LNG

Beneficial-Ad-7771

I don't see it being overvalued at this price and the moat they have. They're not just selling modules but infastructure with solar as the medium. Nobody else in the market doing this. I'm betting we will see more offtake agreements coming online soon once the G2 financing is sorted out. There's a lot of policy tailwind tilting towards their favor as well. Shorting from $10.75 prob was the better move but everyone said the same thing with Bloom last year. Power is becoming scarce as I'm sure you've seen. US Energy Dept said we will need at least 300% more power by 2030. Where do you imagine power is going to come from? Solar + Storage = 79% of new power this year and the trend has been going up the last 5+ years. Gas turbine sold out for a good few years. Nuclear is far out. Wind is not as efficient and only added about 10% this year. LNG isn't scaling up either. Lot of cheap energy across the sunbelt.

Beneficial-Ad-7771

Look at the numbers on TE. 1400% year over year, 232% quarter/quarter, sequential quarterly growth with a huge beat Q1 2026 by 80%. Lot of demand for Solar + BESS in the USA right now. Gas turbine sold out till 2029, nuclear years away, and wind and coal is growing slowly. LNG is also slower growth. Solar + BESS is accounting for 79% of new power added to the grid this year and US energy dept said US needs over 3x more power by 2030. It's a different company today and it's executing well from what I'm seeing.

Rock_or_Rol

QQQ is probably going to 650 by Tuesday’s at a minimum if the Iran conflict escalates with blown up refineries and the like. If they hit LNG again, NEXT will probably shoot up 30% DM me. I have a whacky play that might work

cwalking2

LNG - Liquefied Natural Gas - is already [transported at scale from America to Asia and Europe](https://ieefa.org/north-american-lng-export-tracker): > Volume and Scale: The U.S. shipped over 110 million tonnes of LNG in 2025, operating multiple mega-terminals primarily located along the Gulf Coast. North American LNG capacity is actively expanding and projected to roughly double by 2030 > Exports to Europe: European nations became the primary destination for U.S. LNG following the disruption of pipeline gas from Russia. At its peak, Europe accounted for roughly 68% of total U.S. LNG exports > Exports to Asia: Asian markets are massive buyers of U.S. LNG. While many U.S. cargoes travel to Asia via the Panama Canal, U.S.-sourced gas is also liquefied at Pacific Coast terminals in Mexico (like Energía Costa Azul) to provide a shorter, more direct maritime shipping route The problem is that every small oil field scattered across America doesn't have _enough_ natgas production to warrant capture, purification, and transportation. As a result, it just gets burned-off. In contrast, the [Marcellus shale field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_natural_gas_trend) produces so much natural gas that it's captured, purified, distributed/transported, and sold.

Accurate-Flow8078

Just Google it. While the U.S. has increased its energy independence, allies like Japan, South Korea, and European nations depend heavily on oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) transiting from the Persian Gulf. The U.S. secures the strait to ensure the energy security of its partners.

Round_Nectarine_685

Its trapped money. Currency is devaluing so fast you want to have stocks, but there is no growth potential at all because we are boxed in market wise, people's salaries are too high here, you cant really make it cheap and sell affordable. The last ditch effort to save the elites is to turn the US into a giant gas station selling LNG and take total control of the world's trade routes so we can act like some dumb ass pirates but that is doomed to fail too as china is not stupid and probably predicted this play 20 years ago. Think of it like a pressure cooker without a pressure value, it will keep going up until it blows up.

0o0o0o0o0o0z

> They still have small drones to attack ships. But not much else. Yes, please "small" done my ship carrying flammable liquids or LNG...

