WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/02 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Commission study of petroleum deposits in the EU.
Date: 2002-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Crete, Denmark, EU production, EU statistics, European Union, North Sea, United Kingdom, natural resources, oilfield

C 28 E/202

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a Directive on environmental liability (cid:1) impact on SMUs

Would the Commission kindly answer the following questions concerning the proposal for a directive on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1)?

Has it investigated the impact that the operation of the future market in environmental liability insurance
under this directive will have on the competitive position of SMUs vis-à-vis large undertakings?

To what conclusions did the investigations come?

If the operation of the future market in environmental
liability insurance results in a comparative
disadvantage for SMUs vis-à-vis large undertakings, does the Commission take the view that measures
would need to be taken in order to restrict that negative impact to a minimum? What measures would
need to be taken to that end?

(1) COM(2002) 17, OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002, p. 132.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

The Commission has assessed the economic impact of the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and
of the Council on enviromnental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental
damage (1). The Honourable Member is referred in particular to section 4, entitled ‘The economic
assessment of the proposal, its benefits and costs’, of the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal, and to
the Impact Assessment Form attached to the proposal.

No impact assessment has been specifically made for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) since
environmental damage might be caused irrespective of the size of a business.

It does not seem that the operation of any future market in environmental liability insurance would result
in a comparative disadvantage for SMEs vis-à-vis large undertakings. The level of the premium to be paid
by the operator would depend on the level of risk presented by each undertaking. This level of risk should
be assessed by the insurer on an individual basis. This assessment is likely to take into account the quality
and efficiency of the risk aversion and prevention policy measures implemented by each operator. In other
words, all efforts taken by an operator to prevent or at least minimise the risks of occurrence of accidents
capable of causing environmental damage should reduce the amount of the premium to be paid. It should
also be noted that it is common practice in the insurance industry to fix the premium as a function of the
turnover of the insured undertaking. Such a practice appears to be in the interest of the SMEs.

On the basis of the above-mentioned considerations, the Commission is not of the opinion for the time
being that particular measures specifically designed for SMEs are needed.

(1) COM(2002) 17 final, OJ C 151, 25.6.2002.

(2003/C 28 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Commission study of petroleum deposits in the EU

(22 July 2002)

According to the Greek newspaper ‘TA NEA’
(9 March 2002), the Italian oceanographic vessel, the
‘Urania’, has discovered a large petroleum deposit in the Gavdos area to the south of Crete. Using an

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/203

advanced ‘ROV’ remote operated vehicle large quantities of petroleum were discovered in a basin
300 metres deep and 1 km wide situated in the seabed off Gavdos. The Greek press has repeatedly
reported on the discovery of considerable petroleum deposits as a result of satellite observations and
marine research in the Aegean.

Has the Commission launched studies or received reports from other sources regarding petroleum deposits
in European Union Member States? What quantities (in barrels of crude) have been found and in which
areas? What information does the Commission have concerning petroleum deposits in Greek waters and
on the Greek mainland?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The table below gives the figures for proved reserves (1) and crude oil production in the Member States.
The column on the right gives the percentage of each country’s total consumption figure represented by
domestic production.

Proved reserves on 1.1.2001
millions of barrels (1)

Production year 2000 thou-
sands of barrels/day (2)

Coverage production/con-
sumption 2000
(in %)

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

EU total

(1)
(2)

Source: Oil and Gas Journal, EIA.
Source: Eurostat.

0

1 069

380

10

21

145

0

622

0

107

86

0

0

0

5 003

7 443

0

357,5

63,2

5,6

4,6

37,1

0

82,8

0

47,2

20,4

0

0

0

2 539,9

3 158,3

0

166,3

2,3

1,4

0,3

1,8

0

4,2

0

5,2

8,4

0

0

0

150,8

23,7

With the exception of Denmark and the United Kingdom, proved reserves and domestic production in the
Member States are extremely low.

It is impossible to determine the total volume of exploitable oil reserves in Greece or in the Union as a
whole for two reasons: the geological data currently available are incomplete, and we do not know how
recovery technology will develop in the future. However, we may assume that, as indicated in the Green
Paper entitled ‘Towards a European strategy for security of energy supply’ (2), the Union’s oil production
will inevitably decline in the coming decades, as North Sea reserves are depleted. In view of the risks
attached to the expected increase in our external dependence, not only with regard to oil but energy

C 28 E/204

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

supplies in general, this is a challenge for the Union, to which the Green Paper seeks to provide an initial
response.

(1)

‘Proved reserves’ are the quantities one may consider with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in the future, from
known oilfields, under current economic and operating conditions. It is not a fixed estimate of total reserves: newly
discovered reserves can be added or the figure can increase when technological improvements allow more of the oil
already found to be recovered.

(2) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2003/C 28 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Oil pipelines and their financial benefits

It is known that plans are being envisaged to lay oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the European Union
Member States, with preference apparently being given to three possible solutions, the Baku-Ceyan
pipeline,
(Albanian-Macedonian-Bulgarian Oil)
pipeline crossing the northern Greek border and linking Burgas and Avlonas. If this last pipeline is built,
it will run through three countries (some of which are highly unstable) and will be 898 km long.

the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline and the ‘AMBO’

In the Commission’s opinion, what are the financial benefits of these three pipelines? Has it launched any
studies into their macro-economic advantages or the dangers they would present to the Union in terms of
its energy self-sufficiency? Would it not be more realistic to build a pipeline passing through only one
country (an EU Member State) for example between Alexandroupolis and the port of Igoumenitsa (which
is currently being modernised and enlarged using Community funding) so as to ensure unobstructed and
secure oil supplies to the principal Member States of the Union? Is there any prospect of Community
funding (for example loans from the European Investment Bank or other forms of funding) for the
realisation of one of the above projected pipelines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Commission cooperates,
in the framework of security of supply within the EU, with the main
neighbouring producer countries, including Russia and the countries of the Caspian Sea. The EU’s position
on Caspian Sea resources was laid down by the General Affairs Council in May 1998, namely that the EU
is in favour of multiple pipeline routes, with the choice of routes and construction entirely in the hands of
the private sector.

The Commission has recognised, in the framework of the Inogate technical assistance programme, the
importance of the transit of resources from Russia and the Caspian Sea through the Central and Eastern
European countries,
in particular the Ukraine (Odessa-Brody-Gdansk), Romania (Constantza-Belgrade-
Omisalj-Trieste) and Bulgaria (Burgas-Alexandroupoulis).

the Commission has allocated EUR 3,55 million under the
With regard to Community co-funding,
Community initiative programme Interreg II for the period 1994-1999 for feasibility studies on the
Burgas-Alexandroupolis project. The project is aimed at linking the Bulgarian port of Bourgas to the Greek
port of Alexandroupolis and will enable oil from the Russian terminal in Novorossisk to be transported to
the European markets. No Community funding is planned for the construction of the oil pipeline.