US Ramps Up Mideast Defenses Before Any Iran Strike

Isaac Bennett

Middle East Situation

Remarks of Officials

Political

Summary:

Trump's undisclosed Iran plan stirs regional unease as the Pentagon bolsters defenses, fearing significant Iranian retaliation.

A Secret Plan Sparks Regional Uncertainty

President Trump has confirmed the existence of a plan for Iran but is keeping the details under wraps, leaving regional allies wondering about America's next move. "Well, we can't tell them the plan," Trump stated, emphasizing the need for secrecy. This ambiguity has reportedly left several Gulf partners feeling "in the dark" about potential U.S. actions.

While major military action does not appear to be on the immediate horizon, U.S. officials suggest that a "limited" strike remains an option. The core concern for the Pentagon is the vulnerability of its troops and bases across the Middle East, especially as Tehran has threatened to unleash an all-out war in response to any attack.

Pentagon's Calculus: Defense Before Offense

According to U.S. officials, American forces are not yet fully prepared for a large-scale conflict with Iran. Before any decisive attack could be ordered, the U.S. must first reinforce its defensive shield in the region.

"American airstrikes on Iran aren't imminent," officials clarified, citing the need to deploy additional air defenses. These systems are crucial to protect Israel, Arab allies, and U.S. personnel from the expected Iranian retaliation, which could trigger a prolonged conflict.

While the U.S. military could execute limited airstrikes today, the kind of "decisive attack" Trump has requested would likely provoke a proportional response from Iran. This requires having robust defenses in place first.

Deploying Advanced Air Defense Systems

To mitigate this risk, the Pentagon is accelerating the deployment of advanced anti-air systems to key locations. The goal is to create a more resilient defense network against missile and drone attacks.

The military already operates destroyers capable of intercepting aerial threats, but a significant reinforcement is underway. According to defense officials, flight data, and satellite imagery, the U.S. is moving additional assets to the region, including:

• THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) batteries

• Patriot air defense systems

These systems are being deployed to bases across the Middle East, strengthening defenses in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar—home to a major U.S. base.

Iran's Threat of Massive Retaliation

Iranian officials have been unequivocal, stating their response to an attack would not be limited. They have vowed to use their formidable ballistic missile arsenal, much of which is launched from protected underground bunkers and tunnels, against U.S. assets and Israel.

The memory of Iran's capabilities during the 12-day June war looms large for U.S. and Israeli military planners. The barrage of ballistic missiles, drones, and hypersonic projectiles that struck Tel Aviv and other areas was substantial, likely causing more damage than was officially acknowledged. This precedent underscores the seriousness of Iran's retaliatory threat and explains the Pentagon's current focus on defensive preparations.

Figure 1: Iran's missile capabilities, demonstrated during past conflicts, are a primary factor driving the Pentagon's current defensive buildup in the Middle East.

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

Severe Winter Storm Disrupts Transport and Daily Activity

A major winter storm is sweeping across the southern and eastern regions of the United States, bringing heavy snowfall, strong winds, and extreme cold. Southern states, which are typically less prepared for such conditions, are experiencing widespread disruption. Snow accumulations of 15 to 20 centimeters are forecast across parts of Virginia, eastern Tennessee, the Carolinas, and northeastern Georgia, accompanied by wind gusts reaching up to 72 kilometers per hour in some locations.

These conditions have severely affected air travel. According to FlightAware, more than 2,100 flights had been canceled nationwide by the afternoon of January 31 New York time. Major hubs such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, and Raleigh Durham were among the hardest hit. This marks the second consecutive weekend of major airline disruption, compounding operational losses for carriers and increasing costs linked to delays, rerouting, and stranded passengers. The relationship here is causal, as weather-related airport shutdowns directly reduce flight capacity and airline revenue rather than merely coinciding with weaker demand.

Power Outages Add Pressure to Regional Economies

Beyond transport, the storm has also strained energy infrastructure. Data from PowerOutage.com show that more than 194,000 households and businesses were without electricity as of the morning of January 31, mainly in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Heavy snow, ice accumulation, and strong winds have damaged power lines and slowed repair efforts.

Extended outages can disrupt commercial activity, manufacturing, and essential services, particularly in regions not accustomed to prolonged cold. While some economic losses may be temporary, prolonged disruptions risk amplifying the overall cost of the storm, especially if freezing conditions persist and delay restoration work.

Extreme Cold Threatens Florida’s Citrus Industry

One of the most economically sensitive impacts is unfolding in agriculture, especially in Florida. Much of Polk County in central Florida, the state’s largest citrus producing area, is forecast to experience sub-freezing temperatures. This region alone accounted for nearly 30 percent of Florida’s total orange production in the previous growing season, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Citrus crops are highly vulnerable to frost. Temperatures below freezing can damage fruit, reduce yields, and in severe cases harm trees themselves, leading to losses that extend beyond a single season. The link between extreme cold and agricultural damage is clearly causal, as freezing conditions directly affect crop viability rather than reflecting broader market trends.

