European Energy Crisis: Industry Shutting Down or Migrating to the US

Russian gas cut off and Europe still has no Plan B

A pipeline from Yamal to Europe stopped pumping on a Saturday in late October 2021. Data from the German operator Gascade showed the decline hour by hour: nearly 400,000 cubic meters in one hour, 28,800 in the next, and zero at 10:00 Moscow time. What was revealing was not the cutoff itself, but what trinc: the pipe entered reverse mode and began flowing from west to east. The cheap Russian gas that had sustained European industry was fading, and very few people on the continent understood at the time what this meant. Ten months later, the conversation was no longer about a gas pipeline. It was about factories closing, countries recalibrating their energy bills, and an uncomfortable question no one wanted to answer: who is paying for the party.

Why did energy prices skyrocket in Europe?

The trigger was the market. In France, the daily contract reached 5.5% gains up to 645.54 euros per megawatt-hour on Epex Spot, more than seven times the price of a year earlier. The UK, Germany, Italy, and the Nordic region hit peaks on the same day, with minimal wind forecasts forcing grids to rely on expensive fossil fuels. The marginal pricing system—where the most expensive source sets the price for all electricity—was exposed. Even European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted: «Gas is the most expensive and defines all the price. This market system no longer works. We have to reform it.»

Some argue the problem is supply and war; others counter that the market design multiplies the damage regardless of gas prices. The fact is, the bill failed to balance across Europe simultaneously.

Nord Stream 2: who financed the pipeline nobody checked

The total cost of Nord Stream 2 was budgeted at 9.5 billion euros. Gazprom paid half. The other half was financed by five Western companies, each contributing about 950 million: including Wintershall, a BASF subsidiary, and Uniper, which has already received credit lines from the German government. With that structure on the table, attributing the sabotage of the pipelines to Moscow without nuance is, at minimum, debatable: trinc the money trail, the lead gets lost within two steps. Furthermore, the infrastructure was Russian property.

Germany burns coal and cancels contracts due to force majeure

Industry accounts for 30% of European gas consumption. When its price multiplies, there is no margin: it closes down. BASF plants stopped throughout August, and several small and medium-sized chemical businesses in Germany filed for suspension of payments. Testimonies from the chemical sector describe a brutal and unprecedented shortage: multimillion-euro contracts canceled with foreign clients due to force majeure. Simultaneously, Germany reactivated coal generation to save gas, relaxed pollution criteria, and intervened in Russian oil assets within its territory.

The most repeated argument is that demand destruction occurred: European companies surviving did not consume less because they were efficient, but because they had stopped producing.
The cost is passed on to employment and tax revenue.

The silent winner is the US economy

Affected by rising gas prices, European companies in steel, fertilizers, and other basic raw materials are moving their operations to the United States, which combines cheaper energy with generous subsidies. The result is a trend of delocalization that benefits the Atlantic partner while Europe assumes the industrial cost.
The fundamental question—whether this asymmetry is a side effect or a deliberate move—has no clear answer, but the pattern is difficult to ignore.

How much does it cost to halt the energy crisis?

The UK estimated at least 100 billion pounds to protect families from the bill shock. The so-called «islands exception» (excepción ibérica), a cap on gas applied in Spain and Portugal, was estimated at around 6 billion euros, according to a calculation circulating in the thread. This figure, compared to the British one, illustrates the scale of the bailout: public money used to cover a hole that energy policy itself contributed to opening. In Spain, the Minister for Ecological Transition, Teresa Ribera, assured that there was no need to worry about supply after the closure of the Berebere-Europe pipeline.

The debate on nuclear, renewables, and the mix no one wants to discuss

Spain accumulated about 57,000 megawatts of installed renewables at the time, and its energy plan projected occupying only 0.4% of arable land with photovoltaics. Yet, the debate between proponents and critics of the energy mix continues: calculations circulating about nuclear phase-out point to increases approaching 40 euros per megawatt-hour and a 23% increase in costs for households and SMEs without nuclear power, while cases like Alcoa San Ciprián—representing nearly a third of the electricity in Galicia—become symbols of industrial fragility.

---

And among the figures repeated in the thread, one that must be handled with caution: according to one calculation circulating, while Spain had about 100 days of gas reserves, its major northern partners managed only 35. Almost three times less cushion for those selling lessons in energy security.