idkuhhhhhhh5

Assuming this isn’t written by AI (it seems like it was, but I digress), you’re still missing massive parts of the picture, while mentioning them elsewhere in your “thesis”. For what it’s worth, a good thing to make other people not suspect that you’re using AI, is to not say the word thesis on Reddit. “DD” suffices. \>”Energy isn’t the most exciting sector compared to AI-“ AI is directly linked to energy far more than the Strait of Hormuz will ever be. Do you see Nuclear Power Plants being refit and restarted because of Iran? No, but you do see Three Mile Island being refueled and prepped for startup and grid operation within a year *for Microsoft’s AI data center nearby*. Meta has 3 deals for NPPs to be built/restarted for their data centers. Google themselves are having three brand new 600MW Nuclear Power Plants built for their data centers. I’ll let you in on a little secret. Remember when 2022 started, Putin decided to play fuck fuck games, and won fuck fuck prizes in the form of oil embargos? Europe depended on Russian oil FAR MORE than anyone depends on Iranian oil shipped via maritime cargo routes. Being entirely cut off from their only large scale LNG import partner wasn’t enough to get Germany to undo their Nuclear retirement plans, but AI data centers existing for a couple years has sparked entire resurgences in the field. If you legitimately believe global energy demands are affected by Iran more than by AI, idk what to tell you. \>”but when Iran things happen da price go up, when no more Iran happen da price go down” Excellent point, except it relies on a global market based solely off of supply and demand. That falls apart when you realize that companies can see Iran shit happening, decide to charge you 30% more, and safely watch from the distance. Why? Because they know you’ll blame governments. Between 2023 and 2024 oil companies made record breaking profits, and what did people do? Did they complain about those companies charging more? No, they slapped “I did that” Biden stickers on the gas pumps. Oil companies can use global news as an excuse to price gouge, and they know they’ll get away with it, because everyone will turn around and blame the president (if they’re not conservative) or Iran (if they’re conservative). It’s a free profit button that has nothing to do with predicted real cash flow, and if you’re trading under the assumption that it actually has anything to do with global events, you’re really just playing the game while wearing a blindfold.

dobemish

It does, a lot. Ignore the "it's mostly for Asia" guys. While export go mostly to Asia, oil is a global commodity. As such, a significant decrease in supply would make the price for everyone shoot up. The poorest countries will feel that the worst because they can't compete for price. Economies need oil so they will have to outbid each other to get it. The only way oil wouldn't affect everyone else is if you believe profit isn't a driving force for the market and think that exporters will sell it on principle rather than to the highest bidder - in other words, it's not happening. Other such global commodities which are more niche in the mainstream but their supply got cut off by more than 1/3 of global supply in some cases are fertilizer for everything food related, helium for chip manufacturing and LNG for manufacturing and electricity. So everyone is going to feel it. It does mater a lot and the supply chain is extremely strained. It just takes a while to hit the final product on our side. This is bigger than the covid supply shock. If you remember that actually started hitting hard in early 2021. Even though it started in 2020. So we didn't really feel it until much later. This war started in early spring, give it half a year or more. Even if things get fully resolved tomorrow, ships aren't magic, it will take months for them to travel and years for supply to get back to where it was. Oil futures are crap, they predict direction, not actual current price which is actually payed to keep the world running. Check the 1979 oil crisis for historical reference of something far less impactful than the current war.

gizamo

The largest global oil suppliers that export crude without passing through the Strait of Hormuz are the US, Russia, Canada, Brazil, and Norway. It is very obvious which countries each of those currently prioritize. Hint: it's themselves, then China, India, Europe, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, but not necessarily in that order for all of them. Point is, some countries are making alternatives plans, and some are operating just as before. The country getting screwed the worst long-term is definitely Iran. All the supply they used to provide is being replaced with alternate sources of crude, LNG, or various energy source supplements, e.g. solar, wind, etc.

Soffatjockis

Since oil is a global commodity, this means Asia will need to find new suppliers. Same suppliers as US and Europe. Besides, Qatar provides alot of LNG to Europe after the Russian invasion.

terminalguy007

The Strait of Hormuz is the tightest chokepoint in global energy — roughly 20% of world oil supply and a third of all LNG passes through it. Historically, actual closures haven't held for long because Iran's own oil exports depend on the same passage, but even a credible threat reprices risk premiums fast. The 2019 tanker incidents sent Brent up 4-5% intraday before fading within a week once the posturing became clearer. The market sectors to watch: integrated majors (XOM, CVX) and tanker operators (STNG, FRO) get a bid immediately. Refiners are mixed — higher crude input costs squeeze margins unless they can pass through. Defense names get a look too. The broader index reaction depends on how bond yields move; oil shocks that bleed into CPI expectations can reprice rate cut timelines and that hits multiples across the board harder than the direct energy exposure. The key question is duration intent vs. tactical posture. Iran has issued Hormuz closure threats roughly a dozen times since 2008 without following through on a sustained basis, largely because it would be self-defeating economically. That pattern suggests knee-jerk energy spike trades have a poor risk/reward on longer holds. The more durable play, if this escalates, is probably defense primes and domestic US E&P names that benefit from a structural shift away from Middle East supply.

