From One Dependence to Another: Europe’s Growing Reliance on US LNG Raises New Energy Risks

Economic

Commodity

Summary:

As Europe distances itself from Russian gas, US LNG has rapidly become its dominant alternative, accounting for about 60% of EU LNG imports in January...

US LNG Tightens Its Grip on Europe’s Energy Mix

Recent data highlight how decisively the United States has become Europe’s primary LNG supplier. According to figures from Kpler cited by Reuters, LNG from the United States made up around 60% of total LNG imports into the European Union in January. This represents a clear increase from both the previous month and the same period last year, when the US share stood closer to 53%.

In absolute terms, the EU imported 5.36 million tonnes of LNG from the US during the month, the second-highest level ever recorded, trailing only the peak reached in October 2025. This surge coincided with colder winter conditions, which pushed up heating demand and forced European buyers to secure additional cargoes to stabilize energy supply for households and industry.

Structural Shift After Russian Gas, Not a Seasonal Anomaly

The growing weight of US LNG is not simply a seasonal effect. Kpler expects this trend to persist throughout the year, forecasting that American LNG could account for roughly 65% of Europe’s total LNG imports in 2026, compared with an average of about 56% in 2025. This reflects a structural reconfiguration of Europe’s energy system following the sharp reduction in pipeline gas flows from Russia since 2022.

After the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the EU rapidly expanded LNG import capacity, building new terminals and upgrading existing infrastructure across multiple member states. US LNG emerged as the most readily available substitute, supported by flexible supply contracts and expanding export capacity on the US Gulf Coast. The relationship here is causal rather than coincidental. As Russian pipeline gas declined, US LNG filled the gap at scale, becoming the marginal supplier that balances Europe’s gas market.

Replacing One Dependency With Another

While the shift has strengthened short-term energy security, it has also triggered fresh concerns among European policymakers. Some officials warn that the EU risks moving from reliance on Russian gas to overreliance on a single alternative supplier. EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen recently described current geopolitical frictions involving the US as a “wake-up call,” underlining the need for deeper diversification rather than concentration around one dominant source.

This concern is not theoretical. Heavy dependence on US LNG exposes Europe to political risk, export policy changes, and price volatility linked to US domestic dynamics. The correlation between supplier concentration and vulnerability is well established, even if no immediate disruption is visible.

Russia Still Present, But on a Countdown

Despite the strategic pivot, Russia has not disappeared entirely from Europe’s LNG market. Kpler data show that around 19% of LNG imported by the EU in January still originated from Russia. However, this share is expected to decline steadily. The EU has agreed on a roadmap to fully end imports of Russian LNG and pipeline gas by the end of 2027.

Initial steps are set to take effect in the coming months, including restrictions on new short-term LNG contracts with Russian suppliers. These measures signal a clear political commitment, but they also reinforce the short-term role of US LNG as Europe’s primary fallback option.

Short-Term Security Versus Long-Term Strategy

In the near term, winter heating needs and the phased reduction of Russian supply are likely to keep US LNG flows elevated. This supports market stability but complicates Europe’s longer-term objectives. True energy resilience depends not only on replacing volumes, but on diversifying sources, routes, and fuels to reduce systemic risk.

Europe’s current LNG profile shows progress in reducing Russian exposure, yet it also reveals a new imbalance. The challenge ahead lies in managing this transition carefully, ensuring that the move away from one dominant supplier does not simply recreate the same vulnerability under a different name.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

Policy Adjustment Signals Market Balancing Effort

The Russian government has officially announced the removal of the gasoline export ban for companies that directly produce petroleum products, effective from January 31 and lasting until July 31, 2026. The decision was reported by RIA Novosti and confirmed by a government statement, which emphasized that the adjustment is intended to support operational stability within the domestic fuel market.

Under the revised framework, gasoline exports by producers are now permitted, while export restrictions on gasoline and diesel remain in force for entities that are not involved in direct production. This selective easing reflects a calibrated policy shift rather than a full liberalization of fuel exports.

