The EU is in a gas crisis, the details of which we explained in various threads on this channel.
Ironically however, the liberalisation of the European gas markets is a huge success story. A brief history & some present day observations on gas security (#Gazprom).
Thread 1/n
With the liberalisation of EU gas & electricity markets in 1998, in theory consumers were able to freely choose their supplier & shop for the best deal. However, most households and businesses still lacked a real choice of supplier well into 2014. Why?
2/n
A Commission inquiry into the energy sector, published in February 2006, identified a number of "serious malfunctions" in the market as most countries maintained their local monopolies.
In 2006, the Commission's Antitrust Dept. conducted surprise inspections of European champions, incl. E.ON, Gaz de France & OMV, on suspicion they were restricting competitors' access to pipelines & storage or engaged in "market-sharing" practices.
The findings persuaded the EU executive to propose a 3rd energy liberalisation package, tabled in Sept 2007. After lengthy negotiations, the Parliament & the Czech EU Presidency struck a compromise on the legislative package on 23 March 2009.
5/n
Fast forward to 2020: The liberalisation turned a patchwork of national gas markets into an integrated whole which allowed gas to flow freely across borders. Meanwhile, the new hub TTF lowered prices and saved €70bn when compared to the OPE pricing. A huge success!
6/n S: IEA
Today, 80% of EU gas contracts are "Gas-on-Gas" (GOG), i.e. a price discovered by a market. Back in 2005, that was true for a mere 10% while 80% of contracts were linked to crude oil, a system known as "Oil Price Indexation" (OPI or OPE).
7/n Source: IGU Survey 2020
OPE provided a relatively stable reference price that underpinned large-scale investments in upstream projects, pipelines or liquefied natural gas terminals. Such infrastructure are among the most capex-intensive. They require long-term revenue planning.
8/n
However, gas prices did not reflect supply-demand fundamentals of the gas market itself, and buyers in the EU were unable to take advantage of periods of lower-cost supply, particularly following the US shale gas revolution which took off in 2010.
9/n
The 3rd liberalisation package received, who would have thought, a lot of push back from #Gazprom, the de-jure Russian monopoly on gas & the largest supplier to Europe's 540bcm market (2021E). Prospects of new competiton & lower prices was a thread, not just to Gazprom.
10/n
In 2005, profits from the sale of oil & gas exports represented 35% of total government income & 50% of the federal budget. That hasn't changed. #Russia needs EU gas revenues as much as the EU needs Russian gas from Gazprom!
Despite geopolitics, the EU included a reciprocity clause in its liberalisation package - quickly dubbed the 'Gazprom clause' - in response to fears that ownership unbundling would lead to M&A of strategic EU transmission assets by Gazprom. Elegant!
A particular irritant is a rule that prevents companies from controlling the supply & distribution in a single market. Lithuania used it & made #Gazprom a forced seller in 2014 – something Moscow likened to a Soviet-era expropriation of property.
The liberalisation hurt Gazprom's revenues for past decade due to the shift from OPE to GOG prices. However, the EU missed its security target of diversifying gas supplies. Gazprom's EU guidance is for 183bcm in 2021 or 34% (likely too high). It was 166bcm in 2006 (27%).
14/n
And so Russia's "tradition" to use gas as a geopolitical weapon can continue. No wonder accusatory fingers have been pointed at Russia, too, in the ongoing EU gas crisis.
15/n
One way to illustrate the "unusal" today is by isolating Germany's gas storage cycles over some years. #Gazprom operates 25% of German storage. It's ridiculous (especially when certain Twitter experts explain Gazprom's EU storage business was unprofitable - in 2021!).
16/n
Gazprom's EU storage remains seasonally-adjusted low despite VVP's promises for more (watch what they do, not what they say). It may well have supplied its contracted gas, but has not replenished 10bcm EU storage (= Groningen; 5.5% of 183bcm 2021 EU export guidance).
17/n
If Gazprom couldn’t pump enough gas to fill both its domestic & overseas facilities (Russia had an unusually long winter 2019/20), EU leaders need to worry that Russia’s lack of production capacity has to be added to its long list of supply worries (UK, NL, ..).
18/n
EU politicians were reluctant to celebrate their success. Smart. The liberalisation failed to deliver one objective – supply diversification. The EU dependents on Russian gas while its latest green policy proposal worsens that..!
Let me add a few more facts & figures and some high level observations about the United States goods trade deficits with Switzerland of some $20bn annually.