terminalguy007

About 21% of global oil and 17% of global LNG passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Every escalation in the region triggers the same sequence: energy futures spike on the headline, equity markets price in supply disruption risk, and then the situation either de-escalates or the market adjusts. If you look at the historical record — 2019 tanker attacks, 2020 Soleimani strike, multiple mining incidents — the oil price spike almost always precedes any actual supply disruption by days to weeks, and often no disruption materializes at all. The distinction that matters for investors is between headline risk (prices move because sentiment moves) and fundamental risk (physical supply actually gets interrupted). A formal closure declaration is a meaningful escalation in rhetoric, but the operational question is whether Iran has the capability to enforce it against U.S. Fifth Fleet presence in the region. That enforcement question is what determines whether the risk premium is warranted or just noise. For long-term energy holdings, the framework is straightforward: if you're holding an oil major because of reserve quality, production costs, and capital return history, a near-term price swing on a geopolitical headline is immaterial to the investment thesis. The scenarios where this actually changes the calculus are leveraged positions, companies with significant Gulf production exposure, or if the situation escalates to actual supply infrastructure damage. That last scenario is the tail risk worth monitoring — not the headline itself.

icydragon_12

I'm a professional analyst, don't cover this stock. But I've done a detailed DCF. Current mkt price is basically pricing in moderating asp growth (from ~60%/q in 26 down to 10%/q) and then crashing 20-50%/yr for a couple years pretty quickly. This is really not that uncommon for commodity stocks at peak pricing. It happens in all other commodity sectors. Frankly their latest agreements are not quite long term enough for a big multiple bump yet. In contrast, an LNG company that does take or pay agreements does so for 20+ years and gets valued at huge premiums.

wrestlingchampo

Ive been clamoring for more people to take note of this elsewhere and buy CLNE, but whenever I posted this in WSB, it would get pulled because its market cap is too small. Even though its the only NG company (RNG, no less) that isn't Chevron that has a major CNG/LNG distribution network, which is going to get interesting as more and more trucks convert to CNG. Batteries can do short trips, but you need something more substantial if you're transporting cross-country.

Educational_Salt7147

Yes, Samsung and SK HYNIX make up 50% of Kospi index. TSMC semiconductor makes up 58% of Taiwanese stock market. Nobody talks about Taiwanese stock market dominated by one semiconductor company. Korea has 2 main Memory chip companies but also has Hyundai, Kia, LG, Hanwha Defense, and world's largest LNG shipbuilders. Taiwanese basically is run by TSMC but Nobody cares.

Hoof_Hearted12

I bought in the 50s after your posts. I'm not thrilled by the drilling, but at some point the damage done to LNG infrastructure in the ME will come to a head. Plus, they still have bank ratings in the 70-80 range so let's see.

jrex035

Iran has struck not one, not two, but three vessels today in the Gulf/Strait. Two tankers and an LNG carrier that's on fire and at risk of exploding. So of course oil prices are up a whopping 2% today and flat over the past week. Surely we don't need oil or refined products from the Gulf, we can just print everything at the Fed

jrex035

Another vessel was hit in the past hour or so, bringing the total to 3 in less than 24 hours. 2 oil tankers and 1 LNG carrier. So of course oil is up *checks notes* less than 2.5% on the day lmao what a joke

Maga1498

Reuters: LNG tanker at risk of exploding after two vessels struck near Strait of Hormuz So I guess the strait is closed again.

TheDueDiligent

The reversibility point cuts hardest at the TOP of your list, not the bottom. "The regulation is the thesis" (TMQ, NEXT) is exactly what nobody sanctions an 8 year mine or an LNG train on when the rule has a 2 year shelf life & a pending court date... those are trades. The names that survive a reversal are the ones where dereg is a rounding error, GM's buyback, VST's load growth, & you'd own those anyway. so the ranking's basically upside down, purest reg play = weakest hold.

