Goldman Raises Oil Demand Outlook
Goldman Sachs analysts have revised their outlook for global oil demand upwards, now expecting growth of 600,000 barrels daily this year and 400,000 barrels daily in 2026. The bank, however, maintained its oil price forecast at $60 per barrel of Brent crude and $56 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate for this year, Reuters reported, citing a new note. Brent crude was trading at over $65 per barrel at the time of writing, and WTI was trading at over $62. Goldman’s analysts expect the benchmarks to fall further next year, to $56 for Brent crude and $52 for WTI. A big reason for the bearish outlook is the nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran that recently became a more distinct possibility than it was until now. Last Thursday, President Trump the two sides were really close to sealing such a deal. The news dealt a blow to oil prices. Later updates, however, tamed any optimism as they revealed persistent differences between the two sides on what conditions they would accept. The U.S. side insists on Iran committing to stop any uranium enrichment activities. The Iranian side considers its uranium-enrichment activities non-negotiable. However, the prospect of a shorter rather than longer tariff war has improved the outlook for global growth, which could offset any bearish supply effect stemming from a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal by improving demand for crude, per Goldman. This was the basis for their upward revision of demand for the second half of the year, or, as they put it, “Incorporating lower tariffs and higher GDP.” On the other hand, if the tariff war drags on and comes to affect global economic growth in the physical world rather than the realm of forecast, the investment bank expects Brent could drop as far as $40 per barrel in late 2026. For that to happen, OPEC+ must also bring back all the barrels it cut from its combined supply back in 2022, Goldman analysts noted.
Trump Administration turns to Asia for Alaska LNG project
A curious ballet around the Alaska LNG Project has been unfolding on the international stage with some of America’s allies in Asia. It’s raising questions about whether the pipeline will at last find the funding that it needs after so much song and dance. It is a story some four decades long. The difference now, though, is that President Donald Trump is showing potential investors abroad both the carrot and the stick, i.e., the threat of tariffs. Early into his administration, the president began to pressure Asian countries into exploring Alaska’s ample energy reserves. Whether the approach will bear fruit is yet to be determined. Last week, the Ministry of Energy of Thailand asked two major energy companies, Ego and PTT, to engage the United States in discussions about LNG development in Alaska. The issue of commitment, or a lack thereof, remains. South Korea’s Industry Minister Ahn Duk-geun has merely agreed to establish a “working-level group” to discuss the project, which has spooked investors for nearly as long as Alaska has been part of the Union. However, all that could change in June, when the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council will hold a summit in Anchorage with the LNG project as the centerpiece. Delegations from both Japan and Korea will be present. The main reservations of potential Asian partners with regard to a long-term commitment will likely center on the pipeline’s big price tag and its sustainability. Japan recently reaffirmed its goal of aggressively expanding its nuclear power capabilities by 2030. “We can use renewable power to the maximum, and we will restart nuclear power, the safe one, as much as possible,” Japanese Industry Minister Yoji Muto told reporters late last year. South Korea has likewise made huge investments in nuclear power with a $100 million financial pledge in February to businesses in the sector. Just this week, Taiwan announced that it would restart its atomic plants in a major energy policy shift that indicates growing concerns over geopolitical instability. A long-term commitment to developing and importing Alaskan LNG might not make a great deal of sense to countries that plan on leaning into nuclear power in the near future. So the question is whether the Trump administration thinks it can convince them that there is more to gain than lose from buying American.
Oil regulator mandates LNG terminal registration, scraps carrier rule
The oil regulator has made it mandatory for companies planning to establish new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals or expand existing ones to obtain prior approval, but dropped the requirement to reserve a portion of the terminal capacity for third-party access. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) has notified Registration for Establishing and Operating Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals Regulations, 2025. “These regulations lay down a robust framework focused on registration and oversight of LNG terminals, (and) promotion of competition among entities and prevention of infructuous investments,” the regulator said, adding that the rules are a step in alignment with India’s vision of increasing the share of natural gas to 15 per cent in the energy mix by 2030. The norms also seek to ensure equitable and adequate natural gas availability across the country, protection of consumer interests through improved access and supply reliability, and facilitate infrastructure availability for evacuation of regasified LNG through pipelines. An entity wanting to build an LNG terminal will have to inform PNGRB before taking the final investment decision (FID). The same will have to be done for expanding the capacity of an existing LNG terminal. The PNGRB nod in both cases will hinge on “promoting competition among entities, avoiding infructuous investment, maintaining or increasing supplies or securing equitable distribution or ensuring adequate availability of natural gas throughout the country, protecting customer interest and availability of gas evacuation facility from the terminal,” according to the rules. The rules, however, do not contain the requirement of new LNG import facilities reserving a fifth of the capacity for third-party access on a common carrier principle.