LNG

flappysack-

Energy is easy to produce.  LNG is a useful byproduct and is widely abundant.

YourChildhood5762

HYLN Stationary & mobile generators. Primarily the KARNO Power Module, a fuel-agnostic power generating solution, which accepts all types of fuel from LNG to diesel to hydrogen. $1.81 on April 28th $7.51 on June 11th

Bluedieselshepherd

More specifically, LNG and gas pipelines. So Cheniere and Kinder Morgan or the like.

Ok-Thought-9960

VG is a LNG american based compan 

ShittyUsernane1222

Petroleum, LNG to 1000 dollars. 🥭, Khamenei and Zelensky are truly doubling down on some hard hitting "just stop oil" and "degrowth" activism

Yee4614

I don't think this is close. VG is a real company. NEXT is an idea. VG, IMO, has a much bigger run way because they're a) a big company b) investing rapidly to grow c) have shown success in growing. They can be in the top LNG producer in the US in a few years

Plappedudel

Well, I'm not so sure. Qatar exports almost all of its oil and LNG through the Strait. It has no pipelines. If the economy of Qatar is effectively destroyed, I think that will have wider consequences.

Silver_tothemoon

LNG

mohelgamal

operating cost in space is just the ground personnel adjusting its orbit once in a while, it would communicate with existing starlink network Operating cost on the ground is enormous, you got security guards, facility management, energy costs if you don’t own your generation equipment, water bills, fuel cost if you are running on LNG, property taxes, environmental damage mitigation and possible law suits. The operating cost argument is hands down in favor of satellites

Halbaras

I disagree. Instead of pricing in increased *probability* of a deal after the April ceasefire, the market priced in only one outcome - a deal where the Strait was fully unblocked. We know this because it ripped upwards after the initial ceasefire to smash previous ATHs instead of partially recovering from the war drawdowns and then moving up on strong earnings. That optimistic outcome is now blatantly wrong, and all the damage to supply chains that markets were ignoring/hoping wouldn't happen via a deal is beginning to manifest in things like CPI. This is just the beginning of the pain, even if a deal is agreed tomorrow, it will take months for ships to return to the Strait and reach importers in large volumes, and a lot of the damage to things like food production is already baked in regardless. The 'AI stocks can ignore the real economy' crowd are quite possibly in for a rude awakening in coming quarters because those stocks can't ignore the Fed, and things will get very ugly very quickly if the hyperscalers start seeing hits to their own earnings because their customers are cutting back on cloud and AI spending out of necessity. Sudden growthless inflation in oil, LNG, fertilisers, aluminium, sulphur and helium is really fucking bad for virtually every economic sector.

SadComparison9352

there was news that at least one qatar LNG tanker has passed

GrippySockAficionado

LNG doing amazing! Don't know why all you apes are having so much trouble!

ValueEquities

already producing vs still pre-revenue is a bigger gap than people price in..... a 2027 start date in LNG infrastructure almost always means 2028 VG has the boring advantage right now..... cash flow, contracts, proof of concept..... NEXT has the upside story but you're paying for a timeline that hasn't been stress tested yet

boat_hamster

Yeah. I think it is about 20% of global oil supply used to pass through SoH. Oil reserves won't last forever, and when they run out, the world will have to get by with 80% of the oil consumption it had at the beginning of the year. So oil priced for 20% demand destruction. And then there is the LNG and helium shortages caused by this. There is no manufacturing AI GPUs without helium.

Yee4614

I bought venture global at the peak.  I really like their LNG story and aggressive approach

ElTioDelPorro

Was looking at this against Woodside. WDD Doesn’t do quite as much volume as LNG, but also does oil and has 5% dividend. Think LNG might be the better short term bet.

thenuttyhazlenut

the ticker LNG (Cheniere Energy Inc)

BendUsual8217

LNG maybe 4 years ago

thenuttyhazlenut

I chose LNG and PBR as hedges on the Iran/strait situation lasting

Sl0ppyB0t

The problem data centers on ships addresses is power supply. This ship concept says LNG is used. LNG is made along coasts where it's refined.

FlipZip69

Float your ship out, get cheap LNG with no surcharges, cooling is ideal, no taxes to pay on profits. The bandwidth will be low to the ships but this will be for training models and research. They will sit in international waters folding proteins and discovering new materials. All this with no regulatory worries and no one to complain about the location. It rare I would think something like this could fly but there may be something to this.

Kind_Blackberry5546

VOO, Copper, LNG and robotics in my humble opinion

gypsyfred

I'm a power plant electrician. If I could honestly tell you how bad and unstable our grid is across the country the public would be up in arms. Constant grants that never go to what theyre intended for. Microgrids that are bought installed with state and federal grants but not given proper permits to run. More go green policies keeping plants shut down or unable to operate for certain hours. LNG is so clean to run that the emissions coming out our stacks are cleaner air than what you would be breathing at the beach. We get told not to run from either state DEC or Fed EPA so we purchase power from outside source and just use our transmission lines. It's insane. Then another grant will come pouring in because these turbines were meant to run not stand idle. Massive damage can occur. Those hits get passed on to consumer while we are replacing a perfectly fine engine but weren't allowed to run it as intended so valves and seals etc go bad etc. It's a merry go round of other people's money. Yours

