The Long Term LNG Outlook Keeps Improving
LNG export terminals usually have the ability to export more than their nameplate capacity. This is how we exported a record 18.8 Billion Cubic Feet Per Day (BCF/D) of natural gas in March, compared with FERC’s estimated sustainable limit of 14.6-15 BCF/D.
Venture Global’s (VG) Plaquemines facility was the strongest at exceeding stated capacity. Cheniere’s Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi terminals were also above. This allowed both companies to take advantage of the spike in European LNG prices caused by the disruption of flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
VG expects more long term tightness in the LNG market over the long run (i.e. past 2030). Cheniere sees the need for increased supply but has a more cautious outlook. Reflecting these different opinions, VG keeps 30% or so of its liquefaction capacity uncommitted, which looks good at times like this. Cheniere keeps less than 5%. VG has more volatile earnings and stock price but expects to generate higher returns per unit of capacity than their rival.
Consequently, as the European TTF benchmark dipped last week, VG pulled back sharply and disproportionately in response to the move in spot prices. It creates trading opportunities for those so inclined.
The longer term outlook for these two companies and global LNG demand in general remains strong. The EU is extraordinarily naive in their energy strategy. For years Germany has relentlessly promoted solar and wind. Under former Chancellor Angela Merkel, they decided to shut down their nuclear reactors in 2011, with the last unit closing in 2023.
Germany’s Economy Minister recently called for a rethink.
The EU has long insisted that natural gas consumption was temporary, to be phased out as part of their climate change goals. This prevented them from signing long-term contracts. Morgan Stanley says their last Qatari LNG cargo will be received on April 13th, after which they will lose 9% of their supply. They see European LNG prices reaching €90 per MWh by the fall, which would be up 80% from current levels and triple their pre-war price.
The bloc produces 43% of its primary energy consumption, because renewables are too expensive and inadequate to meet their needs. They are the most successful at de-carbonizing their economy, but at an enormous cost in output and energy security.
With imports from the Persian Gulf disrupted, the EU Energy Commissioner is warning that fuel rationing may be necessary. Having depended on the US for a credible defense against Russian aggression for decades, they don’t have the military capability to unblock the Strait of Hormuz and free up their energy imports.
President Trump’s flip comment that Europe should come and get its own oil is, as usual, outside the norms of discourse among national leaders but nonetheless highlights the EU’s strategic weakness.
VG, Cheniere and NextDecade (NEXT) are among the beneficiaries. VG CEO Mike Sabel is, “…tremendously optimistic about the middle- and long-term strength of the market.”
Cheniere has long argued that U.S. LNG is a reliable, flexible supplier that will benefit from any supply disruptions.
Other than the LNG exporters, midstream management teams have generally been quiet about how the Iran war is boosting their bottom-lines. US propane exports are running at 1.9 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D), up a modest 3.8% year-on-year. Enterprise Products Partners and Energy Transfer, who do most of this business, have said little publicly since the war began.
Neither natural gas nor propane prices in the US are showing any response to tightening supplies globally, reflecting the regional nature of these markets and the difficulty of sharply increasing exports over the short run. Energy executives are probably happy to avoid headlines with gasoline prices ratcheting higher. The President’s TV speech on Wednesday did little to calm markets, and Iran continues to show resilience in its ability to hit back.
The Economist and the Financial Times, two publications I have enjoyed for decades, recently examined the effect of US tariffs a year after their implementation and arrived at opposite conclusions. This need not be surprising, except that both use manufacturing data to support their view.
The Economist (see “Liberation Year” has not freed American factories) notes that the US has shed 100K manufacturing jobs since Trump took office, even though the point was to boost domestic production. By contrast, the Financial Times (see The case for Trump’s tariffs looks strong a year on from ‘liberation day’) highlights that industrial production is +1.6% over the past year following decades of decline. They see a resurgence in manufacturing employment, pointing out that manufacturing jobs shrank by 93K since tariffs took place eleven months ago, compared with 167K over the eleven months prior.
Purchasing manager surveys show “increasing optimism” according to the FT, while the Economist finds the same survey, “…suggests that the sector spent most of 2025 in recession.”
Both articles overlook the biggest impact of tariffs, which was to impose a consumption tax on imported goods. This boosted customs duties by $185BN last year versus 2024. Given our fiscal outlook, such prudence is welcome if uncharacteristic. Moreover, Trump hails the extra revenue as sourced from foreigners while both the New York Federal Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office both find the burden overwhelmingly falls on US consumers.
A populist president has imposed a highly regressive tax that is paid disproportionately by low and middle income Americans and is barely noticed by the 1% (at least among those I know living in Naples, FL).
That he has pulled this off while maintaining his populist credentials is quite a feat.
We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:
































