Conflict in the Middle East invariably leads to concern about disruption to crude supplies that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices duly rose once Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran. Around 20% of total oil consumption comes through this narrow waterway. It’s unlikely Iran could close it for long if at all.  

Sell side firms have estimated that the market’s assessed probability of a closure is around 15-20%, based on comparing the recent move up in crude versus where it would go if a fifth of global supplies were stopped. Crude is up about 20% this month. 

Around 20% of the world’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) also passes through the same bottleneck. Nonetheless, the reaction of regional LNG benchmarks in Asia and Europe, where most imports go, has been muted, with prices rising around 3% this month. 

Maritime insurance rates have gone up, and ships are being asked to arrive at export terminals in the Arabian Gulf only when called to minimize the number of vessels concentrated together.  

Although 20% of oil and LNG pass through the Strait, LNG is only 14% of global gas consumption. This explains the difference in market response to the Israel-Iran war, since only 3% of the world’s gas is at risk.  

Oil is easier to move than gas, so around 40% of the world’s oil is traded before being refined. Because natural gas isn’t very energy-dense, its volume has to be significantly condensed to make movement by ship commercially attractive.  

Twenty five years ago the trade in gas via inter-regional pipelines was more than 2.5X as big as LNG. Pipeline volumes peaked just prior to the pandemic when they fell 10%. A brief rebound in 2021 ended with Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. By 2023 pipeline gas volumes were 24% lower than in 2019. The loss of Russian gas exports to the EU was the proximate cause.  

By contrast, LNG volumes have climbed steadily, and didn’t even drop in 2020. Energy security became more important following the Russian invasion. A pipeline connecting two countries doesn’t allow any flexibility if relations between the supplier and buyer break down. This was the case with Nordstream before it was mysteriously blown up. China and Russia have been negotiating for years over additional Russian gas supply via the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, with China showing less urgency than Russia to reach an agreement.  

Both countries must consider how they’d cope if a dispute caused flows to stop. A Russian adviser suggested that Middle East tensions would spur an agreement so that China could reduce its exposure to the Strait of Hormuz, although this looks like wishful thinking.  

LNG trade is around 40% bigger than inter-regional pipeline volumes, and that gap is likely to grow. Moving natural gas by ship allows trade between countries too far apart to be connected via a pipeline. LNG also enhances energy security for both parties, since once the necessary infrastructure is in place, both buyer and seller can negotiate agreements with multiple counterparties.  

We often note the projected growth in US LNG export capacity, driven by abundant domestic supply. The Asian JKM benchmark is $13.80 per Million BTUs (MMBTUs), and the European TTF is $13.25 per MMBTU. With US natural gas at around $4, the price differences are easily big enough to make US exports attractive.  

Our current LNG exports of around 15 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) are limited by liquefaction capacity. We expect this to roughly double by 2030 based on projects already under construction.  

There are many other projects that have not yet reached Final Investment Decision (FID), so export capacity is likely to continue growing into the next decade.  

The US is the world’s biggest LNG exporter with 21% of the market but is not alone in growing. Around half of the “aspirational” capacity as estimated in the International Gas Union’s 2025 World LNG Report is outside North America.  

China is 19% of LNG imports, followed by Japan at 16%. Global LNG trade has grown at 6% pa since 2000. 

Because there will be more LNG available, some analysts predict this will lead to a global surplus that will depress prices and profitability for exporters. However, receiving capacity is also growing. The facilities that regassify LNG for injection into their distribution networks are more numerous than the liquefaction export terminals. They generally operate at around 40% capacity,  

By contrast, global liquefaction facilities operated at 87% of capacity last year. There’s more than 2X as much import capability as export. The world is preparing to use more natural gas, as the unmet promises of renewables mount up. For example, Malaysia just announced a 50% increase in gas-fired electricity to meet rising demand from data centers.  

LNG exports will be part of the solution.  

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.