Preventing Inventory Pressure on Oil Companies

According to the government, the primary rationale behind lifting the ban for producers is to prevent excessive fuel stockpiles at oil companies. When exports are completely restricted, refiners face the risk of accumulating unsold inventories, which can strain storage capacity and disrupt refinery operations.

By allowing producers to export gasoline, authorities aim to maintain smoother production flows and reduce logistical bottlenecks, especially during periods when domestic demand may not fully absorb output. This relationship is structural, as export flexibility helps balance refinery throughput with storage and sales capacity rather than being driven by short term price movements.

Domestic Market Stability Remains the Priority

Despite the easing for producers, Russia will continue to restrict gasoline and diesel exports by non producing traders. The government reiterated that the overarching objective of the policy remains the stabilization of the domestic fuel market, particularly in terms of supply availability and price control.

The partial nature of the lift suggests that authorities are seeking to manage internal fuel dynamics carefully, ensuring sufficient domestic supply while avoiding distortions that could arise from unrestricted exports. The decision therefore reflects a correlation between export policy and inventory management, not a shift toward export led pricing.

Broader Energy Context in Russia

Russia, one of the world’s largest oil producers, has repeatedly adjusted fuel export rules over recent years in response to domestic supply conditions, refinery maintenance cycles, and geopolitical constraints. Temporary bans and exemptions have become a common policy tool to fine tune the balance between internal consumption and external sales.

In this context, the latest move signals a pragmatic approach by the Russian government, prioritizing operational efficiency for oil producers while retaining regulatory controls to shield the domestic market from volatility.

Measured Liberalization Rather Than Full Opening

Overall, the lifting of the gasoline export ban for direct producers does not represent a broad opening of Russia’s fuel export regime. Instead, it highlights a targeted intervention designed to address inventory risks without undermining domestic fuel security.

By maintaining restrictions on non producers and diesel exports, the government is reinforcing its message that export policy will remain flexible and conditional, adapting to market conditions while keeping domestic stability as the central benchmark.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

Record Gas Output Reshapes China’s Energy Balance

China’s natural gas production reached a historic high in 2025, fundamentally altering the country’s gas supply structure. According to official statistics, output rose 6% year on year to 261.9 billion cubic meters, equivalent to about 193 million tonnes of LNG. This level of production is sufficient to cover around 60% of China’s total gas consumption, significantly strengthening energy self-sufficiency.

In global terms, China’s gas output is now comparable with top producers. Production has nearly matched that of Iran and surpassed levels recorded in recent years by both Qatar and Australia. This shift reflects not a temporary fluctuation, but a structural expansion of domestic supply capacity.

Shale Gas as the Core Structural Driver

The main force behind this surge is China’s shale gas expansion. In 2024, shale gas output exceeded 100 billion cubic meters for the first time, accounting for nearly half of total domestic gas production. Growth has been concentrated in key basins such as Ordos and Sichuan, where state-backed development has offset the technical challenges of deep and geologically complex shale formations.

Unlike the US shale boom, which was driven by private-sector experimentation and rapid technological iteration, China’s shale revolution has followed a state-led model. Government subsidies and tax incentives have encouraged national oil companies such as China National Petroleum Corporation and Sinopec to sustain investment despite higher costs and lower initial productivity.

This policy-driven approach explains why foreign players such as Shell withdrew from early shale projects in Sichuan, while domestic firms continued to refine extraction techniques under government support.

Cost Competitiveness Weakens the Case for LNG

From an economic perspective, shale gas has become increasingly competitive. Estimates suggest that while shale gas supply costs in eastern China are about 50% higher than conventional domestic gas, they remain roughly 50% cheaper than LNG imports and around 20% cheaper than pipeline gas imported from Russia.