Halbaras

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines are also brutally dependent on oil/gas imports from the Gulf. The American narratives about 'haha we fucked over Europe again' miss that the biggest losers are the Gulf States themselves, and then their third key bloc of allies in East Asia. Japan and South Korea have comparatively large SPRs to draw down, but that buys time and doesn't solve the problem if the Strait stays shut. When contracts/hedging expires, all the energy intensive semiconductor manufacturing is going to see brutal price hikes. Taiwan is fucked when it comes to LNG specifically, so TSMC's margins will be squeezed sooner. 'But it will be good for Micron!', Reddit will cry. It won't be good for anyone buying memory, not when all the manufacturers are running at capacity and prices are already exorbitant. If the blockades are still going come autumn the AI boom is in danger from multiple angles - Asian supply chains, the Fed, recession risk endangering AI enterprise spend, and the fact that data centres are bottlenecked by increasingly expensive energy.

caperadium

Brother LNG cannot be transported by rail in any meaningful capacity 

RadagastDaGreen

Okay fine. They're calls. The LNG pulls into Panama, the vessel is turned away and told to lose 40% of their cargo. They will head up to San Diego or Vancouver and use freight.

Leveraged_Lots

Natural gas free in some prices due to oversupply, sure the construction of datacenters and LNG Infrastructure will likely be a substantial tailwind for prices but it still is mostly a byproduct of oil-production. There's a reason natural gas is known as a widow-maker trade, the infrastructure simply isn't built out enough yet to support stable prices. It is undoubtedly a very important fuel for the future and that's why I do have some focused exposure twords it, but I still don't believe it merits the same attention or allocation in one's portfolio, as crude oil.

RoyaleWCheese_OK

Nearly all capital is going in to natural gas , LNG, NGL and purity products. Missed the boat. Oil is way too boom and bust on OPECs whims.

MoreHuman_ThanHuman

too many people are acting like 30% of the world's oil and LNG doesn't flow from the two most active theaters of ww3, qnd that there's no end in sight.

ChairmanMeow1986

So I'm with you on the fact that available cargo's will sell for a premium, because of the inelastic demand (although there is certainly room for significant demand destruction, as well as things like China's ramping up it of coal plants production and limiting commuter traffic in a variety of ways). However what I don't find bullish for shipping conglomerates (and perhaps I'm missing some nuances as I haven't explored this much) is that as far as I can tell most own their own ships. So as you said many tankers will need significant drydock time and repairs before they can be used to generate revenue. That's straight up capital expenditure and time (insurance isn't cover that) to get those assets back to generating revenue. That hardly seems bullish to me. I agree that profit per tanker/cargo ship will increase dramatically, but I think you are absolutely glossing over the fact that they will have *less ships* making *any* profit while needing to spend money overhauling assets for months while they earn nothing. Even if we ignore repair, patience, and the associated costs of the non-revenue generating assets that your 'bullish' thesis posits. I'm still not sure it makes sense. I don't know the numbers, but other main concern about your thesis is something along the lines of if having 100 ships that make 1 million dollars a month gives you the same revenue of 50 ships that make 2 million dollars month. Now that's obviously overly simplistic, as their are associated overhead cost etc, but my overall point is that I just don't think this situation is very bullish for cargo/tanker companies if they have any exposure to Gulf shipping. Your thesis could hold true if you had identified any large shipping firms who specialize in OIL, LNG, or the strategic commodities that are supplied from the straight who had no routes in and out of there. I doubt there's many though.

TomatoSpecialist6879

You've been a bull the past 6 months yet still decided to bet against energy in a time when: 1. Demand completely outpace supply 2. Ongoing oil and LNG shortage that will just get worse as time goes on due to damaged facilities and a strait tug-o-war between US Navy and IRGC Good one OP https://preview.redd.it/2pknarmgua5h1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=8238c8f7b13c0e015898c8af0be91519bbe99d43

_hiddenscout

Called this one out back in December. Basically company is shifting to data analytics for LNG/Gas fields which is increasing margins.

Competitive-Ant2876

Don’t get down on ya self, past choices are past choices, a couple bad trade doesn’t make or break you that’s the beauty of the market. Always another opportunity out there just have to find it. It’s all about perspective, and being able to take emotions out of things. Truthfully nobody knows everything, a lot of people just learn as they go and try to not make the same mistake twice. The very first cannabis stock I bought was red white and bloom. They went bankrupt, and I lost 7k. I went back and looked at everything and realized emotion clouded my judgement. The signs were there I just ignored them. I understand filings and financials so for me to ignore them was crazy to me. I will say I’m waiting for a few more percentage points to drop and I’ll buy Cresco. & GTI, and potentially msos calls. I think Cresco will be merged/aquired. Charlie is too connected and Cresco competes in tough states and has good brand power. Trulieve could acquire them. State lay out would fit perfectly and Kim and Charlie spoke about it in the past before the harvest merger. I find it hard to justify msos going crazy because Dan has said numerous times the fund was created because the mso’s where on an otc and he wanted to help with liquidity, well if they uplist then what’s the point of the ETF? What restructuring happens? As far as Tilray goes, idk your reasons but last I check less then half rev came from cannabis, and they acquired brands and then those same brands loss market share. That’s a managerial/operational problem. In my opinion so I’ll never touch them. Blue chips are good, I have some reits that pay monthly. And then traditional blue chips. I don’t think you’ve missed your oil play, depending on what you owned. I think LNG will become massive. And I think we are in arguably one of the most transitional energy & infrastructure phases of my life time. companies like DUK, NEE etc will continue to grow via infrastructure upgrades and rising utility cost due to data centers. They charge to use electricity in the regions while technically having a monopoly for 4-5 years and guaranteed ROI on the build outs/upgrades. And then companies like ormat technologies will be very impactful to traditional oil drilling. Ormat isn’t as known but 67 to 144-148 in less than a year. I think AI is the gold but I think energy/infrastructure/utilities are the shovels. I’d rather be the one selling the shovels. Without the latter AI will stall. You hit load capacity on the grid amongst other things. So these trillion dollar companies or multi billion dollar companies will write a blank check to those infrastructure companies because without them the AI bubble will pop.

