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..!
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.
In this episode, we discuss China's 2nd of 5 economic paths it can follow.
This episode will also focus on Xi the leader. To understand Xi means to better understand China's economic path forward.
1/n #China
Can China replace malinvestment with more consumption?
Answer: Maybe a little bit & over a long time frame, but President Xi does not want to focus on this path. Instead, he wants to implement his socialist utopia.
2/n
Yes, China’s rising entrepreneurs were welcomed by the Communist Party for at least two decades. But all of that is in reverse.
Under Xi Jinping, China has moved full circle: from low growth & low freedom in the pre-reform era back towards something similar today.
In this episode, we discuss China's investment-led growth model & the first of 5 economic paths China can follow.
As you would expect, also this episode is full of Chinese characteristics!
1/n #China
Starting in 1990s, China’s economic engine has been fueled by capital investments.
Its central planning bureau defined GDP targets, picked winners and drove growth from debt-driven capital formations (green line).
2/n
Has any other nation tried this before, ever? Not to our knowledge.
We checked at ALL G20 economies and their respective growth models for past 70 years. 45% capital formation share is a unique experiment in economic history.
Over the past 3 years, we made some controversial calls in commodities. We decided to exit our oil holding in Aug 2022, we went short natgas in early 2023 or called for copper to go lower in May.
Why? Because we have an egde on China.
1/n #China
Yes, mainstream media picked up pace on important issues facing China today.
Most came to understand that the property bubble burst, that the economy is slowing, that geopolitical frictions are emerging, that there is too much debt.
But do they understand the underlying forces that drive these issues?
2/n
While the majority of these facts are known, most Western observers, investors & industrialists do not fully appreciate their interdependence & the structural changes that are unfolding in China today.