This cost relationship is causal in explaining China’s declining LNG imports. As domestic supply expands at lower marginal cost than LNG, import volumes naturally adjust downward, even if total gas demand remains relatively stable.

Sharp Decline in LNG Imports, Especially From the US

China’s total gas imports via LNG and pipelines fell 3% in 2025, marking the first decline in two years. LNG imports alone dropped 11% to 68.43 million tonnes. The most dramatic shift occurred in imports from the United States, which collapsed by 94% to just 250,000 tonnes, effectively nearing zero after March amid escalating bilateral tensions.

This decline is not merely correlated with geopolitics but directly linked to trade policy. Tariffs imposed by Beijing on US LNG undermined the economics of long-term contracts signed during 2021–2022, accelerating the pivot away from American supply.

Russia Gains Ground as a Strategic Supplier

As US LNG faded, Russia emerged as a more prominent supplier. LNG imports from Russia rose 18% to 9.79 million tonnes, including volumes from the Arctic LNG 2 project despite Western sanctions. Russia now accounts for around 14% of China’s LNG imports, ranking third among suppliers.

Pipeline gas flows from Russia also increased, with the value of these imports rising 17% in 2025. This reflects a strategic realignment rather than short-term arbitrage, as pipeline gas offers price stability and insulation from maritime and geopolitical risks.

Demand Resilience Despite Economic Slowdown

China’s gas consumption declined marginally by 0.1% in the first eleven months of 2025, reflecting broader economic slowing. However, demand remains structurally resilient due to policy-driven fuel switching. Government efforts to replace coal and heavy fuel oil with gas for power generation and industrial use continue to underpin consumption, particularly in urban and industrial regions.

The number of gas-fired power plants has increased, reinforcing gas as a transition fuel in China’s energy mix rather than a cyclical input.

Long-Term Outlook Anchors Energy Independence

Looking ahead, projections from research bodies linked to CNPC suggest China’s gas production could reach 300 billion cubic meters by 2030, while consumption may rise to around 550 billion cubic meters. This implies that import dependence will persist in absolute terms, but as a smaller share of total demand.

The broader implication is strategic rather than numerical. By expanding domestic shale output and diversifying import sources away from US LNG, China is reducing exposure to external supply shocks and trade friction. The decline in LNG imports is therefore not a sign of weakening demand, but evidence of a deliberate shift toward structural energy security.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Petronas Sets Clear Production Anchor for 2026–2028

Petronas has announced a renewed push to scale up exploration and production activities over the 2026–2028 period, underscoring Malaysia’s intention to secure its domestic energy base. The company aims to keep national output close to 2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day during this timeframe, a level seen as critical for maintaining supply stability while global energy markets remain volatile.

This strategy reflects a causal policy response to declining natural field productivity. As mature assets age, maintaining output increasingly depends on higher drilling intensity, faster appraisal of discoveries, and timely development of new resources rather than relying on existing production alone.

Rising Drilling Activity Signals Structural Commitment

According to Petronas’ operational outlook, upstream activity will increase steadily over the next three years. The number of development and exploration wells is expected to rise from 79 wells in 2025 to 91 wells in 2026, reaching 100 wells by 2028. At the same time, well abandonment and plugging operations will also expand, climbing from 63 wells in 2025 to 80 wells by 2028.

This parallel increase highlights a structural transition rather than a short-term cycle. Higher abandonment activity indicates portfolio optimization, where capital and operational focus are shifted from declining assets toward higher-potential developments. The relationship here is causal, as decommissioning older wells frees up resources and improves operational efficiency for new projects.

Key Projects Drive Near-Term Output Stability

Several upstream projects are identified as central to achieving production targets, including Belud, Kurma Manis, and Sepat. These developments are expected to support base production and offset natural decline from mature fields. In addition, Petronas plans to accelerate appraisal of recent discoveries and expand exploration across both frontier areas and previously producing basins, including deepwater zones.