FrequentUpperDecker

SpaceX uses high grade jet fuel for falcon and LNG for Starship, that won’t change. They are building LNG terminal / port in Brownsville TX

yessiryessirwigga

Is $VG a scam company? Mines in the strait, $LNG up bigly, $VG falling sharply into close

SteamPunkPascal

You shouldn’t be thinking in terms of what will happen. You should be thinking in scenarios and how your portfolio responds to each scenario. Think in terms of sectors. For example, yes there will be shortages of crude due to drawdown of inventories, but the shortages will affect different sectors of the economy in different parts of the world in different ways due to global logistics. Think about what your biotech portfolio needs to do well. For my portfolio, I have specifically focused on the Permian basin and LNG as a response to this crisis. But I acknowledge different outcomes of the war to figure out how much to be in cash versus invest. I always ask the question “if Hormuz opens today what happens” and I weigh that risk against other realistic scenarios to find a range. I also use options defensively. You can have calls on S&P to protect your investment in the case a tweet or news story by Barrak Ravid tanks the oil markets. But if you have conviction, I would do longer term calls on some Permian Basin basin oil stocks, longer term calls on fertilizer like CF and longer term puts on SPY all expiring in Jan 2027 or later.

JimCasy

Fair points on data centers + LNG exports. That will certainly raise the ceiling on it, need to look at timing on the LNG and who/if any gas providers there are for the data centers.

deeptones

I think my thesis was closer to "energy plays that play off the two biggest macro tailwinds that I'm aware of: Oil shock and AI energy demand". I fed it a variety of tickers and specified that if there were better alternatives, to suggest them. BKR was a novel one it found. I get your critique though, and yeah the thesis is split without being dichotomous. Do you prefer FANG to DVN? They both produce oil, natural gas, and LNG to my knowledge? DVN just seems a bit cheaper to me than FANG in terms of forward P/E and such. Or do you posit that its better to drop both and stick to a more focused thesis?

Leveraged_Lots

It's a stock position, despite calling it a "call option on Nat-Gas" I'm in no hurry to see Natty spike to $5-10/bcf. You could definitely be right, in which case Jerry Jones and crew will drill themselves into bankruptcy and a take a relatively minor loss on the overall portfolio. Or gas does meaningfully increase, especially in their neck of the woods due to LNG coming online and datacenter demand (idk about that one but Jerry thinks so), and they spikes into a nice profit.

monster1151

Macro Voices cover that pretty well. Current expectation is for affected countries (mostly Asian countries with notable Resiliency from SK, Japan, and China) are that most reserves will run out by the end of the month to late July. Most affected countries are stretching what they have by maximizing coal, limiting fuel sales, four day work week, closing down school, etc. Economically stronger countries such as SK and Japan have been releasing their strategic petroleum reserves to sustain their country's usage but also had to implement restrictions and work around. The bigger issue isn't simply the reopening from what I've been hearing. Due to the way oil wells operate, shutting them down isn't just turning a tap off. It is more akin to dumping rocks down a well, metaphorically speaking. It'll take few weeks to months to reopen those wells and supposedly there's no guarantee of oil outflow reaching back to the prewar level. Further compounding issues are structural damages done to energy infrastructure. I believe Qatar experiences significant damage to their LNG extraction system and will supposedly take one year or so of time to repair them. Oil infrastructure did receive damage. While less significant, I can't imagine repair taking a short time on those either, especially if each countries don't have all the parts they need to repair the equipment properly. I haven't heard much about the traffic congestion on both sides of the strait other than there are many ships on both sides, but I do know it takes roughly 6-8 weeks for tankers to arrive at their destination, so there will be some delay on that front too. Trump keeps mentioning that the deal is coming soon while IRGC denies it. I think Taco statement triggers algorithm to suppress the price often enough, but I'm not sure how long that can suppress the oil price before reality sets in. Hopefully the market stays relatively calm, but situation is deteriorating further and further away to a point where Trump's statements may not be sufficient enough to recover the price enough to kick the can further down soon. TL:DR Even if strait opened up today, which I highly doubt, there will be some significant lagtime before flow of energy recover to normal level. The world doesn't really have the time to wait for that as issues are compounding a lot right now and return to normal will take way longer than people expect it to be.

lucy5478

Data centers use helium, which is non substitutable, of which 35% of global supply is trapped behind the strait of Hormuz, with the single largest production center hit by strikes and a minimum of 4-5% global supply offline for a minimum of 3-5 years per the Qatari government. I might add that all of the incentives are for the Qataris specifically to downplay the damage to this facility, not inflate it. Furthermore, the semi-conductor foundries need 6N grade ultra pure helium, which requires highly specialized equipment and is known to only be produced at a handful/small subset of helium production facilities, of which Ras Laffan is one of them and probably the biggest! Their helium supplies may not physically be substitutable by the Western world in the event of a prolonged shutdown, even if we chose to deliver 100% of 6N supplies solely to chip foundries and high tech defense industry applications, although there is very little publicly available data on global capacity for this grade of helium (for obvious reasons). The moment TSMC or NVIDIA announce substantial chip foundry production slowdowns or god forbid shutdowns, the whole tech sector goes tumbling down. It’s all built on revenue growth and earnings projections which require the physical production of more chips! Also, if a deal isn’t reached, or the deal leaves Iran in control of Hormuz and insurers remain too wary to cover ship transit, what do we think happens to AI token and software spend by every non-tech company when oil, LNG, helium, and fertilizer/sulfur inputs to the entire economy rise because somewhere between 20-35% of all of those things are gone?I get that they are more insulated than many industries, but those other industries are what pay their bills.