The Swiss government and certain companies have little reason to lament—these tariffs were foreseeable.
Yes, the real issue is their scale: 39% compared to Europe’s 15%, which clearly puts some Swiss exports at a competitive disadvantage. It is what it is.
And while I still believe this situation is fixable, we must be prepared for the worst-case scenario to persist—or even worsen, with potential new tariffs on pharmaceuticals (currently exempted).
So, who is at fault? As some of us learned in officer school during military service: the Bundesrat misjudged the fundamentals of strategic assessment—Lagebeurteilung (judgement of enemy situation). That needs to be addressed. Trump wants balanced trade. Address it. Period.
History is not kind to those who choose dreams over reality—or to the weak who paint themselves as victims.
Therefore, whether Trump’s trade deficit logic makes any sense whatsoever (which it clearly doesn't in the Swiss case) is beside the point.
He’s the president. He has communicated his views clearly and consistently for decades. Adapt. Take the man seriously.
Trustworthy or not, as lamented by President Keller Sutter is none of our business.
2/n @SecScottBessent @BobgonzaleBob
Let’s now take a closer look at Switzerland’s goods trade surplus with the United States.
At Burggraben, we rely on the OEC tool (a paywalled MIT spin-off) for robust global trade data as part of our investment analysis process of all sorts—so we can assess this with confidence. I hope our readers will appreciate the data quality shared herewith for free.
While the annual trade surplus has fluctuated in recent years, the underlying—or let’s call it intrinsic—gap consistently hovers around $20 billion, as the data below will show.
More concretely, Iran likely enriched some 250kg of HEU stockpiles since 2021. Worse, it also said to adds significant new capacities.
That material so far could quickly be turned into the fuel for the equivalent of 10 bombs, should Iran’s leadership take the political decision to pursue weapons, according to Bloomberg.
Here is my theory how the major incident - a so called blackout - occurred at 12:30 CET today in the power system of Spain & Portugal:
1/n
At the time of the incident, Spain and Portugal operated the grid at very high renewables share of about 66% - i.e solar (55%) and wind (11%; eolica)
2/n
While this isn’t unusual for Spain, it does mean that the grid operates with little inertia (resistance to change) during such time. The grid is therefore vulnerable to external effects…!
On this platform, certain perma bulls keep pushing a bullish crude narrative based on relative U.S. inventories—day after day, for three years now.
Their logic: Total U.S. crude inventories (including the SPR) are at 838 million barrels (orange line), 200 million barrels below the 10-year average → bullish!
Yet, inventories keep falling, and prices remain stuck in a range. Clearly, they are wrong.
1/9 @UrbanKaoboy @Iris62655179 @BrentRuditLeo
The problem with their logic?
a) The U.S. is no longer the marginal importer of crude oil—Asia is (or was).
b) U.S. inventories are artificially high on a 10-year average due to the shale boom, which took off in 2014. Shale growth and Covid distort the data, keeping inventories (ex SPR) elevated. So any 5- or 10-year comparison is meaningless—period.
2/n US Crude Oil Inventory ex SPR
Including SPRs, the picture looks more normalised - but not tight. But does the US really need 700mb of strategic reserves in 2025? I don't think so.
Yesterday, I shared a few thoughts that I’d like to expand on, especially given how volatile the current tariff landscape under this admin has become.
Navigating it isn’t just difficult—it’s nearly impossible to avoid missteps. Hopefully some traders will expand on my thoughts...
1/n
What do we know?
As at 23 March 2025, Comex copper price in New York is trading at 14% premium to LME in London. Buying a tonne of copper in NY costs $11,213 versus 9,842 in London, $1,371 per tonne more than in London.
2/n
Why is that? Because of tariff FEARS, not tariffs.
Traders are hedging future risk of potential tariffs on all forms of the raw material, such as cathodes, concentrates, ores, and even scrap. But there aren't such tariffs in place for copper yet (unlike alumnium).
The current Comex price action in the U.S. is basically a Trump tariff trade mirage and is otherwise as misleading of fundaments as the May 2024 price action of which I warned on multiple occasions.
1/n $/pound
In May 2024 however, U.S. price action was more in synch with London. But it didn't reflect weak Chinese housing & construction fundamentals which has been 15-30% of GLOBAL copper use for the past two decades. Today, U.S. prices trade as if borders close tomorrow.
2/n Comex - LME arb in $/t
Unlike May 2024, copper blue chips like $FCX, however, do not buy the rally. So at least it seems that the equity market understands the tariff aspect of the copper price mirage.