As tensions in the Gulf continue to reverberate across commodity markets, oil and natural gas have shown notably different reactions. While crude oil still carries a visible geopolitical premium, gas markets in both Europe and the United States appear to be responding more to seasonal conditions, infrastructure flexibility and regional supply-demand balances than to geopolitical risk alone.
According to Pawel Lont, Gas Committee Chair at the European Federation of Energy Traders (Energy Traders Europe), this divergence reflects the distinct fundamentals of the two markets rather than a temporary anomaly.
Lont is careful to note that Energy Traders Europe, as an association, does not discuss prices, so as not to be accused of any form of collusion. Still, in his personal assessment, seasonality and the availability of alternatives help explain why natural gas has remained comparatively restrained despite the broader instability in the Gulf.
“If you want my take, I would indeed point to seasonality and likely the availability of alternatives,” he says. “The expectations towards new LNG export capacities coming online suggest that the loss of gas flows from Qatar can be compensated for to an extent.”
That view highlights an essential difference between oil and gas. Oil is traded in a deeply integrated global market, where geopolitical shocks are rapidly reflected in prices through a risk premium. Gas, by contrast, remains more dependent on regional infrastructure and on the practical availability of replacement volumes.
Seasonal demand patterns are also playing an important role. In both Europe and the United States, the end of the heating season reduces immediate pressure on the system, while lower competition for LNG cargoes from Asia further eases the market environment. “The fact that the demand for heating is disappearing definitively reduces the pressure on the system, just as the fact that there’s lower competition over cargoes,” Lont says.
Although he declines to estimate the relative weight of these factors, his broader point is that current gas-market conditions are helping absorb part of the geopolitical pressure that would otherwise be felt more directly. In Europe in particular, Lont points to infrastructure and market design as key sources of resilience. He says the continent’s extensive gas infrastructure and its connection to global gas markets provide valuable flexibility at a time of heightened uncertainty. “Our extensive gas infrastructure is a valuable asset that provides us with a lot of flexibility,” he says. “Having a competitive EU gas market connected to the global market for gas has multiple benefits – including the ability to adapt and seek alternative sources when issues arise.”
This flexibility, however, should not be taken for granted. Lont argues that Europe’s resilience depends on preserving a market framework that allows participants to adapt and seek alternative supply sources when needed. He also warns that regulatory uncertainty can weaken that resilience. “We need to make sure we keep this flexibility as it’s a source of resilience,” he says. “Uncertainties around the implementation of the Methane Emissions Regulation or effective implementation of pre-authorisations under the regulation to phase-out Russian gas certainly do not help.”
His remarks suggest that Europe’s relative insulation from Gulf-related gas shocks does not rest solely on diversified imports, but also on the quality of its market architecture. Infrastructure, liquidity and regulatory clarity all matter if the system is to remain responsive under stress.
On the role of renewables, Lont maintains Energy Traders Europe’s technology-neutral position. Rather than favouring one generation source over another, he emphasises the importance of a level playing field in which market forces determine the contribution of each technology. “We’re a technology neutral association so we try to keep away from favouring one source over others,” he says. “but in a market environment with a level playing field, all technologies should be able to prove their worth.”
From that perspective, reduced gas use in the power sector at certain times is not in itself a concern. If electricity generation can rely less on gas because other technologies are competitive and available, that is, in his view, a normal market outcome, provided it is not the result of intervention distorting supply and demand.
“If electricity can deal without gas at a certain points in time, that’s absolutely fine. As long as the shift in supply and demand patterns are driven by the market forces (e.g. there are no interventions seeking to subsidize gas for power production etc.) Europe should remain on course.”
He also makes clear that, in his view, this implies remaining committed to Europe’s emissions trading framework rather than trying to manage the power mix through ad hoc distortions.
ALSO READ Oil absorbs the geopolitical shock; natural gas remains anchored to regional realities – a conversation with Aura Săbăduș
ALSO READ Oil holds the war premium, gas follows its own logic – a conversation with Jozsef Balogh
ALSO READ Seasonal factors mitigate the impact of the Gulf War on natural gas – a conversation with Laurențiu Urluescu