newday6838

Don't do it. I lost so much money betting the strait would stay closed (and it did). Positions were FANG, DVN, COP, LNG, GLNG. Though the strait stayed closed, demand changed too is what I was told but in any case, there's factors here more than the war and the strait being closed. I don't want back in.

Leveraged_Lots

All true but like I wrote in the post, it's just a call option on Nat-Gas, it has nothing to do with Hormuz in the short-term, long-term however, I think the world will see increasing demand for US LNG, the infrastructure is already being built and I think construction will only increase. CRK will be a long term winner of the increasing LNG capacity.

letmegetviral

LNG long

Leveraged_Lots

Kosmos Energy is up damn-near 200%, African crude and LNG beats green garbage any day.

RoyaleWCheese_OK

Tiny in the scheme of things. Rail? Meh… LNG and gas pipelines are where it’s at.

Neither_End8403

I am a generalist with no financial expertise at all. But I can't "Think of the market then." without thinking of what the global economic situation will be then. I do my own research, by which I mean I subscribe to and read papers of record as well as Bloomberg and *The Economist.* I also prompt Claude and GPT for situational analysis, a recent generation that clearly states my concern is below. I would be glad to hear your counterarguments: Note: humans and AI can make mistakes. # Reappraisal The risk level is now **higher than my earlier base case**, but more unevenly distributed. Markets are currently pricing some probability of a deal: Brent fell to about **$92/bbl** on May 29 on ceasefire hopes. But the physical situation remains much worse than the headline price suggests: the Strait is still far below normal traffic, U.S. blockade enforcement continues, and Reuters reports that even if a deal is reached, ADNOC expects at least **four months** to restore flows to 80% of pre-conflict levels. So the core revision is: > # Military situation The military picture looks like **unstable coercive pause**, not de-escalation. There are negotiations, but the facts on the water still indicate conflict. Reuters reported that U.S. Central Command disabled a vessel trying to reach an Iranian port, after more than 20 warnings, and said the U.S. has redirected at least **115 ships** since the blockade began. The same report notes that the conflict has pushed up energy prices because Iran has mostly closed the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the oil market has become highly sensitive to deal rumors. Reuters reported that a few supertankers were crossing Hormuz after waiting more than two months, but also that traffic remains far below the roughly **130 ships per day** before the war. That is not normalization; it is a controlled trickle. Military implication: **the war has entered the bargaining-over-chokepoint phase.** That is economically dangerous because a ceasefire announcement may reduce oil prices before actual flow restoration occurs. # Economic situation # 1. Energy shock: still severe, but temporarily repriced lower The IEA described the March disruption as the largest supply disruption in global oil-market history, with flows through Hormuz falling from about **20 mb/d** to a trickle, Gulf production curtailments of at least **10 mb/d**, and emergency stock releases being only a stop-gap if shipping does not resume quickly. The current Brent price near the low $90s reflects deal expectation, not restored supply. Reuters also reports that Citi sees Brent at **$120** if disruption persists, and Wood Mackenzie sees a possible approach toward **$200** if Hormuz stays largely shut until year-end. So: **near-term market risk is slightly lower; physical supply risk remains very high.** # 2. Fertilizer/food shock: risk has worsened This is where my reappraisal moves upward most. World Bank data now show urea prices above **$850/metric ton** in April, up **80% since February**, with Middle Eastern disruptions, Qatar production suspensions, Iran ammonia stoppages, and reduced Indian output from lower LNG supplies. The World Bank projects urea prices up nearly **60% in 2026**, with risks tilted upward if Hormuz disruption persists beyond Q3. The FAO warning is also important: a prolonged Hormuz crisis could become a global agrifood catastrophe by disrupting fertilizer and energy exports, raising food prices, and reducing crop yields, especially in poorer countries with fixed planting calendars. This makes the risk more stagflationary than before. Fertilizer is a delayed inflation channel. Even if oil stabilizes, the food-cost effect can arrive later. # 3. Industrial input shock: now clearly spreading beyond oil Aluminum has become a major secondary channel. Reuters reports that Gulf aluminum production has fallen sharply, that the Gulf accounts for more than a fifth of non-Chinese production, and that physical buyers are paying up even where exchange prices look relatively calm. Reuters also reports that U.S. solar installation costs are rising because aluminum racking systems are more expensive; LME aluminum is up about **15%** since late February and COMEX aluminum futures more than **30%**. That matters because the shock is hitting precisely the investment categories that were supposed to support growth: data centers, grid buildout, solar, electrification, and industrial replacement. # 4. Corporate damage is now visible Reuters’ corporate survey found at least **$25 billion** in costs already reported by global companies, with at least **279 companies** citing the war as a trigger for defensive actions: price increases, production cuts, furloughs, dividend/buyback suspensions, fuel surcharges, and emergency assistance requests. That is no longer only a commodity-market story. It is moving into margins, capex, employment decisions, and consumer prices. # 5. Financial risk: still contained, but asymmetrically dangerous The IMF says global growth is projected at **3.1% in 2026** only under the assumption that the conflict remains limited in duration and scope. It also warns that rising commodity prices, firmer inflation expectations, tighter financial conditions, high public debt, and eroded policy buffers create downside risk. The IMF’s financial-stability report says markets have functioned orderly so far, but risks are asymmetric: longer conflict could tighten financial conditions abruptly, while stretched equity valuations, AI concentration, sovereign rollover risk, nonbank leverage, and private-credit borrower stress could amplify the shock. This is the depression/stagflation hinge. The real economy is already impaired. The next question is whether the financial system starts repricing risk violently.

