The use of oil shale is fast becoming a topic in the upcoming Riigikogu elections, something of a hatchet between the current governing coalition and the opposition and a great way to trade blows.

Put simply, the policies of the Reform Party and Eesti 200 to date have portrayed oil shale as a scourge from which Estonia must be freed. At the same time, the three major opposition parties are beating the drum ever louder that oil shale is precisely what will bring prosperity to our doorstep.

In March in Jõhvi, EKRE chairman Martin Helme declared that, if they come to power, trading in carbon quotas will end and oil shale power plants will be put back into operation. Environmental charges would also be abolished, making the production of oil shale electricity significantly cheaper than before. Helme has called emissions trading a racket that has driven the European economy into ruin.

Center Party chairman Mihhail Kõlvart wrote to Prime Minister Kristen Michal at the start of the year, saying that plans to shut down the oil shale industry must be abandoned immediately and that a new oil shale power plant should be built instead.

Isamaa leader Urmas Reinsalu told Põhjarannik that the ideological extinction of oil shale energy through artificial rules does not serve Estonia's interests and that such policies must be abandoned. He also believes oil shale energy should be freed from the constraints of emissions trading.

It is worth noting that while the Reform Party and Eesti 200 currently have a combined support of 15 percent, Isamaa, the Center Party and EKRE together command 60 percent. Unless something very sudden and unexpected happens, it is quite likely that after the Riigikogu elections in 11 months, Estonia will end up with an oil shale coalition.

Another question is how the simple solutions now being floated from the opposition benches would be implemented in reality — namely, in government. Is tipping one's hat to emissions trading really as simple as Martin Helme suggests? If the next Estonian government were to do so, what side effects would follow? How much revenue would the state budget lose if income from the sale of carbon quotas disappears, along with environmental fees? What penalties might the European Union impose for such a move, if any?

It is worth recalling that the Center Party, EKRE and Isamaa were also in power in Estonia from 2019 to 2021 when carbon quota prices rose sharply and pushed oil shale electricity to the sidelines of the market. At the time, Jüri Ratas' government did not take a single step to withdraw Estonia from emissions trading.

To be sure, in order to keep oil shale alive, Eesti Energia was required to maintain oil shale units so they would be ready, if necessary, to generate one thousand megawatts of electricity. The same government also granted Eesti Energia €125 million in 2020 to build a new oil plant. Although political rivals criticized the decision, the plant has now been completed and is expected to begin producing increasingly valuable oil this year.

Stoking an oil shale renaissance based solely on slogans would be populist, but it is clear that expectations of increased fossil fuel use and changes to emissions trading rules are strengthening in several other European Union countries as well. Against this backdrop, it would not be surprising if oil shale production were to increase compared with recent years. The question is how much and when.

Last week, Eesti Energia announced it will stop mining oil shale at the Narva quarry this summer, as the 5 to 6 million tons it currently needs each year — most of which goes to shale oil plants — can be obtained from the Estonia underground mine. Still, it would be unwise to send the Narva quarry's unique giant excavators to the scrap heap just yet, as it cannot be ruled out that they may be needed again in two or three years.

In recent years, Estonia's energy policy has been marked by too much political extremity. Different methods of production have been unjustifiably stigmatized. Oil shale is not as harmful as its opponents try to portray and from the other side it is equally incorrect to make the same claim about, for example, wind energy. Too little effort has gone into finding a formula that balances electricity prices, security of supply, environmental interests, health, jobs, economic growth, tax revenue and overall well-being.

On Tuesday, the Ministry of Climate released an analysis commissioned from researchers at the University of Tartu, summarizing earlier studies on the health impacts of different methods of electricity generation. The text contains quite a few expressions such as "may occur," "may affect" and "may harm." Anyone who wishes can find and highlight the negative effects of any form of electricity production.

However, one of the concluding sentences of the analysis is worth noting: "In developing all types of energy, potential health risks must be taken into account and mitigated as much as possible."

One of the authors of the analysis, environmental health professor Hans Orru, told Põhjarannik late last year that cardiovascular diseases among men in Ida-Viru County stem from a cascade of causes. Alongside environmental impacts, lifestyle, working conditions and a lack of security caused by job losses due to the downsizing of the oil shale industry all play a role. In addition to an increase in heart attacks, unemployment has also harmed people's mental health.

If, a year from now, a pro–oil shale governing coalition does emerge, it will hopefully not swing the pendulum to the other extreme in energy policy or nullify the benefits of renewable energy, but instead succeed in putting together the best possible energy model — one in which wind, oil shale, solar power and perhaps in the future nuclear energy all serve Estonia's interests in a balanced and reasonable way.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!