Deepwater expansion is particularly significant because it reflects a long-term resource strategy. While capital-intensive, deepwater projects tend to deliver larger reserves and longer production lifespans, making them essential for sustaining output beyond the current decade.

Downstream and LNG Operations Support the Upstream Push

Beyond upstream activity, Petronas is focusing on strengthening downstream efficiency and reliability to capitalize on the ongoing recovery in global oil markets. Improved operational performance downstream helps stabilize cash flows, which in turn supports upstream investment. This relationship is correlational but strategically important, as downstream resilience reduces funding pressure during periods of upstream volatility.

In the gas and maritime segment, Petronas emphasized securing Malaysia’s energy supply by maximizing existing infrastructure in the near term. This includes optimizing operations at the Bintulu LNG complex and floating LNG units, as well as assessing value-added options such as converting vessels into floating storage facilities.

Medium- and Long-Term Shift Toward Portfolio Resilience

Looking further ahead, Petronas plans to reshape its gas portfolio with sustainability and flexibility in mind. Priorities include expanding regasification capacity, adding a third floating LNG facility, upgrading pipeline infrastructure, and exploring investments in gas-to-power projects and broader energy transition initiatives.

These measures are not positioned as a departure from hydrocarbons, but rather as a structural adaptation. Gas remains a core pillar of Malaysia’s energy system, while incremental transition investments are intended to reduce long-term risk exposure rather than replace oil and gas revenues outright.

Overall, Petronas’ strategy reflects a clear policy logic. Increased exploration, higher drilling intensity, and deeper investment in gas infrastructure are being pursued not as cyclical bets on higher prices, but as structural tools to preserve energy security and fiscal stability. By anchoring production near 2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, Malaysia aims to balance domestic supply needs with export capacity, positioning itself as a resilient energy producer in Southeast Asia through the second half of the decade.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

Market Consensus Points to Policy Continuity

Ahead of the upcoming meeting of OPEC+ scheduled for February 1, market expectations have largely converged around a scenario of policy continuity rather than strategic change. According to Emily Ashford, Head of Energy Research at Standard Chartered, the meeting is likely to mirror January’s outcome, proceeding swiftly and without adjustments to production policy.

This consensus reflects confidence in the current framework of monthly meetings, which allows OPEC+ to respond flexibly to changing market conditions. The absence of expected policy changes should not be interpreted as passivity but rather as an indication that existing measures are broadly aligned with current supply-demand dynamics.

Futures Curve Signals Tighter Near-Term Conditions

One of the most notable positive developments highlighted by Standard Chartered is the improvement in the oil futures curve. The backwardation structure, where near-term prices trade above longer-dated contracts, has extended further along the curve. Whereas a month ago this structure was limited to the first three months, it has now stretched into contracts dated 2026.

This shift is significant because it reflects stronger near-term demand relative to supply. The rise of around 1 USD per barrel at the back end of the curve compared to last month further reinforces the view that market expectations for medium-term pricing have become more constructive. The relationship here is largely correlational rather than causal. Improved sentiment and positioning have coincided with tightening physical balances, rather than futures dynamics alone driving fundamentals.

Oversupply Narrative Begins to Fade

Ashford also noted that market sentiment appears to be moving away from the pessimistic oversupply narrative that dominated headlines in the final quarter of 2025. While global supply risks remain, particularly from non-OPEC producers, the tone of market commentary has become less negative as evidence of stronger demand and better compliance emerges.

However, this shift in sentiment does not imply an imminent strategic pivot. Standard Chartered does not expect any changes to the current pause in production increases during the first quarter of 2026, suggesting that optimism is grounded in incremental improvements rather than structural tightening.

Focus Turns to Compensation Cuts

With no major policy decisions anticipated, attention is expected to center on updated compensation plans from members that have previously produced above their quotas. In particular, Iraq and Kazakhstan remain under scrutiny due to the scale of their required output reductions.

