority in both chambers of Parliament, the government stands on a solid political footing, so it doesn’t require the support of the Greens. As for the environmental NGOs, they don’t have the outreach to mobilize and protest effectively against government policy on a stand-alone basis. Furthermore, last year’s political crisis has created the perception that USL is not as pro-Western and pro-American as PDL and President Băsescu. Victor Ponta can ill afford a conflict with an American multinational while at the same trying to convince Washington of his credentials as a trusted ally. What he can do instead, is improve the Romanian oil and gas framework, make sure that the best available technologies (BAT) will be used, and strengthen enforcement of the existing environmental legislation.

Economically, the government is under pressure to deliver, given the hopes for better economic prospects that have been attached to a USL victory. The economic crisis has stretched thin public finances and the future outlook is not encouraging, given the slow recovery of the global economy and the problems of the European markets. Romania needs foreign investments to restart its economy; hence, driving out an investor such as Chevron looks like a bad policy choice. The recent failure of the Nabucco West pipeline to win the international tender to transport Azerbaijan’s gas to European markets, a project which Romania staunchly supported, means that shale gas will be part of any energy strategy that Bucharest will formulate in the near future.

Despite their political differences, both USL and PDL currently support shale gas projects. The issue has been politicized because of the particular political environment in which it has emerged on the public agenda – the 2012 mass protests coupled with a political crisis, and general elections. Politically, PDL and President Băsescu have embraced shale gas, while USL was far more cautious in its approach in 2012, careful not to be perceived as anti-shale gas by the business community, while at the same time seeking not to irritate public opinion in an electoral year.

Public reaction to shale gas projects

The issue of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing gained the public attention during winter 2012, when environmental activists joined the anti-government protests in Piața Universității, in early January. Previously ignored by the general public, shale gas gained notoriety due to the media, especially the cable news networks (Antena 3, Realitatea TV, RTV) which covered the protests in Piața Universității around the clock. A banner opposing shale gas drilling was prominently displayed during the protests in Piața Universității by activists and students, as well as placards saying that shale gas is not a solution for Romania’s energy security. In Piața Universității the issue of shale gas overlapped with and was partially overshadowed by the issue of Roșia Montană gold mining project.

From a social perspective, the discussion on shale gas is part of a larger topic concerning the exploitation and management of Romania’s natural resources and the role played by private and public companies. As such, it got entangled with the Roșia Montană project, an older and much more divisive topic concerning the use of cyanide in gold mining. It even echoed back to the privatization of the national oil company Petrom, perceived by many Romanians as a bad deal for the country.

Those who oppose shale gas drilling point to the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, a position shared by environmental activists around the world. In Romania there are also those who are calling into question the benefits of shale gas exploitation on ideological grounds⁷ – left wing activists and anti-capitalists – who argue that these natural resource projects represent the making of a new “speculative bubble” and therefore shale is neither sustainable nor lucrative in the long term.⁸ Given the heterodox nature of the 2012 protests in Piața Universității, the anti-fracking cause attracted the support of nationalist groups and anti-capitalist activists who could be heard chanting “Romania is not for sale!” and “The Corporation doesn’t make the law!”.

The locations where shale gas is going to be drilled for are also unnerving for many opponents.

Chevron won the tender for three sites in Constanța county, of which Vama Veche is a popular tourist destination and famous among counter-culture activists, while Costinești is a traditional youth resort on the Black Sea coast. Having considered local opposition to its development work in Limanu and Costinești, Chevron suspended all development activities in 2012.⁹ Local referenda were organized in the resorts on the Black Sea in December 2012 at the same time with legislative elections, however they were invalidated due to lack of quorum. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that of the votes that were cast in these balots, 86% were against shale gas development.¹⁰

However, the largest protests against shale gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing did not take place in Bucharest, but at local level, in the city of Bârlad, Vaslui county. If in Bucharest there were on average maybe 1,000 protesters in Piața Universității during winter 2012 and their anger was directed mostly at the president, the PDL and the government, in Bârlad, by some accounts, there were around 8,000 protesters.¹¹ Before that, a protest of such magnitude was unheard of outside the capital. It was probably the biggest environmental protest ever organized in Romania.