BuyTheFuckingDipss

Ladies LNG and Oil is flowing again!!! Drill Baby Drill!!!

Boring-Test5522

Natural gas & LNG are the game to play

BuyTheFuckingDipss

Looks like 15 were LNG and 25 were oil tankers. The remaining ones we listed as “others”

hodd01

we have so much extra natural gas in the US that the permain basin pays people to take it, or they pay to burn it via a flare. Until LNG expansion does a 5x natural gas is going to be the backbone of AI energy consumption.

Boring-Test5522

LNG and WMB my regards

danisanub

BRUN: like NBIS and Coreweave, but they have customers prepay to finance expansion. Very high EBITDA margins. SLS: promising data for AML vaccine. It either goes to $20-40 or to near $0 AMRQF: hold the most mineral exploration rights in Greenland. Gold mine is producing and scaling up, better yields than expected. Found germanium and gallium (rare earths) on some of their sites. Talk of Danish and US buying equity stakes. Uplisting on LSE soon. TMC: riskiest play and smallest position, underwater sea floor mining. Bought calls for this. ABXXF: Singapore based commodities exchange to challenge COMEX with better technology. Gold exchange is doing well and silver just opened. Going into LNG soon. Great leadership. Confident on this one. KRKNF: underwater drones and sensor tech. I think we see underwater drones become a second wave since the adoption of aerial drones. Not financial advice, these are my personal investments. Do your own research.

Boring-Test5522

LNG & energy infra. They pay high dividend, stocks dont swing up and down 20% per day. AI needs them too.

Opposite_Day_9771

How is this possible with LNG, oil, and other chemicals in short supply? Gulf facilities destroyed or damaged. Majority of the chips, wires, fans, and other equipment are in East Asia. They're rationing and working from home. 100% sold for the year doesn't mean money in the bank. You still have to deliver the goods. 50% data centers on hold or cancel. There's not enough energy.

cinnamon-toast-fox

Look at the SPCX disclosures in their S-1 about the xAI contract with anthropic. look at revenue per GPU hour and compare that to IREN’s deals with MSFT and NVDA. you will see the xAI contract generates 2x the revenue per GPU since they are directly contracted with the AI end user (in this case anthropic but could be any AI lab) instead of contracting with a hyperscaler who essentially acts as a middle man renting out the GPUs. that is what iren is going for in its next contracts that could be anncd before the GPUs power up in 2H…and could lead them to raise the ARR guides. also they gave NVDA a crapload of equity and big incentive to keep IREN at the front of the line / largest allocations for new chips. IREN building a wall of cash flow similar to how Cheniere LNG was built. happy hunting

EpiphyticOrchid8927

Leapords eating trumps face Canada and Germany are announcing an LNG supply deal tomorrow with gas sourced from the proposed Ksi Lisims export terminal on BC's north coast

Fancy_Rice_2799

Who gives a shit about LNG in summer?

taffy_laffy

>QatarEnergy said it would extend the force majeure on its exports of liquefied natural gas until the middle of August, >Originally, the force majeure was set to run until early July. The declaration followed Iranian strikes on Qatar’s LNG hub that caused extensive damage. >The shutdown affects LNG output as well as downstream products including urea, polymers, methanol and aluminum. Its over.

Th1rt13n

Ships sail each day now. Even LNG tankers What are you on about?!

BuyTheFuckingDipss

33 ships in last 24 hours, dig deep and you will see a number of LNG and oil tankers

BuyTheFuckingDipss

LNG and OIL movements is steadily increasing thru the so called “Strait of America”

Orkapork

Unsure but largely it doesn't matter until there are daily oil and LNG tankers floating in AND out. I don't think the USA is ready to permanently allow Iran to toll the straight yet so I don't think a deal is here. I'd suspect to see the USA agree around late July personally.

NVDA_Gaped_Me

Good point, and that works for the VLCCs, not sure what the calc would be for cargo containers or LNG ships. If you know, even a rough approximation, let's update the calculation.

Wild-Astronomer1200

I’m holding 15.5 K shares that I have accumulated through both major dips so I am up right now I think around $85,000 I can definitely see this stock going 2X within the next 6 to 12 months Q2 earnings are going to be the big turning point when all the spot cargoes being sold it massive profit get released They have massive additions coming online later this year that are going to drastically increase. They’re already massive LNG output. I’m in it for the long haul doubtful I ever sell any shares I can see the stock getting to $30-$40 per share in the next two or three years if not sooner Happily the 5 to 10 year outlook is going to be massive. Huge dividends should kick in right around that timeframe if not sooner.