Glum_Anteater1250

Russia has relatively minor crude exports compared to the absolutely massive natural gas reserves and exports. (if they were smart, they would have converted a chunk of their vehicles to LNG, and they would not be in the pickle they are now)

dontforgetpants

I have a lot of direct experience with the agencies controlling these rules and in the energy sector so I’m gonna throw out some off the cuff thoughts here. Betting on coal is a terrible idea. It is not economic in most energy markets at any size and is not coming back in a meaningful way ever. We have already burned the best of what we can economically mine. Gas is a better fuel in every way, cheaper, and easier to transport, and we have a fuckload of it. This administration does not care about coal beyond lip service. DOE leadership also do not personally care about coal or spending their time on it. They mostly come from oil and gas backgrounds, that’s where they themselves are invested, and that is was they are excited about. They like LNG exports and they like domestic gas. Energy companies are also not going to take big risks on coal. The economics of gas power plants are hard to beat, even with fluctuations in the cost of gas, with thermal efficiency of 65%. Even the best coal plants

Potential_Web_4092

India is actively building out a pipeline 80GW of new coal fired and China has commissioned 78GW. AI data centers require non-negotiable, 24/7 baseload power in all the countries I mentioned and are upping their use due to the LNG supply squeeze. However my point is the dip a chance for some short term profit trading.

Safe_Manner_1879

It take years to build a new coal plant, longer then the LNG supply squeeze is predicted to last.

Hoof_Hearted12

I'm still holding LNG. I think those facilities will take much longer to get back to pre war production.

dansdansy

Oil and LNG up is good for an energy company with all their capacity in the permian/western hemisphere. It's not that straight forward because of the implications of higher rates on capex- but they'll come out a lot better from the strait being closed longer than competitors like exxon with heavy ME footprint or tech that relies on cheap energy and low interest rates.

Empty_Cup9373

LNG seems to be moving back from geopolitics to fundamentals. TTF pullback looks like a risk premium unwind, still range-bound overall.

Orennji

Some of the greatest plays of the last 5-10 years have been commodities. Steel. Metallurgical coal. LNG. Rare Earths. The economy is more than just tech. 

SuitableAdvantage980

Economic integration discourages military aggression of Iran in the future, but this is a total surrender on the part of the USA and will be the catalyst for the collapse of the petro dollar as Iran has a viceroy grip on gulf countries and will control their oil production through soft and hard power. Short term bullish but long term horrible as they now have the ability to cut production of oil and LNG whenever they want.

et1975

yep, the buffers are masking the problem but OECD inventories are on track to fall to just under **2.3 billion barrels by December -** their lowest levels since 2003. Morgan Stanley's commodities strategist puts it like this: even after flows resume, **75% of lost supply can come back within four months, but the final 25% may take well into 2027.** |Concern|Reality Today| |:-|:-| |**Massive production losses**| 11-14M bpd offline| |**Physical infrastructure damage**| $25B+ in damage; LNG trains destroyed| |**Years to fully recover**| 3-5 years for critical facilities| The market has **over-reacted to the ceasefire announcement** and **under-reacted to the structural damage**. The gap between a political agreement and actual physical production is vast and that gap represents potential upside for energy prices in the coming months.

Beautiful_Benefit319

😂 Crude Oil: US crude oil production hit an all-time high of 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025 , and the EIA forecasts that rising to 13.7 million barrels per day in 2026.  Petroleum has been the largest source of US energy exports since 1999, accounting for 63% of total energy exports in 2025.  Natural Gas / LNG: US LNG exports are forecast at 17 billion cubic feet per day in 2026, rising further to 19 billion cubic feet per day in 2027.  Total LNG export capacity is set to reach roughly 16.3 billion cubic feet per day by 2026, driven by new terminals including Plaquemines LNG and Golden Pass LNG.  The broader context worth noting: LNG exports are forecast to increase 36% from 2024 to 2026, far outpacing domestic consumption growth over the same period.  So the US is simultaneously the world’s largest oil producer and its largest LNG exporter — which makes the domestic gas price conversation interesting, since American consumers are competing with global demand for a product increasingly priced on international markets rather than purely domestic ones.

