Alexander Stahel 🌻 Profile picture
Oct 23, 2022 14 tweets 5 min read Read on X
The only certainty for European natural gas prices going forward is volatility, volatility and more volatility.

Here is why...

1/n #LNG #TTF Image
The Great Rotation: With the invastion of Ukraine, VVP decided to use gas as a weapon & cut pipeline flows into Europe.

In return, Europe maxed out LNG terminal capacities & contracted every available free LNG cargo globally to compensate the collapse of Russian flows.

2/n Image
Europe was able to attract LNG by being the best business globally.

How? By offering the highest prices. A cargo owner such as Trafigura or Total which bought LNG at Cheniere in US for $4.1/MMBtu + $3 gasification fee in Jan 2022 booked a pre-shipping profit of $21/MMBtu.

3/n Image
It however gets more complicated.

First, as with for all commodities, natural gas prices have the function to match demand and supply daily to accomodate the commodity's specific logistics as natgas can only be consumed or stored.

4/n
That means that Europe's LNG import terminal buyers are free to discount a cargo owner's price to TTF, Europe's gas hub price.

They must: storages in the UK, ESP, FRA or ITA (major regasification hubs) are now 100%, 93%, 99% & 95%-filled, respectively.

5/n ESP %-filled Image
Here is one (of many) mismatches of European gas infrastructure from the "big rotation".

Neither the UK or ESP have enough storage to accomodate their regas terminal capacities.

In addition, ESP is pipeline export constraint into France (MidCat pipeline project pending).

6/n Image
Consequently, TTF/NBP are down hard (& in s-term cantongo) & LNG trades at a discount to TTF.

Means? A Nov cargo into Spain was heard trading at TTF minus $30/MMBtu. Call it a "regas terminal slot discount".

For now, the stop-loss is Far East minus shipping cost.

7/n Image
However, cargo owners (and TTF) know winter is around the corner. At that point Europe's consumption is 2-4x higher than now.

Hence, they prefer to float their tankers and sell into higher Dec TTF prices which are currently at $42/MMBtu (3rd bullett from left).

8/n Image
Consequently, LNG floating storage is going vertical (below; Mt).

9/n Image
This in turn removes LNG shipping capacities globally and, among others, sent LNG shipping spot rates to $375,000 per day - an all time record.

10/n Image
TTF $10/MMBtu lower for Oct/Nov, LNG cargo discounts of $15/MMBtu & higher shipping rates (true for East of Suez rates too) will reduce LNG flows into Europe to match storage availability.

Message: Politicians don't need a price cap. Floating prices do the work instead.

11/n
What EU politicians however need to do if they are serious about reducing prices is to create a 50-70mt LNG export capex boom.

That in turn needs l-t contracts as terminal capacity expansion needs $bn for which Qatar et al must sell cargo for 20 years to earn it back.

12/n
Sadly, l-t contracts are in conflict with European climate laws which require the industry to be net-zero by 2050.

Why would EU utilities, majors or trading houses sign l-t LNG contracts with Qatar on that basis?

Answer: they don't.

13/n @OKalleklev
smartermarketspod.com/winter-is-comi…
That means EU gas markets depend on the LNG spot market as opposed to the LNG contract market.

LNG spot prices however will always be a game of regional temps (Asia; EU), infra availability or seasonality and hence price extremes.

Volatility is a certainty for years.

14/ thx

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alexander Stahel 🌻

Alexander Stahel 🌻 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BurggrabenH

Dec 5, 2025
Oil forecasts for 2025 have a wide range of outcomes, from balanced to a surplus of 4mbpd (IEA). Which one is it?

I’ve counted too many barrels over the years to engage in the debate. The oil market is dynamic while forecasts are static by nature.

But…

1/n
…we know that…

1) oil on water (includes floating storage) and oil in transit well surpassed Covid levels.

Part of it reflects inefficiency of the sanctioned Russian & Iranian oil trade as well as the recent US sanctions on Rosneft & Lukoil.

Part of it is an outright bearish oil market = too many barrels chasing too few buyers -> needs lower prices.

2/n: Oil in transitImage
2) Weak Chinese petroleum product consumption:

China is in recession due to its property bust and despite the CCPs desire to steer clear of it by forcing every other industry to build what isn’t required domestically (overcapacity issue) and then dump goods onto global trade.

Because of the latter most observers still don’t get the painful economic status China is in. But China is in it.

Also, the CCP prefers coal fuelled transportation as well as LNG truck driving for the purpose of geopolitics.

Both requires less, not more, diesel and gasoline in 2026 vs 2025. Jet and Naphtha are different story but won’t drive oil buying by refineries => Oil demand by 2nd largest economy globally is bearish. Accept.

However, the CCP may take the absurd to the next level in 2026 and force refineries to build even more floating-roof oil tank storage (as part of meeting an artificial Soviet 2.0 plan within its Investment-led Growth Model) in which case refineries may buy more oil next year, but not for the purpose of producing more petroleum products but solely for storages. If they do so, however, their crude oil buying will be EXTREMELY price sensitive.

Time and State companies oil quotas will tell.

PS: If u care to understand China’s property bust structurally, here is a link to my 7 part Stack series. It remains as valid then as now.

3/n
open.substack.com/pub/alexanders…
Read 13 tweets
Aug 4, 2025
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.

A thread

1/8
Upfront and from a Swiss patriotic view:

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.

3/nImage
Read 8 tweets
Jun 12, 2025
Let’s break down the current Iran–US–Israel situation, based on the latest facts and statements.

1) What’s the @POTUS stance?
Trump has been consistent for years — and reiterated just yesterday: “Iran cannot have the bomb. Period.”

1/n
2) Does Iran already have the bomb?
We don’t know for sure — but here’s what the latest IAEA report says:

🔎 Iran remains in non-compliance with key nuclear commitments. This finding could pave the way for renewed sanctions.

2/n
iaea.org/newscenter/sta…
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.

3/nImage
Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Apr 28, 2025
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 Image
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 Image
Image
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…!

3/n Image
Read 10 tweets
Apr 3, 2025
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 @BrentRuditLeoImage
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 SPRImage
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.

3/n US Crude Inv incl SPRs Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 23, 2025
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 Image
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).

3/n
fastmarkets.com/insights/us-ta…
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(