RadFriday

LNG processing is critical for helium production, which semiconductors rely on heavily for an inert gas

koshgeo

My guess is the price is buffered by the expectation of a sudden release of an enormous amount of pent-up supply at some point, even with the time lag between the release and actual delivery. Nobody wants to be paying $150/barrel when it could be $80/barrel post-deal in a week. They are anticipating the fall, and that's rounding off the peak. The thing is, you're right about the principles. If deliveries start not being met due to the real practicalities rather than speculation, and countries get desperate because of low stock of oil and LNG, there's going to be a bidding war on whatever is left at some point. The problem is we don't really know for sure when that is or how quickly the market will notice something has changed and respond to it. Everyone is hoping things will be resolved before we hit that second crisis, and it's 12 weeks and counting.

Only_Year_2466

I think VG is languishing lately entirely because of an expected imminent “peace” deal which should be just around the corner, running on 6 weeks. People are first waiting to see where the JKM forward curve settles in the days following peace whenever that is. On the one hand, we were staring at a huge surplus of LNG heading into 2026, and now we have a double whammy with both considerable damage at Ras Laffan affecting 20% of Qatar’s total LNG production and up to 7% of global supply. This damage may take as much as 3 years to replace… while at the same time, we keep eating into our inventory stocks globally the longer it takes… which means the price of JKM as an example should by all means remain wide, probably not as wide as it is currently, but wider than the $10-$11/btu it was at pre-war. But until that forward price curve settles down to a level that reflects the new world for the next 3 years where we are both rebuilding offline capacity while also re-building above ground stock… it’s hard to really assign any long term EBItDA projection to VG in the immediate term. I keep waiting for the hopeful peace deal, immediate drop in JKM, and hopeful selloff in VG on that day(s) following with which to build my position 

ChairmanMeow1986

I didn't see the DTE and thought it was July on first read, what in the WSB lol. First this is a Options on futures, not futures and it's a spread not a naked sell and not two bought puts, so at worst they are out the premium payed. Unless there's something I'm not understanding, it's a 90/91Spread. Which means they did something like buy 91 out and sell a 90 to profit quick directional price movement or if it actually moves to 90$ or below profit 1$ per barrel of x100 x# of spreads. OP's 134 million of barrels thing is confusion as far as I can tell. \--- Beyond that though, most futures contracts never end with someone physically taking barrels of oil. The vast majority are closed, rolled, or cash-settled before delivery. The people trading July Brent contracts are often airlines, refiners, producers, hedge funds, banks, and speculators managing exposure rather than lining up tanker trucks. "If they left the Middle East today they would not get somewhere until about mid-August.” Brent doesn't work like that, it's a broader basket of crude streams. Cargoes come from multiple regions and can be redirected. Physical markets also draw from, inventories already in storage, floating storage, strategic reserves, existing cargoes already in transit, alternative suppliers. So it very much is just about the cost of a barrel of oil *at that time*, not really to do with where *new* oil from the gulf region is in it's physical out flow. China has repeatedly done this, more with LNG than crude oil itself. They basically re-sold long-term contracts for shipments in the future, basically redirecting those cargoes to buyers that need them more in the pacific. Basically reshuffling flows and perhaps export flows. It doesn't seem to be much yet directly, but China did recently resume permitting refined oil exports, which had been severely restricted early in the crisis. This gradual release of aviation fuel, diesel, and gasoline is actively helping to stabilize supply constraints across Asian economies. There massive petroleum hoard, like the global strategic reserve that got tapped early into the war, there are other sources of oil on the market that could come into play if the flow of oil out of the Gulf could normalize. Even at reduced volume would probably be fine as long as it was consistent. TLDR: The point of being that the physical price of Brent for July is not just based on new outflow of oil specifically from Hormuz, it's a based on all oil outflow, anticipated supply, demand at what prices, reserves, etc. More so it

Competitive-Water944

I got shares and June calls. Plan on rolling those out to August if needed. I like the underlying fundamentals of the company. Will continue adding shares on large pullbacks but probably done averaging down on calls for now. I feel like I’m missing something though because it appears too good to be true and LNG is not within my circle of competence if I’m being honest

Antilokhos

I feel like the value here is NEXT, not VG. Not that VG is bad, but NEXT has more time to production so there's more profit possible as a long term hold. That said, all LNG stocks have popped off due to the current administration shutting down Hormuz. I wouldn't buy anything right now, but I do have a bunch of NEXT I scored in the $4s

oberwolfach

Venture Global is heavily loaded with debt and there is likely to be a global LNG glut once the current Middle East situation settles down and the Qatar LNG expansion that has been in the works since 2019 comes online. Growth isn’t everything; compare with the shale producers from the early 2010s that incinerated hundreds of billions of dollars growing into a market glut.

tachyonvelocity

No, that's incorrect. There has been little actual damage to oil facilities, the major damage has been to LNG, which takes more than a year to get back, because LNG liquefaction requires specialized facilities. Qatar LNG said \~20% of LNG requires 2 years of repair. Oil production is very simple and not even concentrated so Iran can't damage much of it in the first place. Iran could hit pipelines, but they're easy to repair and Iran hasn't actually done so.

Mguidr1

Very accurate post. Let me add to this from the perspective of an investor in VG and someone who lives in the area and works at a local refinery. I currently own 4800 shares of VG at an average of $8.60 a share. Let me explain why I intend to buy more shares when the share value dips. The construction of the CP2 project that is currently underway is massive and ahead of schedule. They are already moving trains in and are on pace to start production in June of 2027. There are around 4000 contractors working to make this happen. Where I work we have seen a workforce reduction due to hiring from Venture global. These are our best people and I’d be there right along with them if I wasn’t retiring this year. I have also worked with people on the venture global team in the past and can attest to their competence and work ethic. Let’s talk about the pipeline from Sourlake Tx. This is never discussed but is very relevant. I pass this pipeline every week in several places along its route from Texas because I have a house in Texas. This project alone is massive and will have several junctions and will also become a money maker. They are making good progress as well. VG is already expanding CP2 by 4 additional trains from the original plans. They are building ships to transport their LNG to markets as well. Right behind CP2 is CP3. There are few investment opportunities as good as VG and I’m in it for the long term. It is a steal at current value and should be at least $20 per share at current levels.