Kazakhstan’s compensation commitments are especially significant. Its planned cuts rise from 279,000 barrels per day in January to 569,000 barrels per day in both February and March. Iraq, while facing smaller volumes, is also expected to maintain consistent reductions through the first half of the year. These adjustments are causally important for market balance because effective implementation directly affects near-term supply availability rather than merely shaping expectations.

OPEC+ Maintains Seasonal Discipline

Previous statements from OPEC confirm that key producers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, have reaffirmed their decision to pause production increases in February and March due to seasonal factors. Required output levels remain clearly defined, and the group has emphasized continued monthly monitoring of market conditions, compliance, and compensation progress.

This approach underscores a preference for stability and predictability over reactive policy shifts. The structured review process reduces the risk of abrupt surprises, helping to anchor market expectations even amid geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty.

Signals Supportive, But Not a Turning Point

While oil markets are entering the February meeting with stronger technical signals and improved sentiment, the outlook remains one of cautious optimism rather than acceleration. Analysts from Rystad Energy have echoed this view, noting that traders will focus less on headline decisions and more on compliance signals and execution.

In sum, the current strength in the oil market reflects a convergence of improved futures structure, fading oversupply fears, and disciplined supply management. Yet, without a policy shift from OPEC+, these signals point to stabilization rather than a decisive upward re-rating of the market.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

James Riley

Economic

Remarks of Officials

Political

Energy

Pope Leo XIV has voiced deep concern over escalating tensions between the United States and Cuba, calling for "sincere and effective dialogue" to prevent further hardship for the Cuban people.

The Pope’s comments on Sunday followed a recent move by U.S. President Donald Trump to intensify pressure on Cuba.

Pope Leo XIV, pictured leading Vespers in Rome on January 25, 2026, has called for a peaceful resolution to the US-Cuba dispute.

US Escalates Pressure with Tariff Threats

Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would impose tariffs on imports from any country supplying oil to Cuba. This policy shift came shortly after the ousting of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in early January, a key ally who had provided Cuba with oil.

The Trump administration framed the tariff threat as a necessary measure to protect "U.S. national security and foreign policy from the Cuban regime's malign actions and policies."

Last week, Trump also predicted that "Cuba will be failing pretty soon," noting that Venezuela had not recently sent oil or money to the island nation.

Cuba and the Vatican Call for De-escalation

In his remarks after the weekly Angelus prayer, Pope Leo stated he had received reports of the growing friction "with great concern." He aligned his message with that of Cuban bishops, "urging those responsible to promote sincere and effective dialogue to avoid violence and further suffering for the Cuban people."

In response to the U.S. tariff warning, Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez declared an "international emergency." He described the American policy as "an unusual and extraordinary threat."

Despite the heightened rhetoric, President Trump reiterated on Saturday his call for Cuba to negotiate with the United States. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he said, "It doesn't have to be a humanitarian crisis."

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Isaac Bennett

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Remarks of Officials

Political

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, has offered a sharp analysis of U.S. President Donald Trump, praising him as an effective and peace-seeking leader while simultaneously dismissing his claims about deploying nuclear submarines near Russia.

The comments come as a new round of peace talks involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine is scheduled for this week in Abu Dhabi. Trump has repeatedly stated that a deal to end the war in Ukraine is close and has positioned himself as a "peacemaker" president.

Figure 1: Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, outlines his views on U.S.-Russia relations and the Ukraine conflict.

A Method to Trump's 'Chaos'

In an interview with Reuters, TASS, and the WarGonzo Russian war blogger, Medvedev pushed back against the notion that Trump is merely a chaotic force in global politics. While acknowledging Trump’s "emotional" and sometimes "brash" style, Medvedev described it as "effective."

"The chaos that is commonly referred to, which is created by his activities, is not entirely true," said Medvedev, who served as Russia's president from 2008 to 2012. "It is obvious that behind this lies a completely conscious and competent line."

Medvedev, who has become known for his hawkish statements, lauded Trump's courage for resisting the U.S. establishment and suggested the key to understanding him lies in his business background.