Beneficial-Ad-7771

Policy has shifted for solar. Section 232 ruling coming due + 45x tax credits. U.S. Gov wants energy and power grid investment and data centers running ai power campus are looking to add solar to their portfolio as it captures a ton of energy at the lowest cost esp during peak usage. Most ai power campus want a mix of solar, LNG, nuclear, gas etc but solar is the cheapest and most stable cost rate.

itsnotshade

I’ve been tired of the fake deals but this one seems to be the real deal. There’s been one LNG tanker that passed through both Hormuz and the blockade and a cargo tanker is about to pass through in the next few hours. Unless the IRGC fully disobeys the secular government or our greatest ally does something that is so obscene it provokes a closure to get the US to do something, then it’s a return to normalcy. Only thing slowing the ships down now is tank owners/insurers giving the go ahead.

iBoMbY

> SpaceX - uses hydrogen fuel No. Falcon 9 uses LOX/RP-1, and Starship/Super Heavy uses LOX/LNG.

Travelling3steps

2 bulk cargo, 2 sailboats, 2 Iranian Navy, 1LNG tanker per Marine Traffic, so NOPE

BigCamp8238

I think it’s distracting people from the bigger story. At today’s price, VG is roughly a \~$31B market cap company guiding to $8.2B-$8.5B of 2026 EBITDA. That’s before Plaquemines reaches full COD, before CP2 contributes meaningfully, and before CP3 even enters the picture. Over the next few years, the company is targeting capacity growth from roughly \~25 MTPA today to 68.6 MTPA by 2028 (CP1 + Plaquemines + CP2) and potentially \~103.6 MTPA by 2032 with CP3. That’s not a small incremental growth story—it’s one of the largest LNG buildouts globally. The real variables aren’t the share count. They’re Plaquemines hitting Q4 2026 COD, BP arbitration, CP2 execution, and debt management. If BP ultimately settles closer to the $1.5B-$2B range rather than worst-case headlines, that’s manageable against an $8.5B EBITDA run rate. At current guidance, leverage has already compressed from roughly 6.8x to around 4.4x. By the end of 2027, management expects to have 46.7 MTPA under long-term take-or-pay contracts representing roughly $10.94B of annual contracted revenue before assigning value to CP3, spot optionality, or the remaining 4.5 MTPA of uncontracted CP2 capacity that is now being marketed at higher post-crisis pricing. What makes VG different from Cheniere is that it isn’t just a toll-road model. In 2026, roughly 16% of volumes are exposed to spot pricing through the Plaquemines commissioning window, and longer term CP2’s Waha sourcing strategy could create an estimated \~$1.95B annual feedstock advantage versus traditional Henry Hub sourcing if management executes. On the lockup point, more shares becoming tradeable may create volatility, but it doesn’t change the economics of the business. The market already knows there are \~2.46B shares outstanding. What matters is whether those shares represent a company generating $8.5B of EBITDA or one generating $14B-$18B+ EBITDA several years from now. To me, the thesis has always been simple: if Plaquemines reaches COD, BP becomes a manageable financial event rather than a balance-sheet event, CP2 comes online on schedule, and LNG demand continues shifting toward secure U.S. Gulf Coast supply, then the discussion won’t be about the share count. It’ll be about whether the market is properly valuing a company that could control \~11.6% of global LNG capacity by 2028 and \~15.2% by 2032. That’s the part I think many people are missing.

Glum_Reflection6380

Yeah I held EONR but unfortunately that one wasn’t even profiting off oil when the prices spiked cause they had their contracts locked into pre-Iran war prices. ANNA was another one that didn’t dilute but that one was LNG

itsnotshade

You have to compare the impact of crises to understand it. With covid, the US dumped an ungodly amount of money into corporations/citizens and also opened the earliest. The EU tried to do the same, but they were slower and also not the reserve currency of the world so got worse rates. With the RU/Ukraine war, Europe was ultimately the loser. They cut off Russian oil/LNG in exchange for Russian oil refined by India and US LNG. A total retard move for economic reasons but victory for moral reasons. With the Iran/Israel war they’ve accepted higher energy costs from the US blockade and done nothing to mitigate it other than draw on their SRP. In short, the EU is run by a bunch of cucks. But hey at least you have moral superiority!

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