TreGet234

Time go heavy long on LNG?

JafarFromAfar2

China has officially started buying US LNG again (hadn’t done so since Feb 2025) and people seriously think 🥭 wants the Strait to open https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/four-us-lng-vessels-sailing-china-after-trump-xi-summit-2026-05-19/

Longjumping-Bonus723

🚨 Two Chinese VLCCs carrying 4 mb of Iraqi oil have crossed the Strait of Hormuz and are now heading straight for the US blockade. If they’re allowed to pass, it means Trump and Xi have quietly agreed to let it happen. Meanwhile, 4 LNG carriers are on their way to China to deliver US LNG ... so they have a deal!

Own-Cauliflower-6992

> LNG. It’s not DIRECTLY bought by Germany, but there’s some Houdini shit where things are offloaded into Europe from Russia where they end up in an intercontinental market where it’s then bought by Germany. Biden put a price cap on the oil + LNG Russia was able to sell. India said that was stupid and simply bought discounted oil + lng from Russia and then resold it in the open market. Everyone paid India more for oil they were already buying anyway so they could look politically correct.

xViscount

Yes. Even Germany. 1. Oil. There’s not an embargo on a certain pipeline that I can’t spell. 2. LNG. It’s not DIRECTLY bought by Germany, but there’s some Houdini shit where things are offloaded into Europe from Russia where they end up in an intercontinental market where it’s then bought by Germany. I’m not criticizing Germany. They should buy Russian energy. If choosing for their people to freeze and run low on energy, buying Russian energy is the correct decision.

xViscount

Or…because Europe still bought Russian oil and LNG. Just at discounted prices.

AgentBlackwell

Im boring, and Canadian, but power.... everything power, whether thats [power.to](http://power.to) the financial holding company, capital power (CPX.TO) the power generation company, Hydro one (H.TO) for power supply, and fringe players like PEY.TO for LNG into power. I could be wrong but I think its all about power.

dimdada

Wow, I sold LNG @ $40 after for 3 years. Once I did it 🚀 and then announced dividends. I believed in the stock but didn’t want to wait. That’s one I regret letting go. But I made a nice amount as my cost basis was below $10

WillowgirlIII

You bet! I had a bunch of LNG when it was like $19 a share.

External-Plastic-154

China has already overtaken South Korea industrially in most sectors, and with only semiconductors and LNG carriers still holding a technological edge, if semiconductors collapse, Korea would effectively become subordinate to China. Chinese capital has already penetrated South Korea on a massive scale.

Anymousie

Regarding that $10B debt, what’s your stress test on VG’s debt if the Strait reopens faster than expected? I ask because your case assumes the Strait stays closed long enough for spot prices to stay elevated, storage levels to force buying, and the market to re-rate VG upward. But if a deal gets done in the next 30-60 days and Gulf LNG comes back online, spot prices normalize, VG’s Q2 earnings disappoint relative to the elevated guidance, AND they’re sitting on $10B more debt than their closest comp.

Mental-At-ThirtyFive

The hurt is real. The people that are visibly hurt are the ones in South and SE Asia in countries that do not have LNG supplies. The supply disruption has already led to factory closures and unemployment. I don't know about people in Iran or UAE or whats on ground in Bahrain or Kuwait

fastowl76

Some interesting picks many of which i can agree on. Some thoughts however. I like CRK at a lower price point. Keep in mind that that it is a natural gas play, not an oil play. A Haynseville driller so is well situated for expanding LNG exports as well as eastern US power generation. That being said, incremental LNG is slow to come online, the next increase, Golden Pass trains are in the midst of completion over the next 9 months. But in a 110 bcfd market in the US the incremental demand at the next 2 GP trains is only about 1.5 bcfd. Generally speaking the LNG terminals run near capacity and the rest of the North American gas market is a closed system subject to weather and power demand. Prices do not generally move with crude. Worse if crude drilling picks up, the nat gas supply will increase faster than demand does. Long term nat gas demand is growing but the next 12 months? Not that significant. Just an example of some items on your list.

Humble-Witness6933

used Chatslide for my VG notes. setup was kinda clunky but made a 12-slide deck in 4 min. about your LNG thesis, what's your exit plan?

rair21

VLO, PBF, MPC for refiners. VG, LNG for nat gas. VG just posted great earnings and is going to be a HUGE gas producer in 2027.