Productive Diplomacy and Peace Efforts

According to Medvedev, Moscow respects the American people's decision to elect Trump, and relations have improved under his leadership.

"Trump wants to go down in history as a peacemaker—and he is really trying," Medvedev said. "And that is why contacts with Americans have become much more productive."

While President Vladimir Putin has the final say on Russian policy, Medvedev's comments offer insight into the thinking of hardline figures within the Moscow elite.

The Mystery of the Missing Submarines

Despite the praise, Medvedev openly questioned a specific military claim made by Trump. In August, Trump stated he had ordered two U.S. nuclear submarines to move closer to Russia following what he called "highly provocative" comments from Medvedev.

When asked about the threat, Medvedev’s response was blunt: "We still have not found them."

Outlook on the Ukraine Conflict

Regarding the ongoing war, Medvedev projected confidence, stating that a Russian military victory would come "soon." However, he stressed that the ultimate goal was not just to win but to secure a lasting peace.

"I would like this to happen as soon as possible," he said. "But it is equally important to think about what will happen next. After all, the goal of victory is to prevent new conflicts."

Currently, Russia controls about a fifth of Ukraine's territory. Ukrainian forces continue to hold approximately 10%, or 5,000 square kilometers, of the eastern Donbas region.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Recent Searches

Top Searches

Markets

News

Analysis

User

24/7

Economic Calendar

Education

Data

From One Dependence to Another: Europe’s Growing Reliance on US LNG Raises New Energy Risks

US LNG Tightens Its Grip on Europe’s Energy Mix

Structural Shift After Russian Gas, Not a Seasonal Anomaly

Replacing One Dependency With Another

Russia Still Present, But on a Countdown

Short-Term Security Versus Long-Term Strategy

Russia Lifts Gasoline Export Ban for Producers to Stabilize Domestic Market

Policy Adjustment Signals Market Balancing Effort

Preventing Inventory Pressure on Oil Companies

Domestic Market Stability Remains the Priority

Broader Energy Context in Russia

Measured Liberalization Rather Than Full Opening

China Cuts Reliance on LNG Imports as Domestic Gas Output Reaches Record Highs

Record Gas Output Reshapes China’s Energy Balance

Shale Gas as the Core Structural Driver

Cost Competitiveness Weakens the Case for LNG

Sharp Decline in LNG Imports, Especially From the US

Russia Gains Ground as a Strategic Supplier

Demand Resilience Despite Economic Slowdown

Long-Term Outlook Anchors Energy Independence

Malaysia Reinforces Energy Security With Aggressive Upstream Expansion

Petronas Sets Clear Production Anchor for 2026–2028

Rising Drilling Activity Signals Structural Commitment

Key Projects Drive Near-Term Output Stability

Downstream and LNG Operations Support the Upstream Push

Medium- and Long-Term Shift Toward Portfolio Resilience

Oil Market Shows Early Strength Ahead of OPEC+ Meeting

Market Consensus Points to Policy Continuity

Futures Curve Signals Tighter Near-Term Conditions

Oversupply Narrative Begins to Fade

Focus Turns to Compensation Cuts

OPEC+ Maintains Seasonal Discipline

Signals Supportive, But Not a Turning Point

Pope Urges Dialogue as US-Cuba Tensions Rise

Pope Leo XIV, pictured leading Vespers in Rome on January 25, 2026, has called for a peaceful resolution to the US-Cuba dispute.

US Escalates Pressure with Tariff Threats

Cuba and the Vatican Call for De-escalation

Russia's Medvedev on Trump, Ukraine, and Missing Subs

Figure 1: Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, outlines his views on U.S.-Russia relations and the Ukraine conflict.

A Method to Trump's 'Chaos'

Productive Diplomacy and Peace Efforts

The Mystery of the Missing Submarines

Outlook on the Ukraine Conflict

Risk Disclosure