Broader Economic Implications of Prolonged Cold

The combined effects of transport disruption, power outages, and agricultural risk point to a potentially significant economic toll. Airlines face mounting operational costs, utilities must allocate resources to emergency repairs, and farmers risk losing a critical share of annual output. These impacts are occurring simultaneously, increasing the likelihood of spillover effects into local economies and supply chains.

If the cold spell continues or additional storms follow, losses could escalate further, particularly in regions already coping with infrastructure strain. While winter weather disruptions are not unusual in the US, the geographic spread of this event, especially into southern states, makes it more economically damaging than a typical seasonal cold snap.

Overall, the current winter storm underscores how extreme weather can translate rapidly into economic risk, affecting multiple sectors at once and challenging resilience in regions less accustomed to severe winter conditions.

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

Washington Signals a Strategic Shift in India’s Oil Sourcing

The United States has informed India that it may soon be able to restart crude oil imports from Venezuela, according to sources cited by Reuters. This proposal comes at a sensitive moment, as New Delhi prepares to scale back purchases of Russian oil by several hundred thousand barrels per day in the coming months. The underlying objective from Washington’s perspective is to reduce India’s reliance on Russian supply while redirecting energy trade toward alternative producers aligned with broader US strategic interests.

This initiative reflects a deliberate policy linkage rather than a coincidental market development. By reopening the channel for Venezuelan crude, the US is effectively offering India a substitute source that weakens Russia’s export leverage without forcing India to rely more heavily on Middle Eastern producers.

Venezuela’s Re-Entry Into the Indian Market

At the same time, relations between India and Venezuela appear to be warming. Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez stated that both sides agreed to deepen energy cooperation during a recent phone call with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This diplomatic signal followed Caracas’ announcement that it would reopen its oil sector to private investment, a significant policy shift aimed at attracting foreign capital and reviving a struggling energy industry.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but years of sanctions, underinvestment, and operational constraints have limited its export capacity. Renewed access to the Indian market could provide a meaningful outlet for Venezuelan crude, particularly if offered at deep discounts to compensate for logistical complexity and quality issues.

India Gradually Steps Back From Russian Oil

India’s oil trade strategy has been evolving since 2022, when it sharply increased imports of Russian crude following the outbreak of the Russia Ukraine conflict, attracted by steep price discounts. However, this pattern is now changing. According to market estimates, India imported around 1.2 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January, a figure expected to decline to about 1 million barrels per day in February, with further reductions likely thereafter.

This adjustment is driven by a combination of factors. Rising transaction costs, growing compliance risks linked to sanctions, and sustained diplomatic pressure from the US have pushed Indian refiners to diversify supply. Several major refineries have already reduced or halted purchases of Russian barrels, shifting toward sources in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

The relationship here is causal rather than merely correlational. As the cost and risk profile of Russian oil rises, alternative discounted supplies such as Venezuelan crude become more attractive, even if they present operational challenges.

Implications for Russia’s Export Position

For Russia, the potential loss of Indian demand carries significant implications. India has been one of the key destinations absorbing Russian crude exports, effectively helping Moscow maintain production levels despite Western sanctions. A sustained reduction in Indian purchases would weaken Russia’s ability to place millions of barrels per day into global markets, increasing its dependence on fewer buyers and potentially forcing deeper price discounts.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the US proposal can be seen as an attempt to erode Russia’s energy revenue indirectly by reshaping trade incentives rather than imposing new restrictions on India.

A Broader Realignment in Global Energy Trade

If Venezuelan oil flows resume at scale, India’s energy balance could continue to shift away from Russia, marking another phase in the reconfiguration of global oil trade under geopolitical pressure. For India, the strategy reflects pragmatism rather than alignment with any single bloc. By diversifying suppliers, New Delhi aims to preserve energy security, price flexibility, and diplomatic autonomy.

For Russia, however, the development represents an unwelcome signal. As alternative suppliers regain access to major consuming markets, the space for Russian crude narrows, underscoring how geopolitical dynamics are increasingly shaping energy flows as much as traditional market fundamentals.

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

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

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

Recent Searches

Top Searches

Markets

News

Analysis

User

24/7

Economic Calendar

Education

Data

US Ramps Up Mideast Defenses Before Any Iran Strike

A Secret Plan Sparks Regional Uncertainty

Pentagon's Calculus: Defense Before Offense

Iran's Threat of Massive Retaliation

Figure 1: Iran's missile capabilities, demonstrated during past conflicts, are a primary factor driving the Pentagon's current defensive buildup in the Middle East.

Deep Winter Freeze Poses Major Economic Risks Across the United States

Severe Winter Storm Disrupts Transport and Daily Activity

Power Outages Add Pressure to Regional Economies

Extreme Cold Threatens Florida’s Citrus Industry

Broader Economic Implications of Prolonged Cold

US Pushes Venezuelan Oil Toward India, Redrawing Energy Lines for Russia

Washington Signals a Strategic Shift in India’s Oil Sourcing

Venezuela’s Re-Entry Into the Indian Market

India Gradually Steps Back From Russian Oil

Implications for Russia’s Export Position

A Broader Realignment in Global Energy Trade

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

Risk Disclosure