It's painfully funny what "consensus" and "common European policy" mean in Brussels. Is it whatever Paris & Berlin (deep states) want, so Greek and Hungarian vetos "hold the EU hostage"? Or is it whatever NATO wants, which explains London's involvement, where the EU is a consensus enforcement mechanism (against objecting countries and democratic processes across the board). Protecting "our democratic institutions" from the inconveniences of the popular will, to paraphrase Ursula.
"Ukraine" has already attacked a Russian LNG ship in the Mediterranean Sea. Strangely, the enablers do not think that this will come back to them. As if they have a back-up planet to escape to.
Great insight and pattern recognition! I hadn't seen the pattern nor made that connection to Yamal myself.
I agree with your thesis: based on the patterns you identified, Yamal is likely to be attacked by "Ukraine" starting in 2027. I put "Ukraine" in quotes because the operational capability — intelligence, targeting, logistics — clearly depends on NATO support. As Russia and China seem to support Iran with operational capabilities. Proxy wars between the top 3 nuclear superpowers (US, Russia, China) was not on my bingo card 10 years ago. I don't like it.
That aside, and extending your logic: the top 4 LNG producers are the US, Qatar, Australia, and Russia. Given the escalating situation in the Middle East, Qatar's facilities could suffer further damage — potentially taking them offline for years. Iran had already damaged about 20% of Qatar's LNG export facilities in March 2026 as a response to the attack by the US/Israel. Qatar said it could take 3 to 5 years to repair that damage. If the current attacks by the US on Iran result in further responses by Iran on Qatar, that would increase the damage to their LNG facilities. That would leave only the US and Australia as the last major producers standing.
For us investors, the key question becomes: which US and Australian LNG producers stand to benefit most from rising LNG prices? The answer, I think, points to companies without long-term fixed contracts that would cap their upside. At first glance — and I'll stress I haven't done all the research yet — Venture Global, EQT, TotalEnergies, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell all look like potential candidates. Note: This list includes European majors and a primarily domestic upstream producer like EQT, though EQT is highly relevant due to its strategic ties to new US LNG export capacity. Naturally, more due diligence is needed to refine this universe. Full disclosure: I own Exxon and EQT (partially as a play on the local AI centers).
That said, Exxon and Chevron are reliable dividend growers (25+ years of annual increases), and as legendary investor Rick Rule has pointed out, sustained capital underinvestment in oil production sets up a supply crunch either way. So they're attractive regardless.
I think I'll focus one of my upcoming articles on this exact topic. Great piece — genuinely appreciate the pattern recognition and the Yamal connection.
Countries with nuclear weapons should be treated accordingly, Doomberg and a host of other wise people . Doomberg has been saying WW III has been underway for years, the US/Israeli Iran war is a sideshow, not to be actually included in the actual WW III. Any thoughts? I’m kind of inclined to agree. Especially about the nukes statement and treatment. The drone strikes appear to be quite effective, I wonder if it pokes the Bear 🐻 enough to get a major retaliation? The billion dollar question I suppose. You unpack some really important issues, thank you.
The US might've been pulled into Iran by Israel. It's hard to see why else the US would've done this. As for poking the bear: Russia's patience seems to be endless in this regard, and the crazy thing is that people in Europe assume that Putin just has to go and everything will be fine. The idea that a much more aggressive hardliner could come to power (with the same arsenal) does not seem to cross these people's minds. I fully agree that Europe is massively underestimating the danger of the fire they're playing with, and whatever goal they seem to pursue: the risk-reward ratio is extremely out of whack.
The contract logic is pretty sharp, interesting angle and valid argument.
Here's my 2 Eurocent:
Everyone talks about circular financing in AI... but almost no one seems to connect the dots in circular financing in the Ukraine war?
Basically this (EU) financing is enabling strikes on infrastructure that ironically cut access to LPG/energy shipments for the financiers who won't be able to afford the same level of financing if their protégé is successful since energy will shoot upwards. Which of course they officially don't want, so perfect... but what's the solution then? Getting even more expensive LNG from others? Freezing? Full de-industrialization of most energy-intensive heavy industry? Clearly it can't be solar/wind because we already know how that "works" under even ideal conditions (= net negative pricing in peak hours and wasted oversupply no one can take).