The main reason behind the Bârlad protests was hydraulic fracturing. The organizer of the protests, a local NGO called Vira, managed to get support to organize the rally from the local authorities and the mayor of Bârlad, a member of PSD. The size of the protest can be explained only by the help that organizers received from the local branch of the PSD as well as from the Romanian Orthodox Church. As the protest targeted the government and the PDL, this was an opportunity for the Social-Democrats to show their strength in an electoral year. When anti-fracking activists tried to repeat the rally in April 2013, only 2,000 protesters could be mobilized; the local authorities did not support the movement this time, since the official party position on the topic has radically changed in the meantime. Another Bârlad protest was held in May 2013 and mobilized around 4,000-5,000 people. Priest Vasile Lăiu, one of the leaders of the Bârlad protest movement, explains: “The main purpose of our struggle is to protect life. We don’t have any political association or a hidden agenda, as we have been accused of. What concerns us the most is that the decisions are taken somewhere else, without us being consulted.”¹² The anger of the local community seems to be directed against both the government, which stands accused of sacrificing the national interest, and the multinational company, accused of trying to poison the inhabitants of the region and destroy the environment.¹³

A development specific to Romania is the opposition of the Orthodox Church to shale gas projects. Such opposition has been present initially at local level¹⁴, in Bârlad. However, as of late bishop Pimen Zainea has spoken against shale gas drilling.¹⁵ It was for the very first time since the fall of communism that the Romanian Orthodox Church has taken a stand on a secular issue together with representatives of the civil society. In Bârlad, the most active prelate of the Romanian Orthodox Church in organizing the local communities against shale gas drilling has been Vasile Lăiu. He has participated in the protests, helped organize them and preached from the pulpit against shale gas drilling.¹⁶ Some of the language used by the representatives of the church to frame the question carries nationalist and anti-Western overtones:

“There is this diabolical plan: under the guise of searching for green energy… they are scouring the earth, poisoning the water, the springs created by God… This is a crime! A crime! A diabolical economic plan!… During the communist atheistic regime it was bad. It is worse during this European Union regime” (Bishop Zainea’s sermon)¹⁷

and

“We pray to God today to defend Romania and to help the Romanian people in its struggle of resistance and survival against the foreign invaders. We find, with great sorrow and indignation, that the decimation of the people and enslavement of the country is being pursued with subtle devices… In other times the country had to pay tribute to the foreign invaders, today the invaders are interested in the natural resources of our country and pay commissions to those that can pave the way for them to steal our wealth” (Vasile Lăiu’s sermon)¹⁸

Overall public support for shale gas projects is low given the novelty of the subject and the lack of information concerning the exploitation of this natural resource. An opinion poll conducted in April 2013 by Agentia de Rating Politic (a private polling company based in Bucharest) showed that 41.5% believe that shale gas drilling is a danger to both the environment and humans, while roughly 22% of Romanians believe it poses no threat for the environment and humans.¹⁹ However, 16% have said that they do not know if shale gas drilling is dangerous and therefore cannot make a comment, while 20% never heard of this issue. Less than 1% declined to answer the question. See below.

Source: Agentia de Rating Politic (ARP), survey conducted between April 12-17, 2013

These results point to a lack of understanding of this issue among the general public caused by a dearth of information available on shale gas and hydraulic fracturing.

To sum up, it is not clear how the Romanian society as a whole views shale gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These subjects are new to the public and require a certain level of technical knowledge. Opposition exists mostly at the local level, in areas were drilling sites have been awarded by the government to energy companies. The greatest opposition at national level comes from civil society – especially environmental organizations and NGOs with strong environmental programs. The opponents of shale gas development make the case by pointing out the potential negative impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment and people’s health, as well as what they consider to be dubious economic benefits of shale gas for the local and national economy. Some of the opposition to shale gas drilling is ideological in nature and comes from left-wing commentators and organizations.

To date, shale gas development proved to be a thorny political and societal topic in Romania. Although currently there is an apparent consensus among the political elite concerning the economic and strategic benefits of shale gas, the view from society is less clear or supportive. The societal approval still has to be won. Overall, the state and civil society are not on the same page when it comes to this topic which signals that developing shale gas in Romania will not be without difficulties. The situation is complicated by a lack of transparency on the part of public authorities, week state institutions and a deep (and, alas, justified) mistrust of citizens toward their leaders.