Jeff__Skilling

No, it basically trades like a bond. That's how most of these LNG liquidification companies trade -- like +80% of their supply and offtake are all at fixed volumes and prices (which OP mentions) and those projects are all (generally) underwritten with fixed rate bonds. We know what all the cash flows look like -- both in and out -- save for their spot exposure (or any open liquification capacity), so their shares are going to trade like a bond since the same cash flow / risk fundamentals apply.

blacksiddis

I work in gas/LNG. The industry consensus has and still is that supply will outpace demand. SoH just delays the glut.

mithyyyy

i like your thesis overall but i do think you're underestimating the willingness of some parties to enter within the LNG trade, nor how much expansion has been built on the infrastructure front. coastal gaslink is probably my main example when it comes to this. LNG production with canada was massively hampered in the past because of the federal government and a lot of first nations protests, but (after paying out the tribes and a shift in government), CGL is more-or-less operational. the whole point of the project was to pump LNG into asia and canadian LNG has the benefits of avoiding all bottlenecks like hormuz or suez that most other LNG producers suffer from, making CAD LNG much cheaper to ship ($0.96 mmbtu vs $2.22 mmbtu for gulf, where VG operates). there's a shit ton of progress being made here and this hormuz shabang is shooting roids into it. obviously in the near term, canada isn't going to be pumping at usual american levels, but i think it's unfair to say that the infrastructure isn't completely there, nor that it's too unfavourable now to enter.

Illustrious-Aside522

Did not see any mentions about the red flags, so I asked AI: VG is **not a low-risk LNG infrastructure stock**. It is more of a leveraged LNG growth vehicle. The bull case is clear: massive LNG demand, U.S. export advantage, big production ramp, strong 2026 EBITDA, and geopolitical upside. But the red flags are also very clear: **Debt is high, legal risk is material, future capex is massive, LNG spreads are volatile, and project execution must go almost perfectly.**

curveball21

I like your enthusiasm, but I would cauton that transport is a real problem wth your thesis. You can't just build new LNG tankers overnight and all the current ones are booked for a while.

JafarFromAfar2

It’s the same concept as oil companies wanting the long term price for crude to be $70ish. Too low and your margins crater, too high and demand wanes + inflation persists. Everyone in the LNG industry wants to make sure that there’s consistently enough demand before they invest in costly infrastructure. If an entity like Cheniere went overboard and added 100 MPTA of production capacity, they would not be able to find enough demand for their new supply. Their profit margins would crater and they would lose billions of dollars while waiting for demand to catch back up. So all these teams of people that are working on proposals and planning new projects have to be 100% sure that their efforts will bear fruit. They need to account for competitors’ projects that will finish before theirs do, and they need to confidently project that there will be enough demand to satisfy their additional supply (which you can’t accurately do far into the future). Additionally, most shareholders of conglomerates like XOM or SHEL would much rather have profits immediately returned in the form of dividends or buybacks.

RudeNewYorker

For a company in the energy sector, that already has a hand in LNG, that already invested in construction on the 5 year to profit timeline, why wouldn’t they do it again? Especially as demand is predicted to be higher than supply. Ok say you have a crew of people that are building out the construction project. Instead of hire then fire a crew every time you have a project, you set up projects so as one finishes, they simply move to the next one. That’s how construction companies and large players manage these construction teams. So one could assume one of the following will happen. 1. The crews that finish jobs currently under construction are then moved to new jobs over the next 5 years. 2. Crews that finish jobs currently under construction are let go and no one develops any new projects in LNG even though there’s a projected increase in demand and dwindling supply. Which is more likely? Personally I think that there are teams of people working on proposals and planning new projects because that’s their whole job function at these companies. I think that LNG having a very steady (if not projected increased) supply curve over the next five years indicates that many companies are projecting that they’re very interested in investing in construction and taking a profit in 5 years (which btw is not very long at all in terms of enterprise, especially those in energy, a nuclear power plant takes 6-8 years, plus polo at all the projected construction, they’re obviously investing in these construction projects with the same 5 year timeline, one could say at an even higher rate than before). We can look at it another way. In this graph you have demand growth projected in blue. Why don’t we project supply growth by protecting a straight line from 5 years ago, to 5 years from now, and continue that pattern for another 5 years. You’ll see that the projected supply hits right in the middle of projected demand. When you don’t have future projections for supply, you can’t just say ok it’s going to be 0 for as long as I have projected data for demand. You should project continued growth at the current curve. All you’ve found here is that supply data ends in 5 years, because construction projects take 5 years. You’ve chased and caught your own tail.

Ellen_1234

True, my very regarded ai agents summary: Strait reopens, spot prices crash, VG’s 30% spot exposure gets wrecked. Also: $10B debt, PE 12 for a reason (cap-ex heavy), and if global LNG supply catches up (150M+ new capacity by 2030), their growth story fizzles. Plus, your $17.5 calls expire worthless if the market stays irrational longer than you can stay solvent. TL;DR: High risk, high reward—don’t YOLO your rent money.

Faedro

From AI: "This reads *heavily* AI-assisted, but not fully AI-generated. My estimate: roughly **70–90% AI-written**, then edited by a human who knows trading culture and added some original riffs/jokes." "**Token-padding behavior** Huge portions restate the same point in slightly different wording: > The post could be half as long without losing meaning." **"Suspiciously broad domain fluency** It smoothly jumps between: * geopolitics * LNG logistics * shipping economics * energy infrastructure * investor relations * valuation metrics * macro policy * commodity spreads without the normal “depth variance” humans usually show." Yep yep. You wrote it. Got it.

RudeNewYorker

Ok question. You say that demand will outpace supply in the coming years, about 10 according the graph. But there are planned expansions currently being built to increase supply, just none planned for 10 years or as of today. What makes you think that there won’t be future construction projects to expand the supply, especially as demand increases? Have we constructed all the LNG refineries that we can? Will LNG dry up? Or will construction projects finish over the next 10 years, and then new projects begin, thus increasing the supply?

MountainTwo3845

The US sells LNG at less than half of the rest of the world when you consider boe equivalent. If prices continue to go up their margins fly up.