Someone must not like logical thinking, or maybe I am not brilliant enough to see the grandeur of the plan.
This question has baffled me for months. The best explanation I've landed on is that plenty of opportunists earn extremely well from these policies. Whatever happens to the continent stops being their problem the moment their newly minted fortune lets them live wherever they like.
„Follow the money“ is usually a good way to start looking into things, I agree… it just makes you wonder how many are they and if they think they can really outlive the memory in case it goes south…
Short term pain for long term uncertainty. Consequences of a multi polar world. The “Big Dogs” world had simplicity and greed but not freedom, with all its complexity and unknowns.
Power of Siberia is unrelated. That's an East Siberian pipeline to China. But your instinct isn't off: CNPC and the Silk Road Fund own about 30% of Yamal LNG. So China would be plenty annoyed.
Please tell it as it is. Ukraine does hardly anything to hit Russian infrastrure deep inside Russia. It's European drones or missiles with US targeting and telemetry. So Europe, predominantly, UK, France and Germany with US help. If Yamal goes so will some strategic assets in those 3 countries. A lot of talk of war but are those countries really ready for that outcome?
I wonder, it certainly seems as though Europe is not going to be anywhere near their storage goals by the time winter rolls around. if Yamal is attacked, that will certainly drive prices a lot higher and I'm guessing that is not part of the equation currently seen in European capitals.
politics and reality always have a tough time living together until realpolitik shows up, and unfortunately for Europe, that is really not in their camp. it will be the US, Russia and China that make the ultimate decisions
It's painfully funny what "consensus" and "common European policy" mean in Brussels. Is it whatever Paris & Berlin (deep states) want, so Greek and Hungarian vetos "hold the EU hostage"? Or is it whatever NATO wants, which explains London's involvement, where the EU is a consensus enforcement mechanism (against objecting countries and democratic processes across the board). Protecting "our democratic institutions" from the inconveniences of the popular will, to paraphrase Ursula.
When everyone can claim to be the other's hostage, the whole thing is bound to collapse.
"Ukraine" has already attacked a Russian LNG ship in the Mediterranean Sea. Strangely, the enablers do not think that this will come back to them. As if they have a back-up planet to escape to.
Maybe a thermonuclear winter will be milder in New Zealand?
Great insight and pattern recognition! I hadn't seen the pattern nor made that connection to Yamal myself.
I agree with your thesis: based on the patterns you identified, Yamal is likely to be attacked by "Ukraine" starting in 2027. I put "Ukraine" in quotes because the operational capability — intelligence, targeting, logistics — clearly depends on NATO support. As Russia and China seem to support Iran with operational capabilities. Proxy wars between the top 3 nuclear superpowers (US, Russia, China) was not on my bingo card 10 years ago. I don't like it.
That aside, and extending your logic: the top 4 LNG producers are the US, Qatar, Australia, and Russia. Given the escalating situation in the Middle East, Qatar's facilities could suffer further damage — potentially taking them offline for years. Iran had already damaged about 20% of Qatar's LNG export facilities in March 2026 as a response to the attack by the US/Israel. Qatar said it could take 3 to 5 years to repair that damage. If the current attacks by the US on Iran result in further responses by Iran on Qatar, that would increase the damage to their LNG facilities. That would leave only the US and Australia as the last major producers standing.
For us investors, the key question becomes: which US and Australian LNG producers stand to benefit most from rising LNG prices? The answer, I think, points to companies without long-term fixed contracts that would cap their upside. At first glance — and I'll stress I haven't done all the research yet — Venture Global, EQT, TotalEnergies, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell all look like potential candidates. Note: This list includes European majors and a primarily domestic upstream producer like EQT, though EQT is highly relevant due to its strategic ties to new US LNG export capacity. Naturally, more due diligence is needed to refine this universe. Full disclosure: I own Exxon and EQT (partially as a play on the local AI centers).
That said, Exxon and Chevron are reliable dividend growers (25+ years of annual increases), and as legendary investor Rick Rule has pointed out, sustained capital underinvestment in oil production sets up a supply crunch either way. So they're attractive regardless.
