In some social bubbles, there is a lot of talk about energy sovereignty, unaffordable bills and the alleged ‘high price’ of American gas (LNG).

But before going into the merits of contracts and ‘quick fixes’, it is good to do a mental hygiene operation and refresh the memory of those suffering from selective amnesia or, worse, electoral bad faith.

There is one fact that anyone can verify in thirty seconds: the price of gas at the TTF in Amsterdam, a year before Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine, was about three times higher than it is today.

You read that right.

Moscow’s energy blackmail did not start with tanks in February 2022, but much earlier.
As early as the summer of 2021, Gazprom had already started strategically emptying the European warehouses it controlled, cutting ‘spot’ flows to drive up prices and bring Europe to its knees before even firing the first shot.

And for those who regret ‘cheap’ Russian oil?
Before the war,Ural (Moscow’s crude oil) travelled at practically the same price as Brent. No gift, no loyalty discount: just a toxic addiction that we paid dearly for, convinced we had found the bargain of a lifetime.

US and LNG: freedom tastes like ‘commercial’

Let us start with the first point: the nature of contracts.
The American LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) market is the antithesis of Russian infrastructure captivity. Here, the ‘spot’ philosophy dominates.

Let’s take a practical, earthy example: Italy realises that by 2025 it will need billions of extra cubic metres.
What does it do?
It doesn’t have to sign a 30-year blood pact. It calls the US suppliers, agrees on the market price of the moment, and closes the deal for that year.
In 2026? We’ll see. If the price falls, we buy elsewhere. If renewables run, we buy less.

This is operational flexibility. LNG is not just gas; it is freedom insurance. If we don’t like a ship or the supplier raises the bar too high, that ship can be diverted elsewhere and we can call another one from Qatar, Algeria or Nigeria.
The pipeline, on the other hand, is a forced marriage where your spouse has the keys to your house and can decide to lock you out whenever he wants.

The Qatar model and the take-or-pay trap

On the other side we have ‘normal’ gas, that of pipes or long-term historical contracts, such as those with Qatar or the old Russia. Here we enter the realm of the multi-year rigid.

The contract works like this: the supplier guarantees you the gas, but you guarantee to buy it at an agreed price for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.
And if in the meantime the price of gas collapses because the market is flooded with supply?
Amen. You pay the agreed price in 2020.

And if in the meantime Italy becomes a world champion of energy efficiency and no longer needs those volumes?
Amen bis.
There is a nice clause called Take or Pay: you either take the gas or you pay for it anyway, even without taking it.

In a world moving towards energy transition, tying our hands with rigid contracts is like buying a lifetime subscription for DVD rentals while Netflix is being born.
US LNG, with all its ‘instability’, allows us to be light and not pay for gas we will never burn.

SNAM and the ‘buffer’ of 2024

Despite the background noise of the talk shows, SNAM’s figures speak for themselves: in 2024, thanks to the massive injection of LNG into the Italian system, prices did not explode.
On the contrary, they held their own despite the crises in the Middle East and the definitive closure of some eastern taps.

LNG has acted as a calming factor.
Methane being a global market, if there is a shortage on one side, ships come in on the other. This abundance of supply has prevented fierce speculation.
And the projections for 2025 (we are waiting for the final figures) are even rosier: according to industry estimates, LNG gas could have been around 15€/MWh cheaper than gas under the old long-term contracts.
In practice, those who bet on ships are laughing today, those who remained anchored to pipes are paying the bill for their short-sightedness.

The ‘bidet’ politician and tummy propaganda

And here we come to the sore point: the political narrative. When I read or listen to certain ‘champions’ of barroom geopolitics – people like Claudio Borghi or Alessandro Di Battista, who spend with Swiss regularity calling for the lifting of sanctions on Russia – my thoughts take a circuitous route.

Initially I think the common economic basics are missing. Demand vs. supply, international quotations, logistics… are these concepts too complex?
Evidently yes, if they think that to reopen a gas or oil pipeline all they have to do is ‘turn on a tap’ bidet-style.
They don’t know that those infrastructures require constant maintenance, geopolitical securities that have been blown and commercial confidence that has been pulverised by the crimes of Bucha and beyond.

Later, however, I realise that it is not ignorance: it is strategy.
They want to titillate the tummy of their electorate.
Promising the light bill in exchange for international dignity is the energy version of 1980s infomercials.
It is pure propaganda, a devastating mix of populism and contempt for real data.

The mirage of decoupling (left version)

But make no mistake, demagogy has no political colour. If on the right people bemoan the Siberian tap, on the left they rave about miraculous bureaucratic solutions. Take Elly Schlein and her crusade for the decoupling of electricity and gas prices.

Put like that it sounds great: ‘Why do I have to pay as much for electricity produced from wind as from gas?’
The problem is that Schlein tells it as if it were a manoeuvre to be done tomorrow morning in the privacy of a small room at Palazzo Chigi.
The reality is that Italy is part of an integrated European energy market. Decoupling requires precise, technical and time-consuming steps in the European Commission. Selling this complex reform as an immediate solution to lower bills is honestly as intellectual as promising world peace with a decree-law.
It is another way of avoiding talking about the real problems.

The final coda

Initially, when faced with certain exits, I think that the basics are lacking. Then I realise that one only wants to tickle the bellies of those who suffer. In a third moment, I realise that we are faced with a deadly cocktail of ignorance and propaganda that is poisoning the public debate.

But the saddest thing is another. When I read the comments on social media or listen to people in the mail queue, I realise that the politician has succeeded perfectly.
He has convinced people that an American ship or a ‘bad’ sanction is to blame, hiding the reality of the facts: that the global market makes the price, that logistics is not a bidet, and that security has a cost that is paid not only in euros, but in independence.

All this, with all due respect to Borghi, Di Battista, Schlein and their court of miracles, definitively dismantles the ‘we were better off when we depended on Moscow’ narrative.

And, to put it bluntly, enough of this Russian gas.
The future travels by ship, it is fluid, it is spot and it is, at last, free of blackmail.