FOOTNOTES:

1. 20 years of American investment in Poland, Report of the American Chamber of Commerce in Poland and KPMG, 2010, available at http://www.kpmg.com/pl/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/20-years-of-american-investment-in-poland-report.aspx, accessed on June 30, 2013.
2. Andra Dumitru, “Rezervele de gaze ale României mai ajung pentru 15 ani, dar ar putea crește după explorările din Marea Neagră”, available at http://www.romanialibera.ro/bani-afaceri/economie/rezervele-de-gaze-ale-romaniei-mai-ajung-15-ani-dar-ar-putea-creste-dupa-explorarile-din-marea-neagra-242545.html, accessed on June 20, 2013.
3. Meanwhile, in January 2013, the Green Party merged with the Movement of the Green-Democratic Agrarians. See: http://www.partidulverde.ro/2013/01/21/partidul-verde-a-fuzionat-cu-miscarea-verzilor-democrati-agrarieni/
4. Doru Cireașă “Guvernul Ponta a blocat stoparea exploatărilor de gaze de șist”, available at http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/eveniment/cabinetul-ponta-a-blocat-stoparea-exploatarilor-de-gaze-de-sist-269719.html, accessed on July 3, 2013.
5. “Ponta: ‘I support shale gas exploration; If we discover shale gas, I will support drilling in safe conditions‘”, available at http://www.euractiv.ro/uniunea-europeana/articles|displayArticle/articleID_25161/Ponta_Sunt_pentru_explorarea_gazelor_de_sist;_daca_le_descoperim_vo i_fi_si_in_favoarea_exploatarii_in_conditii_sigure.html , accessed on June 30, 2013.
6. “Victor Ponta: ‘Acum mă bat pentru gazele de șist și cred că fac bine. Nu sunt anti-rus dar nu mai vreau să importăm de la Gazprom’”, available at http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-14995241-livetext-premierul-victor-ponta-b1-robert-turcescu.htm, accessed on June 30, 2013.
7. Criticatac “Tema: gazul de șist. Marele scandal” available at http://www.criticatac.ro/22762/22762/, accessed on July 7, 2013.
8. Costi Rogozanu, “Protestul de la Bârlad. Următoarea bulă economică: gazul de șist” available at http://voxpublica.realitatea.net/politica-societate/protestul-de-la-barlad-urmatoarea-bula-economica-gazul-de-sist-90877.html, accessed on July, 8 2013.
9. “Chevron renunță temporar la exploatarea gazelor de șist” available at http://www.ziare.com/economie/gaz/chevron-renunta-temporar-la-exploatarea-gazelor-de-sist-in-romania-1159423 accessed on July 8, 2013.
10. SilviuMolnar“Romania:ConstantaCountyShaleGasReferendumsFail”,available at “http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/constanta-county-referendum-on-the-exploitation-of-shale-gas-fails, December 22, 2012.
11. Vlad Ursulean “Marea Adunare de la Bârlad” available at http://vlad.ursulean.ro/marea-adunare-de-la-barlad/, accessed on July 8, 2013.
12. Vali Blănaru,“Bârlad: protest înghesuit împotriva gazelor de șist. 5.000 de oameni au protestat la Grădina publică și printre blocuri după ce Primăria nu a autorizat marșul prin oraș” available at http://jurnalul.ro/bani-afaceri/economia/barlad-protest-inghesuit-impotriva-gazelor-de-sist-644050.html, May 27, 2013.
13. Cezara Mironica “România a spus NU gazelor de șist la Bârlad” available at http://www.vrn.ro/romania-a-spus-nu-gazelor-de-sist-la-barlad, May 28, 2013.
14. Vlad Ursuleanu, “Biserica Protestară din Bârlad” available at http://vlad.ursulean.ro/biserica-protestatara-din-barlad/ accessed on July 8, 2013.
15. Andreea Croitor: “Arhiepiscopul Sucevei și Rădăuților atac vehement la UE și exploatarea gazelor de șist: ‘Un plan diabolic, o crimă’” available at http://www.ghimpele.ro/2013/07/arhiepiscopul-sucevei-si-radautilor-atac-vehement-la-ue-si-exploatarea-gazelor-de-sist-un-plan-diabolic-o-crima/ accessed on July 8, 2013.
16. “Prefer să mor cu fruntea sus decât cu capul în noroiul Chevron” available at http://www.cotidianul.ro/prefer-sa-mor-cu-fruntea-sus-decat-cu-capul-in-noroiul-chevron-ului-207804/, accessed July 9, 2013.
17. Andreea Croitor: “Arhiepiscopul Sucevei și Rădăuților atac vehement la UE și exploatarea gazelor de șist: ‘Un plan diabolic, o crimă‘”. Vezi nota 15.
18. Vlad Ursuleanu “Biserica Protestară din Bârlad”. Vezi nota 14.
19. “Piața politică: Sondaj de opinie național, barometru de opinie publică, 12-17 aprile 2013” available at http://ratingpolitic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Barometru-ARP-Piata-politica-apr2013-presa.pdf