I think I'll focus one of my upcoming articles on this exact topic. Great piece — genuinely appreciate the pattern recognition and the Yamal connection.
Thank you and looking forward to that piece!
I particularly like Shell as they have already indicated they are moving more to Nat Gas and out of renewables
Countries with nuclear weapons should be treated accordingly, Doomberg and a host of other wise people . Doomberg has been saying WW III has been underway for years, the US/Israeli Iran war is a sideshow, not to be actually included in the actual WW III. Any thoughts? I’m kind of inclined to agree. Especially about the nukes statement and treatment. The drone strikes appear to be quite effective, I wonder if it pokes the Bear 🐻 enough to get a major retaliation? The billion dollar question I suppose. You unpack some really important issues, thank you.
The US might've been pulled into Iran by Israel. It's hard to see why else the US would've done this. As for poking the bear: Russia's patience seems to be endless in this regard, and the crazy thing is that people in Europe assume that Putin just has to go and everything will be fine. The idea that a much more aggressive hardliner could come to power (with the same arsenal) does not seem to cross these people's minds. I fully agree that Europe is massively underestimating the danger of the fire they're playing with, and whatever goal they seem to pursue: the risk-reward ratio is extremely out of whack.
The contract logic is pretty sharp, interesting angle and valid argument.
Here's my 2 Eurocent:
Everyone talks about circular financing in AI... but almost no one seems to connect the dots in circular financing in the Ukraine war?
Basically this (EU) financing is enabling strikes on infrastructure that ironically cut access to LPG/energy shipments for the financiers who won't be able to afford the same level of financing if their protégé is successful since energy will shoot upwards. Which of course they officially don't want, so perfect... but what's the solution then? Getting even more expensive LNG from others? Freezing? Full de-industrialization of most energy-intensive heavy industry? Clearly it can't be solar/wind because we already know how that "works" under even ideal conditions (= net negative pricing in peak hours and wasted oversupply no one can take).
Someone must not like logical thinking, or maybe I am not brilliant enough to see the grandeur of the plan.
This question has baffled me for months. The best explanation I've landed on is that plenty of opportunists earn extremely well from these policies. Whatever happens to the continent stops being their problem the moment their newly minted fortune lets them live wherever they like.
„Follow the money“ is usually a good way to start looking into things, I agree… it just makes you wonder how many are they and if they think they can really outlive the memory in case it goes south…
Short term pain for long term uncertainty. Consequences of a multi polar world. The “Big Dogs” world had simplicity and greed but not freedom, with all its complexity and unknowns.
Material for analysts abounds!
Thanks for the article, Brawl. Great pattern recognition and an important predictive model for future Ukraine/Russia strikes.
Appreciate it Psycho!
I just highlighted this in office like a week ago hugely important
Feel free to pass this article along ;)
I did any ideas how it might impact US domestic pricing?
I get europe is in a bad spot but without any additional lng capacity the US seems fairly insulated.
So wheres the gas meant to come from?
Another superb article. Thank you!
Appreciate it! Thank you for reading 🙏
On a scale of 1-10 how pissed do you think China will be if the EU village idiots strike yamal?
... assuming my memory is correct that Yamal supplies or feeds into Power of Siberia
Power of Siberia is unrelated. That's an East Siberian pipeline to China. But your instinct isn't off: CNPC and the Silk Road Fund own about 30% of Yamal LNG. So China would be plenty annoyed.
Please tell it as it is. Ukraine does hardly anything to hit Russian infrastrure deep inside Russia. It's European drones or missiles with US targeting and telemetry. So Europe, predominantly, UK, France and Germany with US help. If Yamal goes so will some strategic assets in those 3 countries. A lot of talk of war but are those countries really ready for that outcome?
They definitely aren't.
I wonder, it certainly seems as though Europe is not going to be anywhere near their storage goals by the time winter rolls around. if Yamal is attacked, that will certainly drive prices a lot higher and I'm guessing that is not part of the equation currently seen in European capitals.
politics and reality always have a tough time living together until realpolitik shows up, and unfortunately for Europe, that is really not in their camp. it will be the US, Russia and China